Miscellaneous desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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

December 29[edit]

brown spit[edit]

This question has been removed as it requests medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional so we implore you to try them instead. Thank you and happy editing. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

What is Tenma from School Rumble's birthday? 119.95.242.147 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to ja:スクールランブルの登場人物#2年C組女子 it's November 30. And her blood type is B. -- BenRG (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitch Hiking[edit]

I was wondering, has anyone ever worked out what is more dangerous statistically, hitchhiking or giving a hitchiker a ride? TastyCakes (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. First of all, I very much doubt that there are reliable and comprehensive statistics on this, because incidents where either the hitchhiker or the driver assault the other person probably don't get reported a lot of the time, and when they do, I doubt they show up in any statistics are hitchhiking-related crimes -- it'd just be an assault (or whatever the crime itself turns out to be). It'd be very difficult, if not impossible for anyone to collect statistics on those without examining each case to see if a hitchhiker was involved in it, and then it might not even show up in the paperwork.

Also, hitchhiking is considered dangerous not only because someone might stop with bad intentions, but because you might get hit by a car when you're standing on the side of a highway -- but those incidents certainly wouldn't show up as a hitchhiking-related statistic.

Personally, I think the dangers of hitchhiking are probably greatly exaggerated, as they usually are with things like this -- which is not to say that people shouldn't be careful whose cars they get into or who they pick up, of course. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably giving a hitch-hiker a ride; he/she could be a killer or even- a vanishing hitchhiker! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but hitchhiking is definitely much rarer than it was. When I was a student 25 years ago, I hitchhiked a lot (to save the train fare for more drinking money :-)). Later, when I first got a job and a car, I often picked up hitchhikers, usually for the company. I never had a problem; most drivers were pleasant enough and when I was driving, I had someone to talk to on a long trip. The only "rules" I adopted were to not say exactly where I was headed until we had chatted for a while - it gave me a chance to get out or dump the hitchhiker if I felt unconfortable; and to never get a lift from or pick up more than one person. However, all the hitchhikers seem to have disappeared. I only recall having seen one person hitching in the past 15 years or so. I think too many people are afraid of them being some kind of psycho-killer. Astronaut (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the odd hitcher here in the UK, and in theory I'd usually be happy to pick them up. However, perhaps because they're non-drivers, they often seem to stand in a stupid place where I have no chance to safely stop, like the middle of a motorway junction. The greater speed of traffic these days also means that by the time I've registered their presence, established that I'm in a generous mood and prepared to give them a lift, and checked the traffic, I'm so far down the road that it's not really possible. PeteVerdon (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

names of continents[edit]

hi in world totally how many continent are have?.and what are their names?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karganapathy (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 continents: Europe, Asia, America, Africa, Australia (or Australasia or Oceania), Antarctica. Simonschaim (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do like is how they all begin and end with the same letter (well the letter they start with). It seems to depend on when/where you were taught though. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Continent Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two areas of dispute:

1) Are North America and South America the same continent ? I say no to this, based on the isthmus (at the Panama Canal) between the two being only 50 miles wide and the two having distinct tectonic plates.

2) Are Europe and Asia the same continent ? I say yes, based on the isthmus (if you can even call something so huge an isthmus), being thousands of miles across and them sharing the same tectonic plate.

So, depending on how you answer those two Q's, you get from 5 to 7 continents. StuRat (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two areas of dispute! Can Oceania be considered a continent? Not by continental geography. The Australian continent does not include the region of Oceania. Some of that is on Zealandia (which doesn't begin and end with the same letter, so perhaps we can discount it). And what of Madagascar? Greenland? Iceland? Gwinva (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania considered a continent ? On what basis ? The Pacific Plate is an oceanic plate, not a continental plate. Madagascar is part of the African Plate and Greenland is part of the North American Plate. Iceland is way too small to be considered a continent. If Zeelandia ever was a continent, it certainly isn't any more. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're begging the question by assuming that tectonic plate boundaries are a key criteria for determining continents (it isn't once mentioned at Continent#Separation_of_continents). Is India is a separate continent, due to it being on a different plate from the rest of Asia? How about Central America, which is on the Caribbean Plate? Are Hokkaido and the Kamchatka Peninsula part of Asia or North America? (They're on the North American Plate.) Additionally, I'd contend the oceanic/continental distinction really only makes sense for crust material, not plates as a whole. The Atlantic is entirely on "continental plates" (North American, South American, Eurasian, and African), despite clearly being an ocean, and clearly lying over oceanic crustal rocks. In fact the only ocean that's over an "oceanic plate" is the Pacific. The Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic are all over plates with continents on them. At any rate, we have a nice table at Continent#Number_of_continents, with a very apt observation at the top of the Continent article "[Continents] are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria." -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the tectonic plates as the only criteria, but also included large contiguous regions in the same continent, with exceptions for very narrow land bridges, as at Suez and Panama. Being identified by "convention rather than strict criteria" simply means "it's that way because somebody said it should be", which seems most unscientific to me. Much as Pluto was considered a planet "by convention", but was later reclassified, we can do the same for the continents. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busking in Europe[edit]

