Miscellaneous desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

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.

January 25[edit]

Help identifying a font[edit]

Could anyone please help me identify the font in this image? It looks like some kind of Gothic script, but I'm having trouble finding the exact one.--十八 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Goudy Text from Monotype. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.--十八 04:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heat / Aircondition / in Arizona ? Heat Punp / gas assist.[edit]

In AZ air conditioners also have heat punps. I understand the theory of using the heat punp in cooler weather. lately I have heard of HVAC's having gas fired. Are these just a furnace added or is gas used to heat the gas, if so how does this work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.201.140 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on HVAC. It is a kind of air conditioner, it is all the systems for heating, air conditioning and ventilation/air handling. Gas in this context means natural gas, not air or gasoline. Rmhermen (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch question[edit]

First… Please forgive my ignorance… (and second my English)

What is it for the color indication or scale or labeling, that diving watches have from the one to the fifteen?

I don’t know exactly if all divers have it, at least my Invicta have it, and I remember a quartz Casio diver that I had long time ago until its battery died and purchased the invicta, and it have it to, now I was watching this IWC… and there it is to, someone told me it’s just a decoration but… come on? Really?

I love watches but most of the time I don’t figure out all most of its functions

thanks Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Diving_watch#Bezel_markings. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's with Al Qeada and the finger wagging?[edit]

What's with the terrorists and their finger wagging? Is it religious? Psychological? Something they picked up at Columbia University? Al-Shiri, Awlaki, Osama. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

