From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< February 5	<< Jan | February | Mar >>	February 7 >

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 1 February 6 1.1 Is it Weird? 1.2 Present Value of Depreciation 1.3 Hillary Clinton's coin? 1.4 Best religion and science? 1.5 K-2 tremors 1.6 barrass - what is it? 1.7 Sticky ideas? 1.8 may 2nd holidays 1.9 Throbbing Gristle 1.10 Waking Up 1.11 An oft-used laughing baby noise 1.12 Telenovelas filming in Florida 1.13 plz help me 1.14 Challis, ID 1.15 Cash 1.16 Knighthood 1.17 Life's a beach 1.18 Skin 1.19 DVD recorder not working - help

[edit] February 6

[edit] Is it Weird?

I just recently made an article about myself and I ended up writing it in third person. I was just wondering if it was weird or not. I thought writing it in third person would make it better for the encyclopedia aspect. talk is my game

Weird is subjective, and we can't answer that. Writing about oneself in the third person is sometimes encountered on resumes, although first person seems more direct and personal. Various websites have mini-biogs of people, eg. university staff members etc, which are written, probably by the persons themselves, in the third person. Encyclopedia articles are about "someone else", so naturally they are written in the third person. In case you're considering creating a Wikipedia article on yourself (that's apart from your own userpage, of course) - DON'T. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You should NOT write articles about yourself on Wikipedia. Your self-bio article, SlaveofBetrayal, does not belong in Wikipedia. I took the liberty to nomitate it for speedy deletion, and copied its contents to your userpage (User:SlaveofBetrayal/Bio) where it would be acceptable. — Kieff | Talk 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You should read WP:AB before doing that. Ftbhrygvn (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Present Value of Depreciation

Not Homework - just interested. If we purchase an asset for say 10,000 and depreciate it on a flat line basis in ten annual "payments" of 1,000 each (interest rate 10%) we can calculate a Present Value of those payments of 6144. (The entire transaction has a negative NPV of 3,855).

This seems to tell me that the asset is overpriced at 10,000, as it is really only worth 6,144 in terms of its useful life. Obviously this logic creates a circular loop, in the sense that if we reduced the purchase price to 6144 and repeated the calculation we would still prove that it is overpriced and should really be worth 3,775 and so on ....

What am I missing here ? --196.207.47.60 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I THINK this should go to the Mathematics section. Ftbhrygvn (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a math question, it's about the economic basis. What you're missing is simply that the function isn't designed to be used that way. If $10,000 is required to purchase $6000 of present value, then that's the end of the process. You can't say that the purchase price, with the same annual payments, can be reduced to $6000 and reapply the function. Rather, you can say that $10000 paid in 10 annual increments is the value equivalent of paying $6000 in one immediate payment. $6000 in one payment and $6000 over 10 years, however, are entirely different things. — Lomn 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Depreciation is not a "payment" but rather the gradual loss of an asset's value over the estimated useful life of that asset (its a noncash transaction). Lomn is correct in that you cannot apply present value calculations to depreciation. Also the correct term for "flat line basis" is straight-line basis. What you calculated would be the amount ($6,144) that you'd have to place in a 10% interest investment vehicle to accumulate the total purchase amount ($10,000) 10 years from now. Rangermike (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Clinton's coin?

Presidential $1 Coin Program

What will happen if Hillary Clinton becomes the President of the U.S.? Will she get 2 coins in the distant future? One First Lady coin may use a younger picture and the other president coin may use an older picture?

Bill Clinton is generally considered the beloved son of George H.W. Bush. And H.W. also has a son who is the current president. Then H.W.'s son's wife ... And then Bill Clinton gets another coin being Hillary's "First Lady". HA! HA! HA! It's a small world after all! -- Toytoy (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: If Bill Clinton didn't already have the permanent title of president, he would be called the First Gentleman. —Keenan Pepper 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Grover Cleveland is apparently getting two, so they obviously don't especially mind issuing multiple coins of the same person. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bill Clinton is generally considered the beloved son of George H.W. Bush." What?!? Dismas|^(talk) 07:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the original poster was trying to make a joke about George H.W. Bush's perceived embarrassment at his real son and the relationship GHWB and Bill Clinton have built working on things like tsunami relief. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the article toytoy links to suggests there's a very good chance this may never be an issue since the series would have ended before Hillary Clinton's 2 year death anniversary. If it's repeated then it may become an issue but who's to say it will be? Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best religion and science?

