My dad is paranoid about saving electricity, and keeps insisting that we switch off the button at the back of the modem whenever we're not using the internet (but doing other stuff on the PC). Are his fidgetings justified, and does keeping the modem switched on really result in unnecessary electricity consumption, and also, as he says, "wear and tear" on the modem? It's such a pain in the neck to switch it on every time I wish to go online and wait for those titchy blinking lights to be steady before connecting.... =/ Thanks in advance. 117.194.236.69 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most sites I've found mention that a modem uses about 7 watts. Without having one handy, I can't double check that but it seems reasonable. Your IP address geolocates to India. I don't know how much you pay for power but here in the States, I pay about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. So at 7 watts, it would be fractions of a cent per day. As for switching it off and on all the time, I would think that you're putting more wear and tear on the switch than you do on the rest of the device. They're built to be turned on and left on for months/years at a time. Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. That's the exact argument I was trying to convince my dad with. On a related note, does keeping the main switch (the one which the UPS is plugged in) and UPS switched on (while the PC is itself in hibernate/shut down mode) consume electricity at all?? Is it bad for the UPS in case it gets over-charged like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.231.188 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I have a Modem that pulls 30 watts, and my kWh is a little under .09 USD, so leaving it on 24 hours a day would cost me $1.81 at the end of the month. Conversely, if I only had it on 10 hours a day, it would cost me $0.76 at the end of the month. Thankfully, I'm not really hurting for that extra buck. Although, Dismas is right - almost all modems are meant to stay powered on, and the constant on-off cycle will certainly shorten the life of the device, though I can't say by how much.

On the second note, a PC that is shutdown or in hibernate mode will draw no electricity. (The only thing it would need power for at that state is some basic settings and time, which are powered from a CMOS battery inside the PC.) I wouldn't worry about the UPS - if it's made to standard, it has over-voltage protection built in, and will not over-charge itself. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:12, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the UPS will not overcharge itself, but it will consume a very small amount of electricity to keep its batteries topped up even when the computer is switched off. Also, a computer in hibernate mode does consume a tiny amount of electricity, but not enough to worry about. Dbfirs 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a modem supplied by TalkTalk (OK I know, UGH!), it never worked properly and I was told to switch it off at night. What a pain that was, and it still never worked properly. A letter of abuse to the CEO got things moving and they sent me a new one of a different brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.237.222 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never shut my computer equipment off at all, except for monitors. The definitive way to settle the dispute is of course to measure the actual current draw from the actual device being argued about. This gadget is an example, designed for non-electricians who don't know what a "multimeter" is or where to poke its little probes. Googling the gadget's name, I noticed it for sale at prices from US$20 to US$67, depending on the model you want. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this global warming thing comes in, what would it actually do to the world. Does anyone know of any decent maps of what the earth might be like afterwards, where would uncovered from under ice, where would be flooded, which areas would become more or less inhabitable when their weather patterns change, and so on? Obviously it would depend on just how much warmer it gets, how much ice melts, and the infamous complexities of the global climate system, but I am just looking for a rough estimate of what sort of thing might happen, were things to get quite serious.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stirring up a political hornet's nest... Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is considered by some a good starting point for looking at what the future may hold. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:57, 24 Iyar 5771 / 28 May 2011 (UTC)

STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton is a very well researched book focusing on global warming and the environment. He includes 28 pages of references and throughout the book he explores and explains a range of environmental issues. There is a plot, with a small group taking on the powers that pollute, but this can be skipped (although it is a good read).Froggie34 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See State of Fear particularly State of Fear#Scientific. Also I've never read the book but my impression and reading the article supports my impression that it doesn't have 'decent maps of what the earth might be like afterwards, where would uncovered from under ice, where would be flooded, which areas would become more or less inhabitable when their weather patterns change, and so on' or otherwise 'a rough estimate of what sort of thing might happen, were things to get quite serious' which wouldn't be surprising since it presents the idea it's all a hoax. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such maps can be made for several reasons: 1. gravity is not constant across the earth's surface - sea level is not a constant around the world. And changes in sea level are nicely inconsistent around the earth over the past few decades. 2. areas under heavy ice loads appear to rise as ice melts (viewed apparently in Greenland). 3. the compressibility of water is a function of temperature - so the deep ocean temps enter in - for some temperature increases, the volume of water may decrease, and we have, alas, insufficient data on that.

What we do know is that very large areas of land were under water in the past when we believe the earth was substantially warmer overall than it is today.

It would be nice if we also knew more about plate tectonics, which is a fairly new science. The existence of deep "roots" for mountains etc. means some of the simplified views of the earth's continents are still being emended on a regular basis. It would be really nice if someone could make such a map - but with so many variables, it would be crystal ball time. Collect (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles about this Effects of global warming and Regional effects of global warming and categories of articles Category:Climate change by country and Category:Effects of global warming. You might as well learn history from Chariots of the Gods as climate change an author writing a thriller to make money. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Forester? I mean, as an example of fiction being sometimes well-researched.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this Google Earth plugin which simulates the sea level rise, but it doesn't reveal land uncovered by retreating ice. This search show many other utilities that you might find useful. Astronaut (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This NASA page is titled "How Will Global Warming Change Earth?". It has a couple of interesting global maps showing changes in precipitation in the winter and summer, colored not only by increase or decrease in precipitation but by how well the various climate models agree. There's also a reference page with many links to further information. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from "Coins and notes", which has now been cut off from the "live" page and gone to the archives:

Do banknotes have any real advantages over coins that would justify using them at all so that if they had never been invented, inventing them now would help the situation instead of hindering it? JIP | Talk 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Nah, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. But before digital transactions became commonplace, it was convenient that you could move large amounts of money around without the aid of a wheelbarrow.

Again, it's a historical accident that we're using bills for less than you could buy a sandwich with. Imagine if you needed to buy an entire ship-full of precious cargo. You can't do a bank-transfer because the ship-captain's bank account is in a different country and wire-transfers won't be invented for thousands of years. It's easier for everyone involved if you can just exchange some documents that signify certain amounts of value. APL (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, if we have already agreed that the physical form of coins is in all respects so much better than that of banknotes, then wouldn't large-valued coins have filled the same purpose much better? We have already established that the monetary value of coins does not need to be in relation with the intrinsic value of the raw metal, and that coins can have security features. What would have stopped us from minting 100 € or 1000 € or 10000 € coins? JIP | Talk 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm firmly in favor of the United States making a conversion to a $1 coin (and introducting a $2 coin would be a good idea, too—Europe and the Canadians have the right idea), I don't think it's correct to say that we have agreed coins are superior in all respects, nor that the security features available for incorporation into coins are equally effective to those available for notes. Microprinting, embedded security threads, unique serial numbers, watermarks, multicolored or fluorescent inks, holograms, and clear plastic windows are all features that exist in modern, circulating banknotes of various nations that would be difficult or impossible to employ (and make sufficiently durable) in coinage. (Where other security features can be added to coins, there's necessarily much less area on which to arrange them.) Even if a country did add such features to their coins, it would take decades for the old, less-secure coins they replaced to vanish from circulation.

As a matter of practicality, it's also (generally) harder to misplace objects that are physically larger. A hundred-dollar (or -euro) note won't roll under the refrigerator if you drop it, and it's less likely to fall out of your pocket and get lost in the couch cushions. It's easier to find an object the size of a banknote on a cluttered desk than it is to find a quarter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But coins don't blow away in the wind (or, if they do, then you'd best stop worrying about your coins and get into a tornado shelter). StuRat (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American men aren't keen on carrying purses, and if bills were replaced by coins, they would have to start doing so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men in most countries make do perfectly well with pockets. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And suspenders to keep the weight of the coins from pulling their pants down. And it's fun to walk around emanating that jingling sound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, perhaps you could contribute somewhere else? We get that you have an irrational emotional attachment to paper dollar notes, and that you believe that everyone else must feel the same way that you do. (I also strongly suspect that Bugs has never lived or spent a significant amount of time in a country that makes sensible use of larger-denomination coins, and probably doesn't realize what he's missing.) Men in the United States seem to manage just fine with quarters in their pockets; I'm not sure why the addition of one new coin denomination would suddenly push every red-blooded American male's trousers past the tipping point.

The fact is, using the consumer price index [1] (or some other reasonable method of tracking inflation), a U.S. dollar banknote in 2010 has the same purchasing power as a quarter did in 1975, a dime in 1950, or a nickel in 1910. If the size of coins and notes had tracked with their purchasing power over the last century, the smallest denomination paper note in the U.S. would be worth twenty dollars, and five-dollar coins would be circulating. Meanwhile, the government would have acknowledged that the penny – and, realistically, the nickel – are irrelevantly tiny denominations in this day and age, and withdrawn them. For those who think that notion is shocking and absurd, I will note that the Swiss (who are generally acknowledged to know something about money) use a 5 rappen coin as their smallest denomination (about 5 U.S. cents); their largest coin is worth 5 francs (about 5 USD), and their smallest banknote is worth 10 francs. Somehow, they manage. Contrary to your imagined stereotype of Europeans, most don't wear suspenders, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could redirect your criticism to the guy(s) that keep asking this same question over and over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with ToAT and I said something similar the last time this came up. I suspect far more people have lost coins because of falling out of their pockets/wallets/whatever then they have notes blowing away in the wind and I don't think it's just because they value notes more. I also agree with ToAT that JIP must have been reading a different conversation if he/she thinks we agreed coins are superior in every way. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might be "superior" in terms of durability compared with paper money, but that's more than offset by various inconveniences. And by the way, I'm sure a 2-dollar coin would be every bit as popular as the 2-dollar bill is. Or did you know there was such a thing? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. All this fuss about liking some coins and/or notes and not liking others. I like all money, whatever it's made of. Never do seem to be able to get enough. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money money money makes the world go round but it can't buy love (all videos). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep your hands off my stack: [2]. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One incontrovertible advantage: In the short term, it's much cheaper to print the notes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how one defines 'much cheaper'. In the previous discussion, I noted that the U.S. dollar coins run about eight cents to mint, while the paper notes cost about four cents. (Those numbers are now a few years old, but the relative costs have presumably remained about the same.) In one sense, it's a 'large' difference: a factor of two. In another sense, they're both relatively inexpensive; even the more costly coins cost a tenth of their face value. (And for paper notes that last two years in circulation, the break-even time for the switch is just four years.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that large value coins were tried in ancient China before the invention of paper money, but were not trusted by users because a 100-cash coin would never be the size and weight of 100 cash coins (otherwise why would the government bother minting them?). Orthodox histories are critical of such coins (called "大钱", "big coin") because it was felt that they were a ploy to take wealth from the people by essentially shortchanging them. The mistrust of "big coins" led to inflation.