It's just a common gesture... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias. --Jayron32 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of it is them trying to imply or invoking Allah as approving their actions. It is done by many religious people. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about [1] section 'forefinger aloft' meaning (c) invoking a higher power. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the gesture indicates, it is by no means limited to Islam. Just watch an athlete salute the sky after scoring a touchdown or crossing home plate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't say anything about Islam or Muslims. And more importantly it doesn't give us any indication it's why the named people or really any terrorists were wagging their fingers. From my memory of most times I've actually seen videos, it's usually done either when making a point or as a form of reprimand. OR, but better IMO then some random source irrelevant to the context. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion here [2] which mostly agrees with me although does suggest in one case with Osama he may have been referencing the divine. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Seb and Jayron32. You'd note one of your results includes Clinton wagging his finger. Try a search for Obama finger, Clinton finger, Bush finger (with some contamination) and you get pretty much the same thing. Even Reagan finger finds one or two sort of similar things (although more pointing then wagging, and pointing in that form is unpopular in some countries [3] [4]), as well as a bunch of stuff with Romney, some random guy I dunno (evidently Brownback), Santorum, Henry Waxman with basically the same thing. In other words, you might as well ask 'What's with the American presidents or American politicians and their finger wagging'. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that politicians are now advised NOT to point or wag a finger while speaking, as it seems aggressive. Tony Blair had an odd way of pointing with his thumb to add emphasis[5][6], while David Cameron (equally oddly) only points downwards[7]. They both bear the hallmarks of the advice of PR gurus. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they still seem to do it in the US. (I'm pretty sure the Romney, Santorum and Obama examples and also the Brewers example below were relatively recently. Probably the Waxman too.) This sort of tells us how common the gesture actual is. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well even Plato stuck his finger up in the air on occasion, but there was commentary about the ritual symbolism of this constant harangue-long finger wagging by terrorists in their recorded threats after 9/11. Help finding that would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some nice evidence that the "Reagan did it too" protest is off the point. Any help with references for this behavior? μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying because most politicians in the US seem to do it (despite evidently being advised against it and here's another one I think was also in some of the earlier searches but I didn't mention [8]), and so do some terrorists, as well as a random character in a comedy show (funnily enough even TVtropes has an article [9]), it must be something unique to terrorists? Incidentally, our own Index finger article mentions it can be an admonitory gesture without mentioning it being restricted to terrorists. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing anything. What I am saying is that when the various terrorists released their tapes after 9/11 and the second gulf and afghan wars, there was commentary in the press about their finger wagging during their taped press-release harangues. I'd like help finding that commentary. People's personal comments about Bush wagging his finger too aren't helpful. Bush and Obama may occasionally wave their fingers, but they don't do so in a ritual manner in long taped harangues. Unfortunately the results I get when I search the topic all end up being about finger-pointing (blame) and not this very characteristic finger wagging by these "terrorist authorities". But that is what I want help with, not whether Americans also have fingers. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You brought in the irrelevant video (it's from a comedy show, didn't involve a terrorist and as the TVtropes link clearly specifies this isn't a trope unique to Islamic terrorists in media) above which is what I replied to. And all the source provided so far, including the earlier albeit non media link discussing the behaviour in terrorist videos suggest it's a common gesture used when making a point or when admonishing someone not just among terrorists or Muslims but for many people. The fact that terrorists tend to do this a lot in their videos where they tend to be doing both but politicians who are evidently counseled against it (and the Clinton and Brewers discussions show it can be controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with the usage by terrorists) don't do it quite so much when they aren't making such videos, doesn't change that fact. No significant evidence it's anything ritualistic for terrorists any more then for politicians who seem to also do it a lot taken as a whole, other then the mention in the source above it may be connected to raising of finger during shahada. (One did suggest it's common among Islamic preachers but no evidence was provided it's more common among them then other preachers.) If you want sources suggesting otherwise, you're welcome to ask for them, without making claims, without evidence but with irrelevant sources instead, that your uncited belief is factual. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't saying it was specific to Islamic preachers, just that for religious people it warns there is a higher power watching their actions. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually much simpler than all the above. When you wag your finger when speaking, or haranguing, or lecturing, or admonishing, whatever - it symbolises "Do not interrupt me or challenge me or argue against me, because your words will not reach me as I am brushing them away before they reach my ears". It is akin to the gesture of holding your open hand in front of you so as to say, "Speak to my hand - I am not listening". 77.99.122.161 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary I remember said that holding up your finger implied a peculiar claim to religious authority in what you were saying. This was linked to some school or tradition or group. It's that link I am looking for. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put a burden on you, Nil, if this is upsetting. In case you still have doubts, yes, I know Abu was a restauranteur character in a comedy show. I really don't know what to say to your continued false implication that I am arguing only terrorists hold up their finger when they lecture you. Let me repeat: I am not arguing anything. What I am saying is that when the various terrorists released their tapes after 9/11 and the second gulf and afghan wars, there was commentary in the press about their finger wagging during their taped press-release harangues. I'd like help finding that commentary. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long time later but you seem to have missed my point. You specifically said the Reagan stuff was irrelevant for no reason. You then linked to an irrelevant video. There's absolutely no reason to think the comedy video has any connection to this claimed supposed claim to religious authority by some some school or tradition or group. If want to ask for these supposed sources, then ask for them. You only asked for these sources very late. You then dismissed references and examples already provided as irrelevant when they were completely relevant to your original question without any good explaination (since as said, your explaination was an irrelevant comedy video with no demonstrated link whatsoever to this supposed religious authority link). It was completely fair for me to point out your dismissal was nonsense and your refusal to accept that was the whole reason for this unnecessary diversion. Fact is, unless anyone has actually talked to these people and asked them, why they do it, everything is just speculation. Given the amount of nonsense the media finds when they have nothing else to do, there's no good reason to think this alleged religious authority link has any more merit then the other suggested reasons in this thread. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you asking for these specific sources, but rather as I said earlier, if you want to ask for them you should ask for them and not dismiss perfectly valid possibilites mostly offered before you'd specified you weren't actually interested in understanding why the people in the videos may be doing it, but only interested in one specific reason you'd heard about before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

baby girl[edit]

