Miscellaneous desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

air medal recipients

hi. iwas looking at the list of air medal recipients that is listed in the article about the air medal (us medal) and was wondering where do wikipedia get that information. because i own a air medal ,not awardet to me. , but bought throuh an kind of army surpuls store in norway. the medal i have has a name engraved in the backside of it . but i couldent find it on the list. can anyone help me with locating info on the name engraved or mybe varify that this is an orginaly awarded medal?

Audisd14660 (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia gets its information from wherever the people who wrote the particular article found it. In principle every article should contain references to exactly where the information comes from, but unfortunately many articles do not live up to that ideal. In particular List of Air Medal recipients contains a reference for only one of its entries, though the pages linked from its entries may themselves contain appropriate references - I haven't looked.

However, the case of missing information is a bit different. The guidelines on verifiability make it quite clear that you may not add the name from your medal unless you can find a published reference that lists it. If you can find such a reference, I would encourage you to add the name to the page. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Places

Is there a web site that calculates the exact opposite of any place on the globe (example - Neath, Wales' opposite place on the globe)?"Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeda m31 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points on opposite sides of the globe are called antipodes (isn't it fun to have a big vocabulary?). The article on them gives information on how to calculate the antipode of any given set of coordinates, and lists a bunch of external links to sites that will do it for you. — Insanity Incarnat e 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, yes there is! The internets, eh? [1] Fribbler (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

managerial accounting

a company sells a product at $60 per unit that has unit variable cost of $40. The company's break-even sales volume is $120,000, how much profit will teh company make if it sells 4,000 units —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.137.121 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your maths or your business administration homework? --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Managerial Accounting. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. not being nasty, I'll give you some pointers: Look at Fixed cost and Break even Then ask yourself: How many units does the company sell at the break-even point? What are the variable costs for this volume? Can you find out the company's fixed costs from the data you have this far? How do the numbers for variable costs and fixed costs change if you sell 4,000 units? What is the relationship between total costs, sales price, income and profit? Can you calculate the profit from the data you have? (Look in your books for the formula if you can't figure it out. Our page is a bit confusing.) --71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of a euphonium

In US dollars ($), how much would an average quality high school level euphonium cost? --Scofield Boy 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yamaha lists the YEP201 as their standard school use euphonium. According to this it lists at $2,653. But is available for $1850. --Gwguffey (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you can get a used one on eBay for under $500. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp Ecosystem

I have looked on Wikipedia's Shrimp article, but I want to find out more about a shrimp's ecosystem, including a food web, and the influence of abiotic factors. Where can I look? --Scofield Boy 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Google. Do you need to ask?Cardinal Raven (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Cardinal Raven: as was recently discussed, some users do not have unrestricted access to the internet, but may have access to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. When they come to the Ref Desk, the idea is we work to give them good, referenced answers. This is a good question for us and desrves a good answer. The OP has obviously looked at Wikipedia, but not found quite what they need, so has come to the Ref Desk. I know it will involve research work on the part of some Ref Desk regulars, rather than just voicing opinions, but thats the idea. We help. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different species that are known as shrimp in English. While scientists distinguish between shrimp and prawn, many Americans apply the label shrimp to both shrimp and prawns, while many people in Britain and Australia apply the label prawn to both shrimp and prawns. (There are also several different species of prawn.) Each species of shrimp (or prawn) has its own ecology. Different species may have different diets and may live in environments with widely different abiotic characteristics, such as temperature and salinity. Most species of shrimp live mainly on zooplankton and/or phytoplankton, though some may feed on vegetable or animal detritus (dead matter), seaweed, bacterial scum, slime moulds, or yeast. The best source of information on the different species of shrimp would be scholarly texts such as this one. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No luck over at [Yahoo answers]? Anyway, I did a brief bit of research. It's not a natural ecosystem, but would our shrimp farming article be of help in starting to research a food web? If not the following links (all readily found with Google) might be useful: Marine Fisheries Food Webs, Great Salt Lake Food web and how the brine shrimp fits into it, and Antarctic Krill. However, almost anything including specific discussion of abiotic conditions leads to scientific journals which need a paid for subscription to read more than the abstract - a local college library might be able to help you there.

(straying off topic) strangely enough, hasn't Mhicaoidh voiced an opinion (on Cardinal Raven's comment) without actually doing research to help the OP with his question?

