Miscellaneous desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27

Computer

Question moved to the Computing desk. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Handgun error on Battlestar Galactica

(Spoiler!)

On the recent episode of Battlestar Galactica, a character who shall not be named committed suicide with a handgun. The character in question put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger. Watching the scene again online, it appears she did not pull back the slide to load a round into the chamber. Can someone just pick up a pistol and pull the trigger? (I doubt it.) --Blue387 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they want to kill their own actors, especially since blanks fired at point blank range can still be fatal. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To better answer your question, it depends on the type of pistol. If it's a revolver, yes, you can just put the bullets in and start shooting. For the type of pistol that you're referring to though, you're correct. You can't just slide in a magazine and start shooting. The first round must be "chambered" by pulling back the slide. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, nothing prevents firing a pre-chambered round, even if the clip has been removed (as many accidental gunshot victims will attest). Guns should generally not be stored in this state because it *is* possible to "just pick up a pistol and pull the trigger". I haven't seen the video, so I have no idea if this is a possible explanation, but one should never assume that a gun cannot be fired. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: you can load a double-action revolver, pull the trigger and fire; but with an older single-action revolver you need to cock the hammer manually for each shot. (Even with double action it may be easier to cock the hammer with a thumb.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) It's been shown several times that at least some Galactica officers make a habit of keeping a bullet in the chamber of their sidearms.(When loaded.) In any case, the act in question was almost certainly pre-meditated, so even if she didn't normally keep her gun like that, she could have specially prepared it at some earlier time. (We don't see her load it. That would have ruined the impact of the scene.)

Finally, these are fictional weapons, not of Earth manufacture, so really, they work any way the directors and actors want them to work. APL (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the producers use real Earth weapons in the show. The weapon used by the person who committed suicide resembled a FN Five-seven. --Blue387 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gun in my bedroom is loaded and chambered; if I ever need it (fate forbid), I'll want to be able to fire it now! —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so if Tamfang wanted to kill himself in a dramatic and heart-wrenching scene, he could do so in the most cinematic way possible without having to fiddle with his gun beforehand. APL (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...what I was wondering (from the previous episode) is would a planet still be uninhabitable 2,000 years after a nuclear holocaust? People are living in Hiroshima. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't a Hiroshima-scale event. We're talking, probably within the space of a day, more nukes being detonated than have been in the earth's entire history, even including actions by Xenu. More to the point, Hiroshima was a very small bomb by comparison with what we have today, and thus presumably compared to what the 13th tribe was using. I read somewhere that it would take in the region of 30-40 nukes detonating to cause nuclear winter, and I believe that the US alone has something like 200x that number. I'd certainly think it possible - nuclear material has annoyingly long half-lives. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the nature of the attack, particularly dirty bombs could have been used as a radioactive area-denial mechanism. — Lomn 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in that episode, as the scientist fellow makes clear, is that there is low level radiation throughout the soil and water. That is pretty reflective of the consequences of a large scale nuclear attack, with lots of long-lived fallout products ending up all over the place. The consequence is that the radiation levels would be low enough to walk around for a bit, but too high to eat any food that was grown there, or to spend too much time there without developing birth defects and other genetic anomalies. It's less comparable with Hiroshima — which had a relatively low-yield nuke detonated at a high altitude — than with, say, Castle Bravo (high yield, high fallout) and its long-term effects on the Marshall Islands. Low-level fission products would pose a problem on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years for living creatures; unlike high-level radiation, they won't kill you from simple proximity, but the long-term effects of ingesting alpha emitters and the like would create serious physiological problems. --140.247.241.150 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

climatic classification by stamp

give me a view of stamp classification of climate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purnima chowdhury (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to infer that "Stamp" is/was a person? Google returns a few hits for someone named "L. D. Stamp" in relation to climate classification. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Dudley Stamp who classified land usage in the UK and generated detailed maps on the various crops planted. I suspect this information may be relevant in analysing the microclimate in agricultural areas. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very one who teamed up with S. W. Wooldridge in publications on climate classification. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purnima Chowdhury, are you looking for something which might have belonged on the list in the article "Topical stamp collecting", or for a classification scheme of climates? --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Discovery Channel guys nuts?