if we want a baby girl what measures can be taken while having sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.231.184 (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's nothing significant you or your partner can do to determine the sex of your child. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex selection has some info. Sjö (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of those (that work anyway) are in vitro techniques, the OP specifies actions taken during sex. But thanks for the link, should have added it myself. Fgf10 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fill out adoption papers in bed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid the mother eating bananas, that way any boys you conceive will be more likely to be aborted, increasing the chance of having a girl. Sources. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Both on the stupid sources and the abortion joke angle. What possible good do you think this answer holds for the OP? --Onorem ♠Dil 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The studies have been published in the scientific literature, and all through the popular press, and the bottom line is that boy babies require a higher nutrient level than girls, so avoiding bananas helps make sure that spontaneous abortion of males is more likely. The majority of conceptions are believed to end in unrealized spontaneous abortion. It's up to the OP to decide whether the desire for a girl matters that much. That's what's the fuck. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links I've clicked have been about the same study with a sample size of about 750 and based on what they recalled about their eating patterns over the last year. 3 categories. 56% boys for high, 45% for low. Nothing in the article about what the usual % is and what other factors they did or didn't look at. I don't have time to click on all the results of your linked google search for an explanation on the abortion part. Please be specific. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The studies reflect post-conception survival, not pre-conception selection for girls. Eating bananas doesn't make X-bearing sperm quicker to the egg or more successful in fertilizing it in the uterus. That means more boys are spontaneously aborted after conception than girls on the low nutrient diet. This sort of sexual selection induced sex ratio is common.μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a link. I don't want a link to a search, but a link to a reliable source that says what you are saying. And who said anything about bananas changing how quickly sperm travels to the egg? --Onorem ♠Dil 05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries don't even have access to bananas, so they would all be a nation of girls and quickly die out, if that were the case. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of humanity didn't have access to bananas until 100 years ago or so, which is why the banana advice is ridiculous. --Jayron32 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Onorem, but all I am getting are dead links when trying to look for the original study. But the claim that the sex ratio is affected by nutrition was widely reported. I am not quite sure how people got the notion that a link to this 'groundbreaking science' (irony) was meant as serious advice. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed that nutrition in general couldn't affect the human body in the ways so described. The ridiculous claim was overselling the role of bananas specifically. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Medeis. We all know you've gone bananas. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the causes section of the spontaneous abortion article describes a number of causes that could be linked to nutrition, nothing is said specifically about bananas or how this might affect the sex ratio. Astronaut (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but has anyone considered telling my famous compatriot that we have even more evidence of bananas testifying to the genius of god's creation? Oh what a nightmare for atheists! Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-travel consistency in "Bender's Big Score"[edit]

I watched Bender's Big Score in the gym tonight, and it seemed that the time-travel plot was intricately planned and interwoven. But it was a little too complicated to check without writing anything down. I was wondering, has anyone followed all the world lines and checked whether they make sense, according to the rules of the film?

Not that I'm completely sure I understand what those rules are. A conceit of the film is that, if a living body is duplicated by time travel, then that body is "doomed". But if it was explained what it meant for a body to be "duplicated", as opposed to just having its word line wrapped around so that it intersects a spacelike slice twice, I didn't follow it. For example, "Lars" is apparently Fry's future self, but after Lars dies, Fry goes on, and apparently is not destined to go back in time and become Lars, only to die. Is there any explanation for that?

