Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< October 4 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 6 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents

[edit] October 5

[edit] Laying an egg

Does it hurt when laying an egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.209 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here has any experience... FiggyBee 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Aw c'mon, dont be a chicken! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.209 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. It's probably something that can be studied; whether the pain receptors are active during egg-laying, or whether the critter gives signs of being distressed. I don't know the relative size of egg to cloaca, but since it hurts a lot when humans give birth, it probably hurts at least a little for egg-laying creatures. (Except, you know. Fish.) --Masamage ♫ 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought about that too at first, but I believe that humans are somewhat of an exception here because of our big heads, combined with the way we walk; a larger opening would require a layout of the pelvis that would make walking upright more difficult. Not sure about the second bit, but the big head is certainly a factor. However, chickens are also exceptional in that they are bred (ie not 'natural'). In casu to produce very big eggs, which is rather similar to the big head thing. Might an indicator be how many chickens die during 'childbirth'? DirkvdM 06:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Said opening gets much, much larger during childbirth, of course. Most of the worst pain is from the contractions, not the actual birth. --Masamage ♫ 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Corollary: Perhaps it could be compared to childbirth? The opinions are divided as to the objective level of pain that is inflicted upon the mother, maybe it's similar? (oh, just read Masamage's answer above to the end) --Ouro (blah blah) 08:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answer but maybe this anecdote can help somebody determine whether it is painful or not. I saw once on TV a huge chicken egg, it appeared to double in width an average one. It looked really massive. After showing the egg, the farmer showed the ass of the prodigious chicken. The animal had the anal sphincters completely destroyed. --Taraborn 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That chicken's doing it wrong. --Sean 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not something you want to read whilst having your breakfast :( Lemon martini 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the whole chicken vs. human debate, humans can only have one child every nine or so months. That's assuming they become pregnant immediately following the birth of the previous child of course. But chickens lay an egg a day (roughly, I know they take a day or two break between laying clutches). Their bodies are used to poppin' one of those out more often than a human is a child. The first couple may be hard for the chicken but beyond that I would think it becomes old hat. Although, when a chicken first starts to lay eggs, the eggs aren't as large as they will eventually become. When a chicken first starts laying eggs, those eggs are only half the size of eggs that they will lay once they mature fully. I've even checked our nest boxes here at home to find eggs no larger than a robin's egg (maybe an inch long). Dismas|(talk) 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Also, eggs are much more "vagidynamic" than small humans. I recently watched an egg emerge from a chicken (into my hand!), and there was no visible difficulty or straining, and the chicken didn't make any noise. I don't believe it was painful. --Sean 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
They will occaisionally cluck when it's done but that's about it. Dismas|(talk) 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army field surgeon vs hospital surgeon

How does a US army field medic (corpsman?) compare with a general/trauma surgeon found in US hospital in respect to years of experience and general quality? Thanks. Acceptable 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A corpsman is a Navy medic. But a field medic or a corpsman is like an EMT. A surgeon is a doctor with several additional years of training. Rmhermen 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
On a battlefield, would an Army field medic be certified to perform surgery on injured soldiers? Acceptable 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As for years of experience, a trauma surgeon is going to have much more overall experience than your average army medic. As for what a medic is trained to do... U.S. combat medics are trained and expected to perform a wide range of procedures, including cricothyroidotomy, needle-chest thorentesis (we don't have an article on that?), intubation, insertion of a chest tube, administration of cardiac drugs, and, in only the most drastic of circumstances, a field amputation. They are expected to be able to identify when each of these procedures is called for, to perform the procedures without assistance or supervision of any sort, and without having to request authorization to do so. In the civilian world these procedures are restricted to certain highly trained/certified specialties. A combat medic might be the only friendly medical assistance for many hundreds of miles, and as such they need to be trained to do practically everything. I am now a civilian and work in a hospital. At my hospital only physicians may insert chest tubes and even they do not intubate. There are respiratory specialists who handle intubation. The role of a combat medic is not to do everything for the patient, but to stabilize the patient for transport to a field hospital where they can recieve proper treatment by trauma specialists. Due to the very lethal nature of battlefield hazards, however, that means that a medic is expected to perform procedures that, in the civilian world, are restricted to physicians and other specialties. 152.16.59.190 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women heads of government in Islamic nations

