Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 9

What is this woman doing?

Is she putting down pieces of paper to tell everyone where to stand? [1] If so, shouldn't that have been done before everyone came walking in? Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It could be a windy day and the subjects need to step on them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

i find it hilarious that they need to be told where to stand, some of the most "powerful" people in the world lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that's what's going on in this particular case. It looks to me like the woman is collecting footprints of the various leaders. CO2 emissions are often referred to as a carbon footprint, and while I can't find a news story in Google News that confirms it, I'd guess the event organizers chose this unusual way to commemorate their agreement. --Anonymous, 09:29 UTC, July 10 9, 2009.

A picture caption at CNN suggests she is collecting the papers [2]. 88.114.222.252 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So the original explanation was basically correct, hilarious as someone finds it, and my guess was wrong. Too bad, I liked it! --Anon, 20:13 UTC, July 9, 2009.

I kind of liked the "carbon footprint" thing too. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Purchasing vs Procurement vs Merchandising vs Buying vs Sourcing

How do you distinguish the above five terms? What are the major differences?--Tlrmq (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Purchasing vs Procurement vs Merchandising vs Buying vs Sourcing. search wikipedia we have articles on (almost) everything :-) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Slightly more helpfully, purchasing, like buying, can be done by anyone; procurement, however, generally refers to government buying or obtaining the services of a prostitute. Merchandising involves a wide range of in-store activities from product placement on shelves to point-of-sale advertising. Sourcing is the act of identifying the most attractive supplier (e.g., factories) among several producers or their agents. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem Procurement is not only done by governments it is also used in B2B tenders. Read the articles, they are not that badly written and more helpful than the "?" definitions above. (I rather doubt obtaining the services of a prostitute is going to come up in OP's homework or exam.)71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. One might also note that the WTO has been considering government procurement restrictions for many years, and as such, it has become one of the most common uses of the term. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Woman's fantasy

What do woman fantasize about? If men fantasize about 'stockings', 'penis-fixated woman', 'tight transparent underwear', 'sex without preliminaries', what are the equivalents from a feminine perspective? Quest09 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can only go by this story that Jay Leno told one time. He said that some survey organization was paying women 75 dollars to ask them what turned them on. The answer was that it was the 75 dollars that turned them on. Hope that helps. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Women fantasize about turbinado sugar, orange hydrangea, and stippled marbling. Bus stop (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From my decidely male perspective, I think women mostly fantasize about living in a world where men aren't so all-consumed with trying to have sex with them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, I would remove the words "so all-consumed with" from that sentence. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. "Woman is the most powerful magnet in the universe, and men are cheap metal." -- Larry Miller. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My above comment is written from a male perspective. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Read up on Romance novels.--droptone (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Women, like men, will fantasise about a whole array of different things - depending on the individual. Some women will be fixated with men's bodies, or specific parts of their bodies their arms, legs etc. Across the female population they'll fantasise about every kind of sex that a male will. Why wouldn't women fantasise about sex in the same way - after all sex wouldn't work too well as a perpetuation of the species method if only 50% of the population are obsessed by it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell -- chocolate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, many women fantasise about other women!--TammyMoet (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's something men fantasize about too! (i.e. women fantasizing about women) Common ground! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And women pretend to be attracted to other women in order to please men. "Lipstick lesbian" is the term, I think. Meanwhile, my girlfriend fantasizes about gay men a lot (so far as I can gather, usually imagining taking the place of one or the other alternately, while they get busy, and then imagining herself as herself again in order to interfere in some way). It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, and people are individuals and difficult to generalize about. 213.122.53.138 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fantasising about gay men isn't terribly unusual: there are fairly mainstream communities all over the internet where two men together is understood to be considered hot by most. Like men, women fantasise about a lot of things, and find a wide variety of things hot. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I fantasize about being slowly strangled by Summer Glau and Avril Lavigne -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Better them than David Carradine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL so funnie u should be a comedian XD

