The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.
Were there any female rap singer who used to pose naked in her video?
Full frontal? DirkvdM 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While not necessarily naked, both Lil' Kim and Foxy Brown have a history of provocative clothing and behaviour; Eve once worked as a stripper and recently had a sex video scandal. One of those might be someone you're, ahem, interested in. --68.145.102.94 07:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course everyone knows that Janet Jackson showed a tit, though her "rapped" contributions are rather limited. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a child (late 1930's to early 1940's) I used to hear a jingle on the radio that I think was the Ralston Foods cereal jingle. It went something like "hut sut ralston the rillera and the rolla zu it". I'm not sure of the spelling. Is there anyway of finding out what their jingle was?–—Cdayb 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just downloaded quake ii demo. Where can I download the single-player maps from the full-version so I can run them on my demo version?
I doubt you can. If you could, what would be the point of buying the full version?
Since the Q2 source code was released (last year? a couple years ago?) I was under the impression that it wasn't officially for sale anymore. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 21:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were my civil right violated if the police came to my house to arrest my boyfriend who had a warrant, came to the door gave himself up immediatly, and was taken to the police car. Then the police came back wanting to search my house with no warrent to do so, but did anyway. They found items in the garage i had no idea were there (because they were hidden). I was arrested and taken to jail. Did they have the right to search my house if they had the person who had the warrant already in custody? I did not concent to a search they asked and I said they could with a warrant only. Neither my b/f nor I gave permission. It was in New Mexico
It's not clear from your description whether you consented to the search. If you ok'd the search, they don't need a warrant. Phr (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you tell them it wasn't ok to search your house? Never let the police search your stuff, it's a waste of your time and theirs. --mboverload@ 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not in this case, the police found something illegal so i doubt they considered it a waste of their time. Unless you tell us which country you were in it will not be possible to get an accurate answer, but it does sound like they they would require your permission to search your house. Rockpocket 04:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They said that this was in New Mexico which is a U.S. state. Dismas|(talk) 12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was added after i had asked [1], i needed to check that i wasn't being totally retarded. Rockpocket 02:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They typically only need the permission of one person who lives in the home. If your b/f lives there, he could have given them permission, too. StuRat 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need a good lawyer, not idle speculation from Wikipedia people. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Actually they only need the permission of the person who comes to the door. --mboverload@ 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that it wasn't your boyfriend who had the warrant - the police had the warrant. From my vast legal experience drawn from many Law and Order episodes, like everyone said, if you ok'd the search, they were justified without a warrant. However, I also learned on law and order that you need to find a good, down and dirty defense lawyer who will know all about this stuff, and will make sure your rights are protected, and make many pointed witty remarks along the way. The police will also have a very good script. --Bmk 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you at all yielded in letting them into your place to search then you consented, as far as the courts are concerned. At least, that's what a lawyer I know well has told me. --Fastfission 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If things are as you describe, then your rights under the fourth amendment may have been breached. But to make something of it (particularly, to suppress the evidence yielded by that search) your lawyer will have to do some work:
the police may claim you consented (three cops say they heard you say "okay", you say you didn't, the judge will decide who he believes). Your lawyer will generally try the "well, she wouldn't have consented if she knew there was a big bag of drugs there, would she - so either she didn't know or she didn't consent" defense.
the police may claim you "tacitly consented" to the search, by not saying loudly that you explicitly didn't consent, and took some actions that led the police to believe you did consent (opening a door for them). It's a pretty tough case to make, but the might try anyway.
the most popular case: they're allowed (in certain circumstances) to look around your house for their own safety (on the theory that there might be a gunman lurking in the next room); the definition of "look around" and where they can look is rather vague - see http://www.textfiles.com/law/search.txt. That doesn't, technically, allow them to go rummaging through drawers or under matresses, but if they see evidence of illegality "in plain sight" then they have the right to investigate that, which includes a search consequent to the suspicion which that evidence provides. So if you have drug paraphenalia lying around, or there is the smell of burned canabis, then they can take that as probable cause to search for the associated drugs. Now you say the stuff they found was hidden, but the cops may say in court that the container was partially open, or that some of its contents had spilled and were in plain sight, or that its contents could be smelled. Now unless the siezed items were of great evidential value, the cops probably just processed them themselves (put evidence into bags and take away) - more important stuff gets photoed and measured on scene, but in this case there's probably no definative evidence of the exact condition of the hidden stuff prior to the search. So you'll say it was hidden, and the cop will say it was "in plain sight", and a judge will have to decide.
