Miscellaneous desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

Industry Manufacturing Costs

Hi, I am wondering whether anyone would have some insight into where I could find industry averages of manufacturing costs - in specific for small appliances. For example, how much does it cost the average producer to make a blender - NOT how much do they sell it for, or how much does a retailer mark it up. I understand that many firms are sensitive with this kind of information, but I can't seem to find this data anywhere at all. Thanks for your help. --ManicLogic 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm trying to find PER UNIT costs. --ManicLogic 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See incremental cost. It's a little complicated because it would vary by type of appliance, by manufacturer, and by how many the manufacturer makes during a given time period. (And then there are external costs and social costs.) You likely can't find the information you're looking for because it doesn't exist for the definition you give. -THB 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the total number of films produced all over the world?

Thanks.

Since the beginning of film? So large I would have thought that it could not be quantified. Clio the Muse 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's quantifiable, provided you specify what films. Movie theatre films, direct to video, amateur films, commercials, art school projects, what else is there? DirkvdM 05:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, IMDB [1] lists 360,458 movies released theatrically, 56,526 made for TV, and 50,297 directly to video. Of course, this isn't complete and doesn't include most foreign films, but it does give an idea of the magnitude. Now if we could just get a good estimate for Bollywood... Clarityfiend 05:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of television sets in the world

What is the total number of television sets in the world?

How many grains of sand are there on a beach? Clio the Muse 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the envelope calculation...about a billion. For you Brits, that's a thousand million. StuRat 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to us Dutch that's a miljard. A biljoen is a million million. DirkvdM 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little low to me, especially considering that the question didn't specify working television sets. I'd say more like 5 or 10 billion. —Keenan Pepper 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured only about half of the world's population have a TV in their home, and most of those only have one per family. There are a few rich cultures with multiple TVs per family, but probably not enough to affect the numbers that much. I did not include broken TVs in dumps. StuRat 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one occasion where I cannot resist a small joke. A visitor to a natural history museum, admiring a triceratops fossil, turns to an attendant; Excuse me, how old is this? Sixty-three million years and six months. My goodness, how precise; how do you know that? It was sixty-three million years old when I started this job, and I've been here for six months. Following from this, I would say that the actual number of TV sets in the world is 5-or 10-billion and three, since you failed to count mine, including the broken one in the attic. Clio the Muse 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“and for you brits…” was that an American giving the non-US version of something??? Thankyou! Now that shakes the stereotype!81.168.43.203 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the UK uses the short scale now, and has done for the last 30 years at least. EdC 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, billion is actually the same in the US and the UK (apparently since the 30's). I have run into plenty of people who think they are different here in the UK though, but when asked to write out the number give the same number Americans use: 1,000,000,000. Robovski 22:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a thousand million is still correct, in any case, and might help those, like the Dutch, who use that other weird system. StuRat 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all people who speak anything other than English use "that weird system". It's another case of English being different from every other language. JIP | Talk 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article. Both systems are a bit weird. Which makes more sense - approaching 10¹² as 1,000 ^{1 + 3} and calling it trillion or approaching it as 1,000,000 ^2.0 and calling it billion? The base for all this is 1,000, so it would make more sense to use the 'short scale' succession, but starting it at 1,000 and caling that million. Then 10^{2 x 3} would be billion, etc. Btw, the 'short version of the long scale' makes sense in French up to a point; mille - million - milliard. After that, they seem to have run out of suffixes and started alternating with prefixes, which made it a bit messy. DirkvdM 07:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'European' system (or rather 'World except the UK, US, Brazil and some more' system, but actually the SI system) is called 'long scale' because of number-names like 'thousand million'. But does anyone ever use that (anymore)? The article seems to suggest that everyone in the 'long sclae' countries calls that 'milliard' or some variation of that. Which is just as short. So the naming is rather confusing. Is there no alternative for this?

