Miscellaneous desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 25[edit]

Coughing up pieces & Gwen stefani[edit]

My question is in two parts, 1) have you ever just breathed up a chunk of something that you suspect is part of your trachea or lung? Its like a small whitish lump of matter. Has anyone had this happen? 2) How tall is Gwen Stefani? I heard she's like over six feet! Thanks for your kind antworten in advance . --Bookishreader45 00:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)--Bookishreader45[reply]

A) Yes, don't know what they are, though I doubt that it's part of a body part.

B) Not very tall, I vaguely recall something on MTV years ago where she was shorter than a male of rather average height. She's not over six foot, AFAIK. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In platforms and a back-combed do, she would be. But yeah, she's petite. Anchoress 04:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling +"Gwen Stefani" +height gives several examples claiming "Height: 5' 6" (1.68 m)", so I believe that's likely correct... 惑乱分からん 13:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, those foul things are called tonsilloliths. — Kieff 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have two such different topics you may want to post separately. You might want to post to the Hacked Up Objects Desk (also known as the Science Desk) and the Entertainment Desk. StuRat 14:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaving and creams[edit]

Is it best to aplly spot treatment creams such as clearasil before or after shaving (in my case with an electric rotary razor) or at a completely seperate time. As its says to avoid using on broken skin, but is the minor damage caused by shaving enough to worry about.

Well, it would be pointless right before shaving, as it's certain to be removed by shaving. You should be OK applying it afterwards, as long as there aren't any cuts. I like to shave first, then shower, myself, which helps clean off any left over shaving cream and also gives any bleeding time to stop. StuRat 13:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Airforce[edit]

I was told by a semi-reliable source that during World War II, Romanian Airforce pilots wore make-up, lipstick and rouge. Can this possibly be true ?

Please define semi-reliable... Ilikefood 19:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were women pilots, they may well have done! 8-)--Light current 20:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the answer. Many Eastern European countries recruited women to fly, since the men were often recruited into the national army or needed for vital mining and farm work that needed physical strength. --Charlene 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about Romanian pilots or your sources, but flamboyant combat cross-dressing has been a widely-known phenomenon in recent conflicts in Liberia [1]. This practice was very briefly portrayed in one scene of the recent Blood Diamond (film) - although that film is actually set in Liberia's neighbour, Sierra Leone. Bwithh 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site lists the pilots, with stories and pictures. [[2]] No makeup. --Zeizmic 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a nice article at Women in the Russian and Soviet military --Justanother 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Hold 'Em and Casino Royale[edit]

I was watching casino royale last night... in the last poker scene the big black guy has two eights and three aces. The referee guy says "full house, eights full of aces." Sounds good to me. But then the villain guy has two sixes and three aces. The referee says "higher full house, aces full of sixes." What happened, does the order of the cards matter or something? Or is it a mistake in the movie? --⁪froth^{T C} 17:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds wrong. If the big black guy has A A A 8 8, why does the "referee guy" -- the dealer? -- say eights full of aces? He's called it wrong, and 007 now may kill him. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yep. See Rank_of_hands_(poker)#Full_house.---Sluzzelin 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I was right! --⁪froth^{T C} 17:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doesnt the black guy have three eights and 2 aces? 172.159.187.49 18:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I thought it was 3 aces. Then again it wasn't the best quality, maybe 700kbps. *sheepish grin* --⁪froth^{T C} 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "eights full of aces" and "aces full of eights" sound very similar. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the black guy has 88 and the villain has A6 and the board is AA86x? Bottom side of a full boat -- wonder if that loses more often than wins? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope...did the math...and it should be obvious. Guy who flopped the full house wins 96% of the time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be glad they're playing poker instead of baccarat, and that you can follow the game at all. Switching from baccarat, which they play in the book, to poker (so the audience could follow the game) was a pretty controversial decision in some communities when it was revealed. --Maxamegalon2000 17:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think "the" audience knows the rules of poker? --Lambiam ^Talk 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, poker's a huge fad right now, all over television; it's reasonable to expect that a fairly high percentage of the audience for the film will have become familiar with poker rules over the last couple of years. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker is a pretty standard casino game worldwide. If the audience is going to understand any game in a casino, I think it can be assumed that poker is one of them. In any case it hardly matters for the purposes of the movie — the characters tell you quite explictly who wins, loses, who was expecting to win but didn't, etc. --24.147.86.187 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed. I've never seen poker played on TV, except perhaps for a run of The Sting. Is this a world-wide fad? How many of the people watching TV watch TV shows featuring poker? Most people (I think more than 99.9%) have never set a foot inside a casino, and may have only a vague notion of any casino game. Of course, most people have never seen a Bond movie either, but still I would be surprised if more than a small minority of the total audience knows the rules of poker. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even played poker but I've watched enough TV to know the rules and hands --⁪froth^{T C} 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were 6 aces used in a poker game, something did indeed go wrong. Friday (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there a poker fad, but it is specifically a Texas Hold'em fad. This game involves "community cards" shared by both players. As someone used to seeing movies with draw poker or with stud poker, I find Texas Hold'em very irritating to watch, as you never see a player's effective hand all in one place. --Anonymous, December 27, 02:25 (UTC).