I was browsing throught the referenced desk as I like to do in my spare time and came across this question and this question. Reading the answers to those questions reminded me of our attitudes to those kinds of questions, so I decided to finally ask. It seems to me that we at Wikipedia are convinced that any "paranormal" phenomena like psychic phonomena, ghosts, UFOs, astrology, out of body experiences have failed scientific verification and are hence false. However I have seen several programs or snippets on the Discovery channel which present these as open questions which are yet to be settled either way. There are programs on UFOs in which sightings are reported to lack explanation, ghost sightings which are presented as "established". Recently I saw a snippet in which an out of body experience of an accident victim was presented as a fact. My question is, if we are right in disbelieving this mumbo jumbo, which according to us has no scientific backing, are the guys at Discovery Channel nuts? Or do they have a vested interest in presenting such misleading programs (increasing viewership)? Please not that my question is based partly on the answers to questions on this refdesk. Thank you -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about knowledge, the Discovery Channel is about entertainment, therein lies the difference. They are open questions in that they aren't absolutely proven (since that's only possible in mathematics, not science), but there is no significant evidence to support the paranormal. Plenty of things remain unexplained, but the explanation is most likely something mundane that we just haven't worked out yet. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a television program is to try to ensure that you will be watching when the commercial comes on. That's it. Each kind of show has its demographic, and you can sell more Bass-O-Matics to UFO believers than you can to scientists, and there are more of them. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does your theory fit with shows on TV channels that don't show commercials? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, and it's not a theory. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's call it a point then. It still doesn't fit, so what you should have put is "The purpose of a television program shown on a commercial channel..." That doesn't answer the question in respect of something like the BBC, which does not have the same incentive to increase viewer numbers, yet still shows programmes about the paranormal. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, an elitist propaganda organ has other incentives: The purpose of a television program is to try to ensure that you're watching when they conjure the mirage of virtual empire and world ombudsmanship. (Pardon me if I don't genuflect before Auntie Beeb.) And we were talking about the Discovery Channel. Don't get me started, or is it too late? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page says you are American, so how much time have you actually spent watching the BBC? (And I mean the real BBC, BBC America is part of BBC Worldwide, the commercial offshoot of the BBC and operates in the same way as any other commercial channel.) --Tango (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. I apologise unreservedly. It was only my deep envy of the British that made me lash out at the only truly unbiased, unfailingly entertaining and spiritually uplifting television network in the world. Graham Norton is my guru. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell!? Richard was talking about there being other reasons than simply viewers for commercials, based on the BBC also showing programmes on the paranormal despite not having the same need, and you go off into a random bizarre attack on the BBC is such a way that you were also attacking Richardrj. Elitist? Empire? Genuflect? The hell? 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Touchy. I guess there's no coming back from slapping Auntie. (I do play a little rough. Sorry for any bad blood. All in fun, eh wot?) --Milkbreath (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think you understand. It's not that you were 'slapping auntie' (and honestly, who refers to the BBC as 'auntie' in the last 3 decades?), it's that your comments are utterly bizarre. They make no sense, and attack richardrj for things he wasn't saying. Were you going for surreal? Perhaps commenting on an alternate reality? 79.66.105.133 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. I made the mistake of waxing opinionated on the RefDesk, and I'm willing to pay for that, but not here. This is not the place for a discussion of my behavior, your obsession with it, or the BBC's overweening nannyism. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for anyone else who posts at the reference desk, and I don't deputize anyone else to speak for me. If someone asks a question about what I believe to be claptrap (be it the young earth theory or the Myers-Briggs profile), I'll either keep quiet or address the claptrappy side of things. I'm not interested in swaying others to my points of view, unassailable as they are. Similarly, if someone believes the pyramids were dropped into place by extraterrestrials, or that King Arthur's due to return to Britain soon, the scales aren't likely to fall from his eyes even with my invaluable aid. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. Many of the programs on the Discovery Channel, Science Channel and even the History channel are BS and I just learn to avoid them. I do feel bad for the unsuspecting public, however. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I can say, having only a little experience with such things, that the quality of, say, "research" on some of these "history" shows, irrespective of network, is often quite low. Even public television (PBS, BBC, what have you) feels the need to keep people from changing the channel, and that usually results in quite a bit of "dumbing down" (though it need not necessarily—the real issue is clarity, not intelligence, but clarity is hard, dumbing down is easy). --140.247.241.150 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw another question on a reference desk recently on whether anybody actually believed wrestling matches weren't rigged. Personally I view wrestling matches as more deserving of credibility than these programs. They're entertainment. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/H#do some people not know wrestling is fake? Algebraist 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, skepticism is "the lifeblood of science". If something paranormal defies scientific explaination, then science will dogmatically reject it. Mention even the slightest possibility that something such as bigfoot might be real, and science will give you the academic cold shoulder. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so without providing any evidence, then yes. --Tango (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology is a science. Maybe. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be a real problem, because as Tango pointed out, the answer is *most likely* something that will be explainable outside of the paranormal. Even as a devout Christian, I think most paranormal stuff is bunk. (Miracles I accept wholeheartedly, along with spiritual warfare, astrology, Bigfoot, and the like I don't.) But, I also think it's sad that science doesn't embrace the idea of any paranormal stuff, because the idea of a level of existence beyond this one can at least explain some things.