Btw, there's another, related, confusion - the use of dots and commas as decimal separators and 'thousands separators' (what's that called?). In the Anglophone world, 1,000 means a thousand, but in much of the rest of the world it means '1', with a three decimal precision. DirkvdM 07:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Does anyone use that any more"? I'll have you know that Finns do, at least. If I say "miljardi", everyone understands it's 10^9. If I say "biljoona", everyone understands it's 10^12. And so on. I reckon it's the same way in Swedish and German too. I'd get funny looks from people if I kept insisting "biljoona" really meant 10^9. You have to stop thinking everyone in the world is a native English speaker. JIP | Talk 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the 'long scale' in a literal sense, such as 'thousand million', which StuRat gave as a translation for the Brits. DirkvdM 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then. I think no one uses that particular way in Finnish, Swedish or German, at least. We say "miljardi", not "tuhat miljoonaa". I originally used to extrapolate new terms "biljardi", "triljardi", "kvadriljardi" etc. for 10^15, 10^21, 10^27 etc. from "miljoona"/"miljardi" and use them, until my maths teacher in school told me that biljardi means billiards, not a number. JIP | Talk 12:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ships, railway lines and aeroplanes

I need an answer to these questions, please.

What is the total number of ships in the world?
What is the total length of all the railway lines in all the world?
What is the total number of aeroplanes in the world?

Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meno25 (talk • contribs)

The CIA World Factbook gives 1,115,205 total kilometers of railroad in the world. The other two may be unanswerable. (Although the Factbook lists 33,222 ships which are 1000 gross registered tons or over.)[2] Rmhermen 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining the number of Boings, Airbus and the like should not be a huge problem.

There are at least 312,000 aircraft world wide, including helicopters, according to [3]. La ï ka 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there are any boings!. After all, when an aircraft crashes, it usually doesnt bounce! 8-)--Light current 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I have been blocked. It was for vandalism. I did not uderstand the guidlines. How do i apologize? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.104.31 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

um... u shouldn't have been able to post that last comment if you were blocked... Cbrown1023 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's switched to a new IP since he was blocked. To the anon, I'm not sure who you'd even apologise to. You can apologise to our benevolent leader if you like, or on the talk page of the page you vandalised, but really, vandalism is very easy for us to fix and it's not a big deal now that you've stopped. The best apology you could make would be to help us write some articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there was nothing in that IP's block log. To the anon, you may or may not be blocked again depending on who reads this in the near future. Just become a productive member of the community, and I'm sure you will be welcomed. -- T H L^CCD 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They’re right when they say about writing a few articles, but if, for the principle, you still really want to apologise, you could go to the article you vandalised and view the history. If you weren’t logged in, you’ll be referred to by you IP address. After you, someone will probably have made another edit undoing what you did. The summary normally reads “revert” or just “rv”. You could apologise to that user, on their user talk if you really wanted to.81.168.43.203 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a music video

Hi, I'm searching for a dance music video that aired around 1995-99, with a redhead girl dancing before a blue background. I know it may sound a little goofy, but if by any chance someone finds out... --80.170.116.73 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Pierson of the B-52s danced in front of a bunch of differnt color backgrounds if I remember right. Nowimnthing 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're a decade too early, here... =S Otherwise, it'd would help if we could get some more info, type of music, lyrics, etc... ? 惑乱分からん 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Shack hit big 1990 and it was definitely still playing in '95 as well as some of their later hits. Maybe this will help List of redheads. Wow, we have everything...Nowimnthing 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I remember is that the girl had long curly hairs, a long straight dress and that she was dancing in some kind of corner consisting of plain blue walls. B-52s is definitely to soon and the music could be assimilate with Eurodance and the like. --213.103.91.176 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

geographic coordinates

I'm expanding a stub for Giffnock, Scotland, as per my suggestbot list. I'm a relatively new user, and I'm having a hard time getting the coordinates for Giffnock online.

I'm also having trouble with other parts of the infobox (from Wikiproject Scotland). Where can I find a source for Scotland' information, such as the lieutenancy for Giffnock (what's a lieutenancy? - oh nevermind). I'll probably find the stuff on my own - but if anyone has a speedy answer to this one as well, it would be much appreciated. The main thing is getting the coordinates.

