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.
My Linksys unit had really ------ up while asking a question. Question was that will the documentary aired on the Discovery Channel will destroy the Christian religion. A debate had followed this documentary. 205.240.146.224 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this: Will the documentary aired here destroy the Christian religion ? 205.240.146.224 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It airs at 11PM EST, just in case you wanted to catch it (a bunch of guys in the dorm are about to watch it). So be quick.--droptone 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a Discovery Channel special is going to destroy a religion that has existed for thousands of years.--ChesterMarcol 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if millions of years worth of fossil records hasn't managed to destroy Christian religion then the remains of one more man certainly won't do it:). Vespine 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fossil records don't speak very strongly against it since Creation nicely incorporates 'apparent age' such as fully grown trees, and adult humans and animals, and a full fossil record. Also FYI the discovery channel special is based on ridiculously shaky evidence IMO. There are just much better arguments out there --frothT 05:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by destroying the Christian religion? First of all, no matter the claims of the discovery channel, there will always be a group of people that will disagree with it or refuse to accept the level of evidence offered. Secondly, I believe there are a huge number of people that are Christian to whom the Christian concepts disproved by Discovery channel do not factor into the reasons behind their religious beliefs - in other words even if they proved that jesus didn't go up to heaven, they'd still ask "So what?". Keep in mind there are a lot of people who were converted to christians that didn't speak English as a first language and aren't in touch with much of the news/media - and wouldn't even properly understand the findings of the discovery channel. So this means that there are people that simply don't care about these Discovery findings, or find them irrelevant.
My general answer is no. Rfwoolf 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the one that say "OMG, we found the remains of someone called Jesus. And look, he was buried with a woman with a name a bit like Mary Magdalene, kind of. And another man that could be his son! It must be the Jesus in the Bible, there is no other possible explanation!"? :-D Skittle 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"OMG, we found the remains of someone called Jesus." Was that a pun? ;-) FWIW, I thought they'd already "found his remains," multiple times? Also, I thought The DaVinci Code would destroy Christianity... V-Man737 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the Da Vinci Code seems to have destroyed is otherwise intelligent peoples' ability to discriminate between fact and a novel. --Dweller 13:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondering if anyone knows where I could find a good picture of Borchert Field the only one I can find is the one in the article. I need it for a power point presentation on the history of baseball in Milwaukee.--ChesterMarcol 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching through Pulp Fiction -one of my favorite movies- again and I've begun to notice the spectacular camerawork. In particular, there's one part where Butch is trying to sneak up to his apartment, and he squeezes through a small crack in the fence. The camera swoops through a hole in the fence and continues following him. Now a person holding a video camera maybe could have gotten through, but the view was very solid and straight like it must have been on a track. But it couldn't have been on a track since the camera is following Butch and you can clearly see 5 seconds before that there's no track there. And the camera can't just be rolling on the ground since it's fairly rough terrain (some trashy lawn). How is this accomplished? --frothT 05:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the shot you're talking about -- I've seen the movie but long ago, but perhaps this will help... A lot of this kind of work can be accomplished by Steadicam - which is when a person holds the camera and walks with it but the steadicam device manages to keep the camera rather steady - and of course steadicam operators are usually very skilled at walking without bobbing too much. Hope that answers your question Rfwoolf 11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some other possibilities:
The camera may have been on a cantilever out in front of the track, with a counter-balance to keep it from tilting. This would work if the camera only goes a few feet past the fence before they switch to another camera.
There may have indeed been tracks which were removed by CGI afterwards.
Also, by "5 seconds before", do you mean 5 seconds before in the same camera shot ? If they have changed camera shots you have no idea how much time actually passed, they regularly stop action, make changes to the set (like laying down track), then continue with the same scene. StuRat 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he walked from his car, across the street, through the side yard of someone's house, then through a hole in their back fence, then across a large vacant lot. So the cantilever probably wasn't viable. And yes I mean 5 seconds before in the same shot. I'm thinking that steadicam is how they did it, thanks --frothT 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the movie a lot too and listened to the four or five commentaries on the special edition disk and I'm having trouble recalling the specific scene you are talking about too. But regardless, I'll add that Fight Club did use a lot of tricks with composition of real, special effect and CGI camera work so it's best not to assume anything you see is real. It's possible they used a combination of zoom and digital zoom tricks to acheive the effect of going through the hole. Vespine 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm I doubt it was some sort of zoom effect; the camera followed him quite a distance after the fence (admittedly it was straight forward) and kind of came up and sat on his shoulder at the end, something impossible if zooming from the fence. I'm convinced it must have been steadicam or something like that --frothT 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a fight which would be more effective, Karate or Tae Kwon Do? Do you have any suggestions besides jiu jitsu or judo?