A woman holding the premiership of an Islamic country seems like a contradiction. Yet, it's happened in places like Pakistan and Indonesia. Given the suppression of women in public life in these countries, how is it acceptable to men that they lead the country? 75.36.37.72 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See Women and Islam#Women and politics and also Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries. It is interesting that there is also a historical precedent of Islamic women involved in politics, for instance Aisha, Ume Warqa, Samra Binte Wahaib, Razia Sultana, Delhi Sultanate, and Shajar al-Durr. Never the less there is a disputed Sunni hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:709, which condemns a woman’s involvement in politics. --S.dedalus 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get that quote? The article says the hadith says "people with a female ruler will never be successful". Which is not quite the same. And if you want worse stuff said about women, you might as well look at the bible - stoning and such. The decisive thing here is that these scriptures are very old, written in a period with completely different beliefs. DirkvdM 07:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Defensive much? :) Given the quote you provided I'd say S.dedalus' paraphrase was fairly accurate, or at least a logical extrapolation; saying it's not quite the same sounds like hair-splitting. Given the initial question, your comparison to the bible is a bit of a non sequitur and sounds like trying to change the subject; though if you're arguing that both religions contain elements of sexism and misogyny, I wont disagree. Finally, considering that many adherents of these religions believe in their scripture's inerrancy (or some variation thereof) I'd hardly say that being able to view them in their historical and cultural contexts is "the decisive thing". According to many, many people we are talking about the "Living Word of God" not some cultural relics whose outdated notions of sexual equality are easily cast aside in favor of a more enlightened view. 38.112.225.84 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppression of women in public life in 'these' countries? Which countries? Indonesia? Where did you get that idea? Have you been there? You must have some very strong indications for this (which I haven't seen when I was there) because the one indication you present goes against it. Or are you just falling for the hype? I know it takes a strong mind to resist that, but think about it. Apart from what you've been seeing on tv, what do you really know? You know that these countries have had a female leader, something that hasn't happened yet in many of the 'advanced' female-friendly countries in the West. Instead you might wonder why that is. Take the biggest example, the US. There has not been a single female (or black, or gay, or ... ?) president yet and the congress only has 16% women. Don't believe the hype. Women are second rate citizens the world over. And in as far as religion is a decisive factor, it's not quite unique to to islam. If fanatic christians were scrutinised as much as fanatic muslims, that would also open up a pile of filth. Recently, concerning islam, the handful of bad muslims get all the attention, while the handful of bad christians get more and more votes. DirkvdM 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I agree with you DirkvdM that Christianity is also very hard on women and that most western nations include plenty of sexism. However, you cannot deny that Islamic country often include a huge amount of mistreatment of woman (and again I understand that is not necessarily related to Islam, but is in some cases cultural or political). I do not say this though any personal bias towards Islam; I simply want to point out that the OP’s question is entirely valid. For instance Female genital cutting, Child marriage, Sex segregation, and Honor killing are relatively common in many predominantly Islamic countries. Then there are the passages in the Qur’an: An-Nisa, 34, Surah an-Nur ayah 31, [Qur'an 33:58], [Qur'an 2:282], [Qur'an 4:34], and [Qur'an 2:228]. In Iran thousands of woman have been arrested or warned for dressing inappropriately (i.e. not wearing a hijab or not wearing one “properly”) [1]. Indeed the Bible contains many equally sexist passages and western society includes some shocking examples of violence towards women, but this question is not about the Bible. --S.dedalus 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Again...I agree the original questioner seems to be falling prey to the seemingly common inability of many Westerners (read: Americans) to distinguish between various Muslim countries, groups and ideologies. Careful reading up on the subject would indeed help allay some of these misconceptions. A country with a predominately Muslim population does not necessarily mean the government is a fundamentalist theocracy or follows, for example, Wahabism.
In this context, saying that, "women are second rate citizens the world over", is rather disingenuous. While in a general sense one could argue the truth of this statement, it does not follow that therefore all countries' treatment of women is equally bad. Women here in America, for example, have much greater freedom, equality and opportunity than their counterparts in, say, Saudi Arabia. So, soapboxing aside, I'd agree with you that the questioner has much room to expand his knowledge of Islam and its various incarnations both political and religious. 38.112.225.84 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI Dirk: in English there is a distinction between "second rate citizen" and "second class citizen". The former means that the women are citizens of poorer quality, while the latter means that their citizenship (rights, etc.) is of poorer quality. --Sean 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Really, Sean? I know quite a few women who'd probably dispute that. -- JackofOz 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's unfair to jump on the questioner just for adding Indonesia to the mix, when it really is a curiosity that a place like Pakistan, where the situation for women is indeed horrible, can elect a female leader, while places like the US and France, where the situation for women is incomparably better, have not yet managed to do so. --Sean 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If the question is about Indonesia and Pakistan, then why do you think it is 'really' about Pakistan? I just react to the country mentioned that I know about (and a fair bit at that). I haven't been to Pakistan yet. DirkvdM 07:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the little misquote - I assume there were no bad intentions on the part of dedalus, but there is a danger. Such little misquotes are the basis of gossip, and worse in this case, given the present tense relationships between western and middle eastern countries, which are often linked to islam (more than to christianity). Someone makes something sound ever so slightly worse, which gives room for the next person to make it slightly worse still. Let this pass on about ten times and the last story might be that women with political aspirations should be punished. Especially with sensitive subjects that can easily in a certain environment spin off in one specific direction, one should be careful not to misquote.
Concerning the comparison with christianity. That is totally valid. If things were the same 'here' (assuming for the moment all western participants in this discussion) then they wouldn't have asked the question (in that way). But my major point was that there was a strong suggestion that islam is specifically bad to women and that should show in public life. However, I saw no such indications when I was in Indonesia, the biggest muslim country in the world. So it constituted a useful answer. So far for the defensive bit. :)
Dedalus, as you pointed out, culture has a lot to do with this. I take that further and say it's the decisive factor. Take the different versions and interpretations of christianity (again that, because it's closer to home for most here). It's the same religion, yet it is interpreted in wildly varying ways. Most distinctively, in cities it is much more liberally interpreted than in rural areas. The bigger (or closer by) the city or the more rural the area, the less respectively more strictly religion is interpreted. Same with islam in Turkey and Morocco, or example. This is not a coincidence. Culture determines how the holy book is interpreted. Religion is used as an excuse, as as a tool to cast cultural preconceptions in concrete. For example, Indonesians are very gentle and forgiving people. So their interpretation of islam is also very mellow. Of course there are occasional 'burps', even riots, which might have a religious link, but it's a very big country, so that makes sense. (It may also have to do with amok, letting all that restraint loose occasionally, but that's going a bit too far off-topic.) DirkvdM 07:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are now, perhaps, a couple hundred English translations of the Qur’an so I think anyone who wants to find a negative connotation of Islam will find it regardless. However we can only hope that people will click on the link and read the passages in question for themselves. After all, even within Islam there is a wide variation in how the scripture is interpreted. --S.dedalus 14:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll grant you your point, DirkvdM (you're welcome), about the danger of paraphrasing a source quote in a particular way and having that become the basis of spiraling misconceptions about a religion and how it's actually interpreted and practiced by its adherents. Again though, I'd be careful about your assumption of culture as the decisive/defining factor in religious interpretation. I think culture and religion interact with each other in complex ways and it's not always accurate to view one acting on the other in a straightforward and linear way; rather they often inform and act on each other in rather complex ways. Also, I don't think you can get away from the fact that an arguement can be made that a certain degree of patriarchal male-oriented thinking is built into both Christianity and Islam and that this influence will manifest itself, sometimes subtly, sometimes not, even in relatively "liberal" cultures such as Indonesian and American. Are the religious texts of Christianity and Islam inherently incompatible with truly egalitarian ideals? I don't know, but I think it would require some pretty creative re-imaginings/interpretations of the source texts, which would considerably alter the religions from how they were orginally conceived (being of course human products of particular historical periods, incorporating all the prejudices and mores of the people/period in which they were created). Of course we can see that such alterations have happened and continue to, albeit seemingly at an excruciatingly slow pace (due probably to the inherently revelatory nature of these religions), in large part informed by various culture preferences and differences. 38.112.225.84 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that culture and religion influence each other, both ways, but I think the influence of culture on religion is much larger, with religion being just an excuse for all sorts of things that are really cultural. But the slow change of societies is indeed probably for a large part caused by religious conservatism. A good example of that is the sudden jerk forward in the West when the influence of the church started fading. So for progress (or lack thereof) the influence of religion is probably indeed the greatest. DirkvdM 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original question, in relation to Pakistan especially, is an interesting one. I personally am not knowledgable enough about the specifics of that country to satisfactorily answer it, but I'd be interested to hear any informed theory or opinion on the subject. I too find it to be a bit perplexing of a phenomenon and somewhat contradictory in light of certain Pakistani practices concerning the treatment of women (the lead of the article Sean linked to refers to the, "systemic subordination" of women to men). Or, maybe, as an American I'm just slightly embarassed by their having elected a female president before we have (wait!, is that why the did it) :). 38.112.225.84 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The sailing schedule in 1967-1968 for the Italian Line passenger ship Cristoforo Colombo

