Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 31

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.

July 31

Please don't take offense

What do modern Germans think about the holocaust? Clearly a lot of relatives fought in WWII and lived and worked in the camps. Is this a really inappropriate question to ask a generation of people who were not involved and who would never even think about persecuting anyone at all. i am asking only out of curiosity, not with any personal predjudices. It's been a very long time now and perhaps we can speak openly and honesly about the past --russ (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discourage any anti-German comments at all - that is not the point of my question. I am solely concerned with answering my query. Please don't rant --russ (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Germans that I've worked with have told me that the Holocaust makes up a significant portion of their schools' history classes that discuss World War II. There is a tendency to demonize Hitler (which is not much of a stretch). Germany has become a peace-loving nation. That's my two Deutschmarks worth, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost every country has a few skeletons in the closet - but it always seems particularly harsh to me when you are talking to people who were not even born when the event happened. They had nothing to do with it - they could do nothing to prevent it...it's just an historical accident as far as they are concerned. Even for people who lived through the holocaust - it happened 60 years ago, most of those people were little kids or at most young, impressionable teenagers at the time. You can't hold it against them either. That leaves you with blaming people who are 80 or more years old...which is a really pointless exercise. It's definitely time to let this one drop. SteveBaker (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking what they think about it is not holding it against them - any more than asking a current American what he thinks about the Indian wars, or slavery. It's a matter of intellectual curiosity in each case - how do they teach about it, and talk about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What do Americans think about the "genocide" against the indigenous people in their own country? There's a variety of opinions, and even a variety of knowledge and consensus regarding what actually took place. It's probably the same in Germany. Clearly, there are neo-nazis and other Holocaust deniers who think it never happened (or try to minimize its significance). I've heard that for at least one generation, the children in Germany were not taught much about the history of the period, though that has suposedly changed in more recent decades. One story I've read in the news is of a German jew coming back relatively recently (80's or 90's) with her daughter, to show her daughter the house where she used to live. She went up to the house and knocked on the door, a woman answered and the jewish lady explained why she had come. The woman who answered the door spat out an explitive about jews and said she was sorry Hitler never finished the job. Also, I've read that extreme right wing organizations (though still a minority) have done relatively well in Germany recently, so I'd expect their attitudes towards the Holocaust aren't very sympathetic. Still, overall my impression is that Germany is much more conizant of its past, much less revisionist, and much more eager to make amends and prevent the same from happening again than, say, Japan (or the US). -- noosphere 01:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deeper into the OP's question, is the matter of raising the subject at all. If you think someone might be offended, but aren't sure, don't raise the subject unless it is necessary. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While in Germany last year, I asked my brother this same question. (He lives there and has for years) His response was basically that the Germans don't really have any shame when talking about it. They acknowledge that it happened and will discuss it. They have no shame because the people below a certain age had nothing to do with the war, Hitler, the camps, or anything else. And directly quoting my brother (from what I can recall), if a German were asked how he could talk about the war, he would likely respond with "Why shouldn't we talk about it?" Overall, it's a rather intelligent and mature way to look at the whole situation. Dismas|^(talk) 06:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We wouldn't get anywhere if we didn't ask ourselves inconvenient questions once in a while. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I live in Scotland and when visiting Ibiza a few years ago with my wife, we drifted into a German Bier Keller where we were the only non Germans and we were made extremely welcome by everyone in the bar. The owner politely mentioned to us that we might prefer to visit the "English" bar further along the road but we declined, saying that we preferred the civilised atmosphere in his bar to the rowdy lager loutish behaviour that we had witnessed earlier in the "English" bar, and as long as we weren't imposing on his German hospitality we would prefer to stay, which delighted everyone there. Thereafter, try as we might, no-one would allow us to buy any drinks and they were provided to us conveyor fashion all evening. We made friends with a young couple who spoke to us in perfect English and they have visited us in Scotland several times since. But in response to the OP's question above, it is always THEY who initiate conversations about OUR attitude to the Germans in respect of WWII and the horrendous treatment of Jews, Gypsies, Disabled people, and Homosexuals et al. It seems they are not ashamed on their own behalf but they do judge their parents' and grandparents' generational role in those atrocities as being as unforgiveable as we do in my country.92.21.59.68 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the flip side, here's something to think about: My German friends expressed surprise that prostitution is illegal in America. The implication was that with all the sexual imagery America produces, you would think America would be more like France or something. I explained that to understand the American attitude toward sexuality, "think Puritanism", and that will explain everything. Hence you have nude beaches in Europe and nobody makes a big thing of it, but if some American celebrity forgets to wear undies in public it's like an international incident. They understood fully when I explained it that way. Never be hesitant to ask a question of someone from another country, just be sure to ask it in a polite or impersonal way. Most people from other countries like to talk about stuff about their countries, good and bad - provided you don't cop an attitude about it, since we're not perfect either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, prostitution isn't illegal everywhere in the US. See: Prostitution in Nevada and (arguably) Prostitution in Rhode Island. SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe that you can ask Germans any question about the war. There are still some tabu topics relating to the rape of woman and prostitution following the war. Don't suppose that you can talk about how these events changed the gene pool in Germany.--Quest09 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ,I have often asked German friends about such things and got into interesting discussions too... .hotclaws 01:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can ask Germans about Third Reich/WWII topics. Never understood all that "don't mention the war" business. Depends on the way of asking though. Being arrogant and patronizing won't go down well anywhere in the world with any topic.195.128.251.74 (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to Berlin on holiday about 10 years ago. I should say that I loved it. It's a very friendly place and I have no doubt at all that German people would never go along with such thinking today - things have moved along a long way in so many decades. That said, i do concede that neo-nazism exists all over Europe and the World as a whole. I visited an exhibition about the history of Germany where the whole issue was brushed over, hence my reason for asking. This was, however, whilst the Jewish Museum was under construction. Recently, I have discovered that my father was a lot older than i thought and would have been alive during the conflict, and thus I can appreciate that this may be the case for many Germans. That being the case, I am curious to know the national feeling of these events. Please don't misunderstand me - as a British Citizen I fully appreciate that we have done so many things that society now finds terrible: Profit out of Slavery, Persecution of Ethnic Minorities and so on. Much the same as our friends abroud, we have learned from the many mistakes we made --russ (talk)