Astronaut (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Astronauts talk page as, ideally, this is a Ref Desk not a chat room Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mhicaoidh made a valid point. Cardinal Raven's response was rude, unhelpful and pointless. Mhicaoidh flagged that up so that hopefully Cardinal Raven will have more considered responses in future, he does seem to post some inane banter at times! --87.112.87.223 (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Mike[reply]

Thanks Mhicaoidh, Marco polo, Astronaut, and Mike. I found the info, thanks to you guys! --Scofield Boy 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scofield Boy (talk • contribs) [reply]

Socks!

If anyone would be so kind, could you identify the style of socks the girl in the front of this image is wearing; it's the girl in the tan duffle coat with the winged backpack (name Ayu Tsukimiya).--十八 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no girls, just distorted cartoon figures; however, the figure in the duffel coat is wearing what appears to be a simplistic Argyle (pattern) on its knee socks. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to insult the artist, you know. But thank you for identifying the socks.--十八 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not meant to insult the artist. I suspect she has drawn exactly what she intended to draw, which is not a human girl but a fantasy figure. My concern is that these anatomically impossible "girls", like the Barbie doll of prior generations, are setting up the basis for a peculiar image for young girls, and thus my remark. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you have concerns about the images presented to todays young girls or not is beside the point. The OP was obviously using the term "girl" to describe a female humanoid figure and you took the word to be entirely too literal for the context. The day when respondents cease this political soap boxing because of their own perceptions of what the OP means will be a happy day for many, including me. Dismas|^(talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can blame Walt Disney since he's the one who inspired Osamu Tezuka, and thus the entire Japanese manga and anime industry. It's all Disney's fault. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men? ;-}71.236.23.111 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt the pseudo girl figure is distorted, so its entirely valid to mention it as it also impacts on the realism / materiality of other things in the image such as the laws of physics, the internal logic of the created world and umm, it's socks. ps lets remember in all these column centimetres that Bielle's the only one who has addressed the question and answered it. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major stretch to go from a question on sock pattern to questioning if the girl wearing the socks looks like a girl or not. And imagine, if only I would have cropped the image, none of this would be happening.--十八 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no its not! You might want to catch up with a bit of post-modernism or Post-structuralism philosophy and theory over the last few decades. How can you assume that though the girls, and for example their eyes, are distorted and stylised, that the rest of their universe is not and is readily identifiable with ours? The famous coyote / roadrunner cartoon is a good example, yes they are very readily identifiable as stylised creatures from our world, yet we wouldnt assume the physics in their world, or the objects are just as "real". Would you assume realism and post here asking exactly what kind of Acme explosive products there are in that cartoon and where you can order them? Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you are vastly stretching the issue. Why does the rest of the fictional world where the girls come from matter if I only wanted to know what pattern the socks were made of? I knew they had a name, I just couldn't remember the name, so I asked here. I did not except the art or the realism of the image to come into question because it's just a major tangent on the issue at hand: the socks!--十八 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not criticising you or your question, I'm just saying that every fiction or creation has it's own internal logic and you can't assume that it is the same as in our universe. Everything is stylised in a cartoon and no art can be realistic. And indeed as you see below, doubt is creeping in...! Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the rest of us need to answer the question again? There's no point in the rest of us saying "Oh! Oh! It's Argyle!" Dismas|^(talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite agree with you Dismas, I think we should all post a lot less on this desk : ) Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image lacks a lot of detail that would prove the pattern to be Argyle. After a little more research, I suggest that it might instead be, simply, a diamond pattern. The one shown here [2] has more diamonds, but is otherwise a closer match to the pattern in the image. Wikipedia does have an editor expert in knitting, but I have just discovered that Willow appears to be on a wiki-break, and is thus unavailable for comment. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it Argyle even though simplified – the diamond inscribes the sideways square of Argyle type tartan and OR I know, I've seen this colour combo around in particular. The simplification is in keeping with cartoon representation and cleverly, I think, signals what it is in the way that a trace implies the whole – to bring, without labouring over it, a range of patterns to distinguish one girl from another. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

I can't seem to remember for the life of me what that massive, metal, dog-like thing was called in Empire Strikes Back. Anyone know?--ChokinBako (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT-AT. Neıl 龱 09:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost certainly what he was looking for, but I've never thought of them as dog-like; they always looked like dust mites to me. Matt Deres (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always called them "Imperial walkers". They seemed funny to me, one of the most impractical war machines I've ever seen: slow, massive, and easily defended against by tripping them or even just digging trenches. Had the Empire put their resources into a better system, like cruise missiles, they might have won. LOL. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are described as "fear over function" machines. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the Death Star was also impractical. Every time they fired it, they annihilated massive amounts of their own resources. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the AT-AT is impractical, you might want to look at the historical weapon that inspired them: the war elephant. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual appearance was inspired, according to Lucas, by the cargo lifters at the Port of Oakland. The photos online don't really do them justice, IMO. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda doesn't have to do with the question since it was answered already, but the imperial walkers always will remind me of the Robot Chicken skit. Where one of the jedi cut open the imperial walker and one of the enemy troopers is on the toilet as a grenade is thrown in. :)X27 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)X27[reply]