Depends on which one you know better. If you've mastered them sufficiently, both can be equally effective. - 131.211.210.19 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would also depend on the training of your opponent, I imagine. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be ER as in Elizabeth Regina (Queen ElizabethinLatin). They, make all sorts of Royal tat for the tourists these days. Rockpocket 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whereabouts are these doormats?If they're in a big building with lots of nurses and doctors and bleeding people lying round that might give you a clue ;) Lemon martini 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What colour are they, and what style are the letters in, and where are they?
As a middle-aged Australian, I can confidently report that I have never seen such a thing. I'm frankly quite surprised the questioner claims to have seen it "often". (But I guess it depends on which circles one moves in.) If it were just the letters ER, I'm not sure I'd know what to make of it. But if the letters were inscribed in a royal emblem, such as used to appear on red letter boxes, then yes, I'd say it was Elizabeth Regina. However, the adulation that was once afforded to the Queen is very much a thing of the past here these days. We take an interest in the Royal Family's doings, as many other countries around the world do, but this sort of brazen fawning is extremely unusual, in my experience. JackofOz 00:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't you know. I visited there last year and went into a shop that sold photos of celebs who had been there - but there was only one of HMQ taken shortly after her accession. When I asked why that was, the shop owner replied gruffly that "She had only bloody been to Gibraltar one time - and then only for a very very brief visit - so as not to upset the bloody Spanish". So I didn't get the distinct impression she was on the Gib Fave List. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.135 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I can certainly move the 6s together. Is it permissible to then move the 5s together, or must I only make the possible moves on the top cards? I have one reference book that seems to suggest the latter; are there any other references which clarify this?
Well, having read Perpetual Motion (solitaire) they only mention 4 piles of cards - whereas you have 8. These 4 piles get dealt on-top of each time, and the article specifically mentions that "only the top card in each pile is in play" (meaning that you cannot reach under a pile to get the card you need. It seems that you can only discard a set of four cards when they come up all at once in a deal, i.e. you deal 4 cards and all of them are the same -- which is highly unlikely and would probably only happen very seldom.
However, if for whatever reason you are playing the same game but with two rows (2 sets of columns) (perhaps to make it easier), then I would answer your question by saying that it's optional - depending on how difficult you want the game to be. Keep in mind that the more you pile/group cards together, the sooner you will end up with 4-in-a-row and be able to discard that set. So if you want to play an especially longer game, then you'd only be able to group one set of cards per deal.
In closing, perhaps you would like to ask your question in the discussion section of the article Perpetual Motion (solitaire) which can be found here: Tallk:Perpetual Motion (solitaire) -- but it may take a while before someone responds, if they respond at all.
One of the Wikipedians who contributed to the creation of that article is User:Nanami_Kamimura - you might want to ask her this question. Rfwoolf 11:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, look, you have this wrong. The first four cards that were dealt was a 2, a K, an A, and a 5. No matches could be possible, so another four cards were dealt on top of these (a 4, 5, 6, and 6). The sixes can be matched, but this opens up the possibility that the fives can be matched; the "only the top card" rule may apply since the 5 is now on top, but this could also mean "only the four cards that were on top at the start of the deal" -- that isn't clear, and is what was being sought clarification on. I know that if I group faster I play faster, but I want to know what the original rules are.
