Miscellaneous desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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.

October 29

Font

what type of font is used for the lettering of this?

Image:GNRchinesedemocracy.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.172.115 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 October 2008

Difficult to tell in all caps, but it looks like a version of Garamond to me. I'm sure that some typographical experts will be along to correct me before long, so wait for them. Deor (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say Garamond? I'd guess it's a fairly recent design, i.e. since 1984. —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatTheFont listed Congress SB-Light, Congress Light, Congress T Light, Skopex Serif-Reg Caps, and Skopex Serif-Reg TF as possible matches, but I'm not at all sure how reliable the tool is... --Onorem ♠Dil 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very reliable. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not one I'm familiar with (and I have a lot of fonts, and a pretty good knowledge of them). Definitely not Garamond (or Congress or Skopex). It has some distinctive features, like the tail of the R and the lack of a serif on the center of the E. I haven't found anything that really matched up to it. It reminds me of the serif font that engravers sometimes use for those cheesy trophies and paperweights. --98.217.8.46 (talk)

Please remove four-letter word in one of your articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cebu_City

Under Cebu City, under History:

"As early as 3,000 years ago, Cebu is the fucking city, Zebu, Zzubu or Sugbu, was already shito a prosperous settlement before it was colonized by Spain."

The use of the "F" word needs to be changed and this needs to be corrected, immediately. Other errors may be present. You can check. Thank you.

Fixed. And thank you. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering why couldn't the poster of the question fix the article?

Mix Lord (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Poster, thanks for finding what is vandalism (I'm imagining it's by someone who thought their hometown was a "hole" – dictionary meaning is informal for: a small or unpleasant place : she had wasted a whole lifetime in this hole of a town). Be bold and change back anything like vandalism you come across. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See vandalism and in particular Wikipedia:vandalism. I'm afraid it happens all the time. It is a pain in the phrase removed. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the word was inappropriate here, do note if the word is used appropriately, e.g. if it's a direct quote from someone that is valid and important to the article, then it is unlikely it will be removed since wikipedia is not censored Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in India and Europe

what is nationalism in india and europe? when was it started? give brief description on nationalism in india and europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.18 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will not do your homework here. Try searching for the answers yourself by typing a key word or phrase (hint: "india nationalism") in the search box near the top left of this page (click Search instead of Go). -- Tcncv (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism

As a rule of thumb, are most lacto-ovo vegetarians okay with eating ingredients made from animal byproduct (such as gelatin or fish sauce), or not? I would actually be glad to "poll the reference desk" on this one. Please mention if you happen to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian. The Jade Knight (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If l-o vegetarians don't eat fish or meat, why would they eat associated by-products of these animals? Dairy products imply no animal dies in the process of producing them. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complex issue this. I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian (as is the rest of my family). We personally do not have issues with consumption animal products as those you mentioned, not even from a religious point of view (I'm from a family of Hindus). I do suspect, though, that religions that shun strictly the killing of animals, e.g. Buddhism or Jainism will forbid consumption of products as those mentioned by you (afterthought: Buddhists or Jains may not consume eggs in the first place). Bottom line is, that if one is a lacto-ovo vegetarian, chances are that he will be so by his own volition, as most religions which forbid consumption of animal meat also advise against consumption of eggs. A Christian lacto-ovo vegetarian may not have such issues; on the other hand, there may not be an entity as a Jain lacto-ovo vegetarian.Leif edling (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism does not shun the eating of animals, it is considered wrong to kill animals. But if they are already dead and the meat is offered to the temple, the monks will take it. After all, it is already dead, and eating it fulfills the purpose of its death. Just throwing it away would make its death pointless.--ChokinBako (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Julia Rossi, the vegan concept of not consuming dairy products also stems from the fact that, occasionally, male calves are killed in preference to female ones in dairies in order to lower costs and optimize output. While this: [1] may be overkill, such stuff does happen for fulfillment of economic ends.Leif edling (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leif – didn't know there was a hidden ~~statistic~~ death factor in there. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse with chickens, where the boys are generally sent directly to the chipper as soon as they're sexed. --Sean 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sean's post wins the award for the scariest piped link of the day. All ovo-lacto vegetarians I know avoid jello but that's 100% anecdotal. Darkspots (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, attitudes towards the consumption of animal byproducts vary among vegetarians. Most vegetarians I know avoid items such as gelatine, cochineal and usually rennet, whereas far fewer avoid products clarified using isinglass. I suspect this is largely down to the relative difficulty in determining whether these byproducts have been used, the availability of alternatives, and perhaps because the isinglass should not be present in the finished product. Warofdreams talk 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am vegetarian, bordering on vegan, and like most vegetarians I know, I avoid most processed foods so additives are not usually an issue. I certainly avoid eating animal products as much as possible. In the UK, many processed foods that are suitable for vegetarians will have a notice stating this, which saves a lot of time trying to read the small print. I suspect there are a large number of people who think of themselves as vegetarian but don't realise that animal products are used in the manufacture of many foods.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the heads up on vegetarianism, until now I've been shilled! Julia Rossi (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a friend who is a vegetarian, and can eat eggs and milk products, but cannot drink milk. He does not eat gelatin, rennet, food dye made from insects, nor any food or candy product that is made by a company known to do animal testing. Not sure if this applies to other ovo-lacto vegetarians, however. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money