Most of the religions are quite ancient and still possess the followers.At that time no one searched for the scientific basis of the religion and today no one is ready to Accept anything unless provided with scientific basis.Still most of the beliefs have no scientific basis.Why does not any reliable research tell that what religion is best to support the healthy and prosper survival of man-kind and other creatures except what Dawkin said about religion and science?--Mike robert (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By definition, followers of any religion believe they alone possess the truth, so religion is not amenable to "reliable research", and wouldn't trust it any more than science trusts religion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all religions claim a monopoly on truth. Anyway, I think the original poster is trying to get at whether religion may play an evolutionary role, a question touched on in the article evolutionary psychology of religion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a positive correlation of IQ, academic achievement and HDI with atheism. If you consider those people to be more "adaptable", then perhaps religion is an evolutionary liability rather an than advantage. --Taraborn (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion about the relationship between intelligence and religious belief on Talk:Atheism. Some research indicates students with greater religious involvement perform better in school, although adherence to certain religious faiths (the Amish one, obviously, but others as well) weighs against educational attainment. The "fact" that IQ is correlated with atheism came from a MENSA newsletter mentioned in Dawkins' book. No one working on the Atheism article had heard of the author of the study or seen it first-hand, but attempts to remove the mention of it from the article were met with a feverish resistance similar to that you'd find from fundamentalists defending their religion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, that "some research"... well, have you got any reference? Or, is it, perhaps, another product of your fertile imagination? --Taraborn (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Atheism/Archive_37 for the discussion referenced above, and please try to keep sarcasm and conflict off the reference desks. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Religions are based on faith, and if it were possible to prove that some religion was true, it wouldn't require faith and thus would not be a religion anymore. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop reading Richard Dawkins - he's making you sound like a cretin. That's genuine advise.87.102.116.134 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not spelling correctly is also a good way to look like a cretin. Some free ADVICE for you, Mr. Anon. Matt Deres (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How odd. Mwalcoff writes an interesting and calm response to Taraborn's assertion, and all the replies seem to have nothing to do with it. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you'll notice that those replies were written before my response. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Then I am forced to wonder why you put it where you did without indentation, making the other comments look like replies to you. :) 130.88.140.112 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall there being a definitely correlation between agnosticism and education; in part because only people who have been somewhat educated would know to self-describe as it. There was a big study published maybe 8 years ago about religious statistics in the US, which I found quite interesting at the time, but I can't remember the name. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] K-2 tremors

How many tremors strike and how many snow storms occur on the K-2 peak in one hour? Any evaluations?--Mike robert (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Per hour? That seems a thoroughly impractical measurement. Anyway, while years out of date, this summary of weather reports for K2 may be useful in summarizing average conditions. A cursory search suggests that tremors are not an expected concern for K2 climbers. — Lomn 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barrass - what is it?

Can anyone tell me what barrass is please? I came across the word in an eighteenth century English record of payments made to the poor. My ancestor received money for three yards of barrass, so I guess it might be some sort of clothing material. With thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.211.241 (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives - "Barras - A coarse linen fabric originally imported from Holland." Google expands on this and gives "A Coarse Linen Fabric Similar To Sackcloth" 86.21.74.40 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sticky ideas?

I mounted some lights under my cabinets last weekend. The dimmer switch that is attached to them is touch sensitive. The back of the switch was meant to stick to a surface via some double sided tape. However, the switch has fallen off of the underside of the cabinets. So, does anyone have any suggestions on what to use to re-adhere the switch to my wooden cabinets? I'd prefer it not be so permanent that it takes wood with it if it needs to be removed for whatever reason. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3M Command adhesive (here) is a modern marvel. I've had hooks up in my kitchen for years and years, and they come right off when you want. It's hard to believe until you've seen it. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Use isopropanol to clean grease, etc. off the cabinet before you try again. Also, screws inserted into carefully pre-drilled pilot holes won't do much damage to the underside of a cabinet.

