Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 July 23

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 22 Miscellaneous desk archive July 24 >

Quick question...

I am from London, England and would like to know how much of the company would you won after purchasing one share? I hear its about 0.001% but am unsure as to the accuracy of the information given to me. Can you help?

Depends on the company - different companies will have different numbers of shares. Some small private companies may have only a very small number; publicly listed ones will have a considerably larger number. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, Hewlett-Packard has about 3*10⁹ shares outstanding and Google about 3*10⁸ shares outstanding thus one share of Google would represent about ten times more ownership than would one share of Hewlett-Packard. --hydnjo talk 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But your shares may go down in share-value when the company decides to bring out more shares. As I understand it the logic behind this is that the shareholders themselves decide to do that to bring in more money, as a result of which the money-value of the shares may go up. Do I get this right? DirkvdM 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Board of directors (very indirectly the shareholders) may decide to issue more shares for sale thus diluting the ownership percentage of the existing shareholders which usually results in a lower market value per share. This is similar to the effect when a government decides to "print" more money. Conversely, if a company "buys back" its own shares on the open market the price per remaining share usually goes up (for example, Microsoft last week). --hydnjo talk 12:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you mean when the board of directors has kept a majority of the shares? In that case they'd be pretty much ripping their shareholders off, wouldn't they? I is it that if it were a real rip-off the company would lose so much goodwill that the shares wouldn't sell or something? DirkvdM 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, diluting the ownership percentage doesn't necessarily result in a lower market value per share. Remember, the company increases in value by the amount for which it sold the newly issued shares. Let's take a company – call it WikiFoo – for which there are 100 shares on the market, trading for $1 apiece. The market capitalization of WikiFoo (what the market believes WikiFoo is worth) is therefore $100. If the WikiFoo board of directors decides that they need some extra operating capital to finance a major expansion of WikiFoo, they could decide to issue 100 new shares. If they sell those newly issued shares for $1, the value of WikiFoo rises to $200 in total, and each share is still worth $1. However, a single share before the stock issue represented ownership of 1% of WikiFoo; after the stock issue it represents 0.5%. (It's a smaller fraction of a larger pie.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also it's worth noting that when new shares are issued like this they are often offered to existing shareholders first at a discounted rate, so it's not really a case of ripping the sharteholders off. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon Yellow

It may be a stupid question, but... I have Pokemon Yellow for Game Boy Color. In the game, I recieved the "cut" command from somebody. How do I use it? I cannot find it in my items list, so I cannot get past any of the bushes.

Cut apparently is HM01. Do you have that item? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. A message came up, I think after I defeated the Water Gym Leader, that said I had it. But I don't.

Oh, that means you can use it. You still have to board the S.S. Anne to actually come into possession of it. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is strange. You should have it. Perhaps it is not needed to advance in that particular portion of the game? --Proficient 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This means you're now capable of LEARNING Cut, not performing it (yet). You still have to find it (it shows up naturally during the progression of the story).

After you find it on the S.S. Anne, you have to use it on a Pokemon so you can teach it to them. Then just go up to a small tree and press A. It will ask whether you want to chop the tree. Go Yes. Done Harryboyles 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

HMs can be used infinitely, so you can teach it to multiple Pokemon. Bibliomaniac15 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting an antarctican

is there any way I could contact a person in Antarctica, especially Admunsen-Scott station?

Try this link. The web cam seems out of service, but try some of the links in the 'living and working in antarctica' section; some of the sites may have email addresses. Or try emailing the guy who runs the main site and asking him.--Anchoress 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the pages on Amundsen-Scott_South_Pole_Station may be of assistance. 68.39.174.238 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Binding Keyboard Keys to Joystick Axis'es

I play alot of PC Video Games, (Half Life 2, Garry's Mod, etc.) and there way of driving is using WASD for movement of the vehicle, then you aim the gun with your mouse, and fire with left click. Now i have a Extreme 3d Pro by Logictec, and I would like to be able to bind W to forwards joystick, and S to back, etc. Mostly i would like an editable script, so i can say "Foward Joystick Numpad 2." Then when i pull the joystick back, it would be the equivilent of holding down 2. Is there a script or program that will let me do this? Thanks for any help.

You could try AutoHotkey, which is free and open source. It allows you to rebind keys to other ones. The help pages have details about using joysticks. I've only used it with keyboard keys, but it's worked very well doing that. Icey 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edible Croc Shoes?