Turning this, then, back to the OP, I think of places like the Discovery Channel as being willing to go just a little further than hard science. They have a different view of the paranormal than I do; they wish to include much more because they have a different world view than I do. Instead of "turning an academic cold shoulder," as someone else said, they intend to look into the possibility that that something isn't explainalbe outside of the paranormal. They don't go nearly as far as The X-Files, but they not only go further than science becuase of entertainment value, but because their world view is, "It might be something easily explainable - but, it might not be, so let's take a look."Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once something paranormal is explained scientifically, it stops being paranormal and just becomes normal, whatever the explanation happens to be. If science discovers that the souls of our ancestors really do walk the halls at night making cold draughts then ghosts would just be part of normal science like evolution or gravity. For that reason, science can never "embrace the paranormal", since that's a contradiction in terms. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science is fairly conservative (so said Thomas Kuhn, anyway), but that is part of why it is useful. The entire point of it is not to build a list of all of the possible facts in the world, but to narrow it down to the ones that can be relied upon to work again and again. Sometimes it gets it radically wrong, but the vast majority of the time it finds it can continue to build on from previous work, which proves to be a pretty strong foundation. If we lived in a world with infinite resources and infinite time, we wouldn't need methodology at all. But we don't, and never will. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any TV station wants as many viewers as possible. Some want them so they can sell more advertisement time to their sponsors, some want them so they will have a larger pool of viewers come pledge decade, some want them so they can justify government funding come budget time, some want them so they have more people to expose to their propaganda. I suppose one could come up with a scenario where they don't care how many watch, say a wealthy eccentric with a foot fetish who decides to broadcast images of women's feet 24 hours a day. But, failing that, TV stations will show whatever sells. Obviously, if they all show the same thing, then anyone with something different will do well. This leads to many different shows appealing to different niches. The Discovery Channel has apparently decided to aim for the tin-foil hat crowd, figuring that PBS and such already have cornered the market on hard science. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is legally obliged to broadcast things for minority groups even if it results in lower ratings, so it's not always so simple. --Tango (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But within the legal restrictions, they will still try to maximize the number of viewers. If that means minority-aimed shows which appeal to the broadest possible audience, then that's what they'll do. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific establishment, as embodied by academies and refereed journals, rejects silly claptrap, but it has a history of also rejecting what later came to be accepted and taught in science classes. We don't even have to go back to scholars like Lavoisier and the Académie Française des Sciences in the 1790'sdoubting that stones could fall from the sky. The work of Einstein comes to mind: his work on relativity was widely denounced and derided by many leading physicists. Work that has been denounced or derided by some in the scientific establishment, but which I think has a good chance of becoming accepted mainstream science down the road is the work on use of language by animals (such as Washoe (chimpanzee) and Alex (parrot)). Edison (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be careful with all of the examples you've given:

1790 is really before the 'scientific method' became widely accepted. So that's not really fair.
Einstein certainly was doubted - and rightly so - right up to the point when eclipse measurements proved him right. At that moment - the scientific community turned on a dime and accepted his views. This is precisely as it should be.
Washoe, Alex and others are tricky. There is genuine doubt - and the experimental evidence is essentially anecdotal - so that's a fair thing...the scientific rigor isn't there. Personally - I'm inclined to agree with you that there is an amazing result there - especially with Alex the parrot (who sadly, died recently). It's astounding that that TINY brain could do so much.
But the evidence for ghosts and UFO's and loch ness monster simply isn't there. It's gone past the 'doubt' stage now. These ideas have zero reliable evidence - ZERO. A decent scientist could tear the contents of any one of those shows into teeny-tiny pieces.

The idea that scientists should exhibit doubt is a good one - right up to the point when the evidence is in. At that point, 'doubt' turns to 'stupidity'. When Einstein's proposed eclipse experiment was performed and turned out as he predicted - the scientific community stamped the magic word "Theory" onto his "Hypothesis" and proceeded on the presumption that he was correct. Serious doubt of relativity is almost completely gone these days as evidence piles upon evidence that it's true. Ghosts are the opposite - we had doubt - then hypotheses fell - no proper experiments were done by the claimants. With an unfalsifiable hypothesis - we follow standard procedure and turn 'doubt' into the presumption that this is about as likely as the pink piano-playing aardvarqs on the far side of the moon...which essentially means we treat is as false...until or unless some reliable evidence turns up. You truly can't have doubt about all of those things because if you do, you end up with "Did the LHC produce a Higgs Boson - or was it maybe ghosts?" SteveBaker (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A big thanks to all the people who replied here - I now have a better perspective on the kind of shows I talked about; and feel better about being the confirmed skeptic that I am. I love you all :D ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College sports

I don't understand why college sports in the USA are so popular with fans? I can understand that a particular college's students, staff, and alumni might be fans of their college football team, but how on earth does that become something with major TV coverage and played in a packed 100,000 seat stadium? By contrast, here in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge universities football clubs play pretty much in obscurity in tiny stadiums. Astronaut (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true of all UK university sport: The Boat Race is a major national event. Algebraist 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Oxford and Cambridge boat race is pretty popular, though. Still not on the scale of US college football, though, from what I can tell. (I've never understood its popularity, either.) --Tango (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The boat race is a bit of an oddity, but it is just once a year. I think the NCAA has entire leagues with months long playing seasons, nationwide TV coverage, and huge stadiums. An American friend told me it was more popular than NFL/MLB/NHL games with their professional players. Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a good short answer is "years and years of tradition". Consider the NFL: the Super Bowl has existed for just over 40 years. The 1958 NFL Championship game, the "Greatest Game Ever Played", is a scant 50 years past and more-or-less marks the spot where pro football began to compete with college for national attention and status. Prior to that, for well over 50 years, top-notch football was synonymous with college football. Additionally, the NFL has long maintained drafting and scheduling standards that support, rather than compete with, the college game: currently no player can be drafted until he's at least three years removed from high school, and pro games are not played on Saturdays (until the college season has ended). For that matter, the NFL even avoids Friday games to protect the high school tradition.