"Big coins" were replaced by banknotes, which were sometimes very successful as they were fully backed by "real" coins in the treasury and freely exchangeable for "real" coins. However, when the credit of the government deteriorated paper money also became subject to massive inflation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "big coin". This is a "big coin": Rai stones. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a 100-cash coin couldn't be developed because such a coin weighing as much as 100 1-cash coins would be impractical, and people were distrustful of such a coin weighing about the same as a 1-cash coin, and so they invented a paper statement that its holder had the right to 100 1-cash coins? Couldn't this statement have just as well been made of metal, as it's far more durable than paper? I understand that banknotes allow for more advanced security features than coins (and the more a monetary object is worth, the more security features it needs), and while such security features are possible for coins, they are more expensive to implement. But which are easier and which are more difficult to counterfeit, coins or banknotes? And lastly, the argument "it would take decades for the old, less-secure coins to vanish from circulation" is invalid if we considered the hypothetical situation where the less-secure coins had never existed, but the large-valued coins had been designed to have security features from the start. JIP | Talk 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By making it from paper, they clearly divorce the face value of the statement from its material value. If they made it from metal (any metal), there would be an implicit assumption of a link between the metal content and the face value. --Carnildo (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be? The link is pretty minimal right now with the value of the metal of a $1 US coin being less then 10% of the face value. You don't need a coin the size of a hockey puck for a $100 coin, since you don't need $100 of metal value in the coin. Heck if the government wanted, they could just declare that all the $1 coins were now going to have $100 printed on them and be made with security features instead of what they have now and they would not be all that different. Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched The King's Speech, and a very good film it is too. However, there's one scene which prompted a question. The King is visiting Logue's house, and Logue's wife returns unexpectedly from her bridge evening. Logue then introduces the King to his wife. Now, usually, one would indeed introduce a gentleman to a lady, rather than vice versa. However - IT'S THE SODDING KING!!! Does Logue commit a dreadful faux pas, or is it an example of a very unusual social situation where the expected procedure (namely, that commoners are presented to Royalty) should be reversed? Tevildo (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. The King is present on personal not royal business and Logue (an Australian!) has established that he the therapist is the boss here. ~~

Yes, an important aspect of the story is in the demonstration that traditional protocols went out the window in the relationship between Logue and the King. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That his is Australian is irrelevant - the King was King of Australia too. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true tango. He was also king of australia, but he was not there on kingly business. He was there on personal business. kingly protocol does not cover every eventuality. If Logue had not controlled the situation, then he could not have been of service to the king.Phalcor (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what a superb actor 'Logue' is !85.211.237.222 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Geoffrey Rush? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't believe he didn't win the Oscar. There's no figuring the Academy's logic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logic probably doesn't have anything to do with it, Senor Bugs. If it were a logical thing, the best performance would be obvious to everybody without exception, and there'd be no need for a vote. One thing the Academy has over most everybody else is that they have to view all the nominated films before they vote. For other people, typically they'll see one or two of the nominees, then decide the film they really, really like is Oscar-worthy, but without ever giving the other three or four nominated films a chance at all. Then they complain that the voting by the Academy is somehow unfair when it doesn't go their way, when they themselves are the ones with the colossal biases. I know there are exceptions, but that's how it usually goes, in my experience. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz, I beg to differ. In most of the cases in which the vast majority of the public is unsatisfied with the verdict of the Academy, the people have seen the winning movie (Of course!! Who wants to miss out on something labelled "Oscar winning"??), and yet greatly prefer something that's been ignored by the Academy. 117.194.238.205 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind we aren't talking about something winning the best movie but instead best supporting actor. I suspect quite a lot of people critical of Geoffrey Rush not winning the Oscar haven't actually seen Christian Bale in The Fighter (2010 film). Also I would question whether anyone seeing the movie after it won an Oscar can give a fair review. If they were unsatisfied with the results it's easy to imagine them being negatively influence when viewing the winner. (Of course it can go both ways, particularly if they were more neutral on the results.) People can also be influenced by the general hype etc but so can the academy. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen in numerous documentaries that the sago worm is a delicacy in Indonesia. Does anyone know about a company that sells these (dead or alive) and delivers to the US? I have a brave friend who wishes to try them, but isn't having much luck finding them.- 87.211.75.45 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find anyone that imports them. If you want to try another, easier to obtain worm, though, mealworms are delicious (especially fried in sesame oil with a little garlic). Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 08:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, they've become an invasive species in California, so if your friend lives within reasonable distance he might be able to catch some in the wild. I don't know how he'd go about doing that, but short of going to Malaysia that would probably be his best bet (if he does, be sure he cooks them before eating. eating raw things found in the wild isn't a good idea). Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 04:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importing alive would probably be illegal & immoral. Importing dead would probably not be profitable, as the west isn't big on eating "worms", and it would be expensive to ensure each worm is in fact dead, and there are no viable eggs anywhere in the package. On top of that, it wouldn't be as authentic, would it? :p Tell your friend to take a holiday to New Guinea. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He simply wants to buy them one single time for personal use. He's not aiming for profit. Of course, dead worms would probably be less tasty than the living ones, but if you can't import living worms, it can't be helped. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He might not be aiming for profit, but someone willing to import them likely would be. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At universities, chemistry or biology research are usually carried out in labs and involve, but are not limited to, reacting chemicals, running PCRs, running assays, etc... But how does pure, theoretical math research look like? Do professors and researchers just sit down with a pen and paper and write down equations? Acceptable (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect that a lot of it's done on computer (probably the parts they consider "trivial"). StuRat (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This describes writing a research paper in mathematics. A major part of mathematics research consists of studying papers that other mathematicians have written. If you are good or lucky your own paper may be published in a peer reviewed journal such as Pacific Journal of Mathematics or Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Then there is the time you need to spend explaining to aquaintances that you work on something that they can't understand and is not obviously useful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the good and the lucky that get published in journals. If you aren't getting papers published in journals then you'll quickly get fired (see publish or perish). --Tango (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the mathematician and on the field of mathematics. Some research will be done just sat at a desk on your own with pen and paper. Some will be done huddled around a black board with a colleague or two. Some will be done in the hotel bar at a conference with another attendee that you've just realised is working on something related to what you've been doing so you decide to pool your ideas together. Some will be done sat at a computer. Much will involve a combination of the above. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cue for the old joke about how the Pure Maths Department is the second cheapest to fund in the University - all it needs is chairs, tables, pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Cheapest of all is the Philosophy Department - it doesn't need wastepaper baskets. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.66 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the coffee! --Tango (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mathematician: A device employed for the conversion of coffee into theorems." StuRat (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

How many hotel rooms are sold to general aviation companies annually? specificly for pilots and technitions? perhaps also passengers? I was told it is 6.2 million annually but I would like more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.68.37 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. I await an answer myself. As well as pilots, you would probably want to include all crew members, flight crew and cabin crew. They all have to stay somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An airline pilot will usually stay in a crashpad [3]. Royor (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Haha should have read the question more carefully, my bad.[reply]