Seeing as you can get money by using your credit card at a money machine, why don't people ever just use their card indefinitely? 58.170.198.49 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credit cards have a limit. The amount of that limit is based on your personal circumstances. Additionally credit-cards/bank-cards usually have a daily-limit on the amount that can be withdrawn using them at ATM machines. This is incase someone finds our your PIN and takes your card - additionally it will help prevent cash-machines having too much money taken from them, which helps decrease the amount of time between replenishing the machines (which obviously is less of a problem for ATMs attached to banks than it is for ones that aren't). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have to pay the money back, or else the credit card company may be able to declare you bankrupt, freeze your bank accounts, dock your salary, repossess/sell your goods, or even put you in jail, depending on local laws and practices. If you have a card with a large limit, that is probably because the company considers you trustworthy, and even so the amount of money you can withdraw is unlikely to be enough to let you flee the country and set yourself up for life; although some people do make a living from credit card fraud, they will typically use large numbers of cards.

While many card issuers do not require cards to be authorized for small payments in stores, they are very likely to check all transactions in networked ATM machines. They also devote a lot of effort to credit monitoring to check for non-standard spending patterns, which will allow them to identify stolen cards, identity theft, or someone trying to rip them off, and many issuers will rapidly suspend cards at least until suspicious behaviour is explained. Finally, many credit cards charge higher than normal interest rates for cash advances, so when they do catch up with you, it will be really expensive.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from interest rates, CREDIT cards are charged a fee for a cash withdrawal. SGBailey (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware higher interest rates is the norm here in NZ. But they do charge interest from the moment you receive a cash advance rather then ~25 days after your bill (bill due date). Interest rates on credit cards are bad enough as it is anyway. And yes, you also get charged a fee. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral

Suppose someone dies before they have a chance to say what they want to happen to them after they die (burying, cremating etc). What happens then? 58.170.198.49 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The family members/individuals organising the funeral will decide. If there isn't anybody then the government will no doubt have procedures for people with no next of kin/significant others. As an added bonus...I used to wonder about cremations and ashes - whether or not you got all that person, and whether there might be other people's ashes mixed in...Apparently in the UK after a cremation everything must be cleaned out in preparation for the next cremation, you get all the ashes, but things such as pacemakers etc. are removed. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, when animals are cremated, several of them are generally put in at the same time and you get part of your animals ashes along with parts of other people's pet ashes. Unless you pay extra, then you can get just your animal. This is in the US. I don't know if it differs elsewhere. Dismas|^(talk) 12:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that even if you specify your wishes for the format of your funeral in advance, this is not legally binding in many jurisdictions.[2] Although there may be additional laws governing pre-paid funerals, in many places the relatives can do what they like.

Generally authorities will try to find some relative to pay the funeral costs, but if nobody can be found to take responsibility for the body, then generally local government will bury them. In the USA these are commonly called indigent funerals/burials and are left to individual counties to organise and pay for[3][4]; in the UK, public health funerals funded by local councils[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard from several sources that's it's physically impossible to completely clean out the refractory. At best, most of what you get back will be who/what you expect, but a small percentage will be from other remains. In a very simple example, consider how perfectly clean you get your barbecue or oven - after every single use. Even if you wanted to get your oven completely clean every time you used it, there's no way you'd be able to guarantee it was 100% clean with no possibility of commingling. My understanding is that most crematories state as much explicitly, though tactfully. Matt Deres (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Ontario, Canada, if someone dies having made a will and having named an executor in that will, the executor decides what happens to the body. Even where the will or other document stipulates what the testator wants done with his/her body, the executor may override that wish, though to do so without the agreement and/or co-operation of the (rest of the) family is likely to bring a lot of unnecessary grief to the executor's job. If there are no such instructions, the executor has the final say about the disposition of the remains. From this site [6] comes the following:

Funeral and Burial

The executor has control over the disposition of the body. The executor does not have to follow the instructions of the deceased as to funeral or burial arrangements, even if they are written in the will.

