Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 9

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 9

Do you eat at a table and not do other things while eating?

Just wondering how many people sit at a table while eating and don't watch tv or use a computer or w/e while eating.--92.251.166.223 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there are other people at the table, I talk with them. If not, then I wouldn't eat at the table at all, but in front of the TV and/or computer. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just my wife and I, so we eat on the couch while watching TV and the dogs watch us while waiting for handouts. Dismas|^(talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I only sit at the table if we have guests. We should really try to find some survey results rather than having our own survey, though, since this is a ref desk! --Tango (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see some survey figures here. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I am alone (and when I was single) I eat (and ate) in front of the computer always practically. When me and my girlfriend eat together, we eat in the kitchen, where there's no TV or anything. We avoid eating and watching TV or anything at the same time, except for snacks during films. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of Wikipedia editors probably isn't a very representative sample of anything (except Wikipedia editors, I suppose). Still, I almost always eat at a table. When I'm alone, I read a newspaper. Buddy431 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow buddy same here, I was a bit surprised when I heard someone saying most people don't, although I hhavent' seen any actual statistics before now. Thanks.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If with company, with relatives or visiting people, I definitely prefer to sit at a table and talk (and so it seems do the other people I eat with). However, when alone at home I usually eat in front of the TV (though in my old house, which was much larger than the current place I live, I often ate at the table with the newspaper in front of me). Astronaut (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

public access tunnel directly under capitol building for vehicles

My son claims a few years ago he drove directly under the capitol building thru a public access tunnel.

I disagree it was directly under the building. Perhaps nearby under capitol grounds but not directly under building. Who's right.

Thankyou.

(Mrs.) Nancy A. Baughman <contact info redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.182.65 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - go to Google maps and type "Capitol building, Washington DC" - scroll over to the left and you'll see that highway 395 goes under the "reflecting pool" to the west of the Capitol building. It doesn't go right under the Capitol building though - so I guess you're right. SteveBaker (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There are, however, tunnels that do go directly under the Capitol building, just not accessible by the general public, except by invitation. See United States Capitol subway system. --Jayron32 03:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(OR) Many years ago (pre-9/11), I was a reporter doing a story in the Capitol. I got lost and found myself down in those tunnels, and it took forever to figure out how to get back. — Michael J 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be a Stonecutter to access them Lemon martini (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

woman

When I am trying to initiate intercourse with my girlfriend, I either cuddle her and kiss her and then try to take her shirt off. Or I start to touch her, well recently, she will stop me and tell me to go to sleep. So I do. Then she will wake me up and yell at me that we naver have sex. I tell her that last night I tried to take her shirt off and she asked me what I was doing so I said I am trying to take your clothes off so we can make love, but you told me to stop and go to sleep so I did, now you are angry because I stopped when you told me to. So my question is, when a woman tells you no stop you have to stop right? If not it is rape, right? I don't understand what I have done wrong, it would appear that she wants me to force myself on her, but I am not going to do that. I am a gentle person and would like to make sweet love, what am I missing here? Does she want me to force her? Maybe a woman can help. This relationship is over, as I ran away this morning and am not going back, but my prev girlfriend only ever wanted sex in the doggy style, I don't understand this either. Please help so I can improve future relationships. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.206 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"'No' always means no . . ..'No' has always been, and always will be, part of the dangerous, alluring courtship ritual of sex and seduction, observable even in the animal kingdom" - Camille Paglia, Source. Though telling you to go to sleep is a pretty forceful "no". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Droptone (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest looking somewhere else. You don't need to put up with that crap. There are 3 billion females on this planet. Googlemeister (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. She's jerking him around, and he was wise to flee. I'm guessing that when she complained, instead of arguing with her about the previous night, if he had said, "OK, let's do it right now," she would have found a reason not to. However, one alternative to fleeing could have been to say, "I don't understand", and put the ball back in her court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What Baseball Bugs says about doing it right now is probably very true. She might have some problems of some kind that you should have helped, but there's no way of knowing. But then there is noone who doesn't have problems of some kind.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