And you should upgrade to a keyboard that has tildes on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They have movies depicting ideal mating situations from a male perspective, which are intended to provide a fantasy to men, and therefore provide a good idea of what mating situations men fantasize about. Such movies are called porn. Similarly, they also have movies depicting ideal mating situations from a female perspective, which are intended to provide a fantasy to women, and therefore provide a good idea of what mating situations women fantasize about. Such movies are called romantic comedies. Red Act (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're saying women can't enjoy porn?? Or that there's no porn for women??? Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not make those statements. You’re exagerating what I said, thereby using a straw man fallacy. Sure, porn for women exists, and there’s a broad range of behaviors and fantasies among both men and women. But I’m talking about general trends. Suppose a man is in his house by himself, making a choice between watching one of two possible DVDs – a porno, and a rom com. A significantly greater fraction of men will choose the porn in that situation than the fraction of women who will choose the porn in the same situation. Red Act (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Throwing words like "straw man" around without knowing what they mean I see.

Huh? A straw man fallacy is attacking a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. Saying “You're saying women can't enjoy porn??” is a misrepresentation of my position. Red Act (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Straw man implies intent. I did not intend to misunderstand.

Oh, OK. I didn’t realize that it wasn’t an intentional misrepresentation. Red Act (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem, glad we cleared that up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad most/all of the answers here seem to be from men, because surely if we know one thing it is that men are generally stupefyingly clueless about what women really think. :-\

Well I gave my fantasy, no one seemed to care

I found this article fascinating, if a bit alarming. (If the link doesn't work for you, it's to an article called "What Do Women Want?" by Daniel Bergner, in the New York Times Magazine of last January 25.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was understood that women don't know what they want, so how the heck are the men supposed to figure it out for them?

It's not so very alarming, in my opinion. As they discuss later in the article, what women want is not necessarily a one-to-one mapping with what produces a sexual response from their genitals, and desire may be more malleable in women than in men. I wouldn't know, never having been a man. On top of that, women finding man/woman, man/man and sexy ladies as well as men hot is not really surprising to anyone who hangs out in the parts of the internet where women chat about these things in a less inhibited manner. These things rarely come up IRL, and aren't really socially acceptable to discuss or admit to in most situations, although I suspect this is changing slightly.

Women often do know what they want, but it isn't always 'safe' or acceptable for them to say. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Women do know what they want. They just don't all want the same thing. As far as chocolate is concerned we don't fantasize about it. We're either eating it, not eating it, buying it or trying not to buy it :-). (BTW I hate romantic comedies, my hubby is the one who watches them.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From various anecdotal conversations I've had over the years, the main difference is men fantasize about specific physical acts and women tend to construct elaborate fantasy scenarios (knight/princess etc). Exxolon (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Women often do know what they want..." but it is unreasonable to expect men to know it too without being told. Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What women want is extremely simple: to be left entirely alone, without any contact with men whatsoever. 88.114.95.29 (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience, fwiw, is not that. Women want to appear to want to be left alone, but also want men to ignore what the woman apparently wants, but to make contact with them, and keep on trying even if they're rebuffed. That's if the men are in any way attractive; but not if they're just sexual harrassers or worse. You work it out, I never could. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No no 88, what women want is to be left entirely alone, without any contact with you whatsoever. Easy to confuse the two; women are perfectly happy to have many sorts of contact with men who don't patronise them. And while it isn't reasonable to expect men to know what women want without any feedback, they might be expected to read between the lines to an extent rather than be specifically told. If it isn't acceptable for women to describe or talk about what they want, then they cannot reasonably be expected to tell you. Knowing what someone wants is a sign that you know them.

Oh, and Jack, the behaviour you describe is the behaviour that works in Hollywood films. In real life, it is considered unhealthy and disturbing :P It's okay, you've never had to find this out, but perhaps people to whom it is relevant will be saved a few bad experiences. 86.140.144.220 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that 88 is a man? 88 could be a separatist feminist, expressing her own desires. Red Act (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How's about we discuss gay fantasies? Are they different from straight women?