What is the relationship between Lemmy Kilmister and Ozzy Ozbourne like? do they know each other and if so do they get on? Which one considers the other to be the original God of rock ect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Is there a list of negroid scientists, or list of negroid philosophers, or could you give me examples of such people? I want to disprove a claim I heard that there are no important negroid philosophers or scientists. 193.65.112.51 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They must be pure negroids or he will claim their intelligence is not from negtroid ancestors 193.65.112.51 12:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that even if there aren't any/many negriod (or shall we say African) philosophers or scientists, this may be to being previously disadvantaged - where Africans (or blacks) weren't entitled to the same opportunities or education systems as others. But I do know for a fact that there are black people with degrees in philosophy and I can only strongly assume that there are black people with degrees in science. It would be odd to find any say, 150 years ago. Rfwoolf 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many African scientists working in Africa or (in search of greater opportunities) in Europe and North America. Here is an organization devoted to science and technology in Africa. Several individual African scientists are mentioned in this document. You can find more by searching "African scientist" in Google. Kwame Gyekye is just one of the many African philosophers working today who do not have European forebears. Marco polo 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first of all let's think back waaaaay back in time. Man came from Africa. The cradle of mankind is in somewhat around the area of what is today Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. Man's civilizations were born in Africa. The Egyptians, the Axumites the Ashantis were all ancient people who could read and write before Europe was even born. Mathematics was one of their strong science since they had to calculate to build those pyramids in Giza and the stellae in Axum and Lalibela. They had calendars, which tells they were strong in Astronomy. There was an Ethiopian called Yared who gave birth to a totally new way of music that is still used in the Ethiopian Orthodox church. There were great military strategists who beat European armies over and over again, especially in the case of Ethiopia, that withstood the the carving of Africa and slavery. Everything was exported from Africa is what I'm trying to say. It saddens me to know that not much is taught or passed on to the younger generation and needs to be asked about and even doubted.
Here are some helpful websites:
Actually, Egyptians and Ethiopians are not negroid. They are Africans but that is not what I am asking. I am asking about pure negroid people. Ethiopians are black but they are clearly euripid or "caucasian". Men came from Africa but people who came from Africa to other continents were propably not negroid. For example indigenous Saharans are not negroid 193.65.112.51 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that Egyptians wouldn't count as being negroid because they aren't/weren't "black" - but Ethiopians? Surely they count? Rfwoolf 14:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ethiopians, like most people close to horn of Africa, are caucasian by their facial features. So they have thin noses and small nostrils, for example. Majji 19:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All 'races' gradually fade into each other, so that people living on the edges of a continent can be a mixture of two different races :) HS7 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being an undemanding British consumer who wants nothing more from a television than the four main channels and teletext, I bought a combined TV and video recorder (small "desktop" style; Matsui brand) in October 2005. It had been working normally up to and including Saturday evening ... but appeared to be dead on Sunday morning. The normal routine is to press the power button on the front, which puts it into standby mode, then turn it on by pressing the standby button or channel up/down buttons on the front, or pressing the standby button on the remote control. When I did this yesterday, the standby light came on after pressing the power button, but nothing else happened. No matter which buttons I have pressed, I have not been able to turn the TV on. I have tried the plug in different sockets (not that that was likely to help!), but I'm at a loss to know what to do or try next. Does it sound like it is irretrievably broken? Does anybody have any suggestions on what the problem might be, whether it might be fixable, etc.?
Also, there is a video cassette in the video recorder bit, which is now "stuck" in there because with the TV being out of order, I can't eject it. How can I retrieve this?
Disassembly can always retrieve the video cassette, although you may need to drive some small motors by hand to crank the cassette loading/unloading mechanism.
With regard to the set's overall status, this is a long shot, but one thing you might try is ensuring that all of the control panel buttons operate; a stuck button may result in the rest of the controls becoming disabled. (This actually happens quite a lot in cars, where beverages get dumped into the controls and glue down the buttons.)
Some possibilities: If there's sound and other functions - but just no visuals then your tube may be broken. Go right ahead and check if you can get sound at all by making sure any volume gauges are set to 'up'. Also, the tube could be broken. But I suspect in both these cases the video would still physically "play". Check if there are any funny switches on the back of the TV that might have brought the TV into a different mode. Check that no buttons are stuck. You said that currently the standby light comes on - if it didn't then it would indicate a power problem so for now you can rule that out. Also make sure that your remote control is not just simply out of battery power.
