Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 3

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.

April 3

Largest jackpot in Asia

In the article lottery, records of the largest prizes in the world, Europe and other countries are mentioned. I wonder, what is the largest ever won in Asia? Several weeks ago, a prize won in a Philippine-based lottery was worth a little over $7,000,000 but I assume there are prizes in other countries that are even larger. 202.69.188.72 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Asia, but the Spanish Lottery a few years ago had a jackpot of £186,000,000 ($360 million US), and no-one won it, so the Spanish government took it.--KageTora (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like the Spanish Christmas Lottery. Yes the prizes are quite large but they're usually split. 202.69.188.72 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Caine Joke

On the Tonight Show a few days ago Michael Caine was on and he told a joke, saying the audience wouldn't get it but if we were British we'd be rolling in the aisles. Well, sure enough I didn't get it. I'm guessing it has something to do with an idiom I'm not familiar with as a Yank. Anyway, can someone explain this joke? It went something like this:

Guy knocks on the door of a friend; the wife opens the door and he says "is john around?" She bursts into tears saying "john died not two minutes ago; just keeled over; it was his heart I think." The man then says "that's horrible but before he died, did he say anything about a pot of brown paint?"—70.19.64.161 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm British, yes it is hilarious!--88.109.57.209 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a funny joke. I think it is based on the premise that English men are very particular about things they have lent to others and the the worst crime is not to return anything borrowed. The visitor is clearly more concerned about the return of his paint than the por guy's death. Like all jokes - when you dissect it it dies! 86.4.190.210 (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(I'm British too.) Personally I read it as that the two men had previously agreed that John would lend the other guy his pot of paint and the other guy is now coming round to pick it up. He still wants the paint and is now wondering where it is. It also says something about the British obsession with DIY. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, it says something about British frugality and focus. Is very funny too, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep - it works for me too. I don't know about "VERY" funny - but it's definitely a joke. Somehow, it helps that the paint is brown...I don't know why. SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's so uninteresting, I'd imagine. The joke gets it humor from the contrast of the banal returning of the object and the shock of death. So you increase the humor by making the object to be return very uninteresting... brown paint is pretty uninteresting. (Notice that the humor disappears if you make the object something valuable or sentimental.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference between American sensibilities and British sensibilities as concerns the banal object? I doubt if British views on death are different from American views on death. Is a pot of brown paint viewed differently in the two settings? Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No - I doubt the color of the paint makes much difference to the translatability...but perhaps the banality of brown paint exceeds that of more vibrant colors. I think British people are more inclined to make jokes about death than Americans...but it's very difficult to generalize. Contrast the episode of Fawlty Towers where a resident in a small hotel dies with Weekend at Bernie's. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I 'get' the joke, guess i'd have to see it being told (most jokes don't work for me when read - must not have a very funny internal narration), but don't think this is a particularly 'great' joke. (oh and I'm English) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the joke is only funny when coming from a down-at-earth, vaguely working-class geezer (however much that image may be divorced from reality) like Caine. Give it to someone foppish like Hugh Grant or bourgeois like John Cleese and it just wouldn't work. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also the nature of the joke could be changed totally, making it a non-PC mean spiritedA joke if you start it "A Scotsman knocks....". If you made it an Irishman (Paddy) you would have to change the punchline, maybe to "so do you think he will be able to help me paint the ceiling tomorrow". If it was an American you would have him saying "that's terrible, but the important thing is had he found Jesus?". -- Q Chris (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"If it was an American you would have him saying "that's terrible, but the important thing is had he found Jesus?"". LOL. See, that I get. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was an American you would have him saying, "that's horrible but before he died, did he say anything about a pot of red, white, and blue paint?" Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess I get it now. The pot of brown paint, which I thought was a specific reference to something I'm not familiar with, could have been any mundane borrowed item, a pair of plyers and so on. I was focused on it being something more involved.—70.19.64.161 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a great many jokes that don't translate. One that came up at work a while ago (I'm a Brit living in Texas BTW) was: "What do you call a Lada Cabrio? A skip!". Sadly, almost none of the actual words in this joke translate into American. Firstly, the "Lada" brand of uber-crappy cars does not exist in the US - so you have to change it to "Hyundai" or "Kia" or something - and they don't call cars with retractable roofs "Cabrios" - so we have to change that to "Convertible" - and the large container full of trash is a "Dumpster" not a "Skip". So finally, you arrive at "What do you call a Hyundai Convertible? A dumpster!"...but somehow, it's lost something. Part of the trouble is that 'dumpster' refers to the rectangular trash containers that have lids as well as the trapezoidal ones that don't - and that's a critical part of the joke - if you happen to be thinking of the kind of dumpster that has a lid - the joke completely fails. So there really isn't really a good way to translate it perfectly. SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But I think I should be able to share the humor in any joke, if I am provided with sufficient background information. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no. The American version of the Caine joke would be "... that's horrible but before he died, did he say anything about my golf clubs?" (Or possibly "an electric drill.") B00P (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone with belt sander. (Obscure reference to when Homer Simpson borrowed Ned Flanders' belt sander.) --Blue387 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of a story my mum frequently tells at family gatherings: her father died several years ago, and after the funeral, while speaking to his brother, she asked if there were any of my grandfather's things his brother would like to keep, thinking he might want one of her father's Bibles, as the family was quite religious, and my grandfather had been a church elder. Her uncle thought for a minute, and then replied: "Well, I wouldn't mind his ladders, if you don't want them." --Kateshortforbob 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The joke works because the guy is behaving so incredibly insensitively, something we would hope would never happen in real life. But it's not unknown. The father of a friend of mine died, and various old friends arrived spontaneously to comfort his widow. But one person who turned up was someone she'd never seen before. She asked him who he was, and he said he'd had various business dealings with her husband, and was owed some money, and could he please have it back. She set the dogs on him. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A woman I know was 19 at her father's funeral, when her uncle asked her whether she was thinking of getting married soon. I guess he was trying to make conversation... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From the wording of the joke as told, we don't really know that the reference to a "pot of brown paint" has anything to do with anything loaned, or about to be loaned, as two people have suggested. The one person who said they were British and found the joke "hilarious," didn't explain what they found to be hilarious. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question : Why would you loan (or borrow) a consumable like paint? APL (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My grandparents,like everyone around them had their house painted dark green and brown.They were seen as hard wearing, respectable colours.The old oil based woodpaint used to blister in the sun.It was not uncommon to buy a small pot of paint to touch up these blisters rather than completely repaint.As child I was often sent to "pop" the blisters then repaint the marks.It would be quite feasible to lend a small pot of paint to a neighbour as every house was painted the same colour.hotclaws 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing that doesn't translate is that the paint is in a "pot". In the US a pot is for cooking and paint comes in cans. So, that line left me wondering why anyone would put paint in a cooking pot. How about my take on the joke: "I'm sorry to hear that John's dead, but now that your plans are clear for the weekend, would you like to go out ?". Don't like that one ? How about "I'm sorry to hear that John's dead, do you need me to go dig a hole out back ?". StuRat (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that that show (the Tonight Show, with Michael Caine as a guest on it), aired on April first. Could this be an April Fool's joke, perpetrated by Michael Caine and/or others? There might not be any British understanding of the circumstances any different from an American understanding, and no one so far has convincingly named what the "joke" is. I don't think there is any joke. But it was apparently told to an American audience, all (or most) of whom attributed their failure to "get" the joke to the introductory note that only a British recipient of this joke would be "rolling in the aisles." Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