៛ Bielle (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are such things as pre paid funerals where you decide exactly what you want ahead of time.I looked for links but could only find ads which I shan't bother posting/hotclaws.

Who gets the pacemakers?

Following the last section, are pacemakers and such things donated as are organs of deceased people? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninformed reply. I doubt it. My mother in law is on her 3rd pacemaker, the others wore out in some fashion. I cannot imagine that they would want to reuse one in someone else, even if it had only been fitted the week before. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my equally-uninformed opinion is similar - I would suspect that the costs of installing the pacemaker and treating the patient in the case of problems dwarfs the material cost of the pacemaker itself - so I doubt reusing them is remotely cost-effective due to the inherent unreliability of a used one. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently it does happen: Survival and Mortality in 3,701 Pacemaker Patients: Arguments in Favor of Pacemaker Reuse: "Two pacemaker populations were compared; those having a new pacemaker and (hose implanted with a reused pacemaker. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups, either in terms of indications for implantation or in terms of actuarial survival of patients. In addition, there was no significant change in survival of the pulse generator. The reutilization of pacemakers appeared to be in no way detrimental to patients.". Rmhermen (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pacemakers are purely electronic - right? No moving parts. So I don't see how one could 'wear out'. Failure of electronic parts after an initial 'burn in' period is essentially random. So a used pacemaker ought to run (on average) for just as long as a properly burned-in new one. Of course if they don't do the 'burn in' period properly prior to implantation then a used pacemaker would last (on average) longer than a new one. SteveBaker (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only half the bath-tub curve! Everything wears out eventually; yes, after the initial 'burn in' period there's a random failure period, but eventually it will wear out. I don't know how long it is before the average pacemaker reaches the wearout period, and from Rmhermen's source it sounds like people are still determining it. Without that, the increased risk can't be determined. 79.66.32.150 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My son-in-law was for a short time a crematorium attendant and he told me that "burned-out" pacemakers, knees, hips, shoulders etc. are scrapped due to the utterly destructive intense heat generated during the cremation process, not forgetting the reluctance and sensitivities of families and friends, both of the "donor" and any potential recipient to the concept of any re-engineering and re-use. However, I think my understanding of "Burn-in" in this context differs from that of Steve Baker in his!!!

Pacemakers are removed before cremation as they may present an explosion or radiation danger (see Cremation#Burning and ashes collection) Rmhermen (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dishonest morticians may steal them (I knew one). This, however, is illegal. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Daines

In the TV show My so called life, who was the guy she fell in love with, who was the actor, and who was the character, and most importantly, what was the song that he wrote for her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk)

Have you seen our article on My So-Called Life, you'll find all of the answers there. Nanonic (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

food

is there a product on the market, or how feasable is it to produce a product that conyains everything one needs to survive. eg all the vitamins, minerals, protiens, ect, much like a yogurt or actimel type thing. This could be used for the military, hiking, poor people, famines, lazy cooks ect. basically all one needs is air, water and product x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk)