So, as with most things in law, the answer it "it depends", and you really need a competent lawyer to make the case for you - the exact definition of what is and what isn't a permissable search is the subject of much jurisprudence and is open to argument.
And (while I realise you didn't ask this, and didn't even tacitly invite relationship advice) I have to point out - if your boyfriend keeps a big bag of drugs at your house without your knowledge or consent, thus exposing you to large fines or lengthy jailtime, then he is an undoubted dirtbag, who you should certainly dump ASAP. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. On cops they pulled over a girl driving her boyfriend's beatup car (don't remember why). Well, she lets them search and they find drugs under the seat. They asked the boyfriend to come down and he does. They ask him if they were his drugs (the cops knew they were his). He says no, so they arrest the girlfriend and she goes to jail, and the boyfriend walks away. The cop then makes some comment to the girl about not getting involved with scum like that. --mboverload@ 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm amazed when people consent to a warrantless search. In addition to putting them into legal peril, this also erodes basic civil rights such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If everyone just allows unwarranted searches, then authorities will look suspiciously on anyone who doesn't. StuRat 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't know if I'm too late or what, but i'm doing the HSC this year. So i've got, what, 3 months left of school.
I REALLY want to do a film course at some uni, or maybe go to a specialist school for film. But mainly, I want to do Film (celluloid & digital, theory & practical).
The problem is: I have NO IDEA where to start. I don't know what university's to look into or anything else...
I was hoping maybe people in this forum could guide me through the process of finding and applying for a course...
It would relieve much of the stress that I have at the moment about finding courses and such...
Since your decision of where to attend uni will probably be affected heavily by how close it is to you, go to the website of the nearest university and look up a course that relates to what you are interested in. It will probably be a Bachelor of Arts (Film & Media) or something similar. The course details will list the requirements for entry, and there will be information on the uni website about how to apply. BenC7 08:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise, whether i can purchase high res images from you of the following:
Miro - la lecon de sky
Picasso - L'arrondeoiste
Riley - Shadowplay
Warhol - Marilyn
Anything by Mondrian
Please advise, also, any copyright infringments and are these incorporated into the final pricepoints?
Regards
Scott Lewis
Promotem
[Are you aware of how many people could have seen/spammed/hacked this e-mail address?]
[Are you aware of how many people could have seen/spammed/used this telephone number?]
Hello! Answers are given here on the Reference Desk where you asked. Here is an example with Miro's la leçon de ski (badly written sky i'd say). This image le son du ciel" has its own page (just click) where you can read something about copyright and fair use. Wikipedia does not own the (c) and the author must not be dead enough. To illustrate a non-profit book or web site, just use it ; for a commercial site, ask Miro's family or trustees or the museum (we should be able to tell which museum : good job to do here). -- DLL .. T 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you cannot buy them from Wikipedia, as you asked. We don't sell anything here. --LambiamTalk 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A red-haired friend of mine asked me a harrowing question yesterday of which I am particularly interested in the answer.
If some guy in Germany (he said he didn't pick that country for any particular reason) shot a bullet from a really huge gun, and it went over the Atlantic ocean and hit someone really important like, the United States Secretary of State. Assuming this scenario is actually possible, would the guy be tried for it in Germany, the United States, or maybe somewhere else?
How do they handle that kind of thing? Do they call a tribunal, flip a coin, something more elaborate? Thanks. --69.138.61.168 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be the Americans who would be after his blood (and his amazing invention) as the crime would have been committed on US soil. But since this guy would have most likely been killed by the recoil, they might not need to bother.--Shantavira 08:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They would most likely put pressure on the German government to capture him, and that wouldn't be hard, just go scrape him off the crater he himself produced. However, what is left and alive of him would probably not be extradited to the USA because Germany has abolished the death penalty, and it is almost certain they would execute him for that in the USA.
What is going on? In the last few months, we have seen USers asking questions about shooting Mexicans and Canadians on the appropriate borders as well?