just to throw in my tuppenny's worth, this joke has nothing to do with borrowed or lent items but is a prime example of battlefield humour. the point is the stoicism of the english, that faced with the death of a neighbour (and my we assume friend) the protagonist carries on with the task in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that it does involve borrowed or lent items. Carrying on with the task at hand, in this instance, means inquiring after the borrowed or lent item. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be getting the wrong idea, but isn't "john" another word for the toilet? Therefore, the pot of brown paint would be, well... ~AH1^(TCU) 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this was not intended as a poo joke. TastyCakes (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, British people are only vaguely aware that some of their transatlantic cousins call it a "john", when it is of course a loo or a bog. See British English --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: [1]. It is about the second or third section into the show. The only thing different from the joke as told above is that the man's name is Charlie, not John. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of a similar joke playing on the homophony of heart and art in a lot of English dialects. "It was 'is 'eart, Ah think." "Oh, that's terrible, but it wasn't *that* bad, was it?" Steewi (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried out that joke over the weekend (I thought it was hilarious). My audiences were all British. Interestingly, I discovered that men seemed to find it funny, but not a single woman did. They all either didn't "get it" or expressed disgust at what they thought was a sexist joke (against men). Ho hum. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Brown Paint joke only works if you're British and blessed with an acute sense of humour. Here's another joke along similar lines. A man arrives home. His wife says, "Hello, Dear, notice anything different about me?" He looks her up and down. "You've had your hair done?" She shakes her head. "New dress?" She shakes her head. "New shoes?" She shakes her head. "Okay," say the husband, "I give up. What is it?" His wife says, "I'm wearing a gas mask."

Cuban peso exchange rate outside Cuba

Yahoo Finance indicates that 1 Cuban national peso is worth one USD. Is this the exchange rate one can actually get on the peso outside Cuba? Does it help to do the exchange in Canada, given that Canada has no trade sanctions against Cuba? NeonMerlin 07:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the US has a trade sanction against Cuba. It does not exchange products or services (no doubt there are exceptions), but I have no actual evidence that currency is included in such sanctions. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on Cuban peso gives links to 3 currency conversion sites.

Yahoo Finance 1 CAD (Canadian dollar) = 0.8057 CUP (Cuban Pesos)[2]

xe.com - 1 CAD = 21.3514 CUP[3]

oanda.com 1 CAD = 18.49998 Cuban Peso[4]

The second and third seem to be actual rates for exchange/currency trading, while the first is the official Cuban rate (see also Cuban government website). Most Canadian and UK high-street banks seem not to quote rates for CUP (e.g. [5][6]) but will probably give them if asked. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So, according to the Cuban government, the Cuban dollar is worth one US dollar, while in reality it's only worth about a nickel (isn't communism fun ?). I wonder what actually happens when you walk into a bank in Cuba and say you want the official exchange rate. I assume they'd have no problem with it if you gave them dollars, but I can't see them honoring that absurd rate if you give them Cuban pesos and ask for an equal number of dollars. StuRat (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the joys of capital controls. Reminds me of Myanmar Burma. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lotteries

In national and state lotteries, is there usually a clause that the winner has to be a citizen or resident of that particular territory? In other words, could a tourist buy the winning ticket and leave the territory with the winnings? Has this ever happened, for large amounts? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

According to these guessters[7], the answer to your middle question is Yes but there may be taxes. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this just happened - an American won money in a Canadian lottery. I can't find any news about it though... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the conditions say only residents then a tourist could only win by cheating (difficult with a cheque to cash and no bank account), or by entering through a friend who is resident. If the lottery is open then, of course, anyone can enter and win. But there are many scams that appear to offer a lottery, and do not!86.200.2.89 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)DT

In Ontario, Canada, both national and provincial lotteries are administered by the OLG. Their web site goes into this subject at http://www.olg.ca/lotteries/guide/international_residents.jsp:

• Some countries do not allow OLG to mail cheques for lottery winnings. ...
• OLG will not mail cheques for lottery winnings to the U.S.
• Prizes over $250,000 must be collected in person... in Toronto.