I believe most of the answers the original poster is looking for may be tangentially found in The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir. Vranak (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

featured article

Has nobody complained yet? Is this a joke? How can wikipedia feature a vulgarism on its main page - one of the most viewed pages in the world? Sandman30s (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure people are complaining. They are probably not getting much satisfaction in resolving those complaints. WP:NOTCENSORED is a cornerstone principle of the encyclopedia. WP:GOREADSOMETHINGELSEIFTHISBOTHERSYOU or WP:YOUNEEDTOMONITORYOUROWNCHILDREN'SINTERNETUSAGEBECAUSERAISINGYOURKIDSISNOTWIKIPEDIA'SRESPONSIBILITY are good principles to follow too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't bother me, it surprises me that such a widely viewed webpage contains (in some circles) a taboo vulgarity. Peace people. Sandman30s (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, we don't live in the Victorian ages anymore. There are plenty of rude name things out there for kids to giggle at. Should we never feature any of the Tit family of birds for it might make a few schoolkids giggle? How about the drink Cockburns (pronounced co-burns apparently)? No mention of any of the male species of birds that go by the name of Cock? If kids want to giggle at rude things online Wikipedia is hardly the best place for them. There's plenty they could find on any one of the aggregation style sites like digg etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect example of something you shouldn't be worried about. The article is well-written, in that only people who already know what the 'vulgarism' is and what it means will have any cause to be offended. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here and on the main page, I've read a few comments from people that say, "It doesn't offend me but I'm sure it offends some other people, I quit." Suffice it to say, a huge majority of those people are Americans (or know some Americans), where the mass media has been preaching a doctrine of "thou shalt not offend or thou shalt be sued". Although Wikipedia is situated in the U.S., there's no reason to let political correctness run rampant on this fairly open website, even if somebody were to register a formal complaint. Of course, if some organization with a lot of clout like the New York Times decided to take office action, there would be nothing any of us could do.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's in poor taste. I think it shows immaturity. I think it shows Wikipedia editors testing boundaries that they would probably say are not applicable to them. But it is no great offense. It is not so egregious an error that it really matters. Children looking at it, some of them, are probably wondering what adult editors were thinking when they put that there. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In poor taste what are you talking about? I really can't understand this puritan attitude and as for immaturity I think it is you that is showing that, not the editors who brought this article to FA. BigDunc^Talk 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the expected, I'll grant you that. Is it a surprising success? I don't think so. But like I said above -- it is fine. No problem. I really genuinely think some children will merely think the placement of that article on the main page to be silly, nothing more. By the way, I wasn't questioning the quality of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I took you up wrong. BigDunc^Talk 16:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was just expressing an opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that words change meaning and what was o.k. in the past might be offensive or prohibited now and vice versa. What do you want to do with Deck the Halls? Edit out the "gay apparel" because it means something different now? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a very old joke, ya know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My friend named Gay isn't all that old and frequently fails to find it funny. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My objection is basically based on fashion sense, which I can be wrong about. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.158.143 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jenna Jameson is a featured article as well and somewhere it's been decided that it will never appear on the main page. I've forgotten where I saw the decision. Dismas|^(talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether the featured article was appropriate for the main page or not, I don't see how this thread is appropriate for the reference desk. It appears to be a call for debate followed by a debate. I suggest it be deleted. --Anonymous, 20:18 UTC, July 9, 2009.

I disagree. The first two questions were factual in nature and the third asked about WP policy. Granted, this might have been better on the Help desk since it was a question of WP policy but it's here now... And answered from what I can see. To better answer the first question though, yes, people are up in arms about it. See the talk page for the main page, here. Dismas|^(talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the Administrators' noticeboard and Raul654's talk page. No point repeating the debate here, I think. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Talk area must really be buzzing, I imagine. But, even as a Baptist I don't find this more than a bit odd, and likely to cause giggles among kids. I thought it was a priactical joke at first, in fact.