Private information on the net

What kind of private information shouldn't I put on the web? Is it dangerous to put my address on it? Is it dangerous to let other know my whole CV (with all employers)? 217.168.1.150 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you wouldn't want just anyone to know, really. You should especially not give out your phone number, because that could be a bit awkward. --WikiSlasher (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you put on the net, others can get to. If you put your address on the net, it's akin to walking round with a midget following you, shouting out your personal information to everyone he sees. It's also important to remember that once stuff is on the net, it's almost impossible to remove it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put anything on the web that you wouldn't want to tattoo on your forehead. It will be just as available for everyone to read for the rest of your life (and beyond!). --Sean 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Also, remember even things you send in "private" emails can be forwarded to all and sundry. While its true that someone could do the same with a real letter and photocopier the fact that it is free and easy means that it is much more likely to happen on the internet. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put only on the net what you are comfortable complete strangers knowing. Be it your age, date of birth, full name, address whatever. You must balance the risks of this information being used negatively for the positive benefits of having it on the net. Uploading your CV to jobs-sites is pretty standard, as is putting your name/address on an account for something like amazon/play.com (or anywhere you'd buy products to be delivered to your home). I wouldn't advise posting your personal details on sites where it isn't necessary though and do try to take care over your personal details online, try to stick to reputable sites. I find the site www.tempinbox.com to be a god-send for being able to sign up for 1-time use registrations where you don't want to provide your real email-address/details (beware tempinbox.com email can be accessed by anybody as it is password free - ideal for signing up to websites you have to register to post in forums/queries that you only anticipate asking a question of once). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually personal information on the Internet is a bad thing, but not like "you-post-it-and-immediately-die" bad. If it's buried somewhere in a profile, you don't really have to worry about anything, unless you do do something to incur the wrath of ~~Failaholics~~ Anonymous. But it's probably a Bad Idea ^(R) to post personal information as a rule of thumb.Ziggy Saw dust 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccans

Do Wiccans practice sacrifices? Or is it more because they personally want to rather than it being damanded by the religion? Bed-Head-Hair User:BedHeadHairGirl 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not definitive, but our Wicca article does not contain the word "sacrifice". Considering the kinds of people who are attracted to Wicca (mostly teenage girls, in my experience), I'd be shocked if they killed anything. --Sean 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought, but I was reading the talk page on Wicca and people didn't seem sure about it. Is there any link that explains this more? Bed-Head-Hair User:BedHeadHairGirl 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca is not organized and has little in the way of standard traditional practices. Considering that human sacrifice would run afoul of the wiccan rede I doubt many self-identified Wiccans would consider it an acceptable practice. Friday (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned sacrificing humans? Algebraist 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, you're right- I just assumed. I doubt most wiccans would approve of sacrificing fluffy bunnies, either, but you never know. Friday (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wiccan myself no we don't sacrifice. Most of, I don't know if this accurate enough though since its just my experience, Wiccan culture is protection magic. We use the provided elements that nature has given us for protection; and we use that to protection for events in our lives(such as a great enemy or a meeting with the boss) or maybe even something a little more supernatural(your great demon enemy...or a demon stalker.) All Wiccan is, is protection and natural belief, at least for me.71.142.222.245 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

From my own reading and direct observation, "offering" might be a better word than "sacrifice", and usually consists of a bit of the bounty of harvest or whatever the participants might partake of (e.g. bread and wine), not the life or suffering of another living being. But that's not exactly an authoritative answer. --Prestidigitator (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not exactly organized. I doubt it's possible to give a definitive answer. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bajork a dork?