New York City Maps

Im planning a trip to new york city and i need maps (paper) of new york city transit and the streets of new york (5 boroughs) Where can i get these maps online or by phone for free or at a low cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com has a selection to choose from. The "New Yorker's New York City Five Borough Map" ($4.95) (and perhaps "Streetwise Manhattan Bus Subway Map - Laminated Subway Map of New York City" ($1.95) too) seem OK to me. Astronaut (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

those prices dont seem to bad, ill probably go ahead and buy them, but are there any official maps printed by the city of new york or the MTA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the city itself publishes a map. If you are staying in a hotel, try the hotel concierge for a free street map. The MTA presumably publishes a free map just like every other city transport system I've ever seen - they're usually available from stations and ticket agents, but obviously you have to be within the reach of the MTA system. Astronaut (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are comprehensive on-line maps of the MTA which you might be able to print out. I think one detailed version is broken down by boroughs. See Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)#External links. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You can get nice foldout maps of the whole New York Subway system (with geography slightly distorted, but good enough for trip planning) for free at subway stations (all are manned for most of the day). They also have more detailed maps of all boroughs with all streets (but not all street names) and all bus routes, also available at subway stations (though they are usually out of some of the variants). All of these are available at http://www.mta.info though the detail level is so high that it might be hard to print them in a satisfactory way. If you live in the US it might be an option to get them mailed to you (if you mail them the stamps and an envelope) - I seem to recall having read this on the map. Jørgen (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Newbie question: "!vote"