One of my friends is convinced that Crocs, the popular footware made of foam-like material, are edible if boiled. Does anybody know if this is true or not? I tried looking at the Crocs website and randomly searching the internet, but to no avail. Any insight would be much appreciated! Thanks.

"That's an urban myth," Hanson answered, adding that, while the ingredients are inert and not harmful, the brightly colored shoes are meant for wearing, not chewing. Crocs co-founder Duke Hanson from this link: [1]

How great is Australia?

Does anyone know any songs, movies etc. which explains the things that make australia great. e.g. it describes australia being great because it is a free country and so on.

Thank you

• You could start off by explaining the history of the catchphrase "The Lucky Country" and why it is applied to Oz. There isn't much info on Wikipedia about this phrase though, so you'll have to pop down to the local library in order to get enough info for a good mark on your homework assignment. Bwithh 07:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help but i need a reference from a movie or song, not a phrase.

• Banjo Patterson's poetry-hotclaws**==(81.134.68.10 08:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

'I Am Australian' is a great song by a couple of The Seekers, often learnt by schoolchildren. Dorothea McKellar's My Country may also be the sort of thing you're looking for. Heck, you don't have to look much further than the national anthem for a celebration of Australia in song. Natgoo 10:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "True Blue (Australian song)". Here are the lyrics. Here's a little background. For film/TV content, I would suggest the TV soaps Home and Away and Neighbours as powerful narratives about the attractiveness of Aussie life for people in the UK. Bwithh 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yerrk. Those last 2 might make Australia seem an attractive place - and it is - but they generally present a very false, plastic view of what life in Australia is like. For movies that display an authentic Australian spirit, you'd be hard pressed to beat the 1981 film Gallipoli. JackofOz 22:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Castle comes close. 58.7.170.99 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think drop bears make Australia great. --LarryMac 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The fence was a good australian movie. And Land down under by men at work was a good song193.115.175.247 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Australia is great merely for being the nearest landmass to the greatest living nation in the known universe...New Zealand :) Oh alright then.Try Austen Tayshus' 'Australiana' song for some fun! 88.106.180.161 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Lemon (yes I'm a Kiwi)

I remember the newest ad campaign by Australia to promote the country, which was notable for its profanity (though mild, at the end the ad says "Where the bloody hell are you?"). [2] It created a lot of spoofs, poking fun at the mild profanity, or deliberately exaggerating the bad parts of Australia. [3] [4]

"There are those who say that Australia was founded mainly by convicts. However, this is not the full story. Australia was also founded by prostitutes." StuRat 07:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Creepy whirlpool location.

There's a scary-looking whirlpool that drains a manmade lake through a dam. Normally a concrete pipe pokes up above the water like this (X is rock and - is water; the dam is to the left):

|         T      T          /XXXX
|---------|      |---------/XXXXX
|---------|      |--------/XXXXXX
|---------|      |-------/XXXXXXX
|---------|      |------/XXXXXXXX
|---------/      |-----/XXXXXXXXX
                 |----/XXXXXXXXXX
                 /---/XXXXXXXXXXX
|-------------------/XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX-------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

but when the lake fills up, the water rushes down through the pipe and it looks like Charybdis. I remember seeing an article about it, but I can't remember the name of the lake or of the dam. Does anyone remember? grendel|khan 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a fairly common construction; it takes up less space than a spillway and is possibly more robust. I don't know of any famous installations, though. Any idea roughly where this is? EdC 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hoover Dam has 4 of those things, however they're not quite so exposed. It is a very common construction, and I've seen it reducued to just a rusty pipe in a minor lake. Also, that (in)famous Welsh dam also has one of them. 68.39.174.238 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! this may be it, although it's shown dry, it sounds like it would produce the (un)desired effect). 68.39.174.238 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ricochet

I'm inside a car. I have a gun. I shoot into the roof. Will the bullet ricochet, or go straight through? If it ricochet's, am I at risk? (I don't ACTUALLY have a gun in a car, i'm just hypothetising)

If it does happen to richochet, yes you are at risk. Whether it will or not is dependant on the caliber of the bullet and the thickness of the roof of the vehicle. Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To hit you, it would have to bounce pretty much straight back or ricochet more than once. In either case it will have lost a lot of impulse. And any padding on the roof will slow it down even more. Not something to 'try at home' (don't make the obvious remark), but I don't think you'd be at much risk. DirkvdM 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume for the average car the thickness is shallow enough to allow the bullet to go through, but as mentioned, the caliber matters greatly. --Proficient 11:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it might depend on wheather or not it goes through the sunroof. --martianlostinspace 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth considering that - unless you had a silencer - you'd probably be temporarily deafened. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The angle of incidence is also critical; a bullet hitting the roof at a shallow angle is far more likely to ricochet, like skipping a stone on a lake, than one hitting the roof straight on. StuRat 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Any dumb wives on the tube?