My family (Margaret MacNeil, Mary MacNeil, Dennis MacNeil, Susan MacNeil, Katherine MacNeil and an employee Mafalda Bergamo, sailed on this ship to return to the US after several years in Italy. They would have arrived in New York City in June, 1967 or 1968. I'm wondering if any of the passenger manifests from the Cristoforo Colombo are available for reseach. I realize that it is too much to expect that they might be online, but if there is an archive available I'd appreciate any contact info available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.241.238 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The sailing schedule is easy to find, or at least the arrival and departure dates from any ship are; the New York Times online archives include logs for all ships. I searched for "Cristoforo Colombo" in 1967-1968 and found, for example, that it arrived in NY on June 14, 1967, and departed for Gibraltar the following day. Passenger manifests, I have no idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how'd this guy get off so light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_Sweeney

would court records tell why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.195.89 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He was convicted of Voluntary manslaughter not murder. In the US that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. This leniency is presumably because voluntary manslaughter is carried out under “circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.” --S.dedalus 05:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a federal sentencing guideline for trials in federal courts. Sweeney was convicted in California court where the maximum may be different. (This link says 11 years max.[2], this one says 16 years[3]) Rmhermen 06:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I found: "193. (a) Voluntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 6, or 11 years." from CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE SECTION 187-199 [4] The short sentence is for mitigating circumstances, the midle for ordinary, the longest for aggraved circumstances (like previous violent convictions). Rmhermen 07:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planning for a bleak future

Assuming a worst case scenario in the future where:

  1. Global warming has reached or exceeded predicted levels.
  2. The rising sea level has reached or exceeded predicted levels
  3. War, rioting, and economic chaos are universal (perhaps caused by dwindling oil supplies).
  4. Worldwide communication and transport are restricted or nonexistent.
  5. Epidemics of diseases like Bird flu, Smallpox and Ebola are common.