I notice that without exception, the editors on here type !vote instead of vote. What does this mean and how did this come about? Thanks. Torkmann (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They're being funny. The exclamation point is used in some computer languages to mean "not", and they're trying to say that while some discussion look like voting, they are (theoretically) not a real vote. That is, decisions are made on more than just "(not-)votes", they include the arguments made by the "(not-)voters". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also used in a doubly-ironic manner. Since discussions at Wikipedia are not supposed to be voting, but lets face it, they really are votes (even if they have some unique rules, they are votes), when someone types !vote, they may be saying "Look, I understand this is not supposed to be a vote, even though I am really voting here, so I am going to signify my non-vote (which I know is really a vote) by calling it a "non-vote". Its basically a silly injoke. We have lots of those around Wikipedia, and you will soon pick them all up. --Jayron32 03:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What this is supposed to mean is that it is the strength of argument that counts rather than the raw number of what could be mistaken for votes. So for example two or three good reasons for "yes" could outweigh ten poor arguments for "no". Astronaut (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I say it when I mean "vote" but want to avoid the inevitable (and wrong) "it's not a vote" comments. --Tango (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All explained at Wikipedia:WikiSpeak. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary is a less funny but more reliable source for such information. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

US gas stations

I'm going on a road trip to the US, and I know in some states it's illegal to pump your own gas, and in some places you have to pay before you get your gas. Where do these rules apply, and how do they work? (I've only ever used self-serve stations where you pay after filling up.) I'll be going through Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The only state that I've ever heard of making it illegal for the driver to pump their own gas is New Jersey. And the stations that require you to pay first will generally have a sign (sometimes just a piece of paper with "Pay first" written in marker) on the pump. If you are paying with a credit card, then you can either pay at the pump (at most places) or you go inside to drop off your card with the cashier and then go fill your tank. Then, once you come back in, they ring it up along with anything else that you may be buying. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

After a quick Google search, it seems that pumping your own gas is illegal in Oregon as well. Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, how does a full-serve station work? Do I just... sit in my car and wait? Do I get out to pay right away or do I wait until they finish filling the tank? Are you expected to tip the attendant or anything? Apologies if these are dumb questions, but I'd rather sound dumb here than there :) I really have never had anyone else pump my gas, and it just seems awkward and strange to me to just sit there while somebody else does it. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You leave your credit card with some dodgy petrol station clerk? That hardly sounds like good security practice Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You pull up, sit in the car, the guy comes up to the window, you tell him whats up. He pumps your gas, cleans the windows, checks the oil. You pay. Tipping is nice but not required. If you want a depiction of this procedure i suggest viewing American movies from the 1950s and prior, where all the gas stations were like that. Torkmann (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

American movies from the '50s? I don't know if that will give the best impression of what it will be like. In my experience, the attendant fills the tank and may clean your windows but does not check your oil. And really, I'd rather not have just any gas station attendant under the hood. And back to the original question, if you intend on using cash to pay for your gas, you would go inside before pumping. Tell them to put $XX on pump #XX (they'll be numbered) and hand them the cash. Then go pump your gas and come back in for the change if you're due any. Over-estimating your total is better since the pump may have a mechanism for automatically shutting off at a certain value. Dismas|^(talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of small things to note if you find a self-service station, some US gas pumps have a lever on the pump (on the bit where the nozzle hangs when not in use, IIRC). The lever needs to be moved before the gas can come out of the nozzle. In California (I think), there's some rubber hood around the nozzle (for vapour recovery?). The hood has something inside to shut off the gas until you have attached it properly to the gas tank - you put the nozzle in and shove the nozzle's handle down towards the car.

As for pay first places, avoid them if they are very busy. I've waited 5 minutes to hand over my credit-card and then had to go back in an line up for another 5 mins.