I just happened to see the front page myself, and it may well be that fewer people than we think actually pay attention to what is featured. To attempt to answer the third question mroe thoroughly (though DJ Clayworth did a good job), with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, I've no doubt that young people routinely come here to learnt he "facts of life." The fact is that any vulgarism is only a click away. So, logically, while it is one of the more viewed pages in the world, it's not necessarily true that Wikipedia has "promoted" anything vulgar. In fact, some young poeple may be so bored by the history aspect they may not read it. :-) So, as to how, they put out information int he same vein that they have information on the "fact of life" sexually - if the kid wants to look for it.Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG - LMFAO - BFD! -hydnjo (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, this will certainly enhance Wikipedia's reputation. I guess the quality articles are running a little thin these days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you were to bother to read it instead of jumping to a conclusion, you would find it is actually a high quality article. Tempshill (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not well-written. I'm saying that as far as subject matter is concerned, "Is this the best they can come up with?" Not that it matters. It's only for 24 hours. A mere blip on the internet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

TFAs are not chosen for their subject matter. They are chosen for quality of writing. This comes up every time something even slightly frivolous comes up.

Besides, what's wrong with the subject matter? I'm not even clear on what's offending you. You're not seriously objecting to the article because it mentions prostitution? APL (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK OK I'm sorry for starting this thread, I forgot about the main page discussion link. My final point on this is that the article seems to have evoked emotional responses, which I have no problem with, but read what you have put up at the top there about soapbox etc. If someone says that it was merely an encyclopedic article, I don't buy it. Whoever voted for it knew that there was going to be an outcry at least. Once again, I'm not offended, but surprised that the decision was made to feature this article - considering a viewship of millions. There are better ways to advertise WP:NOTCENSORED. Sandman30s (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's safe to say that the reason it was done was to be in-your-face. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. When I go into wikipedia I start with my watch list. I don't even bother looking at the featured article, since anything on wikipedia can change at a moment's notice. It won't likely be seen by someone coming from Google, which would take them straight to whatever article they were looking for. The only ones who would see it are those who just go into wikipedia directly for some reason. And then with something like this as the featured article, they'll figured wikipedia is run by lowlifes - further enhancing wikipedia's reputation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not safe to say that. Raul pulls from the list of TAs. You're asking him to exert a strong editorial judgment. (Far beyond just matching up TFAs with important dates.) It's NOT appropriate for the TFA coordinator to be making moral judgments. In general WP should absolutely avoid moral judgments. There can be no consensus on moral judgments, and if we were to start open debates on such topic there would be mass chaos. The amount of effort that would be dumped into such debates would be staggering, and the Encyclopedia would suffer. If that means that occasionally people are offended, and occasionally complaint threads like this start, that's a small price to pay for not having to debate and edit war over whether Gropecunt lane should be considered and "adult" article. (Or heaven forbid, having to debate if Homosexuality should be considered one.) APL (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to bookmark www.wikipedia.org instead of the mainpage.

Yes, it is safe to say that. What wikipedia should do, above all else, is to not make wikipedia look like it's run by idiots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not an obvious truth that the article was chosen purely for shock value. It's a completely legitimate article. While the rules on what is appropriate for the main page are a little vague, the rules are not vague on whether or not you are required to Assume Good Faith. Consider the possibility that you, personally, are far more easily offended than the general readership. It's just as likely, if not more so, that Raul simply doesn't see the need to dumb the main page down to the lowest common denominator. Good for him. APL (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What university colours are burgundy and gold?

I'm in the UK, and will be in an academic procession tomorrow. I ordered academic dress appropriate to my degree, a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I received the standard American doctoral gown, and a hood with a yellow velvet trim (apparently represents Science, according the the academic dress article) and a lining in burgundy with a gold chevron. An attached label stated simply "Massachusetts." The colours of the University of Massachusetts Amherst seem to be burgundy and white, which is the closest thing I can think of, but that doesn't explain the gold chevron. Anyone know what university I will appear to be representing tomorrow? moink (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they sent you the hood for Boston College? Their colors are certainly something akin to burgundy and gold. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Boston College uses maroon and gold, and maroon is basically the same as burgundy. --Sean 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks to be the most probably answer. (Although this hood is not "shield style" as a proper Boston College hood would be [3]). moink (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find it really offensive a quick fix might be some fabric glue and a trip to a local fabric store. If you aren't strapped for cash you might even bribe a seamstress at a local alterations to do a rush job. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The MIT colors are cardinal and gray. Those can't be too hard to find. Wear your gown tomorrow, then send it back and tell the maker to get it right. PhGustaf (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the man ever take the woman's name in marriage?