What would be the best and safest geographic location to be at? Sources would be appreciated, but are not required. Thanks --S.dedalus 06:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Global warfare and disease epidemics? The moon would be my favourite. FiggyBee 07:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha! I promise I won’t sue Wikipedia in a hundred years if I die from a combination of mob violence, drowning, Ebola, and heatstroke as a result of bad advice. :) --S.dedalus 07:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
War, rioting and economic chaos have always been a part of human societies. We actually see less of the first two in the West since WWII (demonstrations are nothing compared to riots in the times of kings and all-out capitalism). So the West is a good place to be now. Worldwide communication and transport have never been as big as they are now. People complain too much. We've never had it so good (materially speaking, at least). Concerning diseases, I don't know if they're more common these days (and am curious). On the one hand we have better medical care, but on the other hand overpopulation and increased intercontinental transportation and in the case of lifestock inbreeding and huge monocultures are good breeding grounds for epidemics. I don't know which of these is a stronger factor. Which leaves global warming. And there again, it's best to be in a rich country, which has the means to fight the effects of it. DirkvdM 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Antarctica? --Masamage ♫ 07:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as you can find bare rock to build on- I wouldn't want to build on the snow pack in a global warming scenario.. --frotht 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I now see I've misread the question. You're asking 'what if'. But the answer remains the same, I suppose. Be where the money is. Or maybe not? You are in part talking about the breakdown of what those rich societies are built on. So maybe somewhere where people aren't dependent on it and can still 'live off the land' would be better then. Yesterday I watched a documentary (tribe) about the Penan, some of whom still live as hunters/gatherers. They're also very friendly and welcoming people. Their habitat is largely destroyed, though. Transportation breaking down would be a real saviour for the little remaining primary lowland rainforest. But the disaster would then have to strike very soon, before that is also gone. And of course we couldn't all go there, but I doubt if many would want to (thinking they're dangerous savages, the opposite of which is true). Of course there is one problem with your question. If worldwide transportation has broken down, how would you get there? DirkvdM 07:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully we’d all have so warning before thing got that bad. Probably several years. --S.dedalus 01:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We'd all have The same Warning. If you aren't ready by then you're in the same position as everybody else.--APL 20:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Anywhere as long as you are Emperor of the World. 81.241.103.75 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see. You'd want a large, easily defended, self-sufficient, impregnable structure, well above sea-level, with its own water supply, and protection against biological and chemical contamination. Sounds like Cheyenne Mountain to me. Gandalf61 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Global warming has reached or exceeded predicted levels. - So not close to the equator.
  2. The rising sea level has reached or exceeded predicted levels - Inland and 30' above sea level (at least)
  3. War, rioting, and economic chaos are universal (perhaps caused by dwindling oil supplies). - So you need to be away from where other people are likely to be - and yet be self-sufficient so you can survive economic chaos.
  4. Worldwide communication and transport are restricted or nonexistent. - Since you need to be away from the rioting, this may actually help you stay away from those people.
  5. Epidemics of diseases like Bird flu, Smallpox and Ebola are common. - If civilisation has collapsed, forget about modern medicine - so, again, you need to be far away (and out of reach) of other people.
So an otherwise more or less uninhabited island - at a reasonable distance from the equator - high enough to stay out of the way of rising sea levels - but with enough arable land and a sensible enough climate to make subsistance farming possible. Tricky. Islands that are high enough above the ocean to avoid the rising sea levels tend to be pretty rocky - which is not good for farming. This is really a problem in general because most fertile land came to be that way because of being in the flood plain of a large, sluggish river...sadly, those are the places that will be under the ocean if there is a large sea level rise. Another problem is that an awful lot of other people are going to be having the same idea - so the really good places may turn out to be battlegrounds anyway. For that reason, it might be worth looking for someplace livable - but sub-optimal. SteveBaker 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this exceptional analysis. It helps to know generally what to look for. Perhaps the New Zealand suggestion bellow would be such a place? --S.dedalus 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, a lot of answers will presuppose some kind of survivalist skillset, so if you're lacking in this area you might want to brush up. If you are truly worried about such scenarios I'd also stress the importance of preparation; it's never too early to start caching :). Personally, I'm looking at the Desolation Sound as my post-apocalyptic destination of choice. All the fish and game you could want for, with extremely remote locations, many accesible only by boat. 38.112.225.84 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That could be a good choice. I've often considered the interior part of New Zealand's South Island - perhaps the area around Wanaka as a possibility. - Eron Talk 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking along similar lines for a few years now. I disagree that survivalism is a realistic option and would counsel against a very remote location. No individual or family can really be sulf-sufficient in maintaining tools, equipment, and anything metal, and it would be extremely difficult for a single family to be really self-sufficient in food and clothing. For this reason, I think it would be wise to seek not just a relatively safe location but also a community that is likely to 1) welcome strangers and 2) stand together in providing community security and mutual aid. Of course, if you have a couple hundred friends with a diverse skill set, you could found such a community, but this is not an option for most. Given these criteria, I think that the best choice would be a small town in a somewhat isolated location, but not a small town that is too insular or tight-knit for an outsider to become a part of the community. In terms of avoiding nuclear fallout, a location in the South Pacific, such as New Zealand, is probably ideal, and it has a tradition of immigration that probably works in an immigrant's favor, particularly if the immigrant can manage to look and more or less act like a native New Zealander. Because New Zealand is VERY far from everyone I know and love and because it would take some effort for me to immigrate to New Zealand legally, I personally am considering a locale in Canada that I prefer not to name. Marco polo 16:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell us!!!! (P.S. I was just kidding about Desolation Sound area, it would be terrible place to retreat to, I meant the Yukon) I agree that a hard-core hermit style survivalism scenario is not optimal for the reasons you list and a few others to boot. Nevertheless, certain skills, many of which roughly fall within the rubric of "survivalism", would be indespensible to a required self-sufficiency (individual or small-community wise) in the proposed scenarios. Skills which are notably absent for many of us used to modern convenience. Also, an extremely important factor which you should not neglect to consider in lurid detail is: Choosing the right mate(s) to repopulate the planet with. Think, birthing hips, etc... 38.112.225.84 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
With the Adam and Eve scenario we’d all die from inbreeding anyway. :) What kind of survivalist skills were you thinking of? Agriculture? Medicine? --S.dedalus 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the Canadian Prairies. It's one of the areas where civilization is likely to thrive: warmer temperatures will make them fertile farmland; there's access to the Athabasca tar sands, the iron and copper mines of the Michigan Upper Peninsula, the heavy industry of Ontario, the hydroelectricity of Quebec, and many other benefits. --Carnildo 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That’s a good point. The only disadvantage is that it’s right in the “no man’s land” between Russia and America if there were another cold war. --S.dedalus 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never really understood survivalists. In times and places of unrest, breakdown of society, or warfare, big cities have always been the place to be. Sitting on a cache of supplies in the middle of nowhere sounds like a recipe for getting slaughtered. FiggyBee 04:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Survival is about staying alive without a cache of supplies. Such as there are in cities. Some Yanks have 'stolen' the word to mean something else. I ended up with a small group of those in California. Very friendly people, until I mentioned just what you said. If you build up stocks, then how are you going to defend yourself against the lazy sort of people who prefer to take in stead of make. That suggestion pretty much pissed off the 'leader'. probably because he was afraid to lose his flock. DirkvdM 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming global warming, tropical areas would generally be a bad choice (although there will be exceptions). But if you have little means to warm yourself in winter then you shouldn't go for cold areas either (I believe quite a lot of wild west trappers froze to death in their cabins). So a moderate climate seems like the best choice. Of course, there, the climate is also likely to change, so one can not count on plentiful fish or game or fruit or whatever still being there. Unless the ecology in the area is very varied, so that something will survive, possibly by moving to a different area. So definitely not a 'monoculture' like a prairie. The greatest biodiversity is in lowland tropical rainforests. They're in the tropics (naturally), but they also 'make their own weather' it is said, so maybe they won't be too hard hit by climate change (if any is left after all the logging, that is).
So apart from lowland rainforests, the tropics are out. And most of North America, South Africa, Australia and East Asia seem bad choices for having too little variation. Which leaves the southern half of South America, Europe (not the south, which will dry out, nor the north, which is too cold), possibly Madagascar and (yes, again) New Zealand. Something that really struck me in New Zealand was the enormous natural variation. On the Heaphy Track, I walked through four very distinct ecologies in one single day! (See the last section of the article.) After which I ended up in the friendly town of Karamea (no, not the bloody song), which is at the end of a road, so nicely isolated. No large supplies for looters, nor any easy means to get there, so not worth their while. Still, there already is a small town for a 'base', the means to live off the natural surroundings and the locals (not too many) who will know what to find where (Kiwis really dig their natural surroundings). Don't all come there. (Well, ok, you guys are welcome :) ). DirkvdM 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] world