Thanks!NinaEliza 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland or the Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board? They should be able to give you better answers... Cbrown1023 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NIna, a lieutenancy is an area, usually county size, subject to the authority of a lord-lieutenant, acting as the representative of the crown. In the past the function of the office was to raise loyal militia forces: now it has a purely ceremonial role. It is based on the older English office of the same name, though in the south Lord-Lieutenants had much more extensive legal powers. Clio the Muse 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising a new Article

I can see how to put the marker for catogry but I cannot see how to add the catories. A popup would be extremly useful because: 1. It would be possible to see what options are available 2. It would avoid miss spelling. Also a popup to choose for other things shuch as links, photograps etc. I was going to add a photo but I did not like the terms. It appeared that there would be no limit such as using the face and putting it on to nude body etc. or using it to add to product endorsements.

It is obvious I am new to editing articles and I did not find the tutorial useful. Even the templates were not much use. Some sort of wizard should be added.

The article I tried to add was Huong Keenleyside. She has made such an affect in her own country that a national tv channel has produced a 30 minute documentary so she is worthy of an entry.

I am expecting a lot of criticism but I will accept that if it results in an acceptable article. Cheers Tom

It's quite simple really. You add [[Category:Category name]] to the bottom of the article. If you want to know which are available, you can use the search function. Once you stick around for a while you'll develop a feeling of the categories you need. I'll see what I can do.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Questions about Wikipedia belong on the help desk, not here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aiming for a good article, you should add a references section in which you cite the sources you used to write this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint for filling in the "Category name" parameter:
Take a look at an article on a subject very close to yours and see what categories it's in.
B00P 04:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64 game

What is the name of the Nintendo 64 game in which you have to prevent water from leaving the gameboard? It's a puzzle game --Shanedidona 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds similar to Pipe Dream, although I don't know about the N64. 惑乱分からん 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "Wetrix". You drop earth to build mountains and valleys. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 15:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I played the game on a cell-phone once... 惑乱分からん 15:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mideastern terrorists

Why are almost all terrorists these days primarily from the Middle East? The Ayatollah 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're the ones who are getting the most press these days. Plus The IRA have given up (for now) 8-(--Light current 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I'd say that most terrorism these days is from Muslim fundamentalists, including many who are neither Arab, nor from the Middle-East. The problem, as I see it, is a total lack of any tradition of peaceful resistance. If there had been a Muslim leader like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., then perhaps many of the complaints of the Muslim world (like the situation in Palestine) would have been solved by now, and much of the pointless violence would have been avoided. Instead, the Muslim world seems to be infected with madrassas which teach terrorism as the response to even very minor complaints, like school dress codes. StuRat 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly to due with media as well - the Basque group ETA are a nationalist/seperatist terrorist organization in Spain and are fairly active. Robovski 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it as inaccurate portrayal by the media. Of course, any nation's media will tend to report on terrorist organizations which target them. ETA generally only targets Spain, although they also operate in the adjacent area of France. Furthermore, they haven't killed anyone for 3.5 years, and relatively few in recent years before that. Various Muslim terrorist orgs have, on the other hand, killed thousands of people, and target countries around the world, including, but not limited to, the US, Russia, India, the UK, Spain, France, Australia, many Middle-Eastern nations, Sudan, etc. So, those terrorists, being far more active and dangerous to those nations, tend to be reported more, as they should be. In general, I'd say that the only nations which haven't been targets for Muslim fundamentalist terrorists are those that don't contain Muslims and don't have any interaction with Muslims. StuRat 00:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful with generalisations such as "from the Middle East". Of the four suicide bombers involved in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, three were born in England, and the fourth was born in Jamaica. Gandalf61 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the organisational chain of command in Islamic teaching, wherever it is taught? Please don't tell me that Allah communicates directly with every one of His people, or even that He communicates via his Mullahs, Imams, Sheiks etc., as if so, he would appear to be disseminating a different communique every single time. Who is the current leader of the Muslim religion who acts as the authorative voice of Qu'ranic interpretation? From where I stand, I see no such structure and I suspect the whole edifice of Muslim belief is built on blind faith and slavish obedience because there is no apparent freedom to express a question or a doubt or to challenge conflicting information. Look at the recent confusion over Muslim women wearing the veil. Every Muslim spokesperson who "pontificated" publicly on that controversy gave us a different interpretation. I think they make it up as they go. Sounds like an anarchic organisation to me. And it will all end in tears.