Obviously I'm not interested in arguments why time travel isn't possible, and I don't want to hear from anyone arguing against counterfactuals in general. I'm just trying to figure out if the film is coherent by its own rules, and what those rules are. --Trovatore (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on whether you think the future has already happened, or that it has options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if the show's writers didn't work very hard to keep the plot internally coherent and consistent, given what I know about the sort of attention to detail that the writers usually have. Futurama is well known for the insane attention to detail the writers seem to have towards making its convoluted plots actually work. Item #5 on this list goes into a bit of the sort of stuff that works into Futurama, including not one but two secret languages which have been fleshed out to almost Tolkein-like detail, Futurama#Language actually covers this a bit, and the unique mathematical algorithm that a writer actually developed to make episode The Prisoner of Benda. So, while past performance is no guarantee of future results yadayadayada, the shows writers have at least demonstrated the capacity to work that level of detail into their work. --Jayron32 13:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you want an easier, yet still classic, treatment of time travel, I recommend Heinlein's story "By His Bootstraps".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't really like that one. It was one of the very few Heinlein stories where there was no one to like, and where the universe as a whole felt mean. I much preferred "—All You Zombies—", which I think was roughly equivalent from the time-travel point of view. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you want an even more convoluted, intricate one, I recommend Primer (film)...bring a notebook as you watch! SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just want to point out helpfully that time travel isn't possible. So I can't comment on the movie until after I download it and watch it later tonight. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful; Trovatore asked respondents not to argue about the impossibility of time travel. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary - time travel is totally possible... in the world of fiction. Which, if I recall correctly, is the world the OP was talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Medeis was just having a little fun here. I don't have a problem with that. I do get tired of counterfactual, or at least implicitly counterfactual, questions being answered on the basis of current understanding of contingent reality in the actual world. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Having just watched this earlier tommorow, the ending with the multiple Benders makes any calculations impossible, so the easy answer is no. What's really relevant is the entertainment factor. While I won't sue to have that hour and a half of my life back, I would say that anyone who likes time travel and good writing would be much better served watching these episodes of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My general recollection of Futurama is that they are rather inconsistent about whose timeline should be followed when time travel takes place. This makes interpretation rather difficult. Nonetheless, Bender's Big Score is one of my favorite pieces of entertainment ever. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course time travel is possible. I've been moving into the future at the rate of 60 min per hour for quite a while now. Gzuckier (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The future's for amateurs. I'm much more interested in what is going to happen after the future. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide whether Jayron32 miscounted "not"s. And perhaps Jayron32 was joshing us by describing Futurama's ciphers as "secret languages which have been fleshed out to almost Tolkein-like detail". Anyway, it has seemed to me that Futurama is rather cavalier about continuity, so I wouldn't bet on a time-travel story to hold up under close examination. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wordpress blogs[edit]

having a little bit of a problem here, I originally had a nice blog, but after most of a year I stopped posting to it much, and it sort of faded away, then when I wanted to start on it again a few months later, I decided I might be better off starting again, especially after some big changes to my life recently, rather than trying to catch up on everything that I had missed in those few months. that second blog has also faded away to nothing, but now I want to get back into writing again, but I don't like the idea of just losing all that I did before, so I am wondering if there is any way now of merging all of both of them into one, then continuing from there without having to repost every single article one by one?

thank you,

86.15.83.223 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good question for the Computing reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - you'll get a much better answer there. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or an email to Wordpress would also work. Sometimes just sending an email to the company that creates a certain software package or whatever can give you an accurate answer just as quickly as waiting for someone here who happens to know the answer to your question to pass by and read your question to begin with. Not to put down these desks but with such a specific question about a specific product, the people producing the product often have a good chance at besting us at answering questions. Dismas|^(talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wordpress help section is only available to paying customers, and they've managed to lose one of my accounts, apparently it doesn't exist when I try to reset my password, but does when I want to register a new account under that same name. So I've given up and moved. But I can post a new, different question under computing now 86.15.83.223 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the dashboard of every Wordpress blog, under Tools, there's an "export" and an "import" function. "Export" saves all the posts and comments of that blog as an XML file. You can then "import" that file into a different Wordpress blog. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook-like button[edit]

People who like too many things, like this.

Hi, I am looking for the site to which you give a string X and which then gives you a Facebook-like "X like this" thumb-up image. Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that in Wikipedia, as shown. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirected question[edit]

ref your cheap holidays recently in the paper, I read the Sun every day and collected the tokens every day for my daughter and rang and told her the token words as the tenth one was published on the monday but all the best ones had already gone ,but she has since found out that people she knows had already booked before the first day possible ? but getting access to the code words prior to the first day. I ASK THE QUESTION HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.136.42 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have come to the wrong place. This is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I hope you can sort your problem out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]