Sorry if these ideas seem obvious - but I'm just trying to help Rfwoolf 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the electronics get their knickers in a twist. Try unplugging from the wall socket for 20 minutes. It often works.86.202.31.98 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)TVbuff[reply]
I had a remote malfunction and constantly send the "VOLUME UP" signal. Perhaps, in your case, your remote is sending the "POWER OFF" signal. Try pulling the batteries out of the remote and controlling the TV manually. If that works, you know the problem is the remote. StuRat 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the advice so far! My Dad has kindly taken it down to the village electrical shop today, to see if anything can be done. As it stands, the only thing that happens when the power button is pressed is that the standby light comes on: absolutely nothing else works on either the video recorder or the TV part of the unit. I have eliminated power supply problems and the remote as potential problems; Atlant's suggestion has potential. Anyway, I'll report back when I hear from the electrical shop! Hassocks5489 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been fixed: apparently, the transmitter was stuck. Interesting!! Hassocks5489 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else experienced the phenomenon of one shoelace wearing out long before the other? All too often, one shoelace frays and eventually snaps while its partner is happy to continue for many months afterwards. I would have thought that both laces were subject to the same amount of wear and tear and should expire at more or less the same time, but no. And before anyone asks: no, it's not just the left or right lace that goes first, but it can be either. --Richardrjtalk email 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the heels wear out at different rates too, if so there could be a clue there somewhere.--88.111.98.95 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I witness the same thing, but I fear it may be due to canine interventionCapubadger 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot intervention may be another cause of the problem; they are also famous chewers. Atlant 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. Last time I checked, my shoes hadn't ever been attacked by dogs or parrots, but I'll keep an eye out in future :-) --Richardrjtalk email 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like a serious reply instead, you might want to consider that the life of a shoelace is greatly affected by the eyelets through which it passes. One slightly-rougher eyelet, multiplied by many back-and-forths of the lace across that eyelet, will have a profound wearing effect on the lace. There may also be slight differentials in how you tie your shoes, pulling a tiny bit harder on the left than the right, or always managing to place one lace in precisely the same position time after time whereas the other lace ends up in a more-random position; the wear will be localized on the same-placed lace and distributed on the randomly-placed lace.
First of all, have you given the answers for us? With the "Answers" is that whole list one answer, or is each word in the list a possible answer? If so are any of the words in that list possibly an incorrect answer? Do you know where this question was posed? (In some cases there isn't an answer - so we need to know where you saw this question). In the future, please provide as much information as possible when you ask a question. Rfwoolf 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each word in the list is a possible answer, with only one correct answer. Can't remember where it was first asked, I think it was in a book of Mensa questions. Sandman30s 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kicked ass at my Mensa exam (147, bitch!), but I have honestly no idea. Oskar 16:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Normally I'd try look for this or SIMILAR answers on google - but a brief attempt at this has failed and I'd like to try figure it out myself. But no such luck yet.
Analysis of Question:
Alm Stag Eden Stack Fred Dam Iced Kris
3 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 (Number of letters in each word)
V C V C C C V C (Whether a word begins with a consonant or vowel)
C C C C C C C C (Whether a word ends with a consonant or vowel)
VCC CCVC VCVC CCVCC CCVC CVC VCVC CCVC (Which letters are consontants or vowels)
VCCCC VCVCVCCC VCCCC VCC VCVCVCCC VC (The pattern found in this)
ALMST AGEDENST ACKFR EDD AMICEDKR IS (Arrangement of letters in pattern)
Analysis of Answers:
Dell Treat Adam Doe Igloo Coin Stop
C C V C V C C (Whether a word begins with a consonant or vowel)
C C C V V C C (Whether a word ends with a consonant or vowel)
CVCC CCVVC VCVC CVV VCCVV CVVC CCVC (Which letters are consontants or vowels)
Observations:
1. None of the Question words end in a Vowel.
2. Of the Answer words, 'Dell' is the only word to end in a double-consonant (CC)
3. None of the Question words or the Answer words end in a Consonant-Vowel(CV)
4. All of the vowels except 'U' are used in both the Question and the Answers.
5. None of the answers contain a letter that the questions haven't used, with the exception of 'Stop' which uses the letter "P".