I can think of plenty of television shows that have a husband who isn't very bright or some such similar thing and the wife is of at least average intelligence and doesn't do much of anything that would be considered "stupid". Such shows, off the top of my head, would include The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Home Improvement. There's even Married... with Children which has both the husband and wife being of average to below average intelligence. But I can't think of even one show that has a dumb or bungling wife with an intelligent, does everything right sort of husband. Is/was there even one show like this? If not, why not? Can women just not laugh at themselves as much as men? Would it just be too much heat from feminists? Dismas|^(talk) 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There was Edith in All in the Family, but Archie wasn't quite bright either. I Cheers, Sam wasn't the brightest kind of person and Diana was definitely the intellectual type, but then they never got around to marrying. They did live together for a while, if that counts. In Coupling the three guys and three girls balanced each other out quite nicely in stupidness, but the two who finally got married (if I remember correctly) were the most normal ones. Ah, I've got one. In George and Mildred, Mildred wasn't particularly intelligent, but compared to George at least she was the voice of reason. And in Man about the House, the dumbest person was a girl (and a pretty blonde to boot), but they simply lived together, not as couples. DirkvdM 11:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It has become such a regular phenomenon, that I myself can't recall the circumstance transposed in that the woman is of lesser intelligence and the husband of greater. Perhaps looking through List_of_sitcoms might help you find one. --Proficient 11:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the wives on I Love Lucy were pretty dumb. And I don't really think you can blame the dumbness of these guys on women, since men created all the shows you listed, lol. I always thought guys made their leading men so dumb in order to make average guys feel better about themselves, and to tell women that that was the best they could do. I don't find dumb men or women funny, and I wish they'd go away.--Anchoress 11:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