Atlant (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? People don't believe how great those things are. Screws? Hah! We don't need no stinking screws. But the alcohol is needed, yes. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] may 2nd holidays

is there any other famous may 2nd holiday apart from the ones listed by wikipedia.am still researching a question i had asked earlier.i shaped the world and may 2nd is my day.new clue-its a public holiday...none of wikipedia info seems helpful,am still googling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.195.74 (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's possible there's a really significant holiday or event we miss on May 2 I somehow doubt this particularly one that's said to shape the world and be a public holiday. Are you sure you don't have your dates wrong? May Day is Labour Day in a number of countries and internationally is often associated with Labour Day and the various labour movements even if it isn't the actual public holiday Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps one of the scientists who helped calculate the shape of the earth was born on May 2. --M@rēino 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Throbbing Gristle

Is it true that the rock band Throbbing Gristle are so loud when they play live they make people have uncontrolled bowel movements? Weasly (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, let me think. No. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw TG play twice last year and I can exclusively report that I didn't have to change my trousers. Even in their original 1976-81 incarnation, they were never that loud. There is much debate on who were the loudest groups of all time. My vote goes to Swans. The volume at their early gigs was supposed to make people throw up, although I saw them often and I never did. My hearing seems to have survived, as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Loudest group in the universe? Disaster Area --LarryMac | Talk 14:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't The Who have a Guinness World Record for loudest live band? Or possibly some crap 80s hair metal band...gosh my memory has faded. Phileas (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, LarryMac, you beat me to it. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

in before Vitaly Chernobyl and the Meltdowns :D\=< (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Motorhead are the loudest,or at least have the loudest bass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Manowar hold the record for loudest concert. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't actually. Blow me down, we have an article on this: Loudest band in the world. Don't tell the deletionists, it'll be gone in a trice. We've also discussed this before, see here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my Manowarcentrism, I thought otherwise. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Loudest band" is really a pointless measurement. You can always make a band louder by using more powerful amplifiers, as long as you don't mind deafening the audience. --Carnildo (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this sits on a "loudest band" scale, but The Mint Chicks were once loud enough for plaster to fall off the concert hall's ceiling: see NZ Herald]. Gwinva (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You might find the brown note article interesting. --Sean 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're all wrong. Spinal Tap go to 11. hotclaws 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mythbusters ran a similar experiment to see if high-volume, low-frequency sound waves could cause bowel movements. They concluded that the myth was false. --M@rēino 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominate Throbbing Gristle for next year's followup to The Worst Band Names of 2007. --Sean 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're a bit late. They've been around since 1975. And the name was deliberately chosen to be ugly, in keeping with the unsavoury nature of the group's preoccupations. It's Yorkshire slang for an erect... oh, you work it out :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waking Up

Hello all. I am considering a (fictional) scenario where a person is in a deep sleep from which they will not wake up (knocked out, concussion, coma, bone tired, drugged etc...). Are there any methods/machines which can be used to immedeatley wake up the sleeping person, or at least make them wake up faster? The more extreme the methods, the better! Thanks in advance.Cuban Cigar (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a movie (I think it was about dark matter?) in which people are pumped with adrenalin and they not only wake up, they become almost superhuman for a while until the effect wears off. Sandman30s (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See: Son of Coma Guy. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So I can see that there are a few chemical/injection methods. I'm particualry interested in non chemical soloutions (think something that could be done immedeatley, on the spot, in an emergency situation). Thanks!Cuban Cigar (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Electric shock? Bear in mind, waking up can be one of the most stressing points of the day, especially a rapid wakeup. If you want someone to come to very quickly, it has to be either a real emergency, or really a theoretical scenario. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a "chemical solution" but smelling salts seems a traditional option. Also, in my experience it seems like any combination of cold and/or wet is usually an effective way to wake a sleeping person. I had a buddy in high school whose mom resorted to keeping a bunch of marbles in the freezer and if necessary in the morning would dump them over him under the sheets where they would gather around the depression in the bed made by his body, invariably forcing him to get out of bed. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You could always brew some wake up juice. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