Not a problem. I have a pilot's license and thus know a thing or two about general aviation. So when the OP threw out that term, I knew people may not exactly know that standard airlines don't fall under it. Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who is a pilot. He lives half way across the country from me, so we only see each other when he happens to be flying to my local airport. When he does come into town, his airline puts him up in a hotel room. That said, there is a difference between general aviation and scheduled flights that would usually have a cabin crew and various other people that have been mentioned in the responses thus far. An "airline pilot" (a pilot working for an airline with scheduled service between cities) would not fit under the umbrella of "general aviation". Dismas|^(talk) 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention whether you're looking for international numbers or in one specific country. In the US, AOPA is the obvious organization that would have an interest in keeping track of this information; you should write them an e-mail and ask; they may have the information at their fingertips. (I don't, sorry.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked in Argos, Tesco and the £shop, with no success, and it seems we have no gardening shops around here, so I thought I would ask here. Does anyone know of any other shops that I could look for that might sell 1) a medium sized flower pot or 2) a small wooden box, similar to a jewellery box, but without any of the little compartments inside?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without knowing where "around here" is, it's difficult to give specific recommendations - if you have Argos and Tesco, it's quite likely you have Wilkinson's, and any of the major DIY stores (B&Q, Wickes, Focus) will have that sort of thing. If you do a Google search on "garden centre westhoughton" (or wherever it is you live), that should come up with a number of suggestions. Tevildo (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we do have a garden centre here, but it is about two hours away, quite a walk just to buy a flowerpot. Wilkinsons, though, how could I not think of that, should have been the first place I tried. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, got the flower pot, now I just need the box, any more ideas? Starting to suspect they don't make things like that any more. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try visiting the local charity shops [linked to clarify for the non-Brits who may be reading]; you may well find a cheaply priced jewelery box from which you can remove the dividers, at much less cost than buying a similar item new. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.66 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a picture I drew: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=935250&l=bec703c6c0&id=1827848507 It's my first time colouring something with watercolours, so I'm not really good at it. If you look closely, you'll see brush marks, and also that the paint's not been applied evenly. Some parts (especially in the red cloak) are lighter (more watery) than the others. Any tips on how to make the colouring look even, and how to avoid those irritating brush marks? I've never "learnt" art from a proper teacher, so I'm really weak when it comes to technique. Thanks in advance. 117.194.225.95 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uneven coloring is a characteristic of water paint. Some people like that, and others like visible brush marks. The brush marks imply that it's too thick to flow after applied, so you could add more water to the paint, but that will result in thinner colors and more blending between adjacent colors. If you want a consistently dark image, without brush marks, perhaps oil paint or acrylic would be a better choice. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to remove any signs of brush marks and what not, you should scan your sketches and use Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop or a similar program. Most professional illustrators (particularly those who work in the anime field) use these programs extensively and there are a plethora or tutorials online explaining how to achieve a variety of effects. I'm not an expert in painting, but you might have better luck with Gouache if you want to stay off the computer. --Daniel 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Airbrush. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this sort of application, i.e. solid blocks of color with little actual shading, the above suggestions of gouache, acrylics or oils would be best, particularly acrylics if you are new to painting, as they are the most forgiving for beginners. Unless you devote considerable time to learning their ins and outs, oils and gouache can both be pretty tricky to master. With acrylics you can do multiple thin coats relatively quickly because the drying times are fast(achieving solid areas of color), and they are pretty cheap. Personally I prefer oils because of the optical effects that can be achieved with them, but acrylics can be a good starter medium. True watercolor paintings uses the transparency of the medium for many of its effects, so using them for solid blocks of color is not the best use for them. Good luck and do some experimenting. Heiro 06:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in some Wikipedia language editions "editors" are referred to as "authors" whereas the English encyclopedic article "Wikipedia" constantly refers to its authors as "editors". Do you know why it is that way? Does is have to do with the fact that collaborative authorship in an online enviroment is different than in print media? Thanks for your help!

maja färggren 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja färggren (talk • contribs)

There are two ways to answer this: 1. Discussing the relative associations between "authors" and "editors" in English ("authorship" is usually more individual, "editors" conveys more collectivity) more generally, or 2. Looking to see when the terms were used in Wikipedia's early history, and why they became tradition.

No. 1 seems pretty straightforward and I'm sure others will chime in with more elaboration. No. 2 seems harder for me to quickly figure out. Interestingly, the pre-cursor to Wikipedia, Nupedia, has very distinct authorship/editorship roles (you could be an "editor" or a "writer" or a "reviewer" and so on), but very early on with Wikipedia, the use of "editor" rather than "author" seems to have become prevalent. In the 2001 captures of Wikipedia from the Internet Archive, the verb "to edit" is used fairly exclusively when talking about modifying or creating pages (you "edit" a page, you do not "write" or "author" a page). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the origin of the phrase "the encyclopedia [that] anyone can edit"? That might give some clues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat touching what Mr.98 has said, editors fits with the variety of roles people play on wikipedia as collective work. If I write/author an extra paragraph in an existing article most people would accept saying I edited the article is a fair description. If I modify an article to correct some spelling errors, add wikimedia markup or whatever saying I edited the article is a fair description; saying I wrote/authored anything is more questionable. The only time editing doesn't really fit (when it comes to articles) is when you first create the page. But even then, many people create an article then edit it multiple times. And in fact most people would edit what they write before submission anyway. Touching on what TOAT said, part of the idea is that you don't necessarily have to write or author content. We usually welcome the aforementioned contributions which won't normal be described as writing or authoring. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia contributions are Edits and few are authorship, meaning one-person creating, of new articles. There is a policy WP:OWN that restricts anyone claiming individual authorship of an article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COULD YOU ADD MY HMS RINGTAIL WEBSITE LINK TO YOUR PAGE

ROYAL NAVAL AIR STATION BURSCOUGH

THANKS

www.hms-ringtail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.35.47 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be my sad old computer, but there didn't seem to be any content on your site - just a title page. If there's somethimg worth reading, you could add it to the Wikipedea article yourself. If you're not sure how, the best idea is to find another Wikipedea page with an "External Links" section, click on the "edit" tab and copy how it was done there. Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask this sort of question is the article talk page - Talk:RNAS Burscough (HMS Ringtail). I'm afraid the answer will probably be "no" at the moment, as you don't seem to have any content on your website. See WP:EL for the rules about adding links from external sites. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page may not get much traffic so it may also be worth posting at WP:Military History Eldumpo (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally considered a bad idea to add a link to your own site even if it likely qualifies:

But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

People will generally view a person who adds their own site much more negatively then someone who simply asks on the talk page.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to install a turbo timer on my Hyundai Grand Starex's VGT engine? Or this device is just a kind of accessory that is not necessary for modern automotive turbochargers? It is said that it's not good to turn off the engine with Variable Geometry Turbo immediately after a period of driving. A turbo timer allows an engine to idle for a preset amount of time after the ignition key has been turned to the off position and removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.65.8 (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to fit a turbo timer. The Audi A4 owners manual says:

• Do not stop the engine immediately after hard or extended driving. Keep the engine running for approximately 2 minutes to prevent excessive heat build-up.
• A website explains "If the turbo is very hot, and the vehicle is keyed off, the coolant and oil will not be pumped through the turbo. If the oil sits in the turbo, it can bake in and damage the oil and the turbo. Some people prefer to let the car idle while they are in it - and just wait for it to cool. Others choose to install a turbo timer to do the job for them." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you live more than a few km from a fast highway, is this really necessary? Wouldn't the turbo have cooled during the 5 minute drive through town to get to your house. Astronaut (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if anyone else has any insight into this. I have a great, adorable, loving cat who is perfectly healthy (has been seen by the vet multiple times) and she is slim. We've had her for three years though she was a rescue—already an adult when we got her and quite socialized and toilet trained so she obviously had a prior owner; the vet says she's about four. Here's the weird part: she never runs, not once have I ever seen her run, not even once. I think it's kind of bizarre. Maybe her former owner somehow trained her to never run? It seems like an impossible task though. Anyone with any experience like this?--96.224.148.57 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our cat hardly ever runs, she did on occasion as a kitten, but now, simply can't be bothered. Cats are known for not doing anytihng if they don't have to. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have four cats and I can't think of the last time that I saw one of them run. Two of them run while playing, another is scared of most everything and runs frequently, but the fourth doesn't really run at all. Even when one of the dogs goes running up to her, all she does is stand her ground. She's a bit overweight but not "fat". Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My cat leaps impressively high in the air if I bounce a table tennis ball but loses interest in it immediately it stops moving. This domestic cat that never has to hunt for food has only a vestigial chase-and-pounce instinct. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some cats just don't run. However, we now have three cats, having been a two-cat household for most of the last 22 years, and all our cats will run when another cat chases them. So my guess is that if you got another cat then your cat would run away from or towards it! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cats I've owned (I don't have any at the moment) tended to run only when scared or when I was about to feed them. It isn't hard to believe that your cat isn't easily scared (and doesn't have much to be scared about, since it lives in a nice safe house with you). If your cat has never lived with other cats, then it may never have had to compete for food and doesn't see any reason to run to it. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adult cats seem to somewhat use the strategy of the sloth, to avoid wasting energy by moving slowly (most of the time) and sleeping often. This would help them survive when food was scarce. Unlike the sloth, though, they do maintain the ability to run, when necessary. You might try some catnip to see if you can get your cat excited enough to run. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried this patented method of exercising a cat? I have never seen a cat that could resist running in that situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some cats just simply have a "let your people contact my people so they can arrange a meeting to discuss your proposal and thrash out an agreement we can both live with" attitude towards suggestions coming from their staff (i.e. you). Roger (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cats are inherently weird. If my roommate screams "Rectangle!" my kitten runs over to me and meows. Only Rectangle, nothing else. Only to me, never to him. If you look for too much sense in cats, you'll go crazy. Foofish (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cat owner invited a famous conductor to hear his tomcat play the piano. At first sceptical, the conductor became entranced by the music the cat played. On hearing a particularly harmonious melody the conductor sighed "Wonderful! I must get this orchestrated!". For some reason the cat ran away. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

@Cuddlyable: >_< I didn't get that joke (?) at all.... 117.194.234.154 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it has to do with how cats always seem to refuse to do something you want them to do, on principle alone. StuRat (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I think the cat probably heard castrated, or maybe it's a play on orchis meaning "testicle". Can't say I exactly "get" it, myself, but I think it's something along those lines. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

JFK is often quoted giving a speech where he says the US will go to the moon, my quote may not be exact as it is from memory, and I am not a yanky, but here goes: ...We plan to go to the moon in this decade, and to do the other thing, not because it is easy but because it is hard... What is the other thing that he refers to please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "other things". Go to about 8:25 of this clip,[4] and the context will be clear. I also recommend that everyone watch the entire 17 minutes and 48 seconds clip, and then maybe you'll see why JFK captivated us. Politicians don't talk this way anymore: logical, straightforward, pro-American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-American". Sod everyone else? 92.24.191.98 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for homophobic obscenity. JFK distinguished clearly between international allies and aggressors, consistent with the Cold War that prevailed. In his speech JFK acknowledges the leadership that the USSR had gained in parts of the Space race, see Space race#Kennedy launches the Moon Race. Shortly before his assassination JFK proposed peaceful cooperation with USSR in reaching the Moon. While JFK's speech sounds sycophantic towards a Texas university, it is not belligerently chauvinist against anyone. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The full text of the speech is here. The "other things" Kennedy has just mentioned are "And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?" (one has to mention that Alcock and Brown flew the Atlantic eight years before Lindbergh and 43 years before Kennedy was speaking, but political speeches aren't noted for their accuracy.) Tevildo (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lindbergh flight was very well-known to JFK's audience, much more so than other flights, so it made more sense to cite that specific event, which was considered miraculous and was a good metaphor for the upcoming events in space.