She probably needed more romance, like telling her she's the prettiest girl on Earth, who has ever lived, or will ever live, and also in all parallel universes. If you can get through that without cracking up, she may open up. StuRat (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The most romantic, sexiest thing you can do for a woman is clean the house, cook the meal, sit her down with a drink and tell her she means the world to you. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I want a source for this. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, it is obviously a great thing to do but classic romantic stuff is better.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You wanna source? Try any married woman, or woman who has to look after a home as well as work, kids, big kids (i.e. men)... We don't fall for classic romantic stuff. We know you're only after one thing if you go down on one knee - usually expecting us to do the same! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got it right. The "traditional" romantic stuff needs to be done also, but it's not enough. Exceeding expectations once in awhile will work wonders. Am I right? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that depends on your home situation, if like most relationships the woman does the housework well then probably. However I clean up after myself and she cleans up after herself and we split hte rest of the jobs such as mowing the lawn (me) and emptying the bin (her).--92.251.159.197 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you did her chores sometimes, especially if she's weary (as with the song "Try a Little Tenderness"), you could score big-time points by doing "her" work for her, as it would exceed expectations. If you have a bright line dividing "your" work and "her" work that's never to be crossed, that's more of a "roommate" relationship than a "love" relationship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of women! Women are not consistent creatures, you just have to accept that. You can try talking to them and trying to understand, but your chances of success are never high. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And lest anyone get too concerned, one can say the same thing about men. Human beings are not consistent creatures. Relationships are often fraught. A good relationship is usually the one in which you and your partner are crazy in the same kind of way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps in mutually complimentary ways, such as a sadist and a masochist. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The one time she came to my house I cleaned it so it was spotless, so I could show her that my house is not as much of a mess as hers, she was 3 hours late and then said that she had already eaten, so I ate alone by candle light, she then also said that she does not want to come to my house as it is to far to travel, I should know I spend every second day at her house and have to do the commute! Later in the relationship I told her I had to work at 6am the next day, so I gave her a 2 hour massage and then stated that I need to go to sleep because I am working, she then started shouting at me that we never spend anytime together, and continued on until 3am. I was then very tired but agreed to go back to her house that night after work, I fell asleep as you do when you have only had 2 hours sleep the night before, she then wakes me up at 4am as she wants to have a cigarette and does not want to smoke alone. And now this stuff above, man I think I have been used! Reading it now, it seems so strange that I put up with all this if only for 1.5 months. She acts like she is a super model, and she certainly is not. The small amout of sex was dreadful, and I am a man so it must have been bad. Well thanks wikipedians, onwards and upwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, she's playing a game called, "You can't win." So, as with the movie War Games, "the only way to win is not to play." I'm also reminded at this point of a Fifth Dimension song called "Carpet Man". You did the right thing by leaving. But I'll also say this - cooking and cleaning for a woman are very romantic things to do - for the right woman, i.e. one who appreciates it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Should I Stay or Should I Go, by The Clash: [1]. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A very wise man once said (paraphrasing) "If you are in a relationship with a woman, you can be right or you can be happy. But not both at the same time." --Jayron32 18:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Womenfolk and menfolk have different conceptions of what the relationship is. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop is hereby given the Understatement of the Day Award. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And on the goals of an arguement within the relationship. A woman's goal is to win the arguement. A man's goal is to not be in the arguement. Those are easily resolved goals as long as the man is willing to always lose. --Jayron32 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From My Little Chickadee:

W.C. Fields: "I never argue with a lady!"

Mae West: "Smart boy!"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny how most (possibly all except Tammy Moet) of the people here giving us the good oil about the arcane ways of women, are men. Men have always misunderstood women, and vice-versa. That's at least part of the point of being different. (I gave up even trying years ago.) So, I'm not entirely sure their comments, well intentioned as they are, can be completely trusted. But on the other hand, asking a woman to reveal her secrets, or expecting there to be quality information available in a reputable source ... sorry, it doesn't work that way. There's a reason why there has to be this tension between men and women. Harry knew what he was talking about. Inherent uncertainty and unpredictability and confusion are part of the game. It's a woman's biological role to frustrate men - apparently it keeps their sexual energy high or something. Add to that the individual characteristic of being an outright bitch, and you've got quite a problem on your hands. (Not saying your girlfriend is one of those, but some women do take their role as Arch-Frustratrix uber-seriously.) Unfortunately, it's not the sort of problem that anonymous people on the internet, particularly males, can help you with.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. Start calling her Trixie. She'll think it's cute and affectionate. Only you will know what it really stands for. Unless she also reads this page.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, that could work. Hey, it's already almost a lost cause anyway. Jerry Seinfeld once said a couple of cogent things on this subject (many cogent things, actually). One is that men and women are like firemen and fire, respectively. Men can be ready at any time, like an emergency. Woman can get really hot, but the conditions have to be right. The other thing he said was that in terms of attracting women, "Honking horns and yelling out the window are [unfortunately] the best ideas we've come up with so far." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Headphone clip is broken