L-Dopa as seen in the "true story" Awakenings. Rmhermen (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section and the one above about loudest rock bands should be combined somehow into a massive OR project. Matt Deres (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you these are great, keep them going! In regards to electric shock, would you need a specific machine, or could you salvage it from a power box/battery/household electricity supply?Cuban Cigar (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pain.Pinching the earlobes or knuckling them on the breastbone. hotclaws 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• You might also want to read about some people who just snapped out of comas for no apparent reason, like Terry Wallis and Gary Dockery. --M@rēino 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An oft-used laughing baby noise

Okay, I'm possibly being crazy here, but this has annoyed me for a very long time. There's a noise that appears in commercials for nappies/diapers, fabric softener, kids' toys, etc, and I think it's the Wilhelm scream of baby noises. It's been on TV for as long as I can remember (it was in a British Lenor fabric softener ad when I was a wee 'un and now I live in Canada and it appears in ads here too).

The noise is that of a baby laughing, and sounds a bit like "EH! Hahaha EH!" with lots of gurgling. My question: Am I crazy, or does this one sampled noise exist and has it really been used on TV for twenty years? Can anyone confirm my sanity? Also, where would the ad people get this noise from? A bank of cliched noises? Phileas (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot confirm anything, but would speculate that it would be way easier to reach for a sound effects CD, than to find a compliant baby to gurgle in exactly wthe way the director wants. That makes the possibility of the Wilhelm baby quite likely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find myself recognising sound effects in adverts and TV from having previously heard them from computer games. The Perfect Dark menu sound seems to be oft used for opening doors that need futuristic panels. Perhaps everyone is attuned for different noises, like when you work for a company, for example, that has a lot of vans on the road, yet before you ever worked for that company you never noticed them. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know if this scream has been identified? I first heard it in Aah real monsters but noticed instantly the first time I played Starcraft that the sounds were identical --:D\=< (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telenovelas filming in Florida

As of 2008, how many telenovelas will be filming in Florida? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been asked before[1] with no response. —BradV 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] plz help me

i have been giving plastic to my gerbils for them to chew on for a year now and it hasnt harmed them. Why shouldnt I give plastic to my Gerbils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.145.223 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

who has told you not to? ny156uk (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't for the same reason that you can't keep water in plastic bottles forever: plastics are made out of petroleum and are harmful to your health. Of course, it depends on the type of plastic. Chris16447 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Challis, ID

I have been looking at a Satellite map of Challis, Idaho, and i see these large dark circle and half circles. What are those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.136.197 (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Circles such as those visible here are a mundane form of crop circle -- irrigated fields. A radius-length irrigation platform rotates about the center point. — Lomn 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See also our article on center pivot irrigation; we have pictures of both the equipment and the characteristic circular fields. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cash

Why do we bother with two inherently distinct forms of cash? One is made of metal, the other of paper. The paper one is always worth more than the metal one, but by how much, this varies by country. Why is this? AFAIK paper money allows for more colourful and intricate designs than metal money. So why do we still bother with metal money? Is it only because we've known it since the ancient Roman times, well before Mary gave birth to that one famous dude, while paper money has only been known to Europeans for a couple of centuries? Which of these is cheaper to manufacture, anyway? JIP | Talk 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, before the invention of the printing press, paper money would have been very easy to counterfeit, and even afterwards it has taken a long time to get all the watermarks and things that make paper money very hard to counterfeit. Coins though can be much harder to counterfeit, partly by design (they have often milled edges so that you can't scrape the metal off at the edge), and also because the cost of the metals is usually higher than the trading value of the coin.

As for why we still use coins... it's probably a lot of tradition, and that a pile of coins seems so much more... tangible than some notes. Also note that coins don't burn... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This reply seems to be in praise of coins. So to turn the question around - why do we bother with notes? Wouldn't it be easier to use coins all the way up? JIP | Talk 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a third form of cash these days, EFTPOS cards that directly access your bank account. Ads for bargain sales often say "Cash or credit card only", but "cash" in that case means coins, notes or plastic cards. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild abut the analysis proffered, yet. I think there are four main physical characteristics of interest, which for notes and coins have the following relations / relative values:

	Production cost	distribution cost	Forgeable	Longevity
Coin	High	High	Easy	High
Note	Low	Low	Hard	Low

and we can posit as a rule that higher value units of currency are passed less frequently than lower values. The slope of this curve is quite important; it interacts with the longevity of the medium of the currency.