I´m a puppeteer busker and am considering doing a tour through Europe but not sure which countries or cities allow busking or which ones would be most profitable... Any light on the matter would be appreciated... Thankyou 83.37.15.27 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join all the others on the South of France in the summer. Lots of pavement artists (and one can sleep on the beach.) Most seem to start at one end, say Nice, and move along from town to town. Lucrative I am told.86.216.251.55 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Barcelona allows licensed performers on Las Ramblas. Competition is extremely fierce. One thing might be to get together with someone with an existing license or apply as a group with others. Unlicensed performers can be found around the magic fountain [1]. They are tolerated to a certain degree. In Germany the season is extremely short and authorities frequently clamp down on busking. You'd probably do better applying at local "Kneipe" pubs [2](taverns?!) many of which will let you perform if you are good enough to increase their profits. For puppeteering there frequently are "Theaterfestival" [3] events in summer. You'll have to apply with the local authorities or risk finding a slot on the fringe. Local "Kindertheater" [4] theaters for children might offer you a gig. Another possibility might be a "Kinderzirkus" [5] circus. You'd need some rudimentary German there since the focus would be on teaching kids to puppeteer and maybe make their own (sock-) puppets. A bit more challenging financially would be renting a room at local schools or a local "Jugendzentrum" youth center [6]. You'd have to get posters printed at a copy shop and there would be no guarantee that you'd make a profit after paying the rent. Some small village places, though might let you have a room for free. Be sure to collect references / letters of reference they can open doors for you. Germans are sticklers for paperwork. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a love-hate relationship with buskers, Transport for London has allowed official busking at designated pitches on the Tube for the past few years. You will probably have to apply well in advance and maybe attend an audition. More details here. Outside of the Tube, there's a well known outside performance space at Covent Garden, but again you have to deal with some officialdom. Elsewhere, I think it is less certain, with the police only too ready to move you on, especially if you (or your audience) are obstructing the flow of pedestrians or vehicles, or if someone (shop owner, cafe owner, etc.)) has made a complaint; and there's also the rather variable weather to contend with.

Outside London, street performers are rarer but not unheard of. Probably the best way would be to contact the local council (see Category:Local authorities of England - their websites are usually nameofcouncil.gov.uk) and ask about street performers in their area. Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look out for festivals that have a street theatre component. I'm sure that street theatre performers are more welcome than buskers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're going to need a particular kind of spot in order to do well with puppets. For example, in the London Underground (where limited busking is allowed), people can hear musicians from a long way off down the narrow, twisty pedestrian tunnels and stairways - so before they even see the performer, they'll have gained an appreciation for the performance - and will be ready to toss some change into the hat and keep walking toward their platforms while listening. Since tube stations are busy places with people who are mostly in a hurry, that's an OK business model. But for puppetry - I'm guessing you're going to need people to stop and watch for a while in order to get enough from your performance to make it likely that they'll contribute. So someplace like the London underground stations would probably be a total disaster for you. You need to be in places like parks, beaches and shopping malls - where people are in less of a hurry and can SEE you from a greater distance. SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the legalities and the licenses involved, but George Sampson busked in Manchester. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dental Records[edit]

A dead body that has decomposed is often identified through the use of dental records. If authorities don't know who the person is, how do they know which records to search? Does the government keep a secret database of everyone's dental records? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.95.34 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all governments, but the United States doesn't. (I'm guessing that you're interested in the U.S. answer based on your IP address.) The NCIC (National Crime Information Center) has maintained a database of dental records of missing persons for the last 25 years or so. More recently, the FBI established the NDIR (National Dental Image/Information Repository) to support collection and analysis of more detailed image information. Individal states may have their own databases as well.