The good thing though, despite Americans bitching about high gas prices, it is still a lot cheaper than here in Europe. $30 buys a lot of gas. ...And I have visited all the states in your plan. Ask me if you would like some hints on what to see :-) Astronaut (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please! Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about the lever. Though it's only on some gas pumps. If I'm not mistaken, they removed it from pumps so that people don't turn the pump off with the lever, then squeeze the handle a few more times to try to use the residual pressure to get out what is left in the line. And yes, the boot is for vapor (vapour) recovery. It's not as hard to use as it may sound. You just have to shove the nozzle into the tank a little harder than you normally would. Gas prices right now are around $2.60 or so near me (Note: I am nowhere near your intended destination but the prices will likely be similar). So with an 18 gallon tank, it takes about $45-50 to fill up from empty. Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

$2.60 per US gallon is around $0.65 a litre and less than half the price it is here in the UK; but I remember 10 years ago when gas was just over $1 a gallon and it was around 75p a litre here (ie. about a fifth of the price compared to the UK). Astronaut (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most (Self service) pumps have credit card readers now. That's super convenient. Forget pre-paying, or paying after or whatever. Just slide your card through the slot, (If it's an ATM card you'll be asked for your PIN) and pump your gas. Easy. However, some stations charge a few extra pennies for this service. Well worth not having to wait in line at the register, if you ask me. APL (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How pre-historic - having someone physically do what you can do for yourself - and then charging extra if they happen to have a card reader!!!!!!!! Imagine the delay and queues caused by going into the office to pre-authorise the payment and then going to fill up the tank, and then going back to make the payment and then coming back to drive away. Here in Britain there would be countless murders on the forecourt. My favourite petrol station is unstaffed and I insert my credit or debit card in the slot on the side of the pump where it is verified before allowing me to withdraw it. I am then told to take my fuel up to a maximum amount and once I have replaced the nozzle in its holder I am dispensed with a receipt. Easy and fast - but then, this is quaint little ol' Britain. 92.21.59.68 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's exactly what I do here in the USA! I just said that, just above your comment. I insert my card, I pump my gas, and I get a receipt if I want one. Done. Easy. (I usually avoid places that charge for using a credit card, but that's just because I'm stubborn; for a car my size the increase is about fifteen cents per tank.)

If you live in the stone age and don't have a credit card and want to pay with cash you'll need to go up and talk to the guy in the kiosk. Some stations make you pay first, others let you pump first. (The pay first stations are usually in higher-crime areas with a history of pump&runs, but they're becoming more common in general.) When the station isn't crowded it's not at all the inconvenience you're imagining. It does not take long to walk ten feet, hand the guy a twenty, and declare "Pump Five". APL (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the extra few cents to use the card reader has to do more with the station recouping its costs for having the card readers, and also to get you into the store, where hopefully you'll buy something. The profit margin on the gasoline itself is real low; they make much more money selling you chips and sodas and cigarettes and whatever.

I'm not familiar with the specific states you'll be in, but in the East and South where I have traveled, heavily populated areas will have almost 100% pay-first stations, with readers; only in very rural, remote areas do you find pump-first stations, which are pretty easily spotted by their ancient pumps (analog readouts and nozzles on the sides rather than the fronts of the pumps are a pretty good giveaway). Places like this will usually let you pay first if you want to, though you may get some funny looks.

An absolute sure-fire way to tell whether you're at a pay-first or pump-first station is to pick up the nozzle and flip the lever, if there is one. If the readout on the pump resets to 0, you can pump. If not, you need to give somebody some money to turn the pump on. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooohh - feeling a bit liverish today are we ducky? Well alright, you DID say that what I do is what you had already said you did - but it was YOU remember who added the bit about paying a few pennies extra for using an automatic charge card pump wasn't it dearie - something we Brits would boycott in a heartbeat? So stop throwing your toys out of the pram -there's a good boy. I don't claim to have any experience of buying petrol in the USA, but from what I have read here and in other places, the pumps there can be so erratic and corruptly adjusted so as to dispense less fuel than has been paid for, I simply do not believe that Ken in the kiosk, indeed not the customer either, could accurately programme the pump meter to dispense EXACTLY the right volume down to the last red cent. And I suspect it might be possible to pump MORE than had been paid for thus incurring another trip to Ken in the Kiosk?? So let's both of us campaign for British pump technology to be spread throughout my favourite holiday destination - the USA. Cheers. 92.21.59.68 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Still seems to be some confusion. The few cents extra is for paying with a credit card (as opposed to a debit card), and it's simply the gas station passing on the cost of the credit card transaction directly to the customer. Has nothing to do with recovering the cost of the card reading equipment. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Jpgordon. That's the idea I was driving at (that it costs a station money to have the readers because they incur a charge for each transaction, not the startup cost of installing the readers), but it was not at all apparent the way I stated it. Thank you for clarifying. this NPR story from 2007 is what I was thinking of when added my comment on the subject. It doesn't mention saving a few cents with cash as a strategy to get folks in the store, but does mention a 4-cent-per transaction credit card fee, and talks about how much higher the profit margin on items in the store is. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, the pumps are all computer controlled. "Programming" them to dispense $20 worth of gas involves typing in the digits '2' and '0' into the cash-register. Just about anyone can do that. The computer calculates how much gas you can buy with your $20 and It slows way down when there's about a quarter of a gallon left to go so that it can accurately stop the pump.