Is the iceland girl bajork respocible for all the fuss in resent weeks by screaming Tibet! Tibet! at the end of her concert? did it all stem from there? User:Tal metta one 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Bjork, and no, she is not single-handedly responsible. A great many people around the world object to China's oppresion of Tibet, as well as their support for the genocidal nations of Myanmar/Burma and Sudan/Darfur and their military threats against Taiwan/Formosa. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually her name is Björk. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team building, team schmuilding

Does anyone know of a 'team building' activity where the team is asked to put marbles through a tube as quickly as possible? I'm sorry I don't have more info, but I'm looking for a competitive edge for something at my job. --Endless Dan 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not have access to the net (outside of wikipedia and other encyclopedias, so I could not do a google search. --Endless Dan 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be boring and not team building to just have marbles and tubes. Suggest locate a number of tubes (inside toilet rolls would do). Say 6 per team. Then a roll of Scotch tape per team, a bag of marbles, and a target. Object: shoot marbles through a completed long tube to knock down the target before the other team(s). Variations could include one target per team - less one (Musical Chairs principle). Organiser holding the Scotch and giving out a piece at a time. Making each team collect only one colour of marble, or a range of colours. Colour collection, but one short of each colour but another colour "wild" (thus a team could collect more than one wild card and so stop another.... I could go on, but you will see the principle. Good luck.90.9.81.4 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Feeding marbles through a tube (pipe) faster than another team can be competitive, too. Give them each a tube that's just wide enough and a bag full of marbles. The trick would be for the team to devise the best way to feed the marbles into the tube opening as fast as they can. (Funnel? Designated marble feeder, resupply? Feed trough? etc. For a cheat you could bend the other team's pipe ever so slightly, make it a bit longer and roughen up the inside. Or only one team gets materials to build a funnel with. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your question as though you had already once heard of this game or seen it in action. Such a game, mirroring "how business processes flow (or don't)", is listed at Indoor Team Building Game #2 - Customer Connection ---Sluzzelin talk 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Need A Bit of Help

Hi! I want to write the article about immune collapse. Can someone give me some references or links about immune collapse?Thank you very much.X27 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)X27[reply]

"Immune collapse" is not a well defined medical term, as a google or pubmed search will confirm. Check out the article on Immunodeficiency, with links to subpages, if you are thinking "collapse" in the sense of loss of function. If you are thinking "collapse" in the sense of the immune system, through hyperactvity, causing a person to physically collapse, check out Anaphylactic shock and Cytokine storm. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will read those articles and pull all my efforts to making Wikipedia the best gathering of knowledge. I want people to read the articles and say oh that is so good. I mean they do it still, but they be like oh that article awesome now. :)X27 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)X27[reply]

How does this work/not work?

The Video Is this video fake, or is there a real scientific proof behind it?

I don't care about any "Clues" in the video hinting its fake. I do know there were 2 different paper cut-outs used in the demonstration.

Also, if this is true, is it 100% alcohol? In my experiment, the paper would not even stick to the glass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.102.55 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is fake; it's the most boring fake I've ever seen. Yeah, I'd imagine 100% Ethanol is used. What did you try? Fribbler (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not 100% ethanol which is difficult to obtain. Rmhermen (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel efficiency when burning regular gas in vehicles that prefer high-octane

This has been brought up here and there, but I wondered if anyone could shed some light on this topic. It's well-known and accepted that burning higher octane fuel in a car that doesn't call for it is a waste of money. However, I recently came across this article on gas-saving myths, and they claim that you don't get better mileage with premium even in a vehicle that prefers it. They claim peak power will suffer, but fuel efficiency will not. I'm not sure I buy this. What I do know is that modern vehicles will commonly back off on ignition timing to prevent knock- thus allowing a high-compression or forced-induction engine to operate safely (i.e. without causing undue stress to the engine) on the lower-octane fuel. However, I suspect this would result in a loss of fuel efficiency as well as power. But, I have found no source to contradict cnn's advice, either. Can anyone confirm or refute my suspicions? I understand car engines, generally speaking, but I'm certainly no expert on all the little details. Friday (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I skimmed here, Octane rating, it would agree with your assessment. I can't help wondering though if it wouldn't affect engine life in some way.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The adjustment of engine timing and such should prevent excess engine damage. As to the CNN thing, Car Talk suggests that they're correct -- cars calling for premium gas generally don't have to do knock adjustment (which does reduce fuel efficiency) under most driving conditions. — Lomn 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I trust the car talk guys on this- they are notorious for disapproving of any vehicle with good performance. They might enjoy recommending low-octane fuel because they like less powerful cars. I guess one thing I've gotten from reading about this is that it may well depend on the individual car, fuel, and driving habits. The owner's manual of my car says it's safe to operate down to 87 octane but that it may take a tank or two of premium to restore expected performance. To me this suggests that this particular vehicle must be doing more to compensate than just retarding the timing as knock occurs. Maybe in the interest of engine life newer cars are staying "detuned" for a while after they detect knock? Friday (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Temperature