JFK was often ribbed for his very obvious "Harvard accent". Near the end of the speech, he cites the famous George Mallory quote, "...Because it is there." I was thinking it's rather unlikely that George literally said, "...Because it is THEY-UH." :) In any case, anyone wanting to learn how to deliver a speech should watch this clip and observe how it flows. One thing you don't want to do in a speech is to get off-message. 35 years ago meant 1927, and most everyone there knew, without having to look it up, that he was talking about Lindbergh. The speech was not about Lindbergh or his predecessors (the past), it was about space travel (the future) - a point he made early in the speech where he challenged Americans to look ahead rather than backward - a message we very seldom hear nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

If I can get a word in edgeways (I've had 4 edit conflicts and counting): Tevildo, what was the "Rice play Texas" thing a reference to? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The annual football game between Rice University and the University of Texas. Football and other sports were also commonly-used metaphors by JFK. And football was and still is huge in the state of Texas. Which is another point about how to deliver a speech: "Know your audience." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, m'lud, the reference is to the game of American Football. See Rice Owls football. Tevildo (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a subtlety in his comment, "Why does Rice play Texas?" which would have been very obvious to his Rice University audience - namely, that Rice more often than not would lose to Texas, especially in recent years, in 1962 terms. He was metaphorically emphasizing where the USA and the USSR stood in the space race at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Owls football includes the key text of the JFK speech, and also discusses the one-sided relationship between the Owls and the Longhorns - which, unlike the space race, remains one-sided, with the Owls on the losing side even worse now than they were then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have got a new computrt and is for family use. is there a way with which i can help avoid the popping up of obscene pictures and ádvertesments in my computer and also avoid opening of any obscene sites if done intentionally too ..Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.65.1 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Content-control software for an overview of what you need. You should also look at tools to block pop up ads. Exxolon (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition consider using an ad-blocker like adblock plus. I use it and I can't remember the last time I saw an advertisement on my computer, obscene or otherwise. APL (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be smart about where you go and what you click on. If you see an offer for some product or service that's too good to be true, chances are... it is. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of porn on the Internet is genuinely free ^{1 2 3 4} which reflects the irresistable advance of the Porn 2.0 phenomenon. The OP is advised not to click on any of the above numbered links. However it is worth considering that visual material that was considered obscene a century ago is now regarded as acceptable or even educational, and whether this is a continuing process of change. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these coach salaries so high -- is it just a matter of what the market will bear because each school is vying for the best? It just seems to me that these are a tad bit high. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no salary cap on coaches, other than what an individual school might decide to impose. Yes, they're high. Especially for the ones who haven't been in serious running for a national championship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Those are crazy salaries! I guess the reason is the same as the reason colleges give such good scholarships to football players - having a successful football team brings the college a lot of money. --Tango (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to bed at night I find it difficult to get comfortable. I shift around in the bed, turning, rolling over, etc. But when I wake up in the morning I feel comfortable and content. It feels lovely not to have to continually move around and be able to just relax. Why is this, and how can I force myself into this comfortable mode when I go to bed at night? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.89.91.119 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid caffeine - less or no tea or coffee etc. 92.24.191.98 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practice good Sleep hygiene: Go to bed at the same time every night. Follow a simple bedtime ritual- do the same things in the same order at bedtime every night, cuing your body and mind that it's time to sleep. Turn off lights in the evening, as you are able, so the darkness can signal your brain that it's time to sleep. To the extend that you are able, make your bedroom both dark and quiet. As you lie down, compose your brain with a simple meditation- you might mentally repeat the events of the day, or imagine yourself in some peaceful, pleasant place, or pray, if that's what you're into- to help your brain relax itself for sleep. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surveys that pose the OPs question almost invariably, without prompting, get replies that sexual intercourse promotes better sleep. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And above all, avoid anything like "forcing yourself" to relax. Relaxation is the total antithesis of the way many of us are during our waking hours - driven, aggressive, in control, active, achievement-oriented, etc. You have to just let it happen. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble sleeping, and my most effective technique to overcome insomnia is to lie quietly and comfortably and focus on my breathing. If any thoughts come up, I gently let go of them and return my focus to my breathing. I may expand my awareness to how tired my body is and how pleasant it is to relax, but I keep the central focus on breathing and stay away from any gripping thoughts, including thoughts about things that happened during the day that has ended or things that might happen the next day. Just stay in the moment with your breathing and your body. Of course, this is a classic meditation technique. The difference is, instead of maintaining a disciplined focus, you allow yourself to relax until sleep overcomes you. This works almost invariably for me. The only times that it fails to work are after days when I've had too much caffeine (too much, for me, being more than one cup of coffee in the morning, including any caffeine in the afternoon). Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a lot of it is sleep hygiene, as described by FisherQueen: that's what makes the 'cosy, ready to sleep' feeling. I also find it helps to know that it is perfectly natural and normal for humans to wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for a little bit, before drifting back to sleep: it's not something to get worked up about. Also, I set myself a time that, if I'm not asleep by, it's okay to get up, go downstairs, have a cold drink, read or do a jigsaw, before going back to bed. Everything I've read about sleep hygiene says that's fine, but I've never actually had to do it once I've assured myself it's okay. Just knowing that I have a plan for if I'm not asleep soon seems to take the pressure off and let me relax. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you could track the details of submitters of tweets like postal code. Let's say you had the ability also to sort billions of tweets and the details of submitters. Do you think any useful patterns would emerge? Like could you make predictions of something about to happen?