The little clip on my headphones which is used to attach the cord to your shirt or jacket so that it doesn't get in your way is broken (see pic, it's blurred but you get the idea). I have still got the other part of the clip but I have failed to glue it back on using superglue. The clip is hardwired to the headphones so it's not possible to buy a replacement part, and I'm certainly not going to buy a whole new pair of headphones just for that. Please provide suggestions as to how I can attach the black plastic bit you see in the picture to my clothes without the clip, thank you. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Carefully cut apart a pen lid (of the appropriate shape - some rely on the pen body as a 'back', other clips are all on the lid) and manipulate/glue as necessary? Or attach a paperclip/safety pin as necessary? 94.168.184.16 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If using a paper clip (or butterfly clip), be sure to use a plastic one, as the sharp ends on metal ones might snag on clothing. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would probably glue something like an alligator clip to it with superglue. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)A small alligator clip might work. In fact, there's a plastic one on my own cellphone's headset. Less likely to break, I suspect, than the item the OP refers to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SIPHON PUMPS

A [SIPHON PUMP] is defined as being a device consisting of a conduit bent and forming legs of unequal length, this conduit has an inline holding canister at the upper bend. The action of pressure of the atmosphere forces liquid up the shorter leg of the conduit immersed in it, while the continued excess weight of the liquid in the longer branch causes a continuous flow. Withdrawal of the liquid at the upper bend is metered when both the outlet and inlet of the siphon are shut off, the canister is emptied of it's contents and shut air tight. The siphon flow begins when the flow valves open and allow for the purging of trapped air below the source liquid inlet. The SIPHON PUMP will withdraw liquid repeatedly from the canister that can be positioned above the source as disclosed in US Patent # 5358000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.114.134 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and why have you posted this here ? Do you have a question for us ? StuRat (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP thinks we should have an article on siphon pump, but a siphon and a pump are different things, so that expression is misleading; we have a comprehensive article about the siphon, which is what he/she means.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual male referring to himself as "Miss"?