That last rule applies to Canadians too. Because of scams about pretended lottery wins, they also point out that they don't use agents to contact winners, they don't collect fees up front, and no Canadian taxes are payable on wins.

--Anonymous, 22:16 UTC, April 3, 2009.

It seems rather counter-productive for a lottery to exclude foreigners, as they are the only way it's even possible for the lottery to bring money into the territory. Otherwise, any money won by citizens of the territory is offset by all the money lost by those who play. In other words, they just move money around, and don't create any wealth at all. At least if you take in more money from foreigners than you pay out, then your territory can increase it's wealth, at the expense of the surrounding territories, of course. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I don't think that's usually the purpose of the lottery, is it? Casinos are designed to draw people in, but lotteries generally aren't; they're more like a sin tax on the locals to fund schools and stuff like that. Matt Deres (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the term "sin tax" applies here, as that's a term used to describe a tax placed on something to discourage it, like tobacco and alcohol, with additional tax revenues as a side benefit. In the case of a lottery, though, they only care about the revenue, and actually encourage the "sin" (gambling), by government-funded advertising. I've often seen gambling sold to the public as a way to increase wealth, especially when first trying to legalize or subsidize a new project. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not sin tax; I believe the usual phrase is 'a tax on the stupid'. When the National Lottery was first launched in the UK, a great deal was made of the percentage of takings that would be used for charity, but I don't think I heard anyone claim it would increase wealth. 86.151.238.242 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard of a case where a Mexican won the California lottery and was then deported (but kept the winnings, without paying income tax!). —Tamfang (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Astrology

What star sign is someone born July 24th? The zodiac aricle [[8] says July 17 – August 16 but that's differnt from other sources I've found. Is there a standard? That you 79.76.240.82 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Basically they tend to say you are 'born in the cusp' - the dates for the Signs of the Zodiac change depending on the source from where you get them. They're usually around the same time, and I would expect a 24th July person to be a Leo but not necessarily the case. I am 23rd August and some star-signs put me as Leo and others as Virgo. Given that it is gibberish anyways (in my eyes) i've never really been surprised by the inconsistency of it all 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The dates you quoted are not the start and end dates normally used, but they weren't intended to mean that either. Leo (astrology) tells us that Leo starts "roughly on 23 July" and ends "roughly on 23 August". These dates can only be given roughly in a book, encyclopedia, magazine or newspaper, or website, because the precise moment when the sign changes (a) changes from year to year and (b) is almost never midnight. People born within a day or two of the change-over date really need to consult an ephemeris (or someone with astrological skills/knowledge) to determine exactly which sign the Sun was in at the moment of their birth (and because the sign can change at any time of the day or night, the most accurate birth time you can find, to the nearest minute if possible, will help you pin it down). The location and time zone of your birth, and whether or not daylight saving was in force at that time, are also important factors in this calculation. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may want to take a look at this article from LiveScience.com. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Translatability or otherwise of humour

Following on from the brown paint...

What would be the criteria for the most universal of humour? Would it necessarily be childish or slapstick? Imagine a line of people, starting with you, and then each of your same-sex ancestors (e.g. mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, g-g-m, etc.), stretching out ad infinitem. What sort of joke could you tell that could be passed back through the chain while keeping its humour? No cultural references, because those change too quickly. No puns, obviously, or anything that depends on word-play, because langauge evolves. Are we restricted to Chaucerian fart jokes? I suppose this could be widened to humour beyond jokes; suggestions welcome. (NB I am not asking for an endless lists of jokes here but criteria by which we could assemble such a list. A relevant example might help your case.) And, related to this, when explorers contact previously unknown people (either in the Age of Exploration or more recently in Papua New Guinea), what commonalities of humour have they observed? Let the fun begin! BrainyBabe (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slapstick. How else would you be able to cross language barriers? Everyone likes seeing someone trip over MedicRoo (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check out World's funniest joke, I think the Sherlock Holmes joke would go as far back as there are detectives. At the point where detectives become obscure, some quick-thinking ancestor of yours could change it to a joke about a famous brilliant logical philosopher, and then it could go back thousands of years and still retain at least some of its humor. The baby joke and the Doctor joke could also go pretty far back.