Current possible answers:
1. "Treat" since the Question seems to follow a pattern in the number of letters in each word: "3 4 4 5 4 / 3 4 4 " -> "5",
and also because in the Question no words end in a vowel
(Of the answers, Treat is the only word with 5 letters in it that also doesn't end in a vowel)
Other avenues to check:
Binary, morse code.
Theme analysis of question and answers:Question
Alm - Alpine Grassland (possible singular of alms?)
Stag - Deer (type of beetle?)
Eden - Location (Garden of Eden, Eden project, Anthony Eden)
Stack - (Chimney stack, a stack of things, to stack)
Fred - Name
Dam - Water (manmade structure, verb, landscape-altering, power source)
Iced - Water (past participle of verb, adjective, military usage - thrown out?)
Kris - Weapon/Object (manmade)
Answers
Dell - A small valley (computer company, probably a name as well)
Treat - (A verb, a noun, a sweet, manmade?)
Adam - Name (first man in Eden myth, a made man, godmade)
Doe - Deer
Igloo - Water (Manmade structure)
Coin - (verb, noun, manmade)
Stop - Verb (noun)
Alphabet Analysis:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
A AAAAA A AAAAA AAA <- (Question)
A AA <- Alm in Question
A A AA <- Stag in Question
AA A <- Eden in Question
A A A AA <- Stack in Question
AAA A <- Fred in Question
A A A <- Dam in Question
AAA A <- Iced in Question
A A AA <- Kris in Question
----------------------------------------------------
AA A <- Dell in Answers
A A A A <- Treat in Answers
A A A <- Adam in Answers
AA A <- Doe in Answers
A A A <- Igloo in Answers
A A AA <- Coin in Answers
AA AA <- Stop in Answers
But Igloo ends in a vowel, which as you've said none of the others in the question do. And Treat has 5 letters last time I counted... and ends in a consonent as bonus. --Maelwys 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant Treat - and I have corrected this above. Thanks Rfwoolf 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, also see Kris for a non-name use of the word. --Maelwys 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a repeating pattern of 3 4 4 5 4, the next word has to have 5 characters. The words start with V C V C C, while the second iteration has it reversed, C V C, so the answer has to start with a vowel, which eliminates Treat, leaving Igloo. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Clarityfiend 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Igloo does stand out, and based upon your answer we now have yet another posibility for an answer. However, it must be noted that we don't have a definited pattern. The letter count goes: 3 4 4 5 4 / 3 4 4. If only there was one more word in the question that could confirm if this was a pattern or not. But right now both my suggestion for a possible and your suggestion aren't very convincing as a pattern. Same goes for your idea of a reversal in the arrangement of consontants and vowels -- it's leaning towards a reversement, but if we only had 1 or 2 more characters in the question we could be more sure. Rfwoolf 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this is all testament to the human ability to find patterns in anything :-) And these solutions seem rather unlikely. Do genuine puzzles ever really have that kind of solution? :-S I'd go for something based on their meaning or a letter progression, if there actually is a pattern, since the words don't seem to have anything in common. 86.139.237.132 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know the answer :) I purposely changed the original question so that it cannot be googled. Let's see if any bright spark out there can get it :) There is a definite pattern with a simple but fiendish rule. Will leave it open for a day... Sandman30s 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests to me that you've replaced one word (or more) from the origianl version with another word (or words) that conform to the same rule. not that that helps at all... Grutness...wha? 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any takers? Let me know if I must post the solution. Sandman30s 09:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's beginning to look like you might have to... Grutness...wha? 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking!!! Capubadger 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woe is me! I always think I can get these things - and it usually turns out to be something silly like a correlation to the days in the week, or the months in the year, or to prime numbers. The trouble in this case is that there's a lot to throw you off -- I mean take a look at the workings I've been doing - the themes for example I'm sure are completely 100% irrelevant, but you've made like 3 kinds of deer -- just to confuse the crap out of us. I also seem to notice a strange pattern that's one permutation short of actually being a pattern - which has come up in basically everything - basically the first 5 words in the question form one iteration of the pattern, and then this gets corrupted/reversed/undone in the remaining 3 of the question words.