Hi!I hope this doesn't break any rules. Cause I asked another question up there. I don't know the rules of how many question one person is suppose to ask on a particularly day. But here goes nothing. For lunch I made myself some frozen pizza. They said for a softer crust to cook at 425 degrees Fahrenheit, but for a crisper crust they said to cook for 400 degrees Fahrenheit. So, how does that work? How does a higher temperature get a softer crust instead of a crisper crust? Wouldn't work the other way around? Since my crust was crispy when I cooked it at the softer crust temperature. What is the science behind this?X27 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)X27[reply]

Sort of reminds me of the old joke "I've cooked this egg for 20 minutes and it's still not soft." The higher temperature would presumably mean shorter cooking times and thus less water could evaporate from the dough. The lower temperature won't cook the surface as fast, allowing moisture to escape. Cooking temperature settings for ovens are utterly imprecise. Using an oven thermometer gets you a more "precise" reading. (It's at least going to be in the ballpark.) Where in your oven you position your pizza and what type and size of oven you use also affects results. Mostly it's trial and error. Not happy with this setting, try a lower one next time. BTW. For a soft crust put an oven-safe bowl of water in the oven with your pizza. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I will try that soft crust pizza trick when I make pizza for my mom. She likes soft crust and I like almost to the point of being burnt pizza cause then it taste good in the pizza sauce that has fallen off the piece you were eating :)X27 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)X27[reply]

I took a double-take on exactly the same thing the other day, but mine also had the difference of a baking sheet for the softer crust and straight on the oven rack for hard. I'm guessing the sheet shields the crust from direct radiative energy from the oven coils, so it is heated mostly by convection. Best I can come up with. --Prestidigitator (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly. You also have a lot more surface fro things to evaporate from. With a sheet you get a layer of vapor under the pizza and that limits any further evaporation and traps moisture on that side of your pizza. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London transportation

I'm planning a trip to the UK. What's the best way for tourists (18-year-old tourists on a tight budget!) to get from Gatwick Airport to Euston Railway Station? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapest option would probably be the coach to central London (Victoria), followed by the underground to Euston. Alternatively there are direct trains from Gatwick to Kings Cross which is fairly close to Euston (one stop on the underground). This option will be a little more expensive but much quicker. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to save money, walk from Kings Cross to Euston stations, as they're only 5 - 10 minutes' walk apart on the Euston Road, and the one-stop trip on the Underground will cost £4 cash (or £1.50 if you have an Oyster card). -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe the trains from Gatwick now stop at the new St Pancras Thameslink platforms, not Kings Cross - but it's only next door. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a direct Gatwick to KingsX train. National Rail seem to advise a change at London Bridge and get the underground. Confused. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. And there it is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Train operator is First Capital Connect. Timetables here - around 4 trains an hour during the day, journey time from Gatwick to St Pancras International about 50 minutes. Standard ticket price for single (one-way) trip seems to be £8.90, but your mileage may vary depending on what day and time you are travelling. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "coach" is British English for "long-distance bus," in case you're confused. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a coach if we arranged it all ourselves, rather than busses which travel along preset routes and pick up anyone that happens to be waiting. Anyway, unless using the cheapest route is absolutely necesary, you might want to try a bus rather than the underground, it really isn't a very nice place. And you get to see more of the city whilst above ground, which is what being a tourist is all about.HS7 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a rather ominous assessment of the Tube. Personally, I quite like it. The only thing to be aware of for travellers like the OP is that their large rucksacks and hesitant choice of tunnels/platforms/etc will not be very popular during the rush hour. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the Tube, HS7. God knows why you would describe it as not being a very nice place.

And I don't see what you're getting at by saying "unless using the cheapest route is absolutely necesary, you might want to try a bus". Buses are the cheaper option anyway. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Mwalcoff is right, in Britain a coach is just a long-distance bus, more luxurious than a regular bus. Coaches travel on preset routes as well. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I don't even know my own language as well as I had hoped. I found the underground rather dirty and crowded and confusing, and I've known people get stuff stolen whilst there. I actually don't think I've ever met someone that's actually liked it there before. And I'm sure someone near the top said the tube was the cheepest way. Anyway, don't they do those all day travel passes in london, so you can get one ticket and go on as many trains and busses as you want around the city? It's been a while since I last visited london, so I can't remember all the details about them.HS7 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are those sacs in the trees?

I live in pennsylvania and have trees covered in white sacs filled with catapillars. What are those things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.200.107 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoons? — Lomn 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the eastern tent caterpillar. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly the gypsy moth. --D. Monack | talk 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]