On the other hand, contrast with baseball. With a hundred and change years of established professional leagues and no significant protection of the college game, NCAA baseball is your Oxford/Cambridge equivalent -- enjoyed by students and faculty but few others, and frequently bereft of the star players who have already turned pro. — Lomn 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is cause and what effect here, but the fact that American universities (unlike British ones) admit some students based on sporting prowess rather than academic merit must be relevant. Algebraist 15:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the popularity is the cause and the scholarships are the effect (why else would they issue scholarships?), although it is probably a self-reinforcing relationship. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years and years of tradition? Your country is barely more than 200 years old, you don't know the meaning of the word "tradition"! ;) --Tango (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In Europe, 100 miles is a long way. In America, 100 years is a long time." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon is more elegant than I am, but I'll point out that the US predates the UK :) — Lomn 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, in their present forms. If you go by how far back the respective cultures and histories go (which is more relevant to this discussion), what is now the UK is far far older than what is now the US (although by that measure, the US is a fair bit more than 200 years old, so perhaps I was being a little unfair!). Looking out of my windows I can (barely - it's foggy!) see Durham Cathedral, which is over 900 years old - yes, the name and borders of the country in which it stands have changed many times over that period, but it's the same cathedral. North America doesn't have anything even remotely comparable. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree. I spent a semester in England (near Grantham, to be specific) and had the point driven home when I visited one of the local churches. Glancing at the plaques on the walls, I saw one that looked substantially newer, so I figured I'd look at it so as to have a chance at knowing the historical context. Said newer plaque dated to the 18th century -- positively ancient by our national standards. — Lomn 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point of your point was, Tango, other than some sort of schoolyard bragging about how terribly old your country is. Australia has been around as a unified nation for only 108 years, and has been settled by non-indigenous people for only 221 years, but we certainly have well-established traditions. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points to consider. The caliber of play in the top schools of the NCAA, in both American football and Basketball, is excellent. Every year, a large number of players step straight from the universities into the NFL and NBA and more than hold their own. When was the last time a soccer player went from playing for Oxford to starting for a Premier League team ? People like to see the future stars, and in fact top college players are mega stars in their own right.

Second, the college and pro games are slightly different. In pro basketball, the athletes are so good that there is less emphasis on strategy and more on simply letting offensive talent express itself. In the NCAA, there is more variety of talent and more scope for teams using different strategies, making for a more diversified (and many would say more interesting) style of play. Same for football, where the variety of offensive schemes is much wider in the NCAA, with some teams hardly ever passing the ball, and others who barely ever run, and everything in between. Diversity creates interest.