Anyways, I've wasted far too much time here actually trying to figure this out, and at first it was under the auspices that you actually needed help solving the problem because you didn't know the answer - so I give up! I throw in the towel! Tell me the cryptic answer so that I can move on with my life! Rfwoolf 12:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway since there is still someone thinking, I will wait a bit. Just to mention you guys are waaaay off the mark. Looking for difficulty is not always a good thing. Even a primary school kid might just see the pattern here. Similar to the following puzzle which is very difficult if you attempt advanced maths but has a very simple rule and pattern.
What is next and why?
1
11
21
11 12
31 12
21 12 13
(It goes row by row, NOT column, and yes there ARE spaces there!)
I know that one, self describing sequence - still thinking about the words though :) Capubadger 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better without the spaces: 1, 11, 21, 1112, 3112, 211213, (1221121113), ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capubadger (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah that one is trivial, but you've switched the columns around (so you've put in 11 12 as number four instead of 1211, like it is normally). It's really weird, you should stick with the original Oskar 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt even notice that lol Capubadger 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I give up on the word one Capubadger 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is stop as it goes from yellow, trough green to blue, so stop is next
Stop is green, it is Coin as it looks brightest :] HS7 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got that number one ROTFL, how do people think of things like that :) HS7 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK tan-ta-ra-raaa! Remove the Capitals and letters with extensors and you get a pattern of colours: magenta cream ceris. So the next letter must be an e to complete cerise which is found in Dell (remember the D is removed) which is your answer. Infuriatingly simple :) Sandman30s 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Longer extended lower-case letters such as d, f, l, k. Sandman30s 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you're ignoring everything that intrudes to the "top half" of the space... but wouldn't that make it really hard to spell "magenta" when you can't use the letter t? --Maelwys 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
t is not a true extensor, it does not go all the way to the top. The original Mensa question definitely had magenta in it, so I suppose you can argue further about t but the Mensans think otherwise. Same argument for g in magenta. Sandman30s 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually I see your point now, the Stag should be Sag... it's not like anyone was close to seeing the colour patterns... Sandman30s 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not simple at all :p 213.48.15.234 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the question reads "Which is next word in sequence, and WHY?" -- which arguably implies pattern over arrangement. Rfwoolf 11:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically it is a rubbish sequence which almost noone would be able to work out :) HS7 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its debut week saw modest viewership; an average 1.3 household rating and 2 share, slightly higher than its lead in, Desire, according to Nielsen.[1] The second week dipped to 1.1 million viewers.[2] During the next few weeks, ratings stabilized at a 0.6 rating.[3] National advertising spots sold for between $20,000 and $35,000 for a 30-second spot as of September 2006.[4]
YOU might consider that relatively good, and I suppose it is, for such a small network. You may have liked the shows, too. But ratings are not based on opinion - they are weighed in terms of market share. I think the term "modest" is an accurate and non-WP:POV term to describe that particular percentage of overall available viewers in that market.Jfarber 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks more like an opinion than a question... =S 惑乱 分からん 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. But it also contains a criticism of the way those articles linked above refer to those show's ratings as other than "good". Jfarber 16:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've heard that in olden times (as in the wild west), when something exceedingly painful had to be done, like an amputation, and there was no laudanum or anything around, patients were sometimes given a bullet to bite on while the doctor chopped away. Hence, "bite the bullet". Is this true? If it is, what was the thinking behind it? Oskar 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com has this to say: "Bite the bullet is first recorded 1891, probably with a sense of giving someone something to clench in the teeth during a painful operation." [1] And it goes on to say "Behave bravely or stoically when facing pain or a difficult situation, as in If they want to cut the budget deficit, they are going to have to bite the bullet and find new sources of revenue. This phrase is of military origin, but the precise allusion is uncertain. Some say it referred to the treatment of a wounded soldier without anesthesia, so that he would be asked to bite on a lead bullet during treatment. Also, Francis Grose's Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796) holds that grenadiers being disciplined with the cat-o'nine-tails would bite on a bullet to avoid crying out in pain." [2]. Dismas|(talk) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
surely this would have been life threatening as what would happen if the bullet went off while in ones mouth?!