I just heard Gok Wan reffered to on TV as "Miss Gok Wan". He's male. I would very much like to be reffered to as "Dr." or "Sir", or even better, "Your Highness". I wouldn't get away with that, so why is he allowed to call himself this?--92.251.159.197 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dr.", "Sir", and "Your Highness" are all titles that only people who have attained a certain status can use. For example, a person needs to earn a doctoral degree at an institution of higher learning to legally call himself or herself "Dr." The titles "Sir" and "Your Highness" can only be used by people who are monarchs or who have been recognized for their achievements by a monarch. In contrast, there are no legal restrictions on who may call himself or herself "Miss". You can call yourself "Miss" too if you like. Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to take seriously anything Gok Wan says then I think you deserve whatever annoyance you receive. Come on, he's almost ficticious! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see your source for there being a legal restriction to calling yourself "Dr." or "Sir" or any other title in the US. If you were to impersonate a doctor or defraud someone, then I could see the issue but simply referring to yourself as a doctor, I've never known that to be illegal. Dr. John seems to get away with it. As well as Dr. Johnny Fever. Dismas|^(talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can call yourself pretty much anything you want to in the USA, as long as it's not for fraudulent reasons or violates some specific law. I don't think "Doc" Gooden has an advanced degree. (Although he seems to dabble in pharmacology from time to time.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither do Dr. Demento, Dr. Dre, or "The Doctor" of Doctor and the Medics. – ClockworkSoul 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual or a recent phenomenon for gay men to refer to themselves facetiously as "girls" or whatever. In the 1960s movie The Boys in the Band, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but "Mister", "Misses" and "Miss" convey certain information about the person, so they're being difficult just for the sake of it. If they want to be women let them get transexual procedures done.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See Self-determination. Ultimately, its up to the person what they want to call themselves. It's not really either your business or your problem. When a person asks to be called "Miss" or "Mister", neither really causes measurable harm to you. So I'm not sure you have a grievance here... --Jayron32 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, self-determination. And I call what the OP is saying "nannyism". The late, great Alan King said, "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Those little dictators, as he called them, are often called "nannies". You're being rather blunt by telling the OP it's none of his business, but guess what - you're right. That Gok Wan guy isn't being "difficult", he's just doing what he feels like doing in order to be funny and entertaining. And whether he ever chooses to get a sex-change operation is entirely his own concern. I don't think there are all that many gay men who want to give up their "equipment" - even the gay men who call themselves "girls". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add gender identity as a more specific article on the topic. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The essence of the OP's complaint is "Why doesn't Gok Wan change something for my convenience?" And that kind of viewpoint is the essence of nannyism. Now, if Gok Wan's TV ratings were to drop off, specifically due to him calling himself that, then he might change it. The best way to get someone to change something is to appeal to their selfish interests. Telling them to change something just because you don't like it is not likely to get any response beyond an MYOB. I don't see anything suggesting that Gok Wan would gain anything by dropping that nickname and/or lose anything by retaining it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most people are rather missing the point. Wasn't this on Sharon Osbourne's A Comedy Roast last night? In which case, it was the job of everybody there to mock everyone else - especially Sharon, but certainly other comedians are fair game. I could be wrong...but I assumed that was it. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it a little annoying that he would want this, but only because he's telling me what to call him. My definition of 'Miss' does not include men, so if he wants me to call him that, he can change his name. He has the freedom to want to be called whatever he wants: We have the freedom not to call him that.Aaronite (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And who's forcing you to call him that, or trying to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are. You're massively overreacting, no need to get so defensive, I'm simply asking if this is a common phenonemom, and stating that I don't particularly like it because it's confusing. Similarly I wouldn't like someone calling a pot a pan. I am not suggesting there be legislation or any other crap, which would be absolutely ridiculous, and which is what you are defending against. Surely you would have a problem if I set up a really smelly and noisy meat factory just opposite your home? Does that make you a nanny? No. I also have problems with uptight people such as yourself jumping the gun just because of someone's opinion. Do I find his title odd, confusing and slightly irritating? Definitely. Have I suggested legislation or other action to "force" Gok Wan to call himself Mister? No I haven't. Would I? No, never. If anyone is being a nanny it's you, in your attempts to so vigorously destroy our opinions.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm... what? Forcing you to call him that? No, I'm not forcing you to do anything. You can call him whatever you want to. Now, if he's a personal friend, you should maybe call him what he asks you to call him, as a matter of courtesy. But since you find "Miss" confusing, I have to assume that the two of you are not buds. In fact, why is it confusing at all? He's just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

During that show there were jokes about him but I assume that wasn't one as nobody laughed.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, if it's what he normally calls himself. But you know he's a man and that he likes to call himself "Miss" for whatever reason. So where's the confusion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the modern age. The issue here is that "Miss Gok Wan" has (apparently) a female sexual identity, and would like to be referenced that way. you are under no obligation to do so, of course, but that's what it is. This is different from being gay - gay men often have a masculine sexual identity with a sexual preference for other males, rather than a sexual identity of being female. title like 'Doctor', 'Sir', or 'Your Highness' are conferred according to particular academic or social qualifications - no one is under any obligation to use those, either, mind you - but sexual identity labels are supposed to accord to the person's inherent sexual identity. You simply disagree with "Miss Gok Wan" about the nature of his/her inherent sexual identity, and the question is: what grounds do you have to disagree with him/her on what sexual identity he/she has? --Ludwigs2 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the "confusion" boils down to the fact that Gok Wan won't conform to convention. That's not "confusion", it's "conformism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No the confusion in that "miss" and "mister" tell us something about the person, their sex. If I was told Miss Gok Wan will see you now I would expect a female.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And if, at some point in the past, I had met Shirley Povich and Michael Learned, I might be surprised to discover that the former is a man and the latter is a woman. But I would soon get over it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but conformism is a form of ontological confusion - equating 'what I think is right' with 'what is right'. kind of a pandemic problem on wikipedia...--Ludwigs2 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To address the original question:

...I wouldn't get away with that, so why is he allowed to call himself this?

