Miscellaneous desk
< January 31	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 2 >

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.

February 1[edit]

Reader's Digest 'Today's Best Nonfiction' Series[edit]

How can I find a listing of the volumes and titles of books in the Reader's Digest 'Today's Best Nonfiction' Series? I am particularly inteerested in the volumes published between 1988 and 1995.

Tom Spittler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.115.208 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to OCLC WorldCat, you can do an advanced search using keywords Reader's Digest Todays Best Nonfiction, and restrict for the years of interest. Hopefully, clicking on this link will do it all for you. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

satisfaction[edit]

How long does it takes to satisfy a woman in bed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.86.71 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article reports lengths of 10.7 to 19.1 cm for 95% of adult male penises, which indicates an evolutionary preference for this range of elongation. Note: not all males have undergone Metrification. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if she is using a laptop, to shop on-line with YOUR credit card, she might not be satisfied until she's spent the lot! That might take some time, unless she is very experienced.--Aspro (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She shouldn't be eating food in bed. The crumbs get everywhere. - X201 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are more than usually boring, and have a soporific voice, then reading aloud may well be a quick way to satisfy her desire for a peaceful transition to sleep. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice I can think of is, ask her what she likes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give her a Snickers. --Jayron32 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what Bugs said. If you want your woman to enjoy her part of the sexual experience in bed, ask her what she likes, what she'd like to try, and how she feels about what you do. Different people are, well, different, so there is no universal or even common techniques to try. What works is whetever she likes. --Jayron32 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking directly is sometimes a bad idea. In this case, you'll have to guess what she likes. Quest09 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking (at the right moment), "What do you like?" is not only a good idea, the mere fact that you ask is liable to get her juices flowing. Asking, "How long do you take?" is definitely a bad idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps (re)consider whether the relationship itself is a good idea? Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking directly in the bar before the proposed event is generally a bad idea. Asking during coitus, when you are both naked anyways, is always a good idea. Of course, how you ask is also relevent, but asking how she is enjoying what you are doing and asking if she has any ideas generally goes somewhat better than fumbling around blindly... --Jayron32 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has addressed the issue of "how long" in terms of time to reach orgasm, which I think is what the OP meant. Of course individuals vary (and technique will have some bearing), but this seems appropriate:

"You may have heard that it takes a lot longer for women to reach orgasm than it does for men. This is not entirely true. During masturbation, women and men reach orgasm in very similar amounts of time. On average, women reach orgasm in a little less than four minutes. For men the average time is between two and three minutes. The difference in the time it takes women and men to reach orgasm during foreplay and vaginal intercourse is greater. On average, it takes women 10-20 minutes to reach orgasm. Men reach orgasm after 7-14 minutes overall, but average two to three minutes after beginning intercourse."

This and other good information can be found here:[1] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point (I admit I just glanced thru the question so didn't read it properly before moving on the replies so I didn't notice). Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As many (though not all) women are multi-orgasmic, I could also answer the question with the question, "Which one?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the question, "satisfaction" basically means "until she's finished" - so, presumably, the last one. 90.193.232.171 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the OP specified "in bed", because out of bed the answer would be "start with a lifetime and go on from there". :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

demographic ethnic group percentage at Mepham H.S. in Bellmore NY[edit]

what is the demographic ethnic group percentage at Mepham H.S. in Bellmore NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.254.58 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it would be close to the figures in Bellmore, New York#Demographics. The Wellington C. Mepham High School article provides a link to the school's website which might give you more accurate information or at least say how to contact the school's administrator. Astronaut (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Wellington C. Mepham High School's ethnic breakdown for the 2008-2009 school year (latest data available), with a total of 1,314 students, was:

0 American Indian/Alaskan (0 percent)

81 Asian/Pacific Islander (6 percent)

36 Black (3 percent)

59 Hispanic (4 percent)

1,138 white (87 percent)

--Quartermaster (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator button symbols[edit]

I want have all elevator button symbols be encoded in Unicode. --84.61.177.49 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, and Wikipedia has no control over Unicode. However, if you wanted to implement this yourself, you could use the Unicode Private Use Area to include elevator symbols. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's asking IF the buttons are available as unicode characters, and if so, what are they. Ariel. (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the Computing reference desk would probably have been a better place for this question. Anyway, the answer seems to be (somewhat to my surprise) that even Unicode 6.0 does not have them. If you go to unicode.org and follow the links "General Information" -> "Where is my Character" and then "NamesList", you will get a list of all the names and code points of all the characters. The only characters with "door" in their names are code points 2F3E ("KANGXI RADICAL DOOR") and 1F6AA ("DOOR"), so the open-door and close-door elevator symbols would not seem to exist. --Anonymous, 04:24 UTC, February 2, 2011; links added February 6, 2011.

An alternative would be to use the Chinese characters for open and clos: those that you find most frequently on elevator buttons in China or Japan, since some are using a single character (I have seen that in Tokyo) and see what the unicode for this character is. --Lgriot (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese characters for open and close are U+958B 開 and U+9589 閉, respectively. --Kusunose 10:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein[edit]

Why did he decline the offer of presidency of the state of Israel? ←GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling→

According to this source Einstein formally stated:

"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel (to serve as President), and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. Therefore I would also be an inappropriate candidate for this high task, even when my old age didn’t interfere with my forces more and more."