Who is the current leader of the Christian religion who acts as the authorative [sic] voice of Biblical interpretation? And don't say 'the Pope'. --ColinFine 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fuck religion. In general.

StuRat, the fact that muslim terrorists have killed thousands is completely due to the 2001 attacks on the US (unless you count civil war as terrorism). There have been few other attacks since, in total killing maybe hundreds (although I've found getting any info on this to be very difficult).

As for that other remark. Most Europeans have a sizeable muslim population (per capita much larger than the US) and have dealings with muslim countries (no wonder - they've got all the oil), but few of them have seen terrorist attacks. And of course an important reason so many terrorists are muslims is that about a quarter of the world population is muslim. Until a few years ago, most terrorists were catholics, but I can't remember newspapers reporting about 'another catholic attack', despite the fact that religion was often at the core of it. In the Netherlands, the only terrorists were Moluccans, who wanted to separtate from Indonesia, largely because they are catholics, whereas Indonesia is predominantly muslim. So that was the other way around. But no-one ever focused on it. Yet when North Sumatra wants to separate from Indonesia, there is a focus on them being muslims, despite the fact that the rest of Indonesia also is. Weird! DirkvdM 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that most of the deaths being the result of a single event in any way makes it less of a threat, but I also don't think that's true. If you count the African embassy bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the London bombings, the Bali night club bombing, all the attacks on Israel, the attacks in Russia and Chechnya and Dagestan and Ossetia, the attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Egypt and various other attacks worldwide, you quickly get to thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of deaths by Muslim terrorists worldwide. StuRat 08:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick total of just a few of the attacks shows the total is definitely in the thousands:

 191 Madrid trains
 365 Beslan school
 202 Bali night club
  52 London bombings
 257 African embassies
 162 Moscow theatre
  57 Istanbul bombings
  88 2005 Egypt bombings
  62 Luxor massacre
+270 Lockerbie, Scotland
---- -------------------
1706

StuRat 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does less than 2000 qualify as 'thousands'? Ok, you say 'a few'. Is there a good overview somewhere of terrorist attacks? Wikipedia should have one. Still, a few thousand over a decade or so worldwide means a risk of one in ten million per person. There are quite a lot more serious risks to humanity. DirkvdM 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And much of Europe has already been attacked by Muslim terrorists, including Spain, the UK, France, and the Netherlands (I most definitely consider the murder of Theo Van Gogh to be an example of Muslim terrorism, and apparently the Dutch courts agreed). Many more European nations have had their citizens attacked abroad by Muslim terrorists. StuRat 08:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch courts have called this murder terrorism? Do you have a source for that? I haven't given it much attention because I considered it to be one idiot killing another over a series of insults. The fact that he made a bit of a circus of it and that the victim was somewhat known (although not to me) resulted in a lot of media attention, and that is indeed an essential part of terrorism, but in this case that lies not in the act itself, so the word terrorism does not seem appropriate to me. That would make any murder that gets a lot of media attention terrorism. Such as the murder of Pim Fortuin, but his murderer wasn't a muslim, so I suppose that is why that was not called terrorism. DirkvdM 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious isn't it? It's because so much of our western society is based on the 'Christian God'; Britain's God save the Queen and America's in God we trust. If someone does 'evil' in the name of our God it couldn't possibly be, it must be because they are crazy and demented, after all 99.9% of Christians are good peaceful people. But if someone does 'evil' in the name of Allah, well, then it's quite easy to ignore the 99.9% of the peaceful Muslim community. It's classic us vs. them. Never mind that Allah and God are one and the same, bitterly ironic in a way isn't it? Vespine 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are way off on 99.9%. In many areas where they ask if it's a good idea to murder Israeli or American citizens, the majority says yes. StuRat 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat - can you be more specific about your "many areas" ? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion ? I think that in a potentially controversial thread such as this, it is better to avoid unsupported generalisations. Gandalf61 10:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered this at a later post, where you asked for rather similar poll results. Also, why don't you object to the 99.9% figure, which totally lacks any supporting evidence ? Is it only OK to generalize in one direction ? StuRat 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 'the vast majority' and it holds true in both cases. The agian, to use your reasoning the other way around (my favourite method), a majority of US citizens re-elected Bush, so they seem to agree with killing Iraqis. DirkvdM 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar is that when a man sees another man cannot drive well it's because that guy can't drive, but when it's a woman it's because women can't drive. DirkvdM 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker chips