Traditionally in marriage the woman takes the man's surname, this was originally to represent (or at least in keeping with) the man's 'ownership' of his wife or at least her subordination to him. Nowadays it is increasingly common (if still rare) for the woman to keep her maiden name or for a double-barrelled surname to be employed in some capacity. Does the full reverse ever occur, where the wife will keep her maiden name, and the new husband change his to match? Prokhorovka (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the European Union it is possible to a man to take the name of his wife. I know at least one case (in Germany) when an Indian took the name of his German wife to look less foreigner, at least on paper.--Quest09 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, a friend of mine did take his wife's last name. Generally speaking, in the US there are few legal hoops to jump through to take any name one likes, except for purposes of fraud. You can't change your name to elude creditors, and you can't boost your country-music career by changing your name to Willie Nelson. PhGustaf (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole concept of surnames varies widely from society to society. What you describe is, I think, just used in Western Europe (and societies based on Western European societies). In those societies, it is unusual, but far from unheard of, for a man to take his wife's name. One case I know of personally was when the man was estranged from his family and wanted nothing to do with them. Other cases common historically are when the woman was the only living descendent of someone wealthy and they specified in their will that the woman's husband could inherit the property only if he changed his name so the wealthy family's name would be continued (I guess this dates back to when women couldn't own property, these days it would only be necessary to require than the woman's children took her name). --Tango (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack White (née Gillis) comes to mind as a notable example. He is, obviously, not known for conformity, but it is done occasionally. —Akrabbim^talk 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not for wives, but for children you have a choice in Sweden between the traditional - using your dad's first name and adding ...son (boy) or ...dotter (girl) or the modern - keeping the same surname as he did. So if Gunnar Ulfson has a son named Mats he can name himself Mats Ulfson or Mats Gunnarson. Not sure what happened to Gunnarsdotter when she married. Since there are no men named ...dotter I don't think taking her name was ever an option in traditional naming. (A guy is also pretty unlikely to name himself "another guy's daughter", which might also explain it.:-) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, so basically the answer is 'yes', but I appreciate the reasons given as to why it might occur too. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in Germany many years ago, a fellow American married a local woman. She was an only child— daddy was loaded and wanted to continue the family name. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of this in the British gentry. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have friends who did this...I never really asked why, I just thought it was because they were lovably eccentric. (Also, [spoiler!], at the end of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, the title characters both take each other's names, hyphenated.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that that both parties could change there name. For example my friends Mr. Whited and Ms. Sutherland opted to become Mr. and Mrs. Whiteland. Not common, but also possible. Dragons flight (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I too am aware of several real-life examples, one of which has not yet been described: He was adopted, had no particular connection to his adopted name, so took her family name. (The fact that his name was a real jawbreaker and hers had only 4 letters may also have been a factor!)

In my business, we are required to demand documentation of name changes, which 98 times out of 100 is a marriage license. Over the last decade we observe increasing use of

 The parties will henceforth be known as  ...  and  ...

Thus, it would appear to be exceptionally easy to change your name to whatever you wish, upon the occasion of getting married. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In some social circles (I'm thinking of Science Fiction Fandom and of neo-Pagans) it's a sufficiently common practice for a marrying couple to combine their surnames by hyphenation that it's rarely even remarked upon. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A friend of my mother accepted a marriage proposal on the condition that she didn't have to take her husband's name, and so become Mrs Smellie. Astronaut (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, the family name was traditionally the name of the extended family that one belonged to. The wife usually took the husband's name because the wife usually became part of the husband's clan. Less commonly the husband joined the wife's clan and in that case he took her name. The name wasn't a meaningless choice the way it is now, it reflected a real change in the person's life. -- BenRG (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Slightly related: Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, the first President of Czechoslovakia, was born plain Tomáš Masaryk. He married Charlotte Garrigue and