well, it's a relative thing. Remove the dumbest and the next level up will become the dumbest. You can't win this one. :) DirkvdM 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Australian sitcom Kingswood Country featured Thelma Bulpitt, who was less than the full quid, but then her husband Ted wasn't a Rhodes Scholar. --Roisterer 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest King of the Hill. Peggy Hill is usually doing pretty silly things, while Hank Hill has a little more common sense. --Joelmills 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In Twin Peaks one could argue that Nadine Hurley was pretty out of it, while her husband Ed Hurley seemed a reasonable fella, but that's more a lack of sanity than of intelligence. In That 70s Show, Stephen Hyde was married to a rather dull stripper named Samantha for half a season or so, but she wasn't really a major character. In Frasier, Niles Crane eventually married Daphne Moon who was not necessarily a brilliant mind (not that the Crane brothers always were either). I dunno if any of those are great examples, though. Digfarenough 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good observation. In advertising, too, men are invariably shown as stupid and bungling, and their wives as sensible and long-suffering. There is definitely an agenda of some sort going on here. Something to do with fear of being condemned as sexist if the roles were reversed. --Richardrj 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Since in most family sitcoms the husband is the main character, they focus the humour on him, which is why he's often stupid and bumbling (because stupid and bumbling is funny, and because on TV, intelligence is mostly boring). There's no agenda here, especially not against the people in power. --ColourBurst 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the shortness of memory. Radio & television shows with "ditzy chicks" and reasonable men include The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, I Love Lucy, I Dream of Jeanie, Bewitched, I Married Joan, Three's Company, Dharma and Greg, Green Acres, Blondie, Easy Aces, My Friend Irma, My Favorite Husband, and probably countless others. - Nunh-huh 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with some of your choices. Bewitched? Samantha was dumb? I doubt that. I dream of Jeannie? Dharma and Greg? I disagree with both of those. And who was the "dumb wife" in Three's Company? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't expect unanimous agreement, but I'd point out that I was listing "ditzy chicks" not "ditzy wives", thus qualifying Miss Chrissy Snow. Clearly in Bewitched, Jeannie, & Dharma, the wife (and yes, Jeannie was, eventually) was the source of the "comedic confusion" in most episodes. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it predates feminism and PC. Wasnt there always a stereotype of the (usually) working-class wife being in charge, looking after the money, etc, while Dad snored away on the sofa and then went out to spend his "beer and baccy" money (ie the pocket money she gave him) drinking with his mates. Jameswilson 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rachel and Ross from Friends. While they were only married for a few episodes, they lived together for quite a while, and Rachel was definitely the least intelligent of the two. In one instance Ross tells her "your brains are smaller than mine", and she agrees. Except for a few weird quirks of his, he was generally the more sensible one, and was often the voice of reason in their relationship. --Aramգուտանգ 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You see, I think that's why. Oftentimes intelligent men in sitcoms, especially knowledge-intelligent men, are stereotyped as "losers" and therefore would have less chance of being married in the first place. Knowledge-intelligent women are just plain nonexistent in sitcoms. --ColourBurst 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of "even one show that has a dumb or bungling wife with an intelligent, does everything right sort of husband." The only programmes that I can think of are:
Blackadder - Although neither are the wives of a main character both Queenie & Nursie are quite stupid. Queenie is a main character so I suppose this counts.
The Royle Family - Both Husband and Wife in this one are if not stupid are certainly "dumb" and lazy.
Till Death Us Do Part - While the wife is "dumb" the husband a stupid racist not an "intelligent, does everything right sort of husband".
Absolutely Fabulous - No husbands or wives but the 2 main women are quite stupid with a intelligent daughter (The fact that Edina is divorced also implies her former husband had a bit of sense). It looks like the stupid husband/no stupid wife plot stereotype runs through U.K. & U.S.A. TV sitcoms. AllanHainey 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of a high percentage of the population, I would suggest many of the characters of Desperate Housewives. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Phoeobe Buffay in Friends, hardly the smartest knife in the draw, eventually married Mike Hannigan, who was pretty smart, but that was only for the last series or so. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The actress Georgia Engel has patterned herself after Gracie Allen and made a career out of dumb wife roles, on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Coach, and Everybody Loves Raymond. StuRat 07:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Balki's wife on Perfect Strangers (TV series) was at least as dumb as he was. StuRat 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "dumb husband, smart long suffering wife" was a pretty common staple a few years back (around the time Home Improvement, The Simpsons and in the UK One Foot in the Grave were at their peak (ie the mid-90s)). I suspect The Cosby Show may have started the trend, albeit with a mild version. Or it may trace its roots all the way back to The Flintstones (and by extention The Honeymooners). In any case, what was a trend became a cliche and then became something writers avoided so as not to seem hackneyed or lazy, so the "dumb husband, smart wife" scenario is much less common nowadays. As for the reason behind it, I don't think it has so much to do with feminism as a combination of the sort of phenomenon that's caused it to become less common nowadays, and the fact that most sitcom writers are male. Just as "dumb husband, smart wife" became a cliche in the 90s, so much older sitcoms had often followed the "well meaning but lacking in common sense wife gets into scrapes" formula for jokes (see I Love Lucy, Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie). It's quite possible, then, that writers wanted to avoid following such a formula so as not to appear like a 50s/60s throwback. Also, because the writers were mainly men it's quite possible that they were more comfortable with writing stupid male characters (who would then become the central comic character) rather than stupid female characters, partly because that would make the male characters the main comic characters and partly because they'd probably feel more comfortable ripping into a male character than a female one. Comedies written by women, on the flip side, are much more likely to have stupid, unsypathetic female characters and perfectly nice, normal male characters (see Absolutely Fabulous, Smack the Pony or The Catherine Tate Show, and I'm sure there's American examples, too).

Anyway, to answer the main question, off the top of my head I can think of Keeping up Appearances and 'Allo 'Allo as examples of shows with stupid or otherwise flawed wives and generally clued up (though in the first case way too timid) husbands. Also, I now realise I spend far too much time reflecting on trends in TV comedy. --Daduzi ^talk 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

family tree

 my name is Thomas lillystone I live in England.
 there is a name of a lillystone drive in Maryland.
 bethsheda.I would like to know how it the was named?
 hope you can help.
             Thomas lillystoneto

Presumably after Lilly Stone, who lived there in the 19th century. See this page. Google Maps spells it "Lilly Stone Drive." -- Mwalcoff 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not directly relevant to the above question, but your family might have a link to the Lillingstone villages (Lillingstone Lovell and Lillingstone Dayrell) near the Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire border in central England. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Management theories