In the new Bond film, during the poker scene, at one point Bond appears to only have a big piles of $2,000,000 chips, yet in the next scene is able to place a blind of $50,000 (I think; certainly less than $2,000,000). I was wondering what you have to do in poker when you want to make a relatively small bet (such as placing one of the blinds), and all you have are very large denomination chips; do you take change out of the pot? La ï ka 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the pot contains the amount of change sufficient to fulfill your bet, you do take change; otherwise, at any time, you trade your "million dollar blue value card" (in the case of bond) to another person (normally he who has the largest amount of smaller chips) for a bunch of smaller value chips equivalent to one million chips. Then you can place your bets. ChowderInopa 20:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when making such large bets, it would be a simple matter to ask an employee of the casino to make change for you. I'd have to wonder, though, if such a tiny bet wouldn't be below the minimum bet for the table. StuRat 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a house dealer or is the dealer a player? If there's a house dealer, you do not take change from the pot; you keep your fingers away from the pot, thank you very much. The dealer will make change for you, or a player will volunteer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Whenever I've played poker, all the chips have had the same value, so I've never come against this problem before. Thanks! La ï ka 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since $50,000 is the amount of a blind, here's no issue with being below a minimum bet. For anyone reading this that may be unfamiliar with the concept, see Blind (poker). Dave6 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no rain

this is a challenging question about name the only place that doesn't receive precipitation of rain and snow, only sunny and cloudy days?

according to this [4] some Northern desert regions of Chile have never recorded any precipitation. Nowimnthing 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a cave? Underwater? EdC 22:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place in Chile actually did, in 1974. The Atacama Desert is only once recorded as having had rain once. Mind you, IIRC the South Pole receives neither rain nor snow. Also, if you want to think outside the ~~square~~ oblate spheroid, there are plenty of places you can probably think of elsewhere in the Solar System. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it doesn't snow at all in antarctica? A lot of wind moving through the area and tossing snow around counts as snowing in my book --⁪froth^{T C} 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only a deranged person would argue it doesn't snow in Antarctica. But Grutness was talking about the South Pole specifically, which is technically a single point. If it neither rains nor snows there, it must be a tiny oasis of rock surrounded by snow and ice. Maybe he can elucidate his comment. JackofOz 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Grutness was probably making reference to conditions created by atmoshpheric circulation, specifically the Polar cell which results in cold, dry air coming down at the pole. By the time air reaches the pole, all the moisture has been sucked out of it. That means that there is no moisture to precipitate in either liquid or solid form.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, that's what I meant. Winds tend to blow north, away from the pole, (can't remember the name for this - katabatic wind?), and - as the article on the South Pole points out, precipitation is very low, with most of the snow at the pole driven there by wind. Much of internal Antarcticais often regarded as a desert for that reason. BUT there is still precipitation, albeit only about 25mm per year. To follow on from Jack's comment, yes of course it snows in Antarctica, but Antarctica is big enough to have many many weather patterns. It's roughly 50% larger than the United States, so thinking that I was referring to the whole continent is like thinking that winter weather conditions in Omaha and Los Angeles are the same. Back to the original question, I think I was on the right track - the answer may be the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Ross Dependency, Antarctica, which AFAIK have no rainfall or snow. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Recording

I play guitar and want to start to be able to record stuff in my own house rather than having to go over to friends house's to record. I was wondering what equipment I would need. From my knowledge it seems that I need to have some sort of computer program and a mixer. Can you guys help me with this? RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audacity is your friend. You need to have a microphone and you can record and even edit your recordings. There may be a plug out there that goes right from the guitar to the computer, I'm not sure however. schyler 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the quality you want. My friends used to turn out some decent tapes in the basement with a 4 track tape recorder, a small mixing board and mics. Newer (fairly cheap) mixing boards can burn right to cd and then you can do post production editing on any computer. Again software can run a range of prices. Nowimnthing 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ins policies on passports

i am trying to find out the out if you have to have $12,000.00 in order to obtain a passport traveling from africa to u.s.a. or from africa to anywhere else? thank you for taking the time to read this question.