Finally, universities develop followings wider than their base of alumni, be it regional or state-wide (for example, if you live in Nebraska and like football, you will be a fan of the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers, just like a football-mad yougster in the UK will support his local side). Traditionally powerful teams develop even wider fan bases that translate into large television audiences. --Xuxl (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best football players in the UK will join Premier League first teams while still in their teens, so perhaps it's the age restrictions on US pro football that are significant (as was suggested by Lomn). Also, up and coming UK football players usually join the academy of a professional team rather than playing through their school or university. International under-21 (and other age categories) games (played by the young players signed to a pro club) get a decent amount of attention, but domestic ones are rarely noticed by anyone not directly involved. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an important parallel between UK football and American baseball where most of the top players don't go to college/university and attendance at the college games is minor. But something must also differ in the sports culture of the countries where for U.S. football and UK football (soccer), the sizes of the stadia differ so much. Professional football in the UK has 4 stadia with over 50,000 capacity while the U.S. has almost 100 pro and college stadia that large (which doesn't scale for the 5x population difference). Average attendance of U.S. college football is very high: "SEC lives up to its reputation as the home of passionate college football fans with a conference-record average of 75,706 fans per game. Big 10 schools averaged just under 70,000 fans per game."[1] Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think (I cba to research it) that a good reason why the stadia in the UK are smaller is because of the tight rules regarding health and safety - professional football (read soccer) teams in the premiership must have all-seater stadia within a set (short) period after joining the league. That reduces the capacity dramatically. I have no idea if similar rules exist in the US. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans would find not having an assigned seat in any stadium very odd. Rmhermen (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... interesting responses. Comparing the NFL to the English leagues, I noticed the NFL is played between 32 professional teams, with each team playing 16 games in a regular season, plus some playoff games and superbowl if they're lucky; the English leagues are contested between 92 professional teams in 4 divisions, with each team playing at least 38 league games, plus games in other competitions. Perhaps there is a greater opportunity to watch professional sports in England (your local team is quite likely to be a professional team). I also think Xux1 is on to something with the differing development programs, with US college sports being aimed at bringing talented players into professional sports, while English football tends to develop their own promising talent from an early age. It is also interesting that Xux1 mentioned the University of Nebraska - I have a Nebraska Cornhuskers football shirt :-)) It was also interesting coming across this image - not even English Premiership games are that well attended. Astronaut (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's even more than 92 pro teams - several Conference National teams are full-time professional. The rest are semi-professional, you have to go a long way down the leagues to get to completely amateur teams. --Tango (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the hype that has been created around various programs, to gbo along with the concept of regional rivalries, as in the Nebraska comments. University of Michigan has in its fight song "champions of the West" for a reason - newspapers used to enjoy drawing readers a century ago by proclaiming their school the best of a regional. The conferences themselves deveoped out of this, and eventually there became great pride in saying you were the best of a region.

There was also the notion of the local hero. I know very little about British sports, so I'm not sure if any person in Britain has ever attained national superstardom for his play on the field (Olympics and World Cup aside, of course), let alone whether groups gain regional acclaim. However, from the Four Horsemen of Notre Dame (and probably before), the idea of a "golden boy" being a hero to many has been a major part of American sports. Where there was no Babe Ruth or Christy Mathewson to watch, people natrually turned to their local college stars. So, people years later could remember their great quarterback or star runner, even if that person just wound up staying in the community and working in the local mill. Whether it's The Ohio State University or my alma mater, College of Wooster, everyone has those stories where our region could point with pride to times when some hero achieved something we saw as special. And, whereas the British may have a dozen such people, every region has probably a dozen of those people at each school; part of the way America is still - and certainly was still back then - a nation of numerous distinct regions.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonably big team in the UK will have its heros, current and past (smaller ones will too, I guess, but they are likely to be known to far fewer people). Many become household names throughout the country, some even throughout the world (David Beckham, say). --Tango (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a LOT to do with history. Both football (by Walter Camp at Yale, though influenced by several other colleges and games) and basketball (by James Naismith at Springfield College) were both invented at colleges and originally primarily played by college students. It wasn't until the 1920's for football and 1940's for basketball that serious "professional" level leagues got started; at that point the college game for both had a decades-long following. In contrast, baseball has NEVER been primarily a college-level sport, and had been a professional-level game since the 1870s. So what you have is that when the NFL and NBA were founded, people didn't just up and give up being fans of the college game. There has been a continuity of popularity that extends back to the 1890's when the college game got started in earnest for both of those sports.

Indeed, the NFLs popularity really didn't get going until the 1960's (1958's NFL Championship Game being the watershed moment for the league), and it could be argued that the NBA only began to approach the popularity of college basketball in the 1980's.