What is the length of the English Channel in kilometers?


• What is the world's oldest known city?

• Who was the first Republican President of America?

• Which country is known as Sugar Bowl of the world?

• Name the founder of Red Cross Society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.160.211 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Question 2: Damascus. Question 3: Abraham Lincoln. Rhinoracer 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Question 1 The boundries are too blurred to define the length.--88.111.120.104 12:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You really should do your own basic searches before coming here. All but one of these answers can be found with the simplest of Wikipedia searches.
  • Henry Dunant founded the Red Cross (it's right there in Red Cross.
  • The greatest quantity of sugar comes from Latin America, the United States, the Caribbean nations, and the Far East (that's in Sugar). I couldn't find any references to "The Sugar Bowl of the World" that seem pertinant - but if I had to guess, I'd say Barbados.
  • The English channel is 560 km (350 miles) long (that's from English Channel) - I agree with 88.111.120.104 that the limits of the channel are ill-defined, but that's a reasonable figure.
SteveBaker 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The answer to question three could have easily been found in the introduction to Republican Party (United States). Dismas|(talk) 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful about Damascus. It's generally regarded as the oldest continuously inhabited city, but I'd bet there are ruined cities that are older and that are known to us. -- JackofOz 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the oldest city Jericho? Rmhermen 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ur of the Chaldees anyone? DuncanHill 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget about Çatalhöyük. -- 72.33.121.200 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, questioner, are you going to make a donation to WP if you win the quiz? 86.17.50.12 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Well done 72.33.121.200 how could I have forgotten Çatalhöyük! DuncanHill 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Our articles on Jerico, Ur/Caldees and Catalhoyuk place all three more recently than Damascus. SteveBaker 22:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the articles List of oldest continuously inhabited cities is a good place to start. Jon513 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the questioner does not specify that the city need be continuously inhabited, nor, indeed, inhabited today. --Dweller 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Damascus article says the city was founded, 8000-1000 BC. Babylon cites "The earliest source to mention Babylon may be a dated tablet of the reign of Sargon of Akkad (ca. 24th century BC short chr.)." Nineveh is also pretty ancient.
I think you'll find this question difficult to answer. Perhaps your best answer is actually "Enoch" (See Genesis 4:17) --Dweller 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does a trader do, really?