Probably not, the main issue is that everyone is different and thus needs different amounts of vitamins etc to stay healthy. Then there are the problems raised from the use of Multivitamins where a concotion/mix of vitamins can be dangerous to some groups at certain times in their lives or those with medical problems. In addition to this, there is the very real risk of a user overdosing if they take more than the required amount (usually Vitamin A, D or Iron overdoses). Finally, taking a pill or eating one item will not cause the bodies hunger pangs to cease. The human body has been conditioned for regular eating for so long that the brain will find it hard to stop the reflex, thus people who have received their daily nutrition in one hit will still crave something to eat at some further point in the day. Nanonic (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milk seems to do the job for babies. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure people need different amounts of things - but that just means that 'product X' needs to contain enough of everything to cover the worst-case needs of 99.99% of the population. Some people would get more of something than they need - but that shouldn't be a problem over relatively short periods. Military rations (such as the US "MRE" - Meal, Ready to Eat) seem to do this - but their problem is to avoid boredom...and I guess it's technically not just one homogeneous product - it's a bunch of different things. But take an army ration pack and stick it into a blender - and you should come pretty close. It's said that if you eat all of the food in every pack then you can survive for very long periods on the stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boost? Or Ensure or Jevity etc. Tomdobb (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that total parenteral nutrition can sustain a person indefinitely. --S.dedalus (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want something like "Purina People Chow" (which I do not believe to be an actual product as yet). I knew impoverished grad students who would eat Purina Monkey Chow. Or consider "jail loaf." It is served up to prisoners who violate the rules in small ways, as by flooding their cell, throwing food at guards, or refusing to return eating utensils. It is supposed to be nutritionally equivalent to the general diet. The recipe varies from place to place, but typically ii includes "grated carrots, dehydrated mashed potatoes, canned spinach, beans, white bread, cheese food, powdered skim milk, some sort of sugar, some sort of meat and vegetable oil, blended together and baked hard." [7] . Another recipe includes whole wheat bread, cheese, carrots, spinach, beans, vegetable oil, potato flakes, tomato paste, skim milk and raisins. [8] , [9]. It actually sounds pretty tasty. I think I will make some and let you know how it tastes. Edison (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, this was making me think of the "Bachelor Chow" from Futurama. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Plumpy'nut? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate orgasm

If a man has a prostate orgasm does that mean he cums without anyone touching his penis? How can I give a guy a prostate orgasm? 66.63.184.3 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our article on prostate massage. Good luck.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could ask the Prime Minister of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Sherlock! :) Titch Tucker (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary, my dear Titch Tucker! (or might that be more appropriately "Fundamentally, ..." in this case?) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary, though he never said it in the Holmes canon anyway. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes says 'elementary' all the time, actually. It's 'Elementary, my dear Watson!' that never occurs. Algebraist 08:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though, as Jack said, the more appropriate word is "Fundamentally..." which is a joke that no one seems to have gotten (look at the roots of the word "fundament"). For the record Jack, I rofled. Though only a little. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ROFLed on the inside. --Sean 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't linked that it would have sounded kind of smutty! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for anyone still lost, see wikt:fundament, definition number 2, which is probably the closest to the original meaning of the word.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Toby anyway? 66? Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't there any F6 tornadoes?

Is there a meteorological/atmospheric reason why? I notice the enhanced fajita scale tops out at 322/mph and the old one at 318/mph. Why these exact numbers? Is 322/mph the absolute cutoff nature will allow? How did they determine this? I hate to see people lose thier homes, but from a scientifically anamalous standpoint, a tornado in excess of 322/mph(or much greater!) would be kick ass! Seriously, who wouldn't want to see a tornado so intense that it digs into the ground deep eneough for it to throw bedrock and molten lava around!?THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Enhanced Fujita Scale, the highest category EF5 is >322mph, so it doesn't top out, although the old Fujita Scale did (at least in more recent versions). The articles make the point that the scale isn't based on exact wind-speed measurements, but on estimates based on the damage. (I'm sure I read somewhere about practical limits on the size of hurricanes and I suspect there are limits on tornadoes, but no idea what.)

Even if an F6 is physically possible, only one tornado in a thousand is an F5 - the chances of an F6 forming would be pretty tiny. But I suspect there are even more significant reasons why they top out at that speed. The air is going around in a circular motion - so there are centrifugal forces acting on the wind - those forces have to be counteracted by lower air pressure inside the tornado than outside. For a small diameter tornado, the centrifugal forces are bigger than for a large diameter one where the air is moving at the same linear speed. But there is a limit to how low the air pressure can be - you can't get lower pressure than a vacuum - so there is obviously a limit beyond which the tornado can't spin any faster and still stay "together". But bigger tornadoes can have higher strength winds without blowing apart because there is less centrifugal force on the air. That means that the fastest tornadoes also have to be big. This means that to get up one more step on the scale doesn't just require the energy to make the air go faster - but also much more air has to be spinning. That double-whammy means that the difference in energy between each step of the tornado is HUGE. As rare as it is to get up enough energy to make an F5 - to reach the mythic F6 may really be beyond the energy that a tornado can muster. SteveBaker (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that the EF5 rating is > 322 km/h not mph. --LarryMac | Talk 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be pretty awesome if tornadoes really were measured with a fajita scale. (Sorry!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of related: Category_6:_Day_of_Destruction

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 29

Contents