The authorities don't keep – or don't admit to keeping; if there were a secret database, how would we know? :D – records for everyone. Instead, federal law requires that police collect dental records for any person reported missing for more than 60 days. Records may also be collected for wanted individuals under some circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a database wouldn't be secret - more likely For Official Use Only (or a cousin) or the apparently new Controlled Unclassified Information. If it existed. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way we would know is that they would need to get those dental records from all the dentists in the nation, and there's no way the government could secretly obtain all of those. Such a massive conspiracy would be bound to fail. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that often police have an idea of who the body is and the only way to conclusively identify it is via dental records. The dental records serve as official confirmation rather than a shot in the dark. Tomdobb (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this is different than, say, fingerprinting, which is comparatively easy to check through computerized means. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no inherent reason why computerized comparison of dental records would be impossible. Assign a number to each of the 32 teeth and record which of them have fillings or are missing for each person, for example. This should allow you to narrow the search considerably. The final step of comparing X-rays to the teeth in a skull may be a bit more difficult to computerize, but could be done manually until we get an automated system working. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent reason against would be the cost of upkeep of such a system. While fingerprints stay moderately stable for most people, teeth get new fillings, fall out, get pulled, capped, replaced with implants at a fairly regular rate. (Which keeps lots of dentists in business throughout the US and elsewhere.) If you'd like them to report their activities to a central database that would considerably increase the already whooping costs of dental treatment. Keeping data on missing people makes a lot more sense, since what gets recorded is the state of their teeth at the time they went missing. Given that an overwhelming percentage of those who get murdered suffer that fate close to the date of their disappearance, the dental records on file will be relevant for most cases. Lisa4edit (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even out-of-date records could be useful, though. For example, if the skull has a perfect tooth 7, you can eliminate all people on record with any dental work done to that tooth. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global debts.[edit]

Is it possible that the Us global debt (private+public)/GDP is 835% and public debt (considering the public debt of FNM anfd FRE)/GDP is about 130%? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose anything's possible; what figures are you using? In the economy section of the article on the U.S., the GDP is $14.3 trillion. The United States public debt is around $10.6 trillion; toss in another $5 trillion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and call it $16 trillion for public debt. If by "private debt" you mean what's owed by individuals and organizations outside of the government, private debt would need to be about $103 trillion for the 835% figure to work: $16t public + $103t private = $119t; 119 is 832% of 14.3. I'm no economist but I'm doubtful that people and companies in the U.S. owe nearly one and a half times the world's gross domestic product. Keep in mind that if I owe $250,000 on a mortgage and I default, and Fannie Mae has to cover that, it's not the same as saying that for my house, Fannie and I owe $500,000 altogether -- it's the same $250,000. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a large part of the public and private debt in America is domestic, that is it is owed to other Americans. So from the holistic angle you appear to be driving at, I do not believe America as a whole is in anywhere near that much debt. TastyCakes (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OtherDave the numbers taht you showed were rights,but they consider the debt only once.Usa debt considering FNM and FRE is about 130%.The whole debt (private+public) is considered once and is about 835%.I know it's very much,but looking at many articles in financial newspapers of all over the world just today they are right.Thanks anyway for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist John Stanford[edit]

I bought a Civil War picture. I found the title to the picture it is " Blue Soldier on Horses" it is signed by John Stanford. I have tried every link to find info on the picture or the Artist. Is there any way you can help me or lead me to the place I need to look? I just wanted info on the Artist and if there was any history to the picture. Wanting to know what the flag stood for as well. Thank you in advanced. Seabird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.114.145 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be him? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE[edit]