OK, the basic problem is that the premise of the question is false. The OP could, in fact, "get away with" calling himself anything he wants to, as long as it's not being used for fraudulent purposes. Elvis Presley was called "The King of Rock and Roll". Michael Jackson was called "The King of Pop". Neither of those guys had any known royal lineage. Yet they were able to "get away with it", because it was just a nickname. Likewise with "Miss Gok Wan". He is free to call himself that, and others are free to not call him that. Does the OP have any further puzzlements, or is it clear now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 In The Short Reign of Pippin IV: Pépin meets a young American who asks, "What kind of king are you?" "What do you mean?" "Well, my father is the Egg King of Petaluma, and Benny Goodman is the King of Swing...." "I am King of France." "The hell you say!" —Tamfang (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There are probably a number of people who have "Doctor" in their name who lack the advanced degrees usually associated with that title.

It's more a matter of force of personality than any sort of conspiracy. If you introduce yourself as "Doctor So-and-so" with enough confidence that no one laughs in your face, then that's your name. (If anyone says "Doctor of what?", honestly answer that it's just an affectation, or vaguely answer "Of life" or some other such question-dodging nonsense.)

"Doctor" is probably an easy one. Introducing yourself as "Miss"(if male) or "King" will be a bit harder, but persevere. Eventually people will just shrug their shoulders and humor you. (See Emperor Norton.)

Sure, it's slightly confusing to dodge convention like that, but there's no law against being slightly confusing! APL (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The funniest thing to me about this complaint is that Gok isn't even his birth name and while it sounds like it may be a male Chinese name to me (although I'm far from an expert), I'm going to guess the majority of British people would have no idea of this were it not for Gok Wan and if it were a female name, I'm going to take a while stab that the OP would still be complaining that Gok Wan should change his/her name. I should also point out that although some of the above statements appear to be presuming Gok Wan has a female sexual identity, this may be the case, but I haven't seen much evidence for this and a quick search isn't providing much supporting evidence. I think people are reading too much into one comment from one show which may or may not have been intended as a joke and we have no real indication that this is how he/she prefers to be identified. Perhaps he/she doesn't even care... Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. On the Internet, and being upset due to considering the someone's "misuse" of gender identification. 92.251.159.197 is likely to be upset more in future. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, OP. But as you can see, homosexuals are rather untouchable nowadays. --Belchman (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think it would have been different if Gok Wan were heterosexual? Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, Damn our liberal society for not stopping people from choosing their own name! Who decided that people should have even the smallest modicum freedom? We need to put a stop to that.

Normally, we would find a way to strip this person of the basic human right to define their own identity, but since this person is a minority we can't. Stupid political correctness!

Seriously though, if it makes you feel any better, If you ever meet this person, you're free to call him whatever you like. I suggest "Doctor". That'll really confuse him. APL (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you consider that there may have been an element of piss-taking in the introduction? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Dame Edna Everidge (fictitious sex and title). —Tamfang (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. For that matter, what about Mrs. Doubtfire? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Less interesting imho; that character would not expect to be addressed as "Mrs Doubtfire" (what kind of a silly name is that anyway?) by people who know his real name. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not uncommon. The gay community has taken back various terms in a sense of empowerment. It's frequently heard gay men referring to each other as "fags", "queens", and "princesses", "sluts". While these may have positive or negative connotations, they are not used in the homophobic sense. Effeminent men may use "Miss" and "bitch" to refer to each other for the same reason. See sexual slurs. --Kvasir (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think this is a matter of definition. There are proper nouns ("names" for unique entities) and common nouns (words for general concepts). Since proper nouns have little or no conceptual content, a person is free to choose a proper noun to be designated with in his language (John, Batman, Australia or Kmdfjk), though an unconventional choice ignoring the small elements of conceptual content may lead to sneers. Since common nouns do have a lot of conceptual content, s/he is generally not free to choose what common noun people should be applied to him/her - firefighter, drunkard, elephant, pleonasm, woman. In the case of a gay or transsexual person, his/her definition of "woman" may be "someone who identifies as a lady / Miss", while others' definition may be "someone who has a vulva and no penis" (hence including transsexuals but not gays), or "someone with an XX chromosome pair" (hence including neither). Now, a person can't require others to change their definitions of words, that would be an encroachment upon their freedom to define and conceptualize their world - though they may still choose to use "elephant" or "woman" in reference to him/her as a matter of courtesy and as a kind of "idiom", even though they don't regard him/her as being technically an elephant in the literal sense. The issue is complicated by the fact that words such as "Mr/Miss" are borderline between common and proper nouns - they are used as additions to or substitutes of names, and have almost as little semantic content as proper nouns.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for reliable ear buds