It is not possible to over-pump.

This is all irrelevant for most people, of course, because most people use a credit or debit card in exactly the manner you are insisting is a uniquely British phenomena.

The pumps in USA are regularly inspected for accuracy. I've never heard of any sort of scandal involving improperly adjusted pumps. I'd be interested in knowing where you've read that.

Trust me. Buying and consuming gasoline in shamefully large quantities is practically our national pastime here in USA. We've got the pumping technology under control. (Fuel efficient cars? Not so much so.) APL (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are accuracy issues, in particular as regards temperature. Warm gasoline expands, so a gallon of gasoline at 90F contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline at 45F, and most pumps and most companies don't adjust for the discrepancy. I don't know if the EU deals with this. And there have been scandals; one example is [1]. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is overblown, I think. The station's tanks are underground, and quite large; their temp doesn't really change much. There might be a summer/winter difference, but there are other differences between summer and winter driving that are probably more important. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your answers; what a phenomenal response! I feel much more prepared now. :) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know the question isn't about Canada but I can't help answering anyway - paying at the pump with a credit or debit card seems to be normal here. There are full-service stations, or stations with both self- and full-service pumps, and the price is maybe half a cent higher if you get someone to do it for you. Also, the amount of money you might lose based on the different temperatures of the gas is hardly anything compared to the variation in gas prices from week to week or even day to day. (It's also pretty sad that these days we consider anything less than $1/litre "cheap" - although of course that is still much cheaper than Europe.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where everyone else is driving but it's been so many years that I can't remember the last time I saw a gas station that charged a different rate for credit as opposed to cash. My wife claims that there was/is one in Connecticut but we've never stopped there on our travels. So that's one in the many that we pass in our travels. Dismas|^(talk) 02:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You only seem to find them most in rather poor neighborhoods. It's supposedly done so that they can afford to lower their cash price. The implication is that in more well off areas, everyone pays the extra penny or two.

Gas stations that charge differently for cash/credit absolutely exist in Massachusetts and Connecticut. That's really all I can vouch for,but I assume they're in other places as well. APL (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason it's rather rare is that the credit card companies take a very dim view of people who do that - they tend to withdraw their services and that's DEATH for most businesses. SteveBaker (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird impliment

I live in shared houseing and I have found this thing in the bathroom, now I dont want to ask anyone what it is incase it is something personal, but maybe you guys can help me, what is this. It is about 10cm long, and looks like a tiny metal toilet brush the bristle end is about 1cm long, a bit like a metal pipe clealer. the other 5cm of it is plastic. The bristle end is enclosed in a cap type plastic tube. Any ideas? What is this? what is it used for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be a bottle brush? [2], or a Mascara Brush? [3] Fribbler (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Naa, its half the size of either of those the brush end is about 0.5cm in diamter and about a 3rd as long as a standard mascara brush. and metal, and clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a belly-button fluff removing brush - seriously. They are usually marketed to women for "the man in your life who has everything" at Christmas or Father's Day. Honest - this is no joke. 92.21.59.68 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a joke, the brush itself. There's a picture here. Another website showing a similar brush said it was custom made in Alabama. If that's the case, the States are apparently far behind the Brits in our Belly Button cleaning technology, because they can brag this beauty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some jerk on the Internet (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay we are getting closer, imagine the 1st belly button fluff remover, but without a hoop. and also it is metal, the bristles are metal, you would noy want to clean a body part with it, it would scratch and hurt. also it is smaller than those by anout half, it is a TINY metal brush. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A moustache brush? ny156uk (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just asked my freind and I think she has it!!! It is a brush to remove hair from a sink drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't such a brush once used to clear out penile syphilis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.59.68 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