Basically, I think any joke that depends on a setup and then an ironic twist would probably work as far back as the setup still makes sense. APL (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are examples of Greek tragic plays, perhaps there are some existing examples of comedies as well? Maybe a trip to the library is in order... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of surviving Greek comedies. The regular jokes are kind of weird, but the satires of philosophers or politicians are still as great as anything now; you usually need to study a bit of background first, though. (Ancient Roman comedy is also funny, but then the Romans were a lot more like us than the Greeks, I would say.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think humor is too subjective to find a common thread amoung each form of humor that could make every single person laugh. The kind of people that enjoy Monty Python may not even crack a smile when they watch Larry the Cable Guy. Livewireo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

(Tangentially related anecdote) In a previous job, I used to give sales presentations for a large Silicon Valley technology company (despite being an engineer, and ill-suited to any form of public speaking). Many of these presentations were to groups of Chinese or Japanese businessmen. For these we engaged the help of a couple of translators, who simultaneously translated what I said into a microphone (the visitors had headphones). My standard bit had a few mild jokes peppered in there, and these played (as the saying has it) pretty well in Peoria. Most of these were language, or pun, based, and with hindsight I should have been more surprised that the visitors laughed at them that I was. One day, once I was done, I chatted with one of the translators (to help improve my performance; not all all because she was phenomenally cute) and I asked her how her buddy (they took turns) had successfully translated my joke (which she'd never heard previously). "Oh", she replied, "she just said 'he made a joke'". I was crushed. So I switched to something more direct. As it was a safety critical product, the new joke was "It's our company policy not to kill our customers..." (translator queried "kill"?; wait for translation) "until they pay our bill" (hopefully genuine laughter). Later boss of customers gives brief talk, says "it's OUR company policy not to kill our customers ... at all!" (big smile). Success. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Did that actually happen to you or are you repeating a story you heard somewhere? I'd swear I've heard that story before. Have you posted it before, maybe? Matt Deres (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I may have posted it in answer to another ref desk query a year or two ago, but I don't really remember. Frankly I don't think it's that good a story, and it's a sad indictment of my life that its one of the stories I have that's worth repeating. It'd be really sad if there was some other poor soul who is also going around with no better story than this. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would bet that gender reversal jokes or age reversal jokes would play to any audience, unless you find a place where there are no differences between the genders. When telling this joke to a caveman, pretend you are a big, brave caveman going to hunt a dangerous beast, then you turn over a rock and are so scared at the bug you see there that you emit a high-pitched scream, drop your weapon, and run away with your arms flailing. This would be funny because that's behavior normally associated with a little girl, not a brave man. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that follows at all. The adult/child element is much more transferable than the male/female part, though. It's not that different cultures don't observe gender differences, but that what those differences are can be highly culturally specific. The role of women in ancient Babylon was quite different to late-classical Greece, for example. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that jokes don't last much over time. I have a book of jokes printed in England in 1860 - and none of the "jokes" in it seem remotely funny. If jokes don't survive well over time - it's even less likely that they'd survive across cultures. SteveBaker (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the idea of slapstic, but would also add that - while jokes in general might not translate well - some sort of reversal might, as StuRat noted. However, because of the problem of cultural norms being so different, the "reversal" would be more of stretching things, so that the big becomes small, and the small big.

StuRat sort of hit on it with the beast/bug analogy, but I would instead suggest that this would work because of the hyperbole involved. I suspect most exaggersation would probably go over well, as would most of...the opposite, which i can't think of right now.