What is it really a trader (a stock trader, say) does to earn their living? It's obviously not simply pushing the buttons and clicking the mouse, so I conclude that they are actually taking decisions of what to buy and sell. But how can educated decisions be made in a few seconds (cause that's often the case, right?)? One might then imagine that they set up rules for themselves in advance to make the decision easy, like "When the price exceeds this value, I sell." or "When this quantity that I calculate goes below this other value, I sell.". If that is the answer, all those trades could (and should) be handled by a computer instead. So, what do they do, really? 130.237.48.27 10:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're sort of describing is day trading and not everyone engages in that type of trading. People like stock brokers do make trades but they do it after quite a bit of research and requests from their clients. Perhaps those links will help you. Dismas|(talk) 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
They have to read company prospectuses, research the past record of the company, looks at annual investor reports, look at market trends in their business sector, investigate their competitors, what technology is doing to their market, the track record of their managers, the state of pay in that sector of the market, the probable cost of raw materials in the future, etc. They aren't making decisions in a few seconds - they've already figured out which stocks to watch for and what they are worth. The 'snap decisions' are likely to be based on research they did in advance 'just in case'. Setting up those rules can often now be automated - you can certainly set up automatic buy and sell orders that are triggered on a specific set of conditions. However, "When the price exceeds the value" entails you knowing what the "value" is. Also, it's not the value NOW (because that's just the price) - it's the value at some time in the future that matters - and worse still, it's not just a matter of whether it'll be worth more - it's a matter of whether the time it takes to grow by a certain amount will exceed the probably return from other ways to invest the money. I think you are dramatically underestimating the work that is involved in doing this well. SteveBaker 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Yes, a stock trader definitely does a lot more than just pushing buttons. A professional stock trader spends a lot of time watching the markets and talking to their counterparts in other firms, to work out who is likely to want to buy stock X and who is likely to want to sell stock Y. Trades themselves involve a degree of negotiation, so developing working relationships with other traders is important. Although a trader may work within a set of objective rules most of the time (although they may not be able to articulate them), a good trader will also recognise exceptional circumstances in which they should ignore the rules. A trader may occassionally be taking rapid, almost instinctive, decisions, but their instincts are based on years of experience - like a racing driver, airline pilot or surgeon. And even in more automated, humdrum and run-of-the-mill markets, it is often cheaper for a firm to hire a bunch of junior traders than to develop and maintain complex computer programs. Gandalf61 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Also, it's not the value NOW (because that's just the price) - it's the value at some time in the future that matters - and worse still, it's not just a matter of whether it'll be worth more - it's a matter of whether the time it takes to grow by a certain amount will exceed the probably return from other ways to invest the money." -- and this underestimates it again. The question a trader is asking is, what will people 'think its worthin future... and thats as much a gut feel of the market, its reacrtuons and responses, [[crowd Stock in X corp. can be bought now for $Y. If I buy them, will someone else buy them for "enough to make it worthwhile" in "some time in future"? That's research, gut feel, and a thousand other things. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not really deja vu

Have you ever come across something that you hadn't heard of before twice in a really short time? It seems like this happens to me a lot, but I've never heard anyone mention it. Like I had never heard the phrase general practicioner to refer to a doctor before one day and I read it in some news story the next. Is there a word for this? Recury 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to go with coincidence, though you might be interested in the article synchronicity. 38.112.225.84 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely recognise what you are saying. It has happened to me many times – too many times for me to think they are coincidences. I guess our minds are more likely to take notice of "general practicioner" after we have been introduced to the concept than before. I too would like to know what it is called. —Bromskloss 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. This happens to me all the time after learning new words. I think the brain must just fill in an unknown word from context, much the way we fill in our blind spots from context. Another example is when I've bought a new car, I start to see that same model everywhere I look, whereas I had previously not noticed them at all. --Sean 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I love coincidences and I hope there is a name for the effect Sean describes, I am very familiar with it. I love 47's and my house number is 23. Favourite one recently was lamenting in work how I had never been paintballing - fifteen minutes later my wife phones up and asks would I like to come paintballing with a group from her work. Also last night discussing the most inappropriate song for the DJ to accidently switch to during the bride and grooms first dance - later back at someones house, the third song of a random selection of a large .mp3 collection, the upon decided song. Lanfear's Bane 15:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • From cognitive psychology, there is the recency effect, or it could be a form of "priming". Perhaps you see the word "osteopath,"(a type of healthcare practitioner), in a news story, and later in the day you see the term "general practitioner" (a basic family doctor). Each term is stored in memory, "primed" by the recent exposure, and at a higher level of activation than 20,000 other words or terms in your entire passive vocabulary, of all the words you may have seen at some previous time. Many of these words are not ones you would use, and you may not be sure of their meaning, like "defalcate" or "hemiola" (of course for some Wikipedians these may appear in every other sentence). The next day, you see "general practitioner" again in a news story (for instance discussing the profession of the mother of disappeared 4 year old Madeleine McCann). It is already simmering at a high level of activation, and the additional exposure makes it "pop" in some phenomenological way which feels a bit like deja vu. You don't see a recurrence of "osteopath" and its activation level remains below the "deja vu" level of activation, and gradually fades back into oblivion. Your brain pays attention to words which recur, does not pay attention to the ones which do not recur soon after the initial priming, and it seems like an amazing coincidence that the word, person, song, whatever recurred. The non-recurrence of all those other terms is ignored. Edison 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting to know strange women in public situations