Additionally, with fewer teams to root for at the professional level (32 in the NFL, 30 in the NBA), and many areas without any coverage at ALL, or only recently, by professional teams (the American South, for example, has been historically devoid of major league professional teams), the popularity of the college game lives on. Look at the example of where I live (North Carolina). We are host to our second NBA franchise in 20 years (the first bolted for New Orleans after 12 years) and they don't even come CLOSE to drawing the the crowds that the local Tobacco Road-based basketball teams do. Heck, the largest indoor arena in the state of North Carolina, the Greensboro Coliseum, exists almost SOLELY to host the ACC Basketball Tournament. Its just that professional teams have a hard time making inroads in areas where local loyalties go back decades and decades. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIT

Ok i had heard about florida institute of technology(FIT),melbourne,florida,USA from some of my friends(I'm in international applicant) and applied for it with my SAT-1 marks and today got an email informing me of my admission to the computer engineering course that the university offers.But when i checked up international university ranking,FIT was nowhere on the list ,(US News and World Report and other lists) .So i was wondering whether i should go ahead and accept the admission or not because i can't seem to find any information on whether this institute is any good or not - and i would like to hear from anyone who currently resides in the US or has knowledge regarding the universities there.Vineeth h (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Florida Institute of Technology#Rankings (and the rest of that article) useful. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Tech is somewhere in the middle of the rankings. It has neither an excellent nor a terrible reputation. Certainly its degrees are recognized and accepted in the United States, but they are not especially prestigious. If you have been offered admission at a better institution, then you might want to decline admission to Florida Tech, but if Florida Tech is your best option, it's not a bad one. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The driest area of Britain

My wife suffers from terrible arthritis that is made much worse in the damp atmosphere where we live in Scotland. Does anyone here know whereabouts in the UK - probably England -that enjoys the driest and warmest climate? Thanks. 92.20.24.147 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how dry it is, but Cornwall is probably the warmest. --Tango (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For driest, "The Top Ten of Everything 2007' reports St Osyth, Essex as the driest place in the UK, with only 506.9 mm of rain on average per year recorded over the last 40 years." (from WikiAnswers) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for warmest, WikiAnswers says "of course in the Scilly Isles" but does not provide sources. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The driest part of the UK is the southeast of England. For dry and warm, London might be best (it's much hotter than the surrounding area). That's driest in terms of total annual rainfall, though, which may not be the best measure. If dampness and light drizzle is just as bad for the arthritis as serious rain, then you want the area with the most totally dry days, not the lowest rainfall. I don't know where that is. Algebraist 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the drier parts of England are relatively damp by global standards. You might consider a move to Spain, particularly the region around Valencia, which is warm and dry most of the year. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that East Anglia is a semi-arid region, so I'd think around there. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-arid? Unless they're some scientific facet I'm unaware of, that's not correct. No, it's one of the most fertile arable areas of the country, and it certainly rains enough. We aren't used to the torrents found in Scotland, but certainly the south-coast's drier. The further south, as with Clacton/St. Oysth, the sunnier. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Gibraltar, but that's a little further out of the way. Steewi (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar is much wetter than England, though, except in summer. It's also not in the UK. Algebraist 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find anywhere in the UK that is dry, everywhere will be damp to some extent most years. AllanHainey (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you locate a sheltered area. e.g. the area around Portsmouth (Gosport, Fareham, Cosham, etc.) is protected by a range of hills. It enjoys much warmer weather than just a few miles along the coast. I believe Torquay has a similar beneficial climate. My wife has had chronic arthritis for 26 years, you have my sympathy (and it is not easy to live with her pain).86.197.42.35 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)JD[reply]

For what it's worth I lived in southern Spain for a few years and there is a very high incidence of people with arthritis there. The climatic warmth and dryness did not seem to appreciably diminish their discomfort. I would respectfully suggest more research before you assume the drier climate will diminish the pain. Here is a reputable journal with an article [[2]] Of course the warmer south will probably make life generally more bearable. I do hope you find a more comfortable area. Richard Avery (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People get it in dry Australia too, with the additional charms of asthma. In a recent SBS UK documentary, How to Live to 101 Without Trying, scientists suggest it's rife due to inherited active immune defences selected out through living conditions in Scotland mid-last century. -- Julia Rossi (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]