No. $12,000 is very high for some sort of temporary insurance. A country issuing a passport sets fees for it, and the country issuing a visa may charge for it, but no country charges fees that high. Some countries allow a sort of "investor" permanent residency, but they require investments much larger than $12,000. A lawyer could charge for services, but that sounds high for even a complicated immigration case. Smugglers might charge that much, as well as people who marry to enable a spouse to immigrate. -THB 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

after edit conflict

Umm you will probably need a visa as well as your Passport to travel from most African countries to the US (which could end up being a somewhat expensive process), but the only requirement for $12,000 I can think of would be shady dealings. Nowimnthing 21:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can still get a fake passport for much less than that, even with all the new security, but it might be more in Africa than New York. -THB 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess you're either dealing with a corrupt government official who wants a bribe, or it's just a scam (which may, or may not, actually provide you with what you need, but at an absurd price, in any case). StuRat 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration officials in the country you are travelling can ask you to prove you can pay for your stay. They can be as arbitrary as they like I think. At least according to those Airport docu-soaps on TV in the UK they do. If you came in with a 12 month student visa, no return ticket and $200, the assumption is you will be working illegally. $12,000 doesn't seem unreasonable if you are claiming to be staying 6 months. 86.132.225.153 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-modern races

Hi, this is the third time I'm asking this; either nobody understands this or nobody "has the guts" to answer this. I want to know in the early U.S., the order of racial superiority. The races recognized at the time were Black, Brown, Red, White, and Yellow. Please answer this. --209.122.217.12 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete racialist question. Agreement?--Light current 23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.. --⁪froth^{T C} 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the deletion of this. All this is is a trolling attempt. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. It's a perfectly fair question. There have been all sorts of more or less crackpot anthropological theories advanced over the years; the questioner wonders what the "racial hierarchy" was thought to be in some "early US" belief. Obviously, given the nature of those inventing such hierarchies, white would be on top and black on the bottom; what was the shape of the middle? Does Wikipedia have an article about crackpot racial theories? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, don't delete it. That makes me, Jpgordon, the original poster, and the other responders (who we can assume, don't want their contributions deleted). StuRat 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Watch this turn into a racist thread 8-(--Light current 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of articles about crackpot racial theories (see Scientific racism for an overview of those which were purposed to have a scientific, i.e. anthropological, basis). --24.147.86.187 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being of mixed race would confer a status between that of the two races, at the time. There would, however, be a social penalty, as neither race might accept such individuals. StuRat 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you've missed the point (race card warning light coming on prematurely?) - I think what the question means - at the time of the early US - which races had the most rights etc - clearly white at top, maybe next yellow (chinese) since they weren't slaves - the actual order I don't know...