Insticomplete (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The big WEIRDO tracking peoples' details like that would be tracked the same way they tracked others. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way to non sequitur, dude. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This way, of course.  :) —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of businesses and startups based on twitter metrics. There is even a guy who claims you can use twitter to predict the stock market (and I believe he has a hedge fund based on it, now). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The Global Consciousness Project collects regional (and random) data to interpret, however even then they tend to make correlations "after-the-fact", IIRC. I suspect the only patterns that would really emerge would be obvious, like a significant amount of tweets about a certain regional store when said store was having a huge sale. I think your predictions would likely have to be as commonsensical, i.e., "There's a big increase in tweets about this store, and the sale goes on for a week, therefore I predict a steady increase in tweets about this store." ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:19, 27 Iyar 5771 / 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What about reviewing the whole body of tweets for a postal code, just based on frequency of keywords, would it be possible to identify insightful traits? Insticomplete (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could use it for short-term weather forecasting, if nothing else: rain moving east. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article Data mining is relevant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the bad old '70s when the Vietnam war was raging, and when, to quote Pink Floyd, we had only "13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from", we sometimes saw more war footage in a single hour long program than I've seen broadcast on mainstream news sources in the last 9 years of war. Vietnam was the first war truly broadcast into our living rooms. Now I have about 500 channels, half the soldiers and civilians have cellphones that can take photographs and video, and all I see on the news are unbloody still images with voice overs maybe reading off some casualties. I am not looking to be pointed to sources where I can view material. I am well familiar with off the grid sources such as liveleaks. I am here wondering how this whitewash happened. Did the government go to all the news organizations and say "look what happened in the late sixties and seventies; don't show any blood? Did the heads of the news organizations get together and decide not to show anything for some reason? And where is all the clamor and cry over this glaring lack of coverage? That latter issue really baffles me. How come I don't see the whitewash itself as the biggest news story of the decade?--108.54.17.250 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been extensively researched, see Sharkey, J.E. (2003), "The Television war: unparalleled access and breakthroughs in technology produced riveting live coverage of the war in Iraq. But how complete a picture did TV deliver?", American Journalism Review, 25 (4): 18–27. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with news for profit is that they want to show the people what they want to see, and people only want to see things which reinforce their beliefs. Thus, if a war in unpopular, people may want to see the gory details, as in the case of Vietnam near the end. However, if the war is popular, then people want to see "images of victory", and that's just what they are shown. Now, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the most popular wars, but they are far more popular than Vietnam was. In the case of the Afghan war, at least, there is a clear casus belli (9-11), which was totally lacking in Vietnam. A justifiable war is likely to be more popular. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, although it takes a very UK perspective, 108.54 might be interested in watching Newswipe_with_Charlie_Brooker, and possibly an episode or two of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe. At the very least, they might be interested in the mini-documentaries Adam Curtis made for these series, looking at news reporting. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Vietnam war period is still a catharsis in the American psyche, the Disabled American Veterans being a constant reminder. There are certainly more scenes like this in the present wars but they don't fit the comfortable "soft news" Infotainment profile of US media.
• Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War gained momentum on the coincidences of the maturation of the Baby-Boom Generation determined to redefine traditional values, the civil rights and anti-nuclear movements, and became an unavoidable news story as the re-election bid of an unpopular president collapsed as a result of turmoil within the Democratic Party related to opposition to the Vietnam War. This time around there is a different generation and the simplistic issues of the 60s are mostly solved or burnt out.
• War is no longer a source of exhilerating stories of derring-do told by unimpeachable heroes and magnified by Hollywood. The signs were clearest when Oliver Stone's acclaimed anti-war film Platoon was written partially as a reaction to the John Wayne's cliched depiction of war in terms of "cowboys and indians" The Green Berets. War is uncomfortable to hear about.
• Reporters at the battlefront are ostensibly "embedded" in military units for their own protection, which means they are escorted by Minders who are less concerned with Freedom of the press than the potential propaganda value of what gets reported. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "reaction" 18 years later ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was considerable press freedom in the US Civil War, but Wilson made the press into a government propaganda wing in WW1. Reporters were allowed to report reasonably freely in WW2. Walter Cronkite in 1995 praised the freedom of reportage in WW2,when censorship was understood necessary to prevent active intelligence from being transmitted to the enemy, but there was limited "spin," but criticized the restrictions of the 1990's. During Vietnam, Nixon 's military censored press coverage of the fact that the US was bombing Laos, a fact well known already to the Laotians. After the Vietnam War and before the Gulf War, the US government issued rules limiting coverage depicting US soldiers in extreme pain, mutilated by wounds, etc. The Pentagon was happy to release video of "precison bombs" blowing things up, but did not want images of the human consequences. The US military was unhappy with media coverage of wounded, frightened soldiers and war crimes. The US news media generally supported the war until 1968, but did show some incidents which soured the public on the war. The military blamed "the media" in part for losing the war in Vietnam. They wanted positive propaganda only, to aid the war effort. Reporters were banned from covering the 1983 invasion of Granada, for instance, and the Pentagon issued fictional reports about victories and battles which did not happen. Reporters were kept from covering the US invasion of Panama in 1989. There was limited and heavily censored press coverage of the 1991 Gulf War. This may have been cutback , since some film of unhappy times in Iraq and Afghanistan have been seen. Many governments in the 20th century and after have had similar rules. This is like the rule (recently reversed) against showing US dead soldiers being flown back to the US and the offloading of the coffins from the plane. That rule was imposed during the term of the first President Bush, because TV images of soldiers in flag draped coffins were broadcast in split-screen while Bush was shown in some happy moment. Edison (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that US TV news switched in recent decades from being an "expense" dedicated to showing the important truths to a "profit center" showing what people want to see (anything having to do with celebrity underpants, or lack thereof, apparently). Showing coffins draped in flags is a fave, though, too. This seems reasonable, but not when you consider that they almost never show the coffins of, say, kids who died of cancer. Thus, the public gets the impression that people are being killed right and left in the military, while childhood cancer is only a minor concern, when the reality is the reverse. Even "responsible" news orgs fall into this practice, it seems. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was censorship during the Civil War too. Abraham Lincoln had two New York newspaper editors arrested when they fell victim to a hoax and printed a false story about a new draft. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, like Wilson, sometimes got heavy handed stifling "sedition", but the 1995 Cronkite article says that there were 600 roving reporters during the Civil War, whose reports got telegraphed back to their newspapers for next-day publication. They did not seem to have the "minders" or "embedding" techniques which have more recently aligned press reports with policy. Several cities had papers which criticized government war policies. Edison (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of note that there are two separate censorship issues in war. One is reporting from the front; the other involves home-front discussions about the war itself. It sounds to me like Lincoln had a lot of the former but cracked down on the latter. I don't know about Wilson's approach to home front reporting, but the sedition acts definitely cracked down on the latter in an extraordinarily harsh way. During WWII, it sounds like the restrictions on the former were pretty pared down for the most part. There was press censorship administered more broadly during WWII, but it was entirely voluntary. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cronkite, in his reminiscences, pointed out that the American media in WWII were only allowed to report battlefield information that could reasonably have been assumed to already be known to the enemy. Back to the Civil War, Mathew Brady's exhibit of photos titled "The Dead of Antietam" caused a huge stir, similar to (and for the same reason) as the stir about showing coffin of dead soldiers in the recent war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just up above, in the College Football Coach Salaries question, we were told, no doubt accurately, that "having a successful football team brings the college a lot of money".

To me as a non-American, that's a puzzling fact. How and why does it bring the college a lot of money? Do potential students think they will get a better degree because the football team is good? I don't get that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni are a major source of money for US higher education. They will tend to give more donations if they identify with their college sports team, and they will identify more with it if they regularly get treated to positive news about the team. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget television contracts which are now often negotiated individually. Notre Dame had a $9 million per season contract, for example. Rmhermen (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with some college football teams getting crowds of 50,000-100,000 (look at List of American football stadiums by capacity), the ticket receipts are going to be high. College sports in the USA gets crowds that match professional sports in Europe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Michigan recently mentioned possibly expanding its 110,000 capacity Big House to seat 120,000. Which would move it from third largest stadium in the world to a tie for second largest. 14 of the largest 25 stadiums in the world are for American football - and only one of those is for a professional team. Rmhermen (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the OP: Non-Americans have a hard time understanding the popularity and business of college athletics in the U.S. It's huge. Forget the college and professional distinction for a minute, and just know that college-level sports are as big, if not bigger, than professional-level sports in terms of business and viewership. The second largest US sporting event, in terms of TV viewership, money, and interest is undoubtedly the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, which brings in far more TV viewers than the NBA Playoffs, the equivalent tournament for professional basketball. Now, consider the amount of money that a top-flight professional sports team brings in. For the British people, consider the money made by a Premier League football team. Now, imagine that kind of money going to a University. That is why it is important in America. --Jayron32 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Yes, it is very different from most of the world. As a teacher myself, and one who loves sport, I still just wonder what it all has to do with education. A fascinating funding model. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the actual money such sports bring in (much of which is actually recycled back to the athletics program, but some does make it back to the classroom directly) there is also the way in which sports can raise the profile of a University and attract students, faculty, and money in non-sports related ways as well. Consider the case study of the University of Notre Dame. It is today one of the best endowed, and larger, private Universities in the U.S. It is well regarded, academically. But prior to the 1910's, it was a tiny little catholic college, attracting mostly a small group of local students and not a major national university. On November 1, 1913 Army, then a major college football power, scheduled Notre Dame as a warm up game, literally playing a nobody team just to warm themselves up for the rest of the season. Notre Dame beat Army, and became the pre-eminent college football program for the next 70 years. When a student from the Bronx or Los Angeles or anywhere else in the U.S. applies to study at Notre Dame, when a major researcher establishes a laboratory there, etc. etc., they do so because of the name recognition that Notre Dame has specifically for its football team. Without having had football success, Notre Dame would be no different from, say, Rockhurst University or Stonehill College or St. Edward's University or any of a bunch of other nice, little, catholic universities in the U.S. The reason that kids from Los Angeles or Chicago or The Bronx don't apply to attend Stonehill College or Rockhurst University like they do to Notre Dame is because of sports, even if they don't play them. --Jayron32 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've known many adults in the US who did not attend a particular college (or any college) who cheer for that football (or basketball) team. An example is residents of Michigan or Ohio following U. of Michigan or Ohio State sports, respectively, while "hating" the other state's team. An admissions officer at a Big Ten school said years ago that after the team went to a major national postseason game (such as the Rose Bowl), applications from around the US increased dramatically the next year. Edison (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- it's a marketing thing. The same reason why companies like Frito-Lay sponsor bowl games. You're getting your name out. That said, money isn't the only reason colleges sponsor football programs. Georgia State University launched one partly in an attempt to be a real campus with a sense of community rather than just a "commuter school." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Jayron indicates, it has to do with branding and prestige. The professional parallel is the prestige enjoyed by cities that have professional teams. That's why cities are willing to build stadiums for them, in contrast with the "old days" when teams built their own facilities or leased already-existing facilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For once I kind of have to agree with HiLo. It is really odd, and it distorts the academic mission of the university. The NFL should set up a minor league rather than using schools for it, and the universities should let real students play ball, as an extracurricular activity subordinate to their studies.