So, I think you could, for instance, have a person speaking of some large earthquake, and say, "the ground was shaking so hard, my grandchildren will still be feeling it when they are born." Or, something like that.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think imitation of a well known person's overt characteristics is common to most places. Of course, you can't imitate the same person in all cultures throughout history. That's silly. But so many people like a clever imitation of someone, especially if the person is known to be otherwise humourless. Otherwise, slapstick is common to so many places. Joining them together, a hilarity would probably be re-enacting when someone known to everyone did something silly. Steewi (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My contention is that any joke can be related to by any human regardless of geographic location, cultural background, language, gender, etc. All that I think is required is normal intelligence on the part of the 2 people involved, and sufficient time and explanation of any necessary background material. The limit that I think is real is in going back in time. I think that a point in prehistory would be reached where humor is not found. That would effectively prevent the explaining of a joke to people of an earlier period in time, and jokes from that ancient period in time would be nonexistent. I base this on my feeling that no other forms of life really laugh. I don't think other forms of life, even our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, experience the humorous moment, but I could be wrong. And probably some people will tell me that their dogs laugh. I'm not a scientist, but I doubt it. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Freud (a singularly un-funny man) wrote "Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious" which lists seven kinds of joke:

1. Absurdity
2. Allusion
3. Analogy
4. Exaggeration
5. Faulty reasoning
6. Play on words
7. Reproach

...hmmmm...so which one of those is the "Brown paint" joke? SteveBaker (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The death in the joke is of supportive importance to the pot of brown paint. "Pot of brown paint" sounds simple enough, but it is actually open to interpretation. Why a pot? Why not a jar or a can? Why brown? Brown is the color of brown skinned people. Brown is the color that can result from mixing many colors of paint together. Brown is also the color of excrement. Brown is also the color of the leaves of trees after they are dead. I think the listener to this joke naturally wonders if there might not be some symbolism to the color brown, and the choice of naming the container a pot, rather than a jar or a can. Mustard is also brown, and might come in a pot. Is it mustard that is being inquired about? The very inquiring itself after this object also lends possibilities to the meaning of the pot of brown paint. That the question is asked of the wife of the recently deceased man serves to arouse our curiosity concerning the real meaning of the referred to pot of brown paint. Does the pot of brown paint hold the key to a treasure? Is it somehow the source of great wealth and/or power? Is it really brown paint, or is that just a pseudonym for its real identity? In this case, a joke is the explosion of possible explanations for what one has just heard. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to register my complete disagreement with any analysis of the colour of the paint, what sort of container it was in, etc. The paint and its details are what's known as a red herring. The point of the joke is not that he was focussing on the paint (whatever its colour); the point of the joke is that he wasn't focussing on the widow's situation, and wasn't putting all other matters aside to express compassion and sympathy for her, when that would be the normal societal expectation. The paint per se is not important. It is identified merely to create something for him to be interested in getting back. He might just as well have asked about his lawnmower, and the joke would still work in precisely the same way. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why the specifics? Why paint? Why a pot of? Why brown? Any reason for "a pot of brown paint" being chosen to serve the role in the story that you are contending it serves? I don't even know that the story even indicates his interest in getting something back. I think that requires a bit of reading into the story. All that we know is that he inquires of the widow if the deceased man mentioned anything about this item. I am almost tempted to argue that the death is the red herring in this story, but I don't really know if that really explains the way I see it. I see it as a very sophisticated intellectual verbal delivery. We are left holding the variety of symbols stirred up by the imagery of a "pot of brown paint." The death I see as a foil for that. I think it is the death that catapults the possible meanings of the "pot of brown paint" into existence. Our focus is understandably on the significance of the death of a man and the wife's plight. In such a context we could not care less about the meaning of the suggested object that is inquired about. But that object is carefully designed by the storyteller to elicit the maximum number and variety of responses. In essence the "pot of brown paint" flies into the story under the radar. We are not thinking about any meanings being associated with a pot of brown paint. But the story would not work if it were a pair of skis being inquired about, or a heavy duty stapler, or as you suggested -- a lawnmower. "A pot of brown paint" is just poorly enough defined that it doesn't arouse our suspicions, and yet it is open-ended enough in meaning that a lot of reading into it can be done. Also, "pot of brown paint" is silly sounding. Just on the basis of the sounds of which it is composed it is lacking in seriousness. It is almost a tongue twister. It is funny just on the basis of the sounds required to make it. The other items suggested by you and I above have more inherent seriousness to them -- just based on their sound. The silliness, I think, of the sound of "pot of brown paint," is also in contrast to and incongruous with the seriousness of the situation described. I believe the "p" and the "b" in "pot of brown paint" may be known as fricatives. They come closely on the heels of one another. That may result in the juvenile sound to the utterance. I would be interested to know if other people see the phrase as associative with baby talk, as I see it. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very often necessary to assume certain things, in order to get a joke. OK, it doesn't say explicitly that he had lent the paint to his neighbour and was now wanting to get it back. But if a listener assumes some scenario like that, then it fits with why he's turned up on the widow's doorstep. It provides a context in which humour can be created. He went there to talk to his friend to ask for the paint back (or what was left of it). When he got there, he was told his friend had died. Normally, the paint (or whatever reason he had for going there) would be instantly forgotten, and he'd be getting upset, expressing his shock and condolences to the widow, offering to comfort her, asking if there's anything he can do to help, etc etc. But he didn't do any of that. He'd gone there to ask about his paint, an important matter, and nothing so trivial and unimportant as the sudden and unexpected death of the friend/neighbour who borrowed the paint was going to put him off. He even went to the extent of specifying the colour, to identify exactly which pot he'd lent him. Placing some mundane object (whether it be brown paint, lawnmowers, hedge clippers or whatever) above life and death - how absurd! Who would ever do that in real life? That's where the humour lies. His crass insensitivity and inflexibility is what we laugh at. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a pot of brown paint because it has to be something; else it could be a template joke: "Did he say anything about an unspecified object?" — /p,b/ are stops; /f,v/ (in some languages /ɸ,β/) are the related fricatives – characterized by friction, get it? —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the paint joke is Reproach. —Tamfang (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl. Charlie Chaplan
Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. Its humor is based on the incongruity of the natural setting with law and order. The pretty girl serves as a foil, or a backdrop, against which both naturalness and strict conformity can be played out. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(From the OP) Thanks everyone. There is enough material in here, both opinion and references, to provide fodder for an undergraduate essay. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Search Engines