More likely gonorrhea. As referenced in the Cheech and Chong bit called "Peter Rooter". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Surprised you haven't seen these. It's a tiny brush for cleaning between the teeth (known in the "trade" as a interproximal brush). Image of a pack of them, from a well known UK store. Astronaut (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't have metal bristles. Theresa Knott | token threats 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, this finally rings a bell. It's a straight piece of (twisted?) wire, containing bristles on one end, right? My dad had one of those, for cleaning his old electric razor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

check this link [4]to a picture of an interdental brush, as previously mentioned but with a larger image. Richard Avery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we know what those brushes look like - but the OP insists his one is entirely made of metal - hardly something you would use to clean your teeth and gums methinks. Still searching for an answer but running out of ideas. And I am sceptical about using one to clean an electric razor - for the same reason. 92.21.61.17 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if he would take a picture of the object and upload it, rather than everyone playing guessing games. Preferably next to a ruler so we know its exact size. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Trace

How would I go about traceing a freind that I used to know in high school, Liam Fishwick he moved to Johanesburg, and then disapeared, hell of a nice guy, I have trued friends reunited, and face book but to no avail, I dont know what high school he went to after. any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any other friends from that time of your life? It may be that one of those people still knows him- or knows a little more of what he did after he was at your high-school. Your best bet is to to use people from the past and try to find the 'route' through to where he'd be now, given that you've tried the main social-network sites - though if you've not looked through your friends' 'friends list' it may be worth trying that as a bit of a deeper look into the business. ny156uk (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Internet turns up just one Liam Fishwick...it's gotta be a pretty rare name. Anyway - this guy is studying physics at the University or Warwick in the UK...he also dabbles in Linux programming and seems to play a couple of computer games and is a Jujitsu fan. Does this seem likely? SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this link vhttp://pipl.com/search/?FirstName=Liam&LastName=Fishwick&City=&State=&Country=&CategoryID=2&Interface=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's named here.. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Finding sample size

Yes it is homework, but I am stuck...

We want to determine the true average number of drinks University of Michigan students have over a weeklong period. Assume the standard deviation is ~6.3. How many students must we sample to be within .5 drink of population mean with 95% probability?

I got 610? True? 70.169.186.78 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would direct you to sample size but I, personally, find Wikipedia's math articles to be too technical to be very useful. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you got an answer, in what sense are you stuck? --Tango (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this question has also been posted on the Maths desk. I suggest people answer there. (For future reference, please post questions to only one desk. If it would be better on a different desk, we'll move it and leave a note.) --Tango (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ontological past-facing indeterminism

So this morning I made an edit to correct one of my worst grammar peeves (the use of may have in a counterfactual), and I was thinking about how may have is for possibility in the past, but that could only be epistemic possibility ("we don't know that it didn't happen") rather than, I guess you'd call it, "ontological possiblity".

And then that got me to wondering: I think by now most people accept forward-facing indeterminism, at least epistemically ("there is no way even in principle to know whether this atom of Po-210 will have decayed six months from now"), and probably even ontologically ("there is no fact of the matter as to whether this atom will have decayed six months from now"). Past-facing epistemic indeterminism seems as though it would equally follow from quantum mechanics, and is fairly intuitive ("at some sufficiently distant point, it will be impossible even in principle to determine whether Oswald acted alone"). But past-facing ontological indeterminism ("at that time, there will be no fact of the matter as to whether Oswald acted alone"), is very counterintuitive, and also has icky political connotations (the "memory hole" in Nineteen Eighty-Four).