Evilbu 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let us assume he designed the weapon with a huge recoil buffer as well, and wasn't killed by firing it. I figure they want to know about shooting Mexicans because of the high levels of illegal immigration and these Minuteman Project people, who are guarding the borders with guns in some states now. --69.138.61.168 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a serious answer, it would not be so difficult. It would be a crime both under German law (because he was in Germany) and U.S. law (because the victim was in the US and is a US citizen). But Germany would not extradite him without a guarantee from the prosecutor and courts that the death penalty will be neither sought nor sentenced. For in many countries, you may be prosecuted and tried in the country if
the crime occured in the country's jurisdiction (such as the mainland, in territorial waters, on military bases, embassies, etc.)
the victim is one of the country's citizens, even if it occurs abroad
the suspect is one of the country's citizens (example: some countries will prosecute one of its citizens for statutory rape with a minor even if the sex occured in a country where the age of consent is lower).
even if none of the above apply, in some countries--GunnarRene 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we care that your friend is red-haired? —Daniel(‽) 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because red haired people always ask weird questions. --69.138.61.168 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot would have to do with whether the German "shooter" could have known, did know, or should have known that the bullet he shot could in fact go across the ocean and kill someone overseas. Have you considered that in your hypo?Courtney Akins 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I once found a very old Deed dated in the 1700's which referred to a piece of land being so many laces long and ever since I have been trying to find what that length would have been. Can you help please?80.225.193.95 07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Angie May[reply]
Is this in the UK? The OED, which is pretty thorough, lists no such history for the word "lace". I suspect the manuscript originally had "pace", which means about 5 feet, though this would be strange in a legal document, as it is not a legally defined distance. Can you give us the complete sentence?--Shantavira 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a misprint of "acre"? But calling something would "acres long" really doesn't make any sense. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)
WHY DOES ONLY ONE SPERM ENTERS THE OVUM OF FEMALE?
WHY NOT SOME MORE?
According to Spermatozoon, "Upon penetration the membrane of the egg cell undergoes a change and becomes impenetrable, preventing further fertilization of the ovum." It doesn't specify what that change is, but presumably it's a chemical one in the cell membrane. Ziggurat 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would more than one need to enter the egg? In basic terms, the sperm is there to provide the other half of the chromosomes. Once that's done, there's no reason for another to enter. Dismas|(talk) 12:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's because the first sperm shouts so loudly that the egg doesn't want any more sperm to enter. There's no need to shout - lower case does quite nicely. And please read the guidelines at the top of the page before you ask a question - thanks. --Bmk 15:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partially wrong assumption. Sometimes two sperms manage to enter (probably because they do so at the same moment) and you get an identical twin. DirkvdM 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so and Twin#Types of twins seems to back me up. Under "Identical twins" it says "When one egg is fertilized by one sperm cell, and then divides and separates, two identical cells will result." It would appear that the only time two sperm become involved is if the egg splits prior to fertilization, see Twin#Polar body twins (identical-fraternal twins). CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 10:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Polar body twins appears to be a myth - see Talk:Twins. Rmhermen 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to this madsci.org post, the situation the questioner asked about is called polyspermy, and results in a non-viable zygote (a scrambled egg, in other words). --Heron 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this interest you, the excellent graphics and good expanatory notes at this Swiss site are worth while reading. In essence the docking of the first spermatozoon to the oolemma causes depolarisation of the oolemma, with reduction of the receptor interaction that enabled the first one to dock. At the same time the contents of the intracellular (cortical) vesicles attached to the oolemma are released by the depolarisation wave, and the perivitteline space and pellucid zone chemically hardens to form an impenetrable shell and a protective layer for the zygote. Non-identical twins come from one mom, who produced two eggs (not necessarily during a single ovulatory cycle) and these were fertilised by two different spermatozoa (not necessarily from the same father). Heron is right, if two sperms enter one ovum, the result is indeed not a viable zygote. Identical twins develop after a single maternal pronucleus and single paternal pronuceus have formed a zygote, the zygote undergoes mitosis, and the daughter cells each develop into separate individuals. --Seejyb 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is always the place to go for this sort of info; the link takes you to the Angela's Ashes page. Or Amazon for the soundtrack with a full list of titles. --Tagishsimon(talk)
I'm trying to figure out the name of this TV show from the 90s...it's driving me crazy. I think it was on the WB (in the US), and it was about this group of explorers who are stranded in a jungle-type place. I think there were dinosaurs. I don't think it was a hit show, but there were re-runs of it all the time on weekends. JianLi 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a car boot called a car boot?-84.12.169.91 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The car boot is actually called a Wheel clamp or the Denver Boot, named after Denver, Colorado, where it was first used. I guess the boot is just slang made by the people of Denver.
it looks like the car is wearing a boot on its wheel.