My name is Julius KR I would like to know the meaning/technical definition of Result Oriented maintenance and its application.Also the word Total quality maintenance. Thanks

I think you might mean 'management' rather than 'maintenance'. For the second term, see here. --Richardrj 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

NCAA Football

Does anyone know what platforms EA Sport's NCAA football is coming out on. I know that it didn't come out on Gamecube on 2006 and 2007, but does anyone know what platforms it will come out on in the future? --Summonmaster13 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Its probably coming out on XBOX 360 ,PS3 and maybe the old ones such as XBOX and PS2. I'm not sure but it might also be coming out on the Wii

According to [5], it's confirmed for PS2 and PS3, Xbox and Xbox 360, but not Wii or Gamecube. No idea if later versions will support Wii (probably not if their track record is anything to go by), but it's very unlikely that NCAA 2008 onwards will be on Gamecube, or even PS2 and Xbox. Sum0 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

You know that Burger King commercial with the 2-inch-high people making burgers? They're midgets. If they were going to digitally make them tiny, why did they need them to be midgets? Son of a Peach 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they were trying to accentuate the tininess of the burger-makers. Other tiny beings, like the Smurfs, were not only physically tiny, but they were also more squarish in proportions. Hyenaste ^(tell) 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem.

We're living here in Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down. Out in Bethlehem they're killing time, filling out forms and standing in line.

Can someone come up with a solution to this? 69.81.50.252 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we could do that, we could also eradicate cancer and poverty, and bring about world peace. This is a place for getting questions answered, not necessarily providing solutions to tricky social problems. JackofOz 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Every child has a pretty good shot to get at least as far as their old man got. Ziggurat 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But something happened on the way to that place, they threw an American flag in our face. 69.40.248.79 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to keep a good man down. Ziggurat 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But I won't be getting up todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy. Natgoo 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I always recommend listening to less Billy Joel as a first step in solving problems of any sort, but it seems particularly a propos with yours. --ByeByeBaby 04:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right (then again, s/he may be crazy). Grutness...wha? 06:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You might get more serious answers if you specify the country. Bethlehem is in Palestine, right? DirkvdM 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke- that was a line from the song Allentown, by Billy Joel. 69.81.50.252 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why I didn't get the jokes. This is the sort of situation where step into a group in the middle of a conversation, you pick something up, make a remark and then get these looks ... Ok, I'll shut up now. DirkvdM 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just a matter of finding the right register. The question was asked in song, so it had to be answered that way :) Ziggurat 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics refer to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, incidentally, and specifically to Bethlehem Steel. StuRat 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Games for Senior Citizens

What are some games that I could use to play with a group of Senior Citizens, aside from the traditional Bingo, Shuffleboard, and Euchre?? I work for a seasonal lodge that caters mainly to senior groups so I'm looking for new and fun things to do with them. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

• You can take them to a playground, per this Finnish study.--Pharos 04:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cards. --Proficient 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not ask them what sort of things they would enjoy instead of telling them what is available. I bet some of them would have some novel ideas. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Carcassonne? Or ask at the forums on BoardGameGeek.com; I'm sure they will inundate you with suggestions. —Blotwell 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

60s era Australian legal statute, 'having unlawful carnal knowledge'

Bon Scott (dead lead singer of AC/DC is described in his bio as having done time for, among other things, 'having unlawful carnal knowledge'. The reference was a 1963 newspaper. What would it have meant? JackofOz?--Anchoress 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How flattering, Anchoress.  :--). This is what carnal knowledge means in Queensland, and although IANAL I would assume similar provisions apply in other states. It seems to suggest that carnal knowledge is inherently unlawful (ie. having consensual sex with your partner would not be described as such), so "unlawful carnal knowledge" seems to be a tautology. JackofOz 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We do have an article: Carnal knowledge. Rmhermen 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks you guys.--Anchoress 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumping Spiders

Hi. I would like to know if jumping spiders are able to jump while on the ceiling, like they do on a wall. We have a debate going on over this. Thank you for your help.

--Ck9054 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

try looking at Jumping spider. I haven't read it but maybe it has something. Jon513 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked that website and they address spiders jumping up a wall, but not on the ceiling...same concept I guess though. If gravity would make them fall when they let go from the ceiling, it should do the same on a wall I would assume.