My teenager constantly breaks the ear buds I buy for his iPod, often from pulling on the cords. A couple of times he cranked up the volume so high that the speakers went bad. I want to find a set that will last him years instead of months. Is there such a creature? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Listening to them at the highest possible volume is extremely bad for one's hearing, my iPod Nano is usually set at about at third of max volume.--92.251.159.197 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that if you make him pay for replacements, they will last much longer. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with StuRat. If he's breaking them, make him buy the replacements. Then, he will work to make them last longer. If that means he has to wait longer because he doesn't have the money right now, then so be it. Last I checked, having a functioning personal music player was pretty high up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and as such, I don't expect his health or his psychological well being will be much affected by the lack of an ipod. --Jayron32 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My ipod is ALAWYS at full volume and I find this is still not loud enouigh, head phones come and go the best thing to do is buy expensive ones, I have had hundreds over the yaesr but the ones I have at the moment, sennheiser are the best I have ever had, in quality of sound, durability, material, the wire cannot get tangled. brilliant, I do not want to advertise but will never use any other brand again, although I am sure they will not last for ever and I will need to get a new pair at some stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Health warning - that kind of behaviour is likely to make you go deaf. 78.147.131.74 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If he has it up all the way, maybe he's already had hearing loss and is compensating for it. It would be best to get to a hearing doctor and get tested. You can't fix hearing loss, but you can keep it from getting worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You could check out Bose headphones (somewhat expensive) for sound quality and durability, or you find very cheap headphones at most retail stores if you just want to replace them frequently at low cost. good luck, hope this helps...(since you didn't ask for parental advice or the effects of listening to music of high volume.) 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I found earbuds at $1.50 a pair in WalMart - at that price, it really doesn't matter how long they last. SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't subsidize your teen's future hearing loss. If he is putting them at a level that can blow our headphones, he is listening to them at extremely unsafe levels. Whether or not you care about that enough to encourage him not to do it, you certainly shouldn't pay for replacements. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible hearing loss is an issue. I suggest you find out why he cranks the volume up so high. There is no substitute to talking with him though if he has hearing loss, you might end up having to shout :-P As for ear buds, putting the financial responsibility on his shoulders might make him take more care of his stuff. Astronaut (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were the OP, I'd be quite disappointed with the responses. Apart from 10draftsdeep (and to some extent SteveBaker) nobody is attempting to answer the question, just supplying unrequested parenting advice. I too have the same problem as the OP's teenager, and I am not careless. I pay for my own in-ear headphones, and they all break within a few months. Almost all headphones, regardless of brand, have weak points where cord meets the plug or within the plug. Unfortunately, the more expensive brands may have better perceived sound quality (because for some reason audiophiles are the norm), but I am yet to find any that have build quality as a selling point. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer the original question. No. If you simply want a recommendation of durable earbuds without the prescription they last years even in the face of significant mistreatment, it seems obvious from the question even without trying (and once I have tried and seeing the answers here further proving the point) that a simple internet search will provide a much more useful answer. Note that your requirements are clearly quite different from the OP, as the OP requires headphones which can survive 'cranked up the volume so high that the speakers went bad' yet 'will last him years' which I presume isn't you since you said you aren't careless. Also the wording of the OP's question suggestions we aren't simply talking about accidential tugging on the cord but careless pulling so again, not like you I presume. In addition, if the OP provides details which suggest there are much better answers then the ones you asked for, they shouldn't be surprised if people provide those answers. If they don't want such answers, they should use a commecial service which guarantees they won't provide such answers, the RD isn't it. Note that the answers aren't simply 'useless' parental advice. If he has problems with his hearing then getting him tested and the problem resolved may very well be a more effective way of getting him earbuds that will last for years. If the volume needs to be very loud because the earbuds don't fit, then getting buds which do fit similarly may very well help ensure he has earbuds which last for years. (In fact probably so would making him buy them himself or simply talking ot him, but let's not go there.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ear buds do not fit properly into my ear, so I find that if I am using them I must turn the Ipod up to maximum volume. They are not overly loud its just that they are meant to sit very close to your ear. Slightly more expensive headphones (rather than those useless ear buds) tend to be more ruggedly constructed. Look for thick cables (some are even made with a rope-like material) and strong looking construction of the structure. Also get him to try them out to see if he likes them.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also wear out ear buds at the rate of one every couple of months. I listen to my ipod on my commute for about two hours every day and put them in and out probably at least a dozen times a day. I've started to pre-emptively wrap some tape around where the cord meets the socket, this helps them last a bit longer. I find the buds often split at the seam which I superglue back together. I've considered buying a pair of $100ish synthesizers but even if they last me 20 months instead of 2, which I highly doubt, it'll still be considerably more expensive then buying the ~$7 buds off eBay. The quality of the eBay headphones varies a LOT, I've had decent ones and really crap ones, once you find a place that has decent ones, I recommend buying up 3 or 4 at a time. Vespine (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I got fed up with them breaking and falling out of my ears so bought hook over head phones also called ear hook headphones which have proved to be very durable and comfortable.They cost £5 in a supermarket....hotclaws 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Stock broker jackets