--Quartermaster (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is, incidentally, kind of nonsense (the inability to deal with people and only dealing with "objective matters"). Einstein was highly politically active from the WWI period through the 1950s, very intensely involved in political organizing, theorizing, activism, you name it. He was, of course, quite old, and I buy that answer. I also buy the idea that he know that he'd probably be a lousy world leader — it's one thing to organize and complain, it's another to actually do it. But appealing to "only" being a physicist is silly. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the man was so smart and such an inspiriation to alot of people old age wouldnt have mattered I dont think. Don't you think he could have been a great leader of sorts? ←GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling→ —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

He didn't want to. People generally don't do jobs well when they have no desire to do them; doubly so for really important jobs like the Head of State of a nation. Regardless of how he felt about politics some forty years earlier; at that point in his life he had no desire to get involved in them in that way. He politely declined the honor because he didn't want the job. Its not more complex than that. --Jayron32 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was still involved with politics then, he just didn't want to run a state. I doubt he would have wanted to run a state 40 years earlier, either. He was a gadfly, not a politician. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Einstein was a Zionist, he didn't speak Hebrew and had never lived in Israel. He probably realized he wasn't the best choice for the position. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably? Try definitely. See the above quote. He said he lacked the natural aptitude and experience, he said he would be an inappropriate choice, and he mentioned his age as a barrier. We don't need to guess about this, it's there in black and white in his own words. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm not sure we need to take his own words at 100% face value. I don't. The "I'm a scientist, I don't think about politics" thing is plainly false, just a pose. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but those were the reasons he gave. We were asked why he declined the offer, and we have the answer in his own words. It's not for us to read between the lines to discern "the real reason". We'd need a citation for that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come, don't be so literal. Surely you don't believe that people answer 100% truthfully every time they are asked something, especially when the stakes are high. I'm happy to provide citations supporting my general assertion that Einstein was far more politically active and aware than his statement above would indicate: see Fred Jerome, The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002). A fascinating read, I assure you, and it does a lot of work to get you beyond the myth of Einstein as a guy with his head in the clouds, dealing exclusively with "objective matters." That's the part of his statement that I positively reject — it's just fluff, it's him saying, "oh, I don't know nothing about that, I'm just a physicist," which should not at all to be taken at face value. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we are, as individuals, qualified to "read between the lines," we do not do so (as a matter of policy) here on the Reference Desk, because that would constitute original research and synthesis. If there is a reputable biography or scholarly article that analyzes Einstein's ulterior motives, beyond his spoken words, this would be a good time to cite it. Nimur (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come, this is the Reference Desk, not the Wikipedia article space. I've cited already exactly what I was speaking about. Just because I actually know more about this topic (Einstein and his politics) than anyone else on here doesn't mean that I should shut up about it. You surely cannot support the naive "well he said one thing, what else is there to say?" approach. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You did actually cite a book, and I think your analysis is pretty spot-on. I apologize. Nimur (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was just being polite. Also keep in mind the old adage that for every decision made, there is a "good reason" and a "real reason". Perhaps his public statements were the "good reasons" and the "real reasons" were that he simply didn't want the job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was "Why did he decline the offer of presidency of the state of Israel?" I supplied Einstein's answer. In deferring to competent authority, I would assume that the statement of the principal (Einstein himself) is the ultimate competent authority. Interpretations of intent are best left to venues where opinion is relevant. I posit that Wikipedia is not that venue. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation is the stuff of history. God help us if someone asks about the origins of World War II or the Great Depression and we cannot resort to interpretation! Frankly I'm surprised to find so many people taking a ridiculous "no interpretation" view on a Miscellaneous desk which is full of interpretive answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The point is, though, that it's not full of personal opinions that have nothing to back them up. Or, it shouldn't be. This is, after all, a reference desk, not an opinion desk. The fact - if it is a fact - that you know more about this subject than anyone here, gives you no more right to express your opinions on the subject than anyone else here. You did provide a citation to back up your opinion, which is all we require. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sandler[edit]

What were his few first movies & when did he start stand up comedy? ←GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling

Did you read Adam Sandler? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man, now I look like an idiot... GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling

The fact that you responded to the answer makes you smarter than most people who ask such questions, imo. 90.193.232.171 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Volkswagon[edit]

How was he in the process of the distribuation of the Volkswagon Bug? GlennRichardAllison ^{Mr. 900 Jr.} bowling

Take a look at Volkswagen Beetle. The Nazis propagated the Beetle as the "KdF car", but didn't deliver any significant number of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the 1933 Berlin Motor Show, Hitler announced that every German should own either a car or a tractor in the future, and gave Ferdinand Porsche a contract to build 3 prototype Kdf-Wagen. See this inspiring picture. I have heard that Herr Porsche greeted Hitler as plain Herr Hitler rather than the required "Mein führer" which probably did not go unnoticed. The few Kdf-Wagen that were produced went primarily to the diplomatic corps and military officials who would have been judged loyal to Die fürher. Apart from continued favouring of Porsche for military vehicle projects, I don't find other involvement by Hitler in the distribution of the Volkswagen Beetle, and he can more correctly be said to have hindered it by diverting production resources to armaments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]