All things being equal, we will prefer harder to forge currency and we will prefer that higher value currency units are less forgable than lower value currency units.

At a certain point, the low longevity of the higher velocity currency units results in the cost of production and distribution of replacement high cost paper units outweighing the value of the anti-forge elements of the paper medium, and so a transfer to metal media is made.

I suspect it is difficult to assess at what point a unit of currency should be demoted to metal; it depends in part on the value associated with the higher forge resistency of paper. In the UK in my lifetime, the £1 unit switched from paper to metal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the answer is historical. For a long time coins represented the value of the metal they were made of. This made it awkward to exchange large sums; for example, a Swedish 10 daler coin minted in 1644 consists of a 63x32 cm sheet of copper that weighs 19.7 kg [2]. This awkwardness made the idea of performing transactions using paper documents (essentially IOUs: "Such-and-such Bank promises to pay the bearer of this document 10 daler") very attractive, and these led to the symbolic money we are using today. Today (as Tagishsimon and others have already pointed out), coins are still good for small values, because they last longer in circulation (ever seen an Indian low-value Rupee note that's been in circulation for a while, and is barely held together with the help of several strips of tape?), while paper (and these days, plastic) bills are better suited for high-value cash, because of the ease by which coins can be counterfeited through casting. --mglg_(talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that 'cash' or 'coins' represents a usually insignificant amount of the total money actually in use. The main reason we still have coins is that they are far cheaper to work with in machines, and are more convient to handle than notes in large numbers. Its much easier to handle 100 coins than it is to have to handle say 100 notes. You can quickly and easily see if a wrong coin is in a pack of coins, but for notes you pratically have to check every one. In many counteries the value of the metal actually suprases the value of the coin, in these counteries they have to make it illegal to melt down the coin and sell the raw metal for profit.--Dacium (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all notes are made of paper, either. See Banknotes of the Australian dollar#Current series (polymer). Steewi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's really, really hard to get people to change their habits regarding something as important to survival as money. For example, the United States two-dollar bill and United States dollar coin have never taken off largely because the US government, as a slightly libertarian democracy, has proven unwilling to wage the public-relations battle to get people to convert willingly or risk the disastrous backlash of trying to force a conversion. --M@rēino 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of coins is they're readily accessible and you can keep them in your pocket. So they're useful for small, everyday transactions like paying tolls and using vending machines. The advantage of bills (banknotes) is that they're light. You don't want to be carrying around $50 in change because your pants (trousers) will fall down. So it makes sense to use coins for small amounts and bills for large ones. Incidentally, the US Mint did spend a good deal of money advertising the Sacagawea dollar, and it generally got a good reception. But there's so much inertia in using the dollar bill that it would be hard to get the entire country to switch voluntarily. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When Canada made the switch to dollar (and later two-dollar) coins, there was some griping, but nothing like the obsessive behaviour Americans show with their cash. In the end, it turned out to be no big deal at all. Matt Deres (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, I gather that they stopped minting the one-dollar bill when they introduced the dollar coin. Since paper notes typically last about eighteen months in circulation, the entire country would be switched over to the coins in a couple of years.

The United States, for no clear reason, continued to mint both one-dollar coins and bills. The result being that the only place I've ever gotten a dollar coin in the U.S. is from a vending machine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia repeated (or was repeated by; I don't know which country did what first) Canada's experience. In phases, we got rid of the $1 and $2 notes, replacing them with coins. Our lowest note is now the $5, and it works just fine. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See Save the Greenback. In America, everything is a contest between lobbies, and in this case, the pro-coin lobby isn't powerful enough to outweigh the objections of the paper and ink industries and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing labor union. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So the only advantage of coins is that they last longer? Therefore it makes sense to make them the lowest value. From what I've seen, 5 € notes get crumbled a lot, 10 € notes slightly less, 20 € notes very little, and 50 € notes and above stay crisp. (Finnish ATMs don't disponse notes above 50 € so I very rarely get to see a 100, 200, or 500 € note.) But judging from the above replies, wouldn't it be better if coins were replaced by plastic notes? They last longer than paper ones, their manufacturing costs are a bit higher, but they should be equally hard to counterfeit? JIP | Talk 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