And in a white-dominated society the whites usually would recognize "mixing" as being only to the detriment of a "white" status (that is, black+white always meant that the result was white, see one-drop rule). as to how the races were "ordered" in the "early US" — it depends what you mean by "early US". I imagine you must mean at least by the 19th century because before then you really didn't have an issue of Asians as a "race" and the rhetoric for talking about American Indians wasn't one that was along "racial" lines so much as cultural. In any case by the late 19th century the different hierarchies would depend on who you asked; someone on the West Coast would have much stronger feelings about Asians than would someone in the South, and someone in the North East would usually not accept that there was one "white" race (they would separate out the Irish and the Eastern Europeans and the Jews as being white-skinned but essentially not "white"). So in the end I'm not sure what the question is supposed to be but as a historical question it is not easy to answer because it uses categories which weren't universal in the US at any of the times. I'm also pretty sure the 5-color racial scheme did not really become the dominant way of talking about race in the US until the interwar period (it goes back to at least Blumenbach, though his scheme had some big differences to what it became in the US; in the 18th century in the US race was talked about in an entirely different way). --24.147.86.187 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stab at an answer but I think you misunderstand "one drop"; white + black always yields black according to most racist arithmetic. You could generalize the racist view as "pure + other = impure = other". Also, the OP asks about early US. That would start at the inception of the US and go some arbitrary period from there that could be thought of a fairly homogeous in attitudes; I chose 50 years, perhaps it should be only 10 or 20 years if viewpoints generally changed in that period as one poster mentioned regarding the loss of rights of blacks. --Justanother 14:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of "guts". Certainly different cultures at different times had different views on races and "racial superiority". The OP says he is interested in early US. That would be, IMO, perhaps the first 50 years following the Declaration of Independence, say late 1700's to early 1800's. Certainly the "colored" races; black, red, yellow; were considered inferior by many, if not most, white Americans. Didn't popular literature of the time forward these ideas? Even Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. My opinion, you cannot exploit a group of people unless you can justify to yourself that they are somehow inferior and thus, deserving of exploitation. Whites in the US exploited all the "colored" peoples. Perhaps someone can speak to his question as to what was the relative ordering of "inferiority" in the minds of the people of that day. Didn't they speak of the "noble red man" when they weren't killing him or driving him off his land? It is certainly a valid historical question. --Justanother 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African-Americans had greater legal rights in the late 1700's than they did in the 1800's. The sad record in books of "slave law" show a stripping of rights by courts and legislatures of the southern states between the American Revolution and the Civil War. Slaves rights were striped away to be pretty much limited to what their masters granted them. Slaves were such by virtue of the slave status of the mother. A slave could be blond or red haired, white skinned and blue eyed, if the mother was a light skinned slave. The slave owners contributed to the lightening of the skin color of the slaves generation after generation. Rape of a female slave was not a crime. Edison 06:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one human race - Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And I don't regard it as superior to any other races or species or what have you. Although it is difficult not to be biased in favour of your own species/race/family/whathaveyou. See also race#Incongruities of racial classifications. DirkvdM 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on kids - is anybody actually going to answer this guys question. Giving an order of societal status (as percieved by whites at that time)

Thought I had figured out the question, I just don't have an answer. When did Chinese start coming over in quantity, esp. to build railroads? My guess as to the answer would be that many US people in that era would say white was on top, then red, then yellow, then black. I would think that "enlightened" people of the era might not make that distinction, especially in the case of red and yellow. Sorry, but many "enlightened" people still managed to support slavery of blacks so what does that say about those "luminaries"? But that is just a guess; an historian or buff can do better. There, guts enough for ya? --Justanother 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early enough in the US there was only the Red Man,duh?!hotclaws**== 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OP asked about US (United States), not North America or America. --Justanother 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black & Brown

Were there brown AND black "races" in the early U.S.? How were they defined?

I must say that even though this type of question often appears to be "trolling", the concept of race is very interesting, from a historical, sociological, and anthropological persepectives. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding of the concept and I believe these questions should be answered, not deleted. -THB 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask a different question, then start a new thread, in stead of giving the troll the idea that he is being taken serious. DirkvdM 07:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is becoming the answering of a question that wasn't asked. The question is not about the order of racial superiority as perceived by people at that time, let alone as perceived by the whites, but simply about the order of racial superiority, thus suggesting there was a racial superiority, and that's the trolling bit. Let me do some more politically correct trolling. Who did the Indians perceive as superior? Whites, blacks or Chinese? Or should I start a separate thead for that? :) DirkvdM 07:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good point. Sometimes we "automatically" translate the trolling question to a non-trolling version; sometimes we refactor the question to make it non-trolling; other times we delete it as an obvious troll. Guess this one is ambiguous enough to have met the first case. Perhaps the OP will clarify his question for us. --Justanother 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the OP, although I don't know what that stands for. I meant how whites thought of the racial hierarchy. As mentioned, I think it would top with whites and end with blacks, but I don't know which're in between.--216.164.197.227 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]