Why do stock brokers wear those characteristic jackets? 71.161.45.84 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When there was on-floor trading (which I believe even the New York Stock exchange has finally stopped), brokers from each firm wore jackets of different colours for differentiation and identification purposes. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And a ref. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do they have extra-long sleeves? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The system that needs the coloured jackets is called Open outcry which is (or was) generally used in trading financial futures rather than stocks and shares (in London at least). Apparently the London Metal Exchange still uses it. Not my specialist subject though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They have not stopped. There's still on floor open outcry trading for the NYSE the CBT and the AMEX, not to mention lots of other smaller boards (Philadelphia exchange maybe? not sure). PvsKllKsVp (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

u2 video, dancing with a fan

In which video can we see Bono dancing with a black fan wearing a blue top?--Quest09 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. I remember some interaction with people on the street in Las Vegas in the video for that song. 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I hoped getting a more direct answer, like a youtube link... :(--Quest09 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube does have a nice search box. We typically don't post links here that could have copyright violation issues. 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Youtube has a nice search box, however, if the videos are not tagged, the results are nil. Quest09 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For Miss Bono ^(zootalk)☆ 12:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How many people served in both Gulf wars?

Being that the two wars were relatively close together, is it known how many people served in both? As in were on the ground in Iraq both in 1991 and 2003? 188.223.41.225 (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, those wars were 12 years apart, and the number of active military personel who serve 12 years is actually quite small. Secondly, and this is becoming a problem with this current war, that number is even smaller when some of those years are spent in active combat duty; the U.S. armed forces are having a hard time finding qualified people to serve in the Captain or Sargeant ranks since those ranks generally require 4+ years of experience, and most people that end up in heavy combat don't re-up after their first contract expires. I don't know the actual number, or even how to find it, but I suspect that its not that large of a number, relative to the size of the whole military. --Jayron32 05:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One who served in both wars was Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, general and Commander in Chief of the Iraqi Mujahed Armed Forces. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true, although saying he "served" in both wars understates matters a tad. :) I would think a number of career officers on all fronts might have been in both of them. I suspect the OP might be more interested in actual combat troops who were in both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine (and I have no evidence to support this) that someone who stayed in any company for 12 years would be promoted a fair bit if you consider the number of ranks in the army, so most of the combat troops who hung around may not still be combat troops. 91.85.138.48 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)