i want to know what the captions mean on the "big board": "VOLU", "UVOL", "TRIN", etc.. where can i get an explanation of all the captions? i have written all the news networks and the NYSE several times, without an answer.. are they really that busy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoat (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are ticker symbols, abbreviations for company names and sometimes stock types. You may read, for instance, a news article mentioning "Electronic Arts (NYSE:ERTS)"; this means Electronic Arts' ticker symbol on the NYSE is ERTS, and ERTS on the display boards refers to EA. Your best bet is to look them up one at a time here. Neon Merlin 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search will define these terms for you. VOLU is volume, UVOL is "up volume" (the volume of shares traded by issues that are currently (or were closed while) above their opening price), TRIN is the "short-term trading index" ([up issues / down issues] / [up volume / down volume]. If there are more that you are interested in, try googling the term and "NYSE". NByz (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster is referring to a particular display board in the New York Stock Exchange often seen on channels like CNN. The anchor will say "Let's take a look at the big board", then the entire board will be shown, and then a highlighted area will zoom in on the INDU and INDP numbers. (See Google Image Search Dow big board.) I found a list with many of the relevant symbols at Google Book Search Technical Trading Online, p 122. It's difficult for me to search for because I know nothing about stocks. And "Big Board" also means the entire New York Stock Exchange not just that one display board, so I'm having a hard time finding better pictures of it. --Bavi H (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR THE REFERENCE TO THE NYSE TRADING CAPTIONS.. next question: is there a way to print this info? i don't see anything on this; highlighting doesn't work.. i never saw anything on the 'net i couldn't print until now.. what's the problem?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoat (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. When in doubt, pressing ALT-CTRL-PRINTSCREEN will put an image of the page into your clipboard, then opening word or mspaint and pressing CTRL-V will paste it. You can trim off the parts you don't want and print that. 24.68.54.11 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of news[edit]

Have there been any studies to track how the rate at which distinct news events above a given notability threshold are reported in the media, or are actually generated by primary sources -- to track not just changes in reporting but changes in the amount of news actually happening? Is there a long-term trend? Can we expect more news next year than this year? Even more news the year after that? If there is a growth in the rate of bad news, will the rate of good news keep pace? Neon Merlin 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm not sure but on a sort of related note, I remember seeing a map (I think it might have been animated through time) showing where news stories were happening, based on the tag lines in the associated press, which was pretty neat. I tried to find it again and couldn't, but I found this instead which is sort of interesting along the same lines: [7] TastyCakes (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how uneven reporting is. Some major events may not get reported at all, while some triviality makes all the major network news shows. Or an ongoing event, like the Iraq War or Afghanistan War, can just drop right off the face of the Earth as far as news reporting goes. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News Reliability[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but here goes. On CNN and the BBC websites, each has top stories on politics, the economy, etc. Why do some of them have an author listed and some do not? For example, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm> has no author listed. Why?

Being a high school senior, I am taught that a source that does not have an author listed is not particularly reliable. Yet, because it is from the BBC or CNN, all is well?!? Thank you, The Reader who Writes (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications, particularly news outlets, do not give individual authors. I believe in most cases on cnn.com and bbc.co.uk this is because a number of people work on the stories and they are presenting facts (often from cooperative news pools like the Associated Press) rather than opinion or original research, for which knowing who produced the information is much more important. There are some publications (notably The Economist), that do present more opinionated articles but still don't identify individual authors. Their stated reason for doing this is to present a "collective voice" which remains consistent with the magazine's guiding principles in tone, content and opinion. In all of these cases, the organization as a whole is effectively giving their stamp of approval, so basically yes, it is all well that the BBC and CNN don't give the individual authors for everything because they would be held responsible as an organization if the information proved inaccurate, which should be as or more convincing than the name of a possibly unknown reporter. At least in theory... TastyCakes (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a counter example, most blogs prominently display their author's name, but are not terribly reliable! The determining factors in reliability are editorial control, that is multiple eyes on the same work, all checking each other, and reputation. Given that BBC and CNN and the Associated Press are all well respected, and show high degrees of editorial integrity, you can probably trust them. Even more important, is to state clearly where you got your information, so others can judge the reliability for themselves (i.e. "According to a CNN report dated yada yada yada" or "The BBC reported on such and such a date that so and so occured".) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many stories are "off the wire", meaning they print them pretty much as they were reported by a news service, such as AP, UPI, or Reuters. In such cases you should see one of those services listed, but no author's byline. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more point is that in newspapers it's often only longer stories, representing a substantial amount of work, that credit the author with a byline. In other words, the decision may be up to the editor's judgement about whether the individual story represents enough work for a credit to be appopriate. (This only applies to news stories as opposed to personal columns or opinion items.) --Anonymous, 03:56 UTC, December 31, 2008.

Orchids[edit]

In your experience, where in (A) United States and (B) continental Europe can one see the best collections of orchids? Thank you in advance. --Dr Dima (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, Longwood Gardens near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has got to be in the running. By their count, they have "3,200 different types of orchids" and display from 200 to 500 plants at a time. It's breathtaking, and the orchids are only one small part of the place. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]