I have quite often been in the situation - for example in a train or even in the street - where I (a single man) can tell a woman is attracted to me, and I've been attracted to them too. But although I normally have self-confidence, in that situation I feel nervous. The more the mutual attraction, the more the nerves. (Its not just me - Sappho reports in one of her poems the same symptoms when she sees someone she feels attracted to - mouth dries up, heartbeat up, lost for words, and so on). I feel if I forced myself to speak, it would come out as a nervous squeek anyway. That's part of the problem - the other part is just what should I say/do to start chatting to a complete stranger of the opposite gender? Especially, for example, when they are a few feet away in the street and we are not in a crowd? I feel sad after such events, as I think how the opportunity of a relationship has been lost. Thanks. 80.0.110.253 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hi there," often works. In my experience, it's not what you say - it's just saying it. If, as you believe, the other person is interested in you, then any opening at all will be welcome. Don't try to be clever, don't force it, Just say hi. If she responds, talk about the weather. If you're waiting for a train or bus, comment on how they are always late. Think of something innocuous that fits in with where you are at the time - if it's a grocery store, ask her which tomatoes are better for a salad or something. It's really not about the words, it's about making contact. - Eron Talk 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto to the above. If there is a mutual attraction, then they will respond in kind. They know that they're in the same situation and will talk if spoken to. You don't have to get into anything heavy like your stance on whether 1984 was better than Brave New World or peace in the Middle East. It wouldn't be expected at first. Not until you really have time to get to know one another. Dismas|(talk) 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
(But just remember: 1984 was much better than Brave New World.) - Eron Talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"Pardon me miss, I seem to have lost my phone number, could I borrow yours?" :) no, don't --S.dedalus 06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice noted. But what do I say after that? And how do I get from that to phone numbers? What should I say when we are just two people on an otherwise empty street for example? Thanks 80.0.98.153 10:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's an otherwise empty street, I'm assuming that you're walking somewhere, so ask if it would be alright if you walked with her and chatted. Maybe tell a little white lie about having to turn at the next corner so that she doesn't think that you're trying to follow her home. So what if you have to go a block out of your way to keep up the pretense? At least you'll be chatting. And when you part ways, say something akin to "I've enjoyed our chat. Would you like to get together for some coffee some time?" Or lunch or whatever. And if she says that you could have a bunch of caramels instead of coffee, then you know she's seen Good Will Hunting more than once... ;-) kidding on that last bit. Dismas|(talk) 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say don't worry about asking for her phone number. Just enjoy the chat. You'll probably see her again some day, and then you'll be old friends and she'll probably invite you up to see her record collection. --Sean 14:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but I think the last two replies are more appropriate to American culture. If you asked a stranger if you could walk with them in the UK they'd think you were crazy. And I'm sorry to say in the UK, where almost everybody lives in what Americans would call cities, then you rarely see people again. Actually the event that prompted this question was a woman walking past me in a large empty street, so I'd have to do a 180 degree turn, and I was not in my home city. 80.2.201.6 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's vitally important to find SOMETHING non-dorky to say - even if it's something that's not clever - and it has to be something that demands an answer. If you are on a train, you can start with something really basic like "Is it my imagination or is this train running late today?" - something that demands an answer - but which stays clear of any comment about the other person. Beyond keeping it simple and impersonal, it pretty much doesn't matter what you say because if the other person was in the exact same quandry of trying to find a way to open a conversation, you just did what they were absolutely praying you would do - and if they didn't want to talk to you then a brief, impersonal "No" can end the conversation for them. No risk of embarrasment on either side. Once you have exchanged a few words on the banal subject of how terrible the trains are recently (or not), the way is now open for either side to say something deeper without it seeming weird. Exchanging phone numbers is painful. When you are just about to part at the next station (or whatever) you don't have the time to do anything clever - and you only have seconds to act. One way to get past this is to have some business cards printed and in your pocket. "Hey, here's my card!" is all it takes. Nobody ever refuses them. Lots of people hand those out - it's not weird and you aren't asking the other person to give away personal information to a perfect stranger - you can give it to them without them having to instantly commit by writing something down. However, now they have your number and can phone you if they want to - you've inherently given them permission to do so - told them your name - what you do for a living - and provided several ways for them to get back to talk to you (especially if it has your cellphone and email on it). SteveBaker 22:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've found that getting the phone number is the easiest part of a first meeting. I've found a counter-intuitive method that has an enormous success rate. I've used it many times and only once has someone replied "I'll give you my e-mail address." Every other time they have given me their phone number (and name, if I haven't gotten that, yet). After you've broken the ice and had a nice, normal chat - you don't have to sweep her off her feet, just show her that you're easy to talk to - then you inevitably reach the point where the conversation seems to be winding down. That is the time to get the number. If you let the conversation dwindle and the silent stretches become awkward, getting the number might prove difficult. When you first detect the conversation is slowing, but before it is undeniably in a closing phase, simply hand her a pen and a piece of paper, without saying a word. If she asks "What is this for?" then, in a matter-of-fact voice, speak these two magic words: "Your number." That's it. That's all you have to do. Most of the time they don't even ask what the pen and paper are for; they simply write their number on the paper. I have no clue why that works so well, but it does. It may have something to do with the perceived confidence level that convinces them to give the number, but if so then it is truly ironic how I came upon this method. I discovered it by accident one time when I didn't trust my voice to ask for the number, and I've used it ever since. 152.16.188.107 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You're in the UK and you want to start a relationship with a woman you met once on the street or train? Bad idea. You might be able to chat to them, have a friendly conversation, but trying to get their number is a bad idea. If you see them several times, sharing a journey or running into them a lot, and you've had more than one chat with them, then you might be in with a chance. Also, it can be slightly different if you meet them in a bar, or at the bar of a pub, provided it is a sitting-down and talking sort of bar. If you try to get a phone number/relationship out of this single meeting, you are almost certain to get rebuffed which isn't going to help your self-esteem. So, having already noted that you are extremely unlikely to get a relationship/phone number out of a single meeting in this situation, we can move on. If you just want a conversation, to enjoy the socialising, or boost your confidence, or increase your chance of a better conversation next time you meet them, that should be relatively easy. Make sure you are in a non-threatening situation, because you are a stranger approaching a woman in a city in the UK. If you are the only people in a train carriage, let it go; you will be more likely to make her nervous than anything else! Don't walk purposefully over to her. Wander closer (as if for some other reason) if you aren't already close enough for casual conversation, then make some generic comment about the general surroundings; the weather is always a safe bet, as is a comment grumbling about the lateness of public transport or suchlike. If she is reading something, you could ask if it's any good (suggesting you had been interested in reading it). Hopefully you will enjoy a brief but positive conversation, then move on. If she seems reluctant to answer, is avoiding looking at you or is otherwise giving signals of being uncomfortable, abort the conversation. Just move away, possibly mumble an apology 'if I made you uncomfortable' and there will be no need for either of you to say anything to the other again. Failure to do this could result in negative social feedback :o If you're interested in a relationship, and you do not think you would normally see this person again, you're doomed to failure! Just enjoy the conversation. This advice is UK, and in fact England, specific. Skittle 00:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Hello,