So I was wondering what the range of positions might be on this sort of indeterminism. There's presentism, but that's not quite on point; it says "only the present exists", which is too strong. I'm after more, "there are distinct possible past worlds, without a distinguished such world". --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly answer your question, but you may find Black hole information paradox interesting. It discusses the subject of knowing the past with certainty based on observations in the present. --Tango (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be talking about determinism of the evolution of the wavefunction, without any wavefunction collapse. That's a different level of abstraction. I'm taking it for granted that there's a fact of the matter as to which collapsed wavefunction is observed. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't explain why we humans persistently refuse to learn from historical precedent does it, irrespective of the predictable consequence? 92.10.74.204 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a fact of the probability of this atom having decayed six months from now. Likewise I suppose there's a fact of the probability of Oswald having acted alone, if, as you say, it becomes impossible even in principle to determine. You'll have to explain why that should be so, though. I would have thought our ability to determine the truth of the past increases as technology improves. I do sometimes wonder about the possibility of converging timelines, though, in a multiverse. In that case, yes, there would be no single true past. 93.97.21.17 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question of whether it's possible to determine whether Oswald acted alone is a different question from whether there's a fact of the matter. You may think they have the same answer, but they are certainly distinct questions — one is about knowledge; the other is simply about truth. --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I wondered why it would become impossible to determine? 93.97.21.17 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, as I understand it quantum mechanics works the same way in either time direction. So if a particular state in the present can evolve into many different states in the future (after wavefunction collapse), then it should also be possible for it to arise from many different states in the past. --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I suppose so, but is there anything that says that the overall structure has to be symmetrical? The way I imagine it, there is a lot less of this convergence going on (over the whole of time) than the divergence (which happens, er, all the time, so to speak). 93.97.21.17 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that it's easier to "predict" the past than the future; in that sense things are not symmetrical. However it seems plausible to me that, if information can be lost, then if you run the time out far enough in the future, enough might be lost that more than one answer to the question of whether Oswald acted alone is consistent with all physical states at that time. --Trovatore (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, that could happen, but would rely on things lining up perfectly, so to speak, and so for any particular interesting question along the lines of "did Oswald act alone" the truth of the matter could for practical purposes be relied on to still exist and await discovery. This is largely my gut feeling based on a vague conception of the many universes model, but that's what you wanted to hear about, I think. 93.97.21.17 (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, for the most part the physical laws are time reversible, but the fact that the universe was in a state of statistically near impossible low entropy distinguishes the two directions. That's behind what makes it easier to predict the past than the future and why we seem to experience time in the direction we do, and why there are situations where wave function components decohere, but non-interacting wave function components are very unlikely to start interfering, although it is possible. I guess that all matches up with what you guys said already. 67.100.146.151 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Entropy is rather misunderstood too. Many people point to what happens when you drop a fine bone-china teacup onto the kitchen floor - smashing into a million little pieces. Then they point out the improbability of that event being reversed - with all of the parts flying together to perfectly line up to re-form the cup - and they use that to indicate that time has a "direction". But that's not quite the right thing. What they are missing is the improbability of the pieces of the dropped cup breaking up into PRECISELY those pieces and that they subsequently end up in PRECISELY those positions on the floor. Think about how many times you'd have to drop another identical cup to get that exact same result! That precise layout of broken pieces that you happened to get is every bit as improbable as that exact set of pieces moving together at precisely the right speeds and directions to exactly reform the cup. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

headphones in Laptop

The sound in my laptop won't play in my headphones anymore when I plug the headphones in, is this because of a setting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.158.205 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be the sound card is defective or that you've got the volume turned off. But first try the headset somewhere else and see if it works there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

When you plug the headphones in does sound stop coming out of the normal speakers like it's supposed to? 67.100.146.151 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the other part of the test - if the headphones work elsewhere, then it's not the headphones. See if you can play sound on your PC, by adjust the various volume controls. If it still doesn't work, take it to your local computer shop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When I plug in the headphones the sound continues to come out of the speakers and not through the headsets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.244.184 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Try another pair of headphones? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)