I've been at both ends of the spectrum — my undergrad school has a basketball team that just broke a two-decade-plus conference losing streak, whereas my grad school holds, if I recall correctly, the absolute record for total NCAA championships in all sports combined. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL absolutely should have a minor league system so kids who are more interested in making money than in getting an education can't mess up the system. But even if there was an equivalent to baseball's minor leagues, college football wouldn't disappear. It's too ingrained in the campus culture. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, or at least were, minor professional football leagues around, but they are not a "farm system". The current system stays (for both football and basketball) because the people running it have no motivation to change it. That's not to say it will never change. The ever-increasing one-and-out approach to basketball, in particular, could lead to a revamp of the "amateurism" rules in order to keep players in school longer. The NFL, however, has - or used to have - a rule that required that a college player's class had to graduate before he could join the NFL. That was the Red Grange rule. That was the 1920s, when college football was huge and professional football was little more than a curiosity. Baseball is different, of course, as they've used professional farm teams since before the turn of the 19th->20th century. Even college baseball stars get sent to the minors first, generally speaking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is arena football, but I don't know if that is quite the same thing, though I think Kurt Warner for one played there before making it to the NFL. Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction would be that that's just another league, as with the Canadian Football League, whereas the colleges (and baseball's minor leagues) are the primary "farm systems" for the top-level professional leagues. Player development occurs during junior high, high school and college. Then the pros choose what they consider to be the cream of the crop. A player in arena football might get a look, but that's more haphazard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there is no minor league football and basketball, but there is a strong minor league baseball and hockey is that baseball and hockey were professional sports before they were college sports, while football and basketball were college sports before they were professional sports. Just looking at when things started: The National League (baseball) dates from 1876 and the Stanley Cup has been contested by professional teams exclusively since 1915. On the other hand, college football was well organized before 1900, while the NFL didn't start until 1920. Likewise, college basketball became organized in the 1910s, the NBA is less than 60 years old. Its a case of the college sports in Basketball and Football having a longer tradition than the professional game. Inertia is why there aren't viable farm systems in basketball and football like there are in baseball and hockey. --Jayron32 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these helium balloons? How is this done? also, there are gaps in between the balloons.

http://delectablesinc.com/gallery/lrg_decoration.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that yes, these are helium balloons, and they are threaded on a very thing string, e.g. a transparent monofilament fishing line that is effectively invisible in the image (and probably hard to see even in reality). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the string on the far right of the photo, where it crosses in front of the black speakers. You can also see it on the left where it passes in front of the wood of a chair (third balloon). And you can just see it crossing between the second and third balloon in the strand to the middle-right of the image. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The longest I must've pedaled was maybe 10-15 miles. I plan on packing a bunch of drinks, and maybe some snacks.

My Gary Fisher has two baskets, and a water bottle holder. I will also wear a backpack, and the baskets will have a duffel bag and some extra water bottles and jugs.

I was told not to wear cotton; in order to release more heat, I must try another material. (What was it again? Anything that's slick, right?)

I wasn't going to even think about this until I got my new Xperia Play smartphone, which is equipped with turn-by-turn navigation. (Therefore, I'll be secure in not getting lost.)

The reasons I'm doing this is so I save money on gas (at $3.65/gallon nowadays, I have better places to put my cash) and trim my waistline.

How many pounds do I stand to lose if I pedal this long, at an average of 10 MPH? (Pedaling with a heavier load means more calories burned, after all.) I weigh 198, am about 6'0", and must fall below 182 lbs in order to no longer be overweight.

This is the planned route.

I have some spare tubes packed in the bike's spare items holder, plus some other tools just in case.

Now, what else must I make sure of in order to do this safely? When I stop at the stops along the way, what must I drink (if other than water) and what food items are best for an undertaking like this? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're serious, I would strongly advise you not to attempt this unless you have some sort of bail-out option. A person who has never ridden more than 15 miles is simply not in shape to do 90. At best you will find that somewhere around the 40 mile mark the pain you are experiencing (probably in the crotch area) will make it impossible for you to continue. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note however that this is one of our users who is notorious for asking frivolous questions, so I suspect it isn't really serious. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although learning to cycle long distances may be an okay way to start to get in shape if you plan to join the Korean armed forces. Not to mention if you're really, really good at it you may be able to make money although it wouldn't be quick or easy Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you need to ramp up to that level or you will be in serious trouble midway through. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for our non-American readers who may be familiar with Manhattan, New York, I feel I should point out that there is also a Manhattan, Kansas which the OP did not explicitly point out. Dismas|^(talk) 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The kind of bicycling your talking about is Bicycle touring. I strongly suggest you do not wear a backpack, it will become sweaty and uncomfortable rapidly. If you look at a touring bicycle you'll notice they try to keep the weight as low as possible; but, baskets are fine. You ought to carry tubes, a pump and tools. You also may wish to carry bicycle lights, a high visibility vest or costume with reflective bits on it (or just something white). You can check online for long distance bicycle routes that have been confirmed as safe, flat or beautiful by other bicyclists. I suggest that you start with a 20km (10mi) cycle. Then a 40km. Then an 80km. While it is possible to pedal 9 hours, you'll find your average rate of travel is less than you think. I also suggest that you wear bicycle pants if you value your inner thighs. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above. Work your way up to 90, and get padded shorts/pants. Start early in the day, morning when it is still cool for it will probably take you several hours. Don't attempt unless you are already conformable with 50 mile rides.AerobicFox (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A gel saddle-cover[5] will help ease the pain too! A simple guide to cycle touring nutrition is here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gel saddles and covers are generally not recommended for long-distance riding. They are comfortable only for short distances. Most serious riders use padded bicycle pants and a rather firm saddle - many like Brooks saddles, although there are many more modern options. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected - I must admit to having never used one over a long distance. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit: Gel saddles or paddings work by distributing the pressure equally over the contact area, so that you do not have unpleasant high pressure at any particular spot. That feels comfortable. But for long-distance riding, even the lower pressure is inacceptable for sensitive parts. So you want to concentrate the force on and around the area of the sit bones, which can take it. That causes some initial discomfort if you are not used to it, but protects more sensitive areas in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few one-day rides of 90 miles or more (in my day). I agree with everyone else that you should not carry a backpack. You need to pack your gear on the bike, preferably in panniers. Also, you don't need to and really shouldn't carry all of the water that you need for your ride. It will just weigh you down and make you work harder. You aren't crossing a desert, so you should stop along the way at gas stations and such for water. I also emphatically recommend that you train for the ride. You should get out and ride 10 or 20 miles a day after work about 3 days a week. (Go with 5-10 miles a day your first week, 10-15 miles a day your second week, and 15-20 miles a day your third week, for example.) Then on weekends, do longer rides. On your first weekend, try for 20-25 miles. On your second weekend, 30-40 miles. Do this for at least 5 and preferably 6 weeks. Finally, do at least an 80-mile practice ride (40 miles out, 40 miles back) the weekend before your planned 90-mile trip. Then you will be able to make the trip safely and enjoyably. By the way, even if you were miraculously able to ride 90 miles without any training, you would not lose 16 pounds. Maybe you would lose 2 pounds. However, if you train for 6 weeks and then ride 90 miles, while avoiding overeating, you might come close to losing 16 pounds. However, this is my nonexpert opinion, and if you want medical advice, you need to ask a doctor. Marco polo (talk)

I agree with Marco Polo. I also think you would not be able to do 90 miles in one day. It will take you two, three, or four days. So you need to plan for overnight stops. 2.97.220.135 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean that someone who has never before done a 90-mile ride probably won't be able to do 90 miles in one day, not that such a feat is impossible (or necessarily even overly difficult). A quick look at Google Maps confirms the stereotype that Kansas is mostly farmland; it ought to be very easy, flat riding, and there won't be the frequent stops and delays of city traffic. While 90 miles is a long day on the bike, it's certainly not an unreasonable distance to cover if one has fair weather and an early start. There's no way to stretch the trip out to four days unless one stops for sightseeing (?!) for many hours of the day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not SPAM) If I'm looking for some new sex positions/ideas but I find the ones that are featured as articles on Wikipedia to be either so odd so as to be ridiculous or so similar to one another so as to be altogether worthless, where can I go to find others? Perhaps someone can suggest things I can look up? 173.54.197.75 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go find a copy of this Kama Sutra, some are a little acrobatic, but the attempt can be almost as fun, lol. Heiro 05:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an adult bookstore near you? They'd likely have a book or position-of-the-day calendar. Just thumbing through the book in the store may be enough of an inspiration. Dismas|^(talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new sex positions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We tried something once that was incredibly strenuous and left us dizzy and light-headed. Turned out the page was printed upside down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would not have run the Marathon of Mounting or climbed the Parnassus of Polyerotic Passion, Cuddlyable3. The OP clearly has not, and wants some ideas he/she hasn't tried yet. If you've tried every possible sex position, you deserve a medal or something. Here, have a whisky, you must be shagged out (probably literally). On second thoughts, you'd probably prefer something soft rather than a stiff drink, after all your exertions.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, but the Good Vibrations Guide to Sex is a pretty great book for this sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ref deskers, I am planning a road trip. In a couple of weeks my girlfriend and I will be driving from Long Island up towards Vermont. Right now the itinerary for this 5 (ish) day trip is pretty open. We plan on staying in the Burlington area for at least a couple of days and would like to make it over to the Maine coast at some point, but aside from that we are open to pretty much anything. For I time I was set on going to Montreal as I have never been to Canada, but I've been told that it doesn't have much that Manhattan (Where she lives and I will be staying for a month or so) doesn't. We are both interested in landscapes (I have a particular interest in post industrial ruins and what not) and like hiking/walking (I don't care for steep climbs, but she's in better shape, so I might have to keep up in a sweaty, wheezy way). I also like good twisty roads to drive on, although we wont be in a serious car. If anyone has any kinds of recommendations either for nice places to stay (less than $150 a night) or unusual cool things to do I would be very interested in hearing about them. Thanks!--Daniel 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Burlington. How are you planning on getting to Maine? If you're taking I-89 from B'ton, then you could take it as far as Montpelier and then get on Rt. 2. Between Montpelier and St. Johnsbury is very scenic. There's the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, if you're into that kind of thing. If you like dogs, then there's also Dog Mountain in St. J. It's the studio of the late Stephen Huneck. He was an avid fan of dogs and used them in his artwork extensively. Heading over to New Hampshire, though it's way off the interstate, there is Mount Washington. Even a non-serious (whatever that is) car should be able to make it up to the top. Where in Maine are you going? Knowing that and how you plan to get there (interstate, state routes, etc), I could advise a bit better. Do you need recommendations on things to do in B'ton? Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you drive to the top of Mt. Washington, you can park there and do some fairly easy hikes with spectacular views over the White Mountains. That way, your car does the steep uphill part for you. If you are going to head for the Maine coast, I strongly recommend Acadia National Park, which in my opinion has the most beautiful natural landscape on the east coast. There, too, you can do some easy but very scenic hikes if you park in one of the higher-altitude lots. Northern New England doesn't have so much in the way of post-industrial ruins, though you can see old, abandoned brick mills (factories) in towns like Skowhegan and Waterville, Maine. If you are looking for post-industrial ruins, you might want to make stops farther south on your way back in cities like Manchester, New Hampshire or Lawrence, Massachusetts. By the way, I live near Boston, for what that's worth. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-industrial ruins, you say? A Google search for 'Vermont Urban Exploration' turns up a lot of good hints. There are a couple of abandoned places that look promising, but also a couple that look a little dangerous. Foofish (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like great natural views with a relatively easy hike, let me recommend the Flume Gorge in Franconia Notch (See [6]). Also, if you are heading across New Hampshire, you really can't get a better, more scenic drive than the Kancamagus Highway. Lots of great pull-offs, scenic vistas. Beautiful stuff. Also, if your going to be in the area of Franconia Notch anyways (essentially Lincoln, New Hampshire and Woodstock, New Hampshire) I'd also recommend Clark's Trading Post (see [7]). Great, kitschy roadside attraction stuff. They have some shows (trained Black Bears, Chinese Acrobats, that kind of stuff) and a bunch of other Americana type attractions, old motorcycles and cars, cool stuff like that. Worth a stop for a few hours. --Jayron32 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For great reading material about Vermont there is E. Annie Proulx's Postcards (novel). It is a story spanning the United States but centrally featuring Vermont set in mid twentieth century. Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, Japan, and Austria Rich as in 30k per capita+