This likely goes back to shot and powder days when the bullet was just a piece of lead and in actual fact even today bullet is the projectile while the entire assembly with powder, primer, and cap is a cartridge. --Justanother 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also note that the reason for the lead bullet is that many people bite down when in extreme pain and can even damage their teeth or gums if they bite too hard. Lead, being a relatively soft metal, absorbs the force without damaging the teeth. StuRat 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But of course is now known to be quite toxic, especially if ingested. So it may not damage your teeth but it is a particularly bad choice of substance to bite on. This is why it is no longer in use for common things such as lead paint or lead Toy soldiers. Vespine 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chunks of lead aren't going to break off and be swallowed, as is the case with lead paint chips. StuRat 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of removing that in accordance with WP:NOR, but it's just too darn funny. V-Man737 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your risk of getting lead poisoning from biting a bullet while undergoing 19th century surgery is going to be a lot less than just dying from the surgery complications. Surgery before anesthesia was pretty nasty business, much less before antibiotics. You've got to put it in context when weighing the risks, obviously.--24.147.86.187 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of lead farm people missing heads and legs in my grandparents' house, with little teeth marks on the breaks, I would say Sturat is provably, dangerously, wrong in this case. Plus, merely putting lead in your mouth causes small amounts to be absorbed into the bloodstream, even without little bits coming off. Since the effects are cumulative, this is to be avoided if at all possible. Skittle 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is a kid who is trying to bite off the heads and swallow them (a young Ozzy Osborne ?) and an adult who knows better. StuRat 11:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they made people bite a bit of leather instead :) HS7 19:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you allowed to bring tomatoes across the border into the US?
Nick 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshiNick 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a tourist, generally, no. Only importers who have obtained licenses and who are subject to inspections can import produce. Marco polo 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possible legal way to have them shipped to your house without them getting spoiled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.253.128.27 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Dry ice would probably cause them to freeze, so that wouldn't work. By the way, the application for a license seems to be here. The basic fee seems to be a mere $650. Now, how badly do you want those tomatoes? Is there some other way that you could accomplish what you want other than physically importing the tomatoes? Perhaps you'd want to consider importing the seeds and growing the variety you like yourself? Marco polo 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO! You cannot, due to concerns over diseases and pests. In some states in the US, you have to have them checked. In California, you could not bring any agricultural and livestock there from even the other states. I brought a orange from Arizona to California. The State Inspection officer told me to throw it out or end up in jail. Of course I threw it out. Martial Law 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends who is allowing you to do it, since I doubt the mexicoans would mind much :] HS7 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a tourist, NO. In fact, it's probably illegal to bring the seeds across the border without a permit. You might be able to get away with bringing canned tomatoes across the border depending on what state you're going to. The reason is that uncooked vegetables and seeds can transmit agricultural diseases - if you planted the seeds in those tomatoes and if the plants that grew contained a mosaic virus, you could conceivably wreak havoc. --Charlene 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Minding my own business, driving through Moulsecoomb ... and some weirdo at the bus stop points a camera at me!"
When taking photos of street scenes and whatnot in Brighton on Saturday, the car shown to the right (copied and enlarged from the full photo) passed my camera just as I took the picture. Now, I am quite interested in cars, especially from the 1970s and 1980s, and consider myself familiar with most makes and models - but although it looks "familiar" in an "I-can't-quite-place-it" way, I can't positively identify it. Needless to say, it was off down the Lewes Road before I could turn my head and check! I'm also intrigued by the nice array of lights, the large aerial-type thing on the right, and the object between the lights on the roof.