I am a student in southern California and during a recent homework exercise my classmates and I have noticed that when searching for a phrase or name in pretty much any search engine (yahoo, msn, and google) that wikipedia is almost always the 1st result. We were wondering why this is. Has Wikipedia been ranked by something as the best site to go to for information. Is it random. Please let us know..

Thanks so much

DAndra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.147.243 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Google uses the PageRank scheme for deciding search-result ordering. That's mostly based on the quality (and quantity) of inbound links to page (generally from other websites). So if lots of pages, from all around the Web link to a given word to a given page, that pushes that page up the ranking (if done deliberately then that's called Google bomb). One reason Wikipedia articles are highly ranked is because they're generic introductions to things. So if someone is writing about Australia, they could link to Wikipedia's Australia article, or to a website of the government of Australia, or to one of a number of "visit Australia" or "history of Australia" websites; generally if you want to give people a good intro to Australia, the Wikipedia article is the best of that lot. Secondly it's noncommercial, so people worrying about promoting a given company (like those Australian tourism sites) can link to Wikipedia instead, and know they won't be criticised for promoting some company or other. You might think "why don't other encyclopedias, like Encarta and Britannica, get high links too?" - the main reason is that they either limit access to some or all of their content on a given subject to paying customers (which makes it a useless link for most people) or they simply don't have an article on the subject - Wikipedia as many times as many articles, so if you're thinking about anything even slightly obscure, like a manga or some work of a minor composer or an odd kind of screwdriver then it's likely only Wikipedia will have an article on it. Note that Wikipedia generally isn't the top ranked entry for any current company or person that has a decent web presence - search for "Microsoft" or "Richard Dawkins" or "New York Times" and you get their own sites before Wikipedia's article. Now there are also rumours that search engines give Wikipedia articles a boost, because they feel that searchers who get that are going to be happier (and happy searchers make for happy search engine operators). And lastly I'd like to think that Wikipedia articles deserve to be the top link in many cases, that they're the first thing (and often the best thing) you'd want to read about on a given subject. Britannica like to quack on about how great they say their quality supposedly is, but that doesn't explain why people preferentially choose to read the Wikipedia article over even their free offering's version. Lastly, here's an experiment for you and your classmates - try to find a Google search term for which Wikipdia is the top entry but which you'd think it was entirely inappropriate to be there (that is, to find one which Google ranked highly, but got that rank significantly wrong). 87.115.166.150 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally teachers sometimes seem to set this test to their students as part of an effort to claim the students are gullible fools who believe any old rubbish they read on Facebook or whatever, and that real facts can be found only in dusty textbooks written by dusty people (like the teachers). Luckily such claims are easily falsified - if Google's rank of Wikipedia is too high, what would be a better simple introduction to the subject for the layman? Also you might want to look at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also the fact that Wikipedia abuses the nofollow tag, thereby benefiting from incoming links without giving anything back. This breaks the functionality of the web. Indeed, for this reason Wikipedia probably shouldn't even be considered a "website" at all. --88.109.193.248 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that an 'abuse' of the tag. The tag is there to allow web site authors to make a link without "recommending" the site it points at. Since Wikipedia doesn't routinely check outgoing links for quality - or keep an eye on them to ensure they don't change in undesirable way - we should not be recommending the links we make. Correctly made external references should only be to high quality sites - so those sites we legitimately link to are very likely to have high pagerank scores irrespective of Wikipedia. Obviously, the REASON we do that is to try to dissuade spammers from using Wikipedia's off-the-chart page-rank scores to make their disreputable commercial sites look good. SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that (for the same reason) Google was already ignoring links from Wikipedia for PageRank purposes by the time Wikipedia started marking them as nofollow. Google doesn't just sort pages by PageRank, it uses some complicated system of heuristics with PageRank being just one of the inputs. I wouldn't be surprised if they treat wikipedia.org specially in any number of ways. -- BenRG (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about that - Wikipedia is highly special to Google. For example - go to GoogleMaps - zoom in to a city or something and click the 'More' button - then check the "Wikipedia" box. Google is seeking out Wikipedia articles that are marked with a specific Lat/Lon coordinate and displaying our "W" icon with a link to the article whenever it finds one. They wouldn't be doing that if we weren't treated at least somewhat specially! SteveBaker (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2008/09 newfoundland budget

What are the positive and negative sides of the budget in terms of poverty concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.0.142 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do your homework, I suggest you go to the relevant pages (Fiscal Spending or the like) and seek out the information there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.116.239 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a strange question for homework, I'd think, but we also prefer to avoid matters of opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

which way?

hi I am on treadgold street in notting hill can anybody tell me how to get to elgin crescent please? My phone runs out of memory loading streetmap! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectionsPlease (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Head east; you'll come to Clarendon Road (which runs N/S); head south (right). Elgin Crescent is one of several crescents that rise NE from Clarendon (Cornwall and Blenheim Crescents are to the north of it, Landsdown rise to the south). You're about 1/2 mile. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

great thanks very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectionsPlease (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is a new use for the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty awesome. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's too late but here is a Google Maps view of the directions you could have taken. If you drag the little yellow man on the route, you will get a street view of where you were. --199.198.223.106 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of undiscovered uses for the Reference desk. I'm glad you finally discovered one of them :-) . ~AH1^(TCU) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)