Why are those three countries so rural compared to everyone else?

Insticomplete (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo is rural??? What stats do you cite as the basis for your premise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanization by country Insticomplete (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key here may be the statement that "urban population describes the percentage of the total population living in urban areas, as defined by the country" (my emphasis). Different countries may simply use radically different definitions, which would make the list virtually valueless. As Colapeninsula rightly says below. Oops. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland and Austria are largely rural, with low population densities (see List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density) - the west of Ireland is largely undeveloped, and the west of Austria is the Alps. Why Japan is so low on the urbanization list is a mystery to me, as its population density is very high, the country is intensively developed, and I don't believe there's much countryside.

NationMaster, which has similar figures for urbanization by country, says that the definition of urbanization varies from country to country: "Urban-rural classification of population in internationally published statistics follows the national census definition, which differs from one country or area to another. National definitions are usually based on criteria that may include any of the following: size of population in a locality, population density, distance between built-up areas, predominant type of economic activity, legal or administrative boundaries and urban characteristics such as specific services and facilities." [8] So it is possible that Japan uses a very different criterion; the figures for different nations can't be directly compared because they're not using the same measure of urbanization. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terrain of Ireland is not conducive to building large cities, being either very coastal or quite rough, boggy and/or rocky. What land there is, is good farming land. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's commitment to conserving its undeveloped spaces has been noted by several folks (I'm positive Jared Diamond mentioned it at length, though I'm not sure whether it was in Collapse or something else). The short answer is: they've chosen to value those areas and so haven't allowed them to be developed, instead preferring to build vertically. It's a little bit like New York state, where New York City is obviously intensely urbanized, but large areas are left wild and/or rural. Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clue to this puzzle could be at Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan: "Only 15% of Japan's land is suitable for cultivation... Employment in agriculture... was still the largest employer (about 50 % of the work force) by the end of World War II. It (had) declined to 7.2% in 1988." The equivelant figure in the UK is 71% of land under cultivation and 1.6% of the population employed in agriculture. But in Japan we learn that "In the late 1980s, 85.5% of Japan's farmers were also engaged in occupations outside of farming.." So most Japanese farmers have second jobs but make it look as though the countryside is full of farmers. Also, up to 85% of Japan must be mountainous and have a very small population. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As others have suggested, it seems that Japan has an anomalous way of defining urban and rural areas. According to this note from Japan's statistical bureau, urban areas are those that are defined administratively as shi, probably also including Tokyo, which has its own unique adminstrative status. According to our article, a place must have a minimum population of 50,000 (or 30,000 under special circumstances) to qualify as an urban area (shi) in Japan. By contrast, in the United States, a place with more than 2,500 inhabitants is considered urban. All gun, or districts not designated as cities, are considered rural. These rural areas include places such as Kitaadachi-gun, which has a population of about 37,000 and a population density of about 2,500 per square kilometer (or about 6,450 per square mile). It is 30 miles from central Tokyo in a patchwork landscape of dense industrial and residential development and scattered farmed plots. This "rural" area is twice as densely populated as, for example, Phoenix, Arizona. So, Japan's definition of urban and rural areas overstates its rural population compared to other countries. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of something Freddie Prinze once said: That his father came from a large European city, population 3 million; while his mother came from a small Puerto Rican village, population also 3 million. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland was once quite densely populated, but what with all the plague, the famines, our invading every few years, most of them moving to Liverpool or America, there are hardly any left now. Meanwhile, it seems Japan has such densely populated inner city areas that to them anywhere suburban seems empty and rural. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. "Many young men of 20 said goodbye..." And this from Finian's Rainbow: Finian - What does America have more of than Ireland? Sharon - Irishmen! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, thanks to the outsourcing phenomenon, Ireland has become more prosperous, hence skewing the numbers compared with what they once were. Japan is more like Freddie Prinze's Puerto Rico scenario. That's true in the US as well. Truly rural folks think of a city of 50,000 as large. Truly urban folks think of a city of 50,000 as small. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for these logical fallacies:  ?

1.

"A" is known by means of "B" , therefore "B" is the cause of "A"

Example: We know of person X's death from the newspaper. Gosh, those reporters need to stop killing people!

2.

"A" is known by means of knowledge of "B" , therefore "B" is the cause of "A"

Example: The energy released in a nuclear reaction can be determined by measuring the mass deficit. Therefore the mass deficit explains the occurrence of the reaction.

129.2.46.176 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Nightvid[reply]

"Wrong direction" might be close, although it doesn't really capture the "known by means of" aspect ("shooting the messenger" probably handles that one, though it's not usually considered a logical fallacy). -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a fun question to invent a fake answer for. I'd like the name "tabloid fallacy" if I were making it up. i kan reed (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to take a look at Correlation does not imply causation, which discusses a number of variants. Deor (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to explain that one. I don't see any necessary correlation in his examples. i kan reed (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc seems to be in there too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Russians so good at chess? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to find a country without good chess players... they just had more active players... Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union included chess as one of their "mass participation" sports (massovost) which were highly encouraged at all levels of education, highly coordinated centrally, and sought to identify and cultivate exceptional talent very early on (gymnastics was another such sport). (Why? Because Lenin personally thought chess improved the mind, helped people think tactically, and that otherwise it would be the sort of thing that a "new Soviet man" ought to be good at.) The result is that when this system was applied to the large and varied population of the USSR, they were able to find great numbers of exceptional talent — talent that, under other regimes, might have gone unnoticed or unencouraged. I don't know much about how Soviet chess suffered after the collapse of the USSR, but I wouldn't be surprised if either it suffered, or if the system persisted. Either way, though, the fact that chess is a major part of Russian education and popular life (as opposed to the United States, where it is considered a game for "nerds" and old people) would lead one to expect that identifying expert chess players would continue to persist to some degree, at least when compared to places like the US. (I think it should be obvious, but there is absolutely zero reason to suspect Russian historical dominance in chess has anything to do with innate ability.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Mr98 says is certainly the primary reason: it's encouraged there (same reason most great football players come from the U.S.) Maybe the more interesting question, do we have any insight into Stalin's encouragement of chess, and did it begin before Stalin? Is there something about chess and Russian culture that predates it? Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (American) football claim is not true with a straight link to football, where nearly all of the best players come from outside the U.S! That was a poor analogy, since Russian chess is the same game as American chess. Dbfirs 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely began before Stalin — Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky was apparently the main force behind encouraging Soviet chess, with Lenin's blessing. More curious to me is what happened to Soviet chess once Stalin started persecuting old Bolsheviks (including Ilyin-Genevsky) and everything associated with them. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that many of the grandmasters from the USSR and the former Soviet Union were Jewish or of Jewish ancestry, including Garry Kasparov (born Garry Weinstein). Chess goes well with the bookish, intellectual side of Jewish culture, and you can play it on the sabbath. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone is aware of research or studies regarding decision making. I was wondering if you had say 10 clones of someone and put each into the same situation individually, if you could expect them to always make the same decision. Also on top of that, if the clones were aware of each other, would that affect their decision making. I guess this has kind of a sci-fi bent to it, so if anyone is aware of movies or stories that have dealt with the situation, that would be cool too. Thanks! 129.128.216.107 (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link and this article may be of interest. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identical twins are clones, and they typically have distinct personalities and traits, they just happen to look alike. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume these "clones" would have be insta-clones, preprogrammed with exactly the same memories as you. Otherwise it's really a very different question. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Determinism, the metaphysical notion that if you rewound the world and pressed "play" it would turn out exactly the same (i.e. that a clone would make the same choices a million times in a row); and indeterminism, the idea that you would make different choices even if presented with the same options (i.e. saying that a clone would make different choices). Some interesting studies are linked (or should be) from those pages. Just another angle to consider :) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of any empirical studies on this topic are due to the fact that it would require science fiction technology (setting up identical clones with identical brainstates) to carry out. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a trope of SciFi tho. Can we say Neo? Heiro 06:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are specimens of Kareem Abdul Jabbar's DNA in cold storage. They are hoping someday to create an Iced Kareem Clone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groan, that's terrible Bugs. Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of this weapon once, which sounded like guitar... anyone know what it is? I asked my dm and he said it was pronounced "katar" Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of a katara? Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps katana? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a katara. It's called a "katar" in serveral D&D-like games - I know in Diablo 2 the assassin character uses a katar. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:26, 28 Iyar 5771 / 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kataras are probably underpowered in AD&D Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er that's about katanas not kataras Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the katara, though I'm not quite sure... I'm sure it wasn't a katana. Thanks for the help! Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I write Arabian-style music for the desert level in a video game that I'm making? What styles, rhythms, etc. are common in Arabian music? The standard MIDI filter doesn't appear to have any Arabian instruments, so what Western instruments can I use to best approximate them? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather broad topic. The Arabic music article should get you started. One difficulty you're likely to encounter is that many MIDI systems are just designed to handle 12-tone equal temperament, so they can't handle the Arab tone system except for hardware and software that supports the MIDI Tuning Standard. Red Act (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it often just use the Western harmonic minor? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some maqams that don't include quarter tones, such as the Nahawand, can be performed on 12-TET instruments, although there are microtonal details of the maqam that are lost in the process; see Arabian maqam#Intonation. Red Act (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually had this exact problem before. I think it's more important to sound like what western listeners think arabian music sounds like than the real thing for desertish music. This means a lot of smooth, stepwise wind panflutelike instruments. Skipwise variations work better on your way down a scale than up. Harmonize with something buzzing and stringy, like a dulcimer. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the scale I've found is best for this. My experience was to go with a really simple chord progression like i-iv, but that's just because I wanted to focus on getting the basics right. I'm not sure its necessary. Also, video game music has some special constraints, it's important to check out games that have done this well. If I wasn't at work, I'd find some copyright infringing youtube videos of some of the best simple desert music. The neverwinter nights expansion: "Shadows of Undrentide" did very well at this in my opinion. Also, you can't miss sands of time series, as the battle themes there catch the feel of tense arabian music quite well. And since I'm hocking my own ridiculous ideas here, you can get an impression of how amateur I am at this from the music I made myselfhere(GPL). It's short, but I only had a week to do about 12 songs for that game. i kan reed (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the cost of establishing an university in the US? --999Zot (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there's any minimum. However:

1) Getting accreditation likely costs a fair amount of money, as their minimum requirements would force you to build certain facilities.

2) A brick-and-mortar university, as opposed to an Internet-only one, is likely to be more expensive to set up.

3) Buying a failing university is probably the quickest way, and possible the cheapest way, to get your own. StuRat (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably comparable to the cost of building a think tank. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you combine the two you must have some cost savings Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far more expensive than a think tank. You can have a very small think tank and it could still be worth having. A university needs to be much larger, since you need to be able to provide for students. --Tango (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all that you'd have to actually aquire some research/teaching talent. Even in "overfilled" markets like the English or History, PhD's don't come cheap. Your yearly costs would very very quickly outpace any initial invetment costs. i kan reed (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at the moment you can hire �a new PhD in History for ~$35-50K. Not cheap but not exactly expensive for that level of education. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't exactly staff your university with nothing but post-docs either. Morever, as I implied, history is one of the very cheapest fields to pull staff for. i kan reed (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are the internet, how about an on-line university? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid in the 1970s, my mother had an electrically powered machine for ironing sheets. It basically consisted of two wide rollers and a foot pedal. She would stand in front of this thing, feed the sheets between the rollers one by one, operate the foot pedal and hey presto, a beautifully pressed sheet came out the other side. I've never seen or heard of a similar machine anywhere else, though, which is a pity because it was a pretty cool contraption. (I imagine hotels must still use something like this on a larger scale.) Does anyone else remember these devices? Are they still in domestic use anywhere, and if not when and why did they die out? --Viennese Waltz 07:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a rotary iron. We don't have an article on rotary irons, and the Iron (appliance) article doesn't mention them, but they are mentioned in passing at Ironing#Commercial equipment. It's still possible to buy a new consumer-grade rotary iron,[9] although they aren't cheap. Red Act (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. One of the comments in your Amazon link got me searching and it turns out that this is actually a mangle. There's a brief mention of electrical mangles in that article, and the main manufacturer back in the day seemed to be Ironrite according to a webpage I can't link to here because it's on Wikipedia's blacklist. --Viennese Waltz 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a picture Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC) >>>>[reply]

Hey, thanks. I should probably add that to the mangle article. My mother's one was a lot smaller than that though. I seem to remember it was a table-top thing rather than being free-standing. --Viennese Waltz 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they're not around much anymore. According to this article, even excommunication won't get rid of them... Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one the Miele 990, beautiful! Richard Avery (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using these on a cargo ship a couple of years ago, magic, but beware of zip or buttons, they get flattened to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.169.124 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flattened to what? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, to-dimensional objects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owe, eye sea. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or OIC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have such a mangle in the basement. Doesn't everyone? They were very common in the 1950's, which is the vintage of mine. Edison (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The vintage of mine"? They didn't talk like that back then. Witness the "progress" of language.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as all the major telecom service providers have the prepaid and post paid system of payments,is it possible to merge them as one? will it be beneficial to the customer and company? any comment would be appreciated.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.69.36 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in that some customers pre-pay for their phone and some pay monthly/are billed? It would be beneficial for the company if there was only 1 way because it would mean they were more likely to be able to streamline their back-office processes. If pre-pay were number 1 it would also have an affect on their capital holdings (is tha the right term - basically how much they have in the bank) because they'd be getting all that money upfront, whereas with pay later they'd be owed the money (increasing the risk of bad debtors etc.). From a consumer perspective - it wouldn't be beneficial beyond simplifying the understanding of how things work. The reality is that some consumers wants to pay upfront (e.g. myself) so they can (amongst other things) control their spending on phones and some people want to pay later (like my friends) because they get a nice phone, don't have to think about credit and can pay the bill off on pay-day rathe than worrying about whether they'll have £10 to put on their phone a week before payday (again, amongst other reasons). ny156uk (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read my comment...obviously any simplification and cost-saving could potentially be passed onto customers too so theoretically less choice could result in lower cost services in general. ny156uk (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most telecom companies give a discount for pre-payment and direct debit because of the admin savings, and they often try to persuade post-payment customers to switch payment methods, but if some customers prefer post-payment, then it is not in the companies' interests to lose those customers. Dbfirs 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently won an auction on eBay and paid immediately. I waited over a week for the seller to claim the payment, which he never did. I contacted the seller and he never answered any of my messages so I canceled the payment. However, the item is now in the reminders section of my account under items that need to be payed for. Is there anything I can do about that?--ChromeWire (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try browsing this section on eBay's site, then use the "Contact Us" feature on the same page to see what to do next. --McDoobAU93 17:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any places in Europe especially associated with Chrysanthemums, specifically places where a lot grow? (I'm looking for a city or a town) I need this for a story I'm writing. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey in the Channel Islands grow a lot of flowers (including chrysanthemums, I suspect) for the UK market - they're a lot further south than the rest of us. They have an annual festival called the Jersey Battle of Flowers. See also Spalding, Lincolnshire. Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thwe place where I live is quite different. My TV chanels change on me when I am watching it. The phone is like someone picks it up when I am on it and listens to my conversation. I always have a coaster on my desk where my computer is and this morning, my coaster for my cip was gone and when I came back in the room, my coaster was back on my desk. The thermostat on the furnace keepd changing on me, by itself. I don't think this is because I am a older person, as other people hane seen these things, as well as me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.215.145 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sort of things some people attribute to ghosts, People have told me so called ghost stories about with very similar events. People usually aren't open to simple materialistic explanations for this kind of stuff, but I would certainly apply occam's razor before jumping to any conclusions about the supernatural. What you describe could generally be choked up to faulty electrics and mistaken memories. --Daniel 23:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is "chalked up", not choked up. As in marks being made under a heading with a piece of chalk. Dismas|^(talk) 02:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same stuff happens to me all of the time. Everywhere. So I know, either the world is full of ghosts, poltergeists, aliens, men in black tapping my phone or as the previous poster suggested, its my faulty electrics and mistaken memories. Heiro 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The electronics things can be blamed on the electronics. The physical things can be caused by your own faulty memory, after all, human memory isn't perfect. I used to live in an old farmhouse in which the exterior doors didn't lock. I'd come home to things being moved around every so often. I just blamed it on my landlord's kids being nosy during a time of day when they knew I wouldn't be home. Dismas|^(talk) 02:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If life has suddenly become perplexing, in that you suspect that mysterious entities are messing with your stuff, you might wish to discuss this with a trusted adviser or your doctor. Edison (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you recently get married to a suspicious and occasionally annoying spouse? Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some research on Stephan Hawking and discovered that he has three children. I understand that in vitro fertilization could be possible but usual involves a man ejaculating into a cup but can you get an erect penis with ALS to do the actual act of ejaculating into a cup?