A positive identifcation would be much appreciated! (The registration number dates it to 1981-1982, if that helps.) Hassocks5489 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion Slumgum; I've had a look at the Subaru website, and it may be a Subaru of some description - although not a Justy, as they apparently first appeared in 1984 and are a bit smaller. Hassocks5489 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a Subaru GL wagon. I think it is an '81. The rally lights are all after-market. See here: www.theeel.com/cars/images/subaru_GL.jpg 161.222.160.8 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
That's the one - thanks very much! The Wikipedia article is here. Hassocks5489 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People say Elvis Presley is dead, but others say he's not. I heard that Elvis's middle name is "Aron". And that there is a federal law stating you can't put your own name on a tombstone.(Is this true?) That's why the grave is selled "Aaron". Saying hes still alive. I also heard that somebody, for whatever reason, spent the night by the gate of Graceland the night he died. He said that he didn't see any body come out of the house. Also that when people tour Graceland, they don't let them go upstairs. They did the same thing when he was alive. Could he possibly be up there? Could he have just cracked under the pressure of being so famous and payed people to stage his own death? Would his family be in on it? If he was still alive, He would have to pay somebody to get him a new look. Could somebody please help me shed some light on this subject?
Who would choose to fake their own death while "straining at stool" ? If I was going to fake my own death, I'd pick something that didn't involve the toilet. Also, why would any living person allow their daughter to marry Michael Jackson ? (Then again, one could be reasonably sure her virtue would remain intact, unless perhaps she had a pageboy hairdo.) StuRat 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't put your own name on a tombstone, whose name can you put on it? Are you suggesting that someone other than Grant lies in Grant's Tomb? Or someone other than JFK lies in JFK's tomb? JackofOz 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, we don't have a separate article on "Elvis is still alive," but this section of the Evlis Presley article touches on some of the things you mentioned - and provides references! Carom 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article of sorts on "Elvis is still alive" -- see Elvis sightings. Jfarber 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis never exsted to start with, it was just someone that looked and sounded just like him :] Hidden secret 7 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be able to put your own name on a tombstone, but you can put somebody else's name on it. Somebody else bought JFK's tombstone, and had it engraved with his name.
What if they both had the same name :? HS7 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a specific link to this supposed "federal law". If this were the case, the survivor in a married couple who put both names on the tombstone when one dies (in preparation of the survivor being buried in the same location after his or her death) would be breaking a federal law. Since this is unbelievably common, I'm guessing this is another urban legend. --Charlene 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When my grandparents died they only put my grandmothers name on the grave as she died first, and would have added my grandfathers name later, but most of the stone had been stolen, so they bought a new one and put both names on that, but if it hadn't been stolen, his name still wouldn't have been added until after he died :( HS7 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pain is subjective, there is no way to accurately gauge & explain it to someone. It hurts about as much a needle just slightly piercing the skin several times a second can, maybe someone who has gotten one can at least compare it to something you may have experienced. Cyraan 00:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a lot. It's just a matter of whether you think a tattoo is worth a few minutes of pain --frothT 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider my self a very pain tolerant person and I got tattooed for almost an hour of some solid black on my chest and it did not really hurt that much, it wasn't like I'd "never do it again" or anything. I've had my tongue pierced and that hurt more but for less time. The tattoo thing is that it does go for a long time and the pain comes and goes a bit, one section might not hurt that much but then half a centimetre next to it, seemingly almost the same spot can sting quite a bit more. Also where you get the tat has a lot to do with it, I've heard that the soul of the foot is almost unbearable, but the shoulder blade and upper arm are not so bad, which is probably why those two are very common places you see tattoos. Vespine 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess it depends on where the tattoo is being applied and how big an area was being done. RJFJR 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And depends on the person. My sister and my friend both found it very painful. I would avoid unnecessary pain, but that's me. Skittle 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My calendar refers today as Labour day in Austrailia and WA. What place is WA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.210.72.105 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe it says WA IN Australia? I live in the state of Victoria, Australia and our Labour day isn't until next Monday the 12th. Vespine 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Western Austrailia considered a different entity?
Yeah that's my point: it isn't, and it is also NOT Labour day in all of Australia, which is why I'm guessing the calendar says, or should say, WA in Australia, not and Australia. Have a look at Monday the 12th and see if it says anything about Labour day for Victoria, Australia. Vespine 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Calendar says on March 12, it's Labour day in Austrailia-Vic and Eight Hours day in Austrailia-TAS. I'd assume TAS is Tasmania
Yep. (And btw it's Australia, not Austrailia.) :) JackofOz 11:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