Texas Hold'em is really big in the UK right now - and I find it fun enough to watch when the show gives you everyone's hand at the same time. Then it's rather educational. Robovski 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the significance of coal...[edit]

In regards to Christmas lore, what is the significance of the 'coal, and sack of switches' that you`re reported to receive for Christmas, instead of gifts, if you hadn`t been good? the 'switches' are obvious, but, what about the 'coal'? ty Andrea216.218.116.1 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the point is not so much the coal, but the gunny coal sack, which is eminently suited for putting naughty children in, at least in the traditional Low Countries' version. . --Lambiam ^Talk 21:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article mentions it. Christmas stocking and there are further references. Also Google 'stocking lump coal' yields a lot of hits. I always threatened my kids with this, but do you know how hard it is to get a lump of coal these days? --Zeizmic 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the threat of coal for Christmas in return for poor behaviour throughout the year is misleading. In agreeing with Zeismic's comment about how difficult finding a piece of coal is these days, that was always the case, so coal was actually regarded as something valuable - at least by poor adults with kids to feed and keep warm. As a child myself many years ago in industrial working-class north-eastern England, the threat of no presents from Santa if we were naughty was always accompanied by the horrifying threat that we would instead be left only a sack of cinders i.e. burnt out and useless coal, which even small children knew had no value whatever. Result, we all behaved ourselves impeccably. And I am proud today to say that whilst it may no longer be politically correct to use the threat of denial against children in order to elicit good behaviour, from the small hard-working town I grew up in, I have no recollection of any of my peers growing up to be criminals, car-thieves, wife-beaters, child-abusers, paedophiles, rapists, drug-dealers, murderers, tax-cheats, or social security scroungers. I believe that in general terms, my generation is the last NOT to begin every sentence with "I", but instead, something like, "How are you?", or, "Can I get that for you?", or be able to look someone in the eye and say without fear of physical retribution, "I beg to differ but I think you may be wrong there".

Dutch parents reportedly threatened bad children with coal in their klompen (wooden shoes) as their Christmas ed, any more than a bundle of switches for physical punishment. A good child in the U.S. in the early 20th century would hope for a bit of candy or perhaps an orange in the stocking. Edison 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those not savvy with US history, he's talking about the great depression of the 1930s. --⁪froth^{T C} 03:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that a lump of coal was the stereotypical "practical, but utterly boring" gift for children a century ago, something like what underwear is these days. Yes, you need underwear, but it's really hard for kids to get excited about them. (Now, adults, on the other hand, might very well get excited by underwear, especially if they come from Victoria's Secret.) StuRat 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - it's a bit like threatening the child with the modern equivalent of socks/underpants/toilet paper. Robovski 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]