Or more likely he's referring to what you in the US call a car "Trunk" Benbread 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and i always thought because the front is called the "bonnet" (that's a hat) so the back must be called the Boot. I guess it'd word with Top and Bottom too. Benbread 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may originally have meant something you step on to help you up. According to the OED, the word boot in this sense comes from the French botte and was originally the fixed external step of a coach. Then it came to mean an uncovered space on or by the steps on each side, where the attendants sat. Thus it later came to mean a low outside compartment before or behind the body of the vehicle. --Shantavira 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It consists of a staff or pole with two large padded cylinders on each end. Resembles a large q-tip. I have seen it in militray movies normally they are using them in a sparring match. Would really hope someone out there knows what this weapon/sport is called. Thank You!
Hi. I'm wondering if there is a more specific name for the decorative thigh straps or thigh bands sometimes worn under long skirts and stockings. --GunnarRene 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a product is labeled 'satisfaction guaranteed', 'full enjoyment or your money back', or some variant thereof, and I return it to the company saying I didn't really like it, must they give me back my money? What criteria do they have? —Daniel(‽) 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legal question that depends where you are. Ignoring legal requirement, however, I imagine that they WOULD give you your money back, just for customer relations, if not just honesty. So few ever do make such a request, it costs little to fulfill the claim. Besides, if you buy a jar of spaghetti sauce, and there is a mouse in it, which is unsatisfactory to you (it said vegetarian on the label), it provides a kind of useful feedback to the company. --GangofOne 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got this apron by Unilever which is basically a commercial for a soap of theirs, Sunlight, which states that anyone who can prove that it contains any additives will receive a large sum of money. So it doesn't say that on the product itself but on another 'product' of theirs and it is at least 20 years old. A few years ago they started perfuming the soap. Can I now claim the money? DirkvdM 10:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't arsenal FC in adminastration if it has over £210million of debt. They cant honestly value their assets to exceed that can they, considering the collapsing values of footballers after that crazy peak around the mid 90's, or is Chelsea single handedly causing it to rise again with its keen intrest in several of arsenals players, and billionaire backing. I mean the stadium cost a lot to make, but who would buy it if they sold it? No one needs a 60,000 seater football stadium in london (apart from there are enough football stadia in london already). And the massive wages footballers earn, how could the club making a profit? They must pay a million or so each month in interest on the money they ow. How did they balance the books? PhilcTECI 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could say similar about Manchester United or any number of clubs. They don't need to go into administration because they can pay all of their bills. Just because they owe money doesn't mean they're bankrupt. Banks will only give money if they're sure of getting more back, so I don't think they're concerned by the debt. Slumgum T. C. 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well how do any of these clubs do it, the administration article defines it as when your debts exceed the value of your assets, and to me arsenal, and maybe other clubs I haven't looked at, are well and truly in this position. PhilcTECI 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A business does not automatically fall into administration (roughly equivalent to some types of bankruptcy for readers in North America) if its debts exceed its assets. Rather, the business' creditor(s) have to apply to the courts to have an administrator appointed. Creditors will not usually force a company into administration if they believe they will recover more of their money by letting a business continue to operate without intervention. In the case of the football clubs, creditors will probably let things slide as long as the clubs can both service (pay interest on) their debts and appear to be in good shape otherwise.
Compare it to the sitation where a bank holds a mortgage on a home. Let's say I buy a house for $500,000 with a 20% down payment ($100,000). The bank lends me the other $400,000; that's my mortgage. Suppose the housing market in my town suddenly dries up – perhaps a major local company goes out of business – and the value of my property declines to $300,000. All of a sudden, the amount that the bank would recover from the sale of the home is less than the amount of the loan. Nevertheless, the bank isn't going to pressure me to sell. On the contrary, they're happy if I keep making my regular mortgage payments and steadily pay down my debt. As long as I keep my job and have a steady income, foreclosing on the property doesn't make sense. Going back to the football clubs, the lenders are in the same boat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