I would like to write a short play based on the short story The Ingenious Patriot by Ambrose Bierce. Given that he died around 1914 and much of his work can be found for free on the web (including the story I want to adapt), would this be within United States copyright law as long as I gave him credit? I know some Wikipedians are very knowledgeable concerning this sort of thing, so I figured this might be good place to ask! Thanks so much for your time!

129.170.118.220 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna get the smack down for offering what could be considered legal advice but I'm throwing caution to the wind and informing you also that I am not a lawyer and thus could be blatantly wrong. That being said... Our article on copyright states that "So when can one conclude that a book is in the public domain? In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain." There isn't a source for this particular sentence but since Bierce died in 1914, it could conceivably help you out. You may also want to read over United States copyright law. Dismas|(talk) 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and on a more personal note, if it were me, I'd give him credit. It might not make you look like a great playwright for not having thought up the whole story on your own but as an audience member, it may get me interested in Bierce and make me want to read more about him or read his works. Therefore you may be educating the public and that's always a good thing. Dismas|(talk) 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is not legal advice, but I'm reasonably sure I'm correct: whether you give credit has nothing to do with whether it's legal for you to copy something without getting permission first. In cases where there is a copyright and you do ask for permission, the copyright holder may choose to require you to give suitable credit. However, what does require you to give credit in any case is the principle of being honest. Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, but if you copy something from Shakespeare and pretend you write it, it's still plagiarism, and you really don't want to do that.--Anon, 23:20 UTC, October 5, 2007.
As far as I can tell the story was published at least as early as 1898 so it is unequivocally in the public domain in the United States and you can do what you want with it. And yes you should give credit, but that has nothing to do with the legal argument—you don't want to be accused of plagiarism or unoriginality, do you? If you give credit you will be seen (at best) as someone who did a clever and original adaptation; if you don't give credit you will be considered a fraud and a cheat (at worst). --24.147.86.187 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Another reason to give credit is that Ambrose Bierce is famous, while you presumably are not. Ads for your play should feature his name prominently if you want to get Bierce lovers who don't normally go to plays into the theatre. --Sean 14:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I would note that the story is available as part of a collection by that author on http://www.gutenberg.org. Since Project Gutenberg are very careful only to keep books that are firmly out of US copyright in their collection, you can definitely use it as the basis for your play. You should give credit to the original author as a matter of honesty - but I don't think you are legally required to do so - although you would find that most publishers would be greatly upset if you didn't give that credit. SteveBaker 21:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"if you copy something from Shakespeare and pretend you write it, it's still plagiarism" Not on WP, where verbatim copying of DANFS seems to bother nobody.... Trekphiler 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia cares about legal issues (copyright), not intellectual issues (plagiarism). Wikipedia is not (in fact, Wikipedia is really not) supposed to be original, whereas a play or academic essay is. DANFS is public domain, so verbatim copying is perfectly legal. FiggyBee 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song on The Independent's advert

What is the keyboard solo on The Independent's adverts. This is the advert. Thank you ^^ 81.158.176.129 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Still D.R.E. by Dr. Dre from the album 2001, you can listen to a extract on last.fm. Nanonic 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation

Hi, I have a friend aged 13 who masturbates and has ejaculation and all's OK. A few days ago he told me that he reached the orgasm but had no ejaculation and that this happend twice. Is this normal? Can you run out of sperm? How long does it take for more to be created? Thanks, js —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.200.76 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See retrograde ejaculation for one possible answer. Friday (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't "run out" of sperm. According to this reliable page from the University of Pennsylvania Health System, the male body produces 12 billion sperm per month, and each ejaculation releases 300 million. That would seem to be enough for 40 ejaculations per month, though I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the body produces more the more one ejaculates. --zenohockey 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
See Masturbation#Masturbation frequency, age and sex. According to that, "nearly all males masturbate daily well into their 20s", and "adolescent youths report being able to masturbate to ejaculation around six times per day". a.z. 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
At age 13 your body (or "your friend's") is still figuring out exactly how that hardware works. That doesn't sound exceptionally abnormal (I can recall a few similar things when I was going through puberty, oh joy of joys that was), though if it continued for a few days you'd probably want to get it checked out. --24.147.86.187 04:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There's some potentially interesting information here on orgasm without ejaculation. - Eron Talk 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In my experience if you masturbate frequently, you can indeed run out of semen, albeit temporarily. This depends on the person, and after a night's sleep your body is usually ready again. However if the person has been ejacultaing normally and consistently and this carries on for more than 3 days or so, it may pay to get it checked by your medical practitioner Pumpmeup 05:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)