Hi there

I was just wondering, when someone is knighted, what is the significance behind kneeling and the sword being touched on your shoulders? I want to know why it is done to clarify the process.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.242.165 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kneeling shows deference to the sovereign. I suspect the sword is a tradition, possibly arguably connoting the military association of knighthood, with arguable antecedents to the time when swords were more frequently carried and/or to the battlefield. I suspect the touch of the shoulder is a tradition connoting trust in the sovereign - a baring of the neck. I suspect these connotations are weak and to a large extent merely traditional. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With British knighthoods, my understanding is that the person kneels if it's actually the monarch who's doing the dubbing, but not if the role is being performed by a delegate, such as the Prince of Wales or a Governor-General on behalf of the monarch. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kneeling is an ancient sign of deference, and servants (ie. those who serve, not merely menials) would frequently kneel before their masters (and even bow before their master's food). Any survey of ancient texts will give you examples of this, and the concept of "bowing the knee" before God is a common theme in the Bible, although we see men doing it before kings and officials as well. (As an aside, the word we usually translate as "worship" actually refers to lying prostrate before someone, so the wise men lay prostrate before baby Jesus, and didn't just dump a few presents). In terms of knights, the kneeling is tied up with feudal service, and submission/vow to one's liege lord. (The person knighting them is their superior, and it is almost certain they will owe him allegiance of some kind). Also, there is the concept of a "vow" being made when one assumes knighthood. That submission/deference idea remains in most of our minds: people freqently kneel when they pray, or propose marriage. Interestingly enough, while kneeling probably occured at some point in the early knighting ceremonies, it was not necessarily part of the central "dubbing" (for want of a better word), which I will explain in a minute. The sword-on-the-shoulder thing is actually a modern(ish) jumbling together of old knighting rituals. Strangely, despite its roots in the Middle Ages, there are relatively few descriptions of the actual ceremony of knighting, and if you read any studies you will find the same examples trotted out. But we don't know if these examples are typical, or if they were described in such detail because they were atypical. That said, we can gain a few principles. We don't see any description of the sword tapping the shoulder(and all that "I dub thee knight" beloved of Hollywood). The sword is a symbol of knighthood, and was given to the new knight along with his spurs ("to win one's spurs") and occasionally other armour, like a sword belt or breastplate. (The new knight would be standing as these are strapped on.) They need not be new, of course: might even have been the new-knight's own sword, just blessed or kissed or otherwise acknowledged. A few knighting descriptions refer to a colée, which is a blow rendered by hand or fist, usually to neck or shoulder. It was probably a hard blow which might even knock the knight off his feet (and to take it he probably did need to be on his feet). One source suggests the blow represents the last insult a knight can take, and is given that the knight may remember his vows. It seems that the modern knighting is a symbolic amalgamation of these ideas, coming well after the Middle Ages. By the way, approach the information given at knight with caution; there is some good stuff there, but inflated by Victorian re-writing and romanticisation, with a few Hollywood assumptions thrown in. It's been on my to-do list for ages. The same applies to books: there's some good ones out there, but be careful, because some are based on tertiary sources, and thus circulate the same nonsense round. But this is all clarifying medieval knighting; if you want to portray something later, then that would depend on the era: it all shifted gradually to the modern ceremony. Hope this helps; let me know if you need more specifics. Gwinva (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The modern tap on the shoulder was originally a very strong and potentially painful blow to the shoulders with the flat of the blade. As I understand it, it was meant to be a test of the knight's strength and loyalty. (This according to a local gentlemen and expert on medieval swords whom I have heard lecture several times.) --S.dedalus (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing his source: I don't recall ever coming across a reference to a colée being administered by a sword rather than a hand. I wonder what period? Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two very different forms of kneeling, indicating different forms of subservience. Kneeling of any kind (bending the knee = kneeling) indicates submission because it lowers the kneeler with respect to the person knelt to. Going down on one knee is a "ready for action" form of kneeling which indicates respect but that the person can get up again directly (hopefully in the service of the person knelt to). Going down on both knees is a fuller form of humbling since the kneeler cannot then get up or move easily, and is more completely at the mercy of the person knelt to. The first is a deeper courtsey, the second is the attitude of prayer. SaundersW (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Life's a beach

I'm looking for exceptionally unusual beaches: exceptionally fine sand, unusual colors, unusual compositions (I've heard rumors of a beach with radioactive sand), that sort of thing. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember rightly (haven't been there since I was a kid) Alum Bay on the Isle of Wight is basically stripey, due to the strata of different-coloured sandstones in the cliffs. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Auckland's west coast beaches, such as Muriwai, Bethells, Karekare, and Piha have black iron sand which can have intense black colours, with reflective particles, and interesting patterns. I know some of the Scottish beaches are reknowmed for their white sand, but my mind's gone blank for the names. But there's many in NZ like that, including Doubtless Bay, but I don't know if that is unusual enough. Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Alum Bay has been ruined by tourism, and landslides. Jervis Bay is said to have the whitest sand in the world (excellent campsite too). Chesil Beach is quite interesting but it doesn't have any sand. And the beach under Birmingham's Spaghetti Junction is certainly unusual.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have been thinking of The "Beach Incident" at Sellafield with respect to the radioactive sand. Some areas of the coastline were also affected by radioactive Seagulls.[3] 86.21.74.40 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the Thorium rich beaches in India [4]. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bangor in Wales has a beach made of iron.It's the slag run off fron an old iron works.It looks amazingly wierd. hotclaws 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The beaches on the east side of La Palma in the Canary Islands have black sand that has a very high metallic content, (discovered whilst playing Travel Scrabble and dropping a magnetic tile on the sand) it also gets pretty darned hot during the day. Richard Avery (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Caribbean, Brazil and dare i say Mexico have the best beaches in the world!, soft sand, turquois waters and amazing flora and fauna. Wikipedia is not the place to ask, go and see for yourself at FLICKR!. Ajj, now i feel like going to the beach. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Chesil Beach has pebbles naturally graded by size along its length [5] -- Q Chris (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the beaches in Hawaii have black sand. - [6]. And there's Red Sand Beach. Corvus cornix_talk 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Looks like our article on black sand doesn't refer to the same phenomenon as that in Hawaii, which is the result of lava floes. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fond memories of the barking sand at the Jersey shore. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is suppossed to be a Whistling beach somewhere in the Western Isles of Scotland I think. 80.0.102.226 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skin

What genes are responsible for causing a snake and other reptiles to shed their skin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.175.202 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer - but I doubt very much whether the answer is knowable. It is very rare for a question of the form "what genes are responsible for ... " to have an answer, unless it's on the level of "what genes are responsible for synthesising protein X?". A complex structure or behaviour is usually dependent on thousands of genes, many of which will also be responsible for other, apparently unrelated, structures or behaviours. --ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD recorder not working - help

I'm hopeless at describing these things so please bear with me, but maybe someone here will know what I'm talking about. I have a DVD recorder which is connected to the TV via a 21-pin scart cable. Something has gone wrong today and I am unable to record off the TV. Normally, I use the TV remote to switch between two positions, AV1 and AV2. They both show the same broadcast video and audio (when the DVD recorder is powered on), but AV2 is the one I use to watch DVDs and also to view the DVD recorder menus. What has gone wrong today is that I now get a blank screen on the AV2 position, although the audio is still there. When I set the recorder to record, I get the same - a blank screen and audio only. I have checked and double checked all the connections, particularly the scart ones. Does anyone have any idea what might be wrong? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you have tried playing a DVD (DVD recorders can play pressed discs by the way) and got only the audio stream, try using another SCART cable. If the video stream comes back, then the cable has a problem. If it still doesn't work, then the problem lies within the female connector or the device itself. If you cannot view the picture on both AV1 and AV2, you might have the brightness and contrast turned down or the TV itself has a problem. Hope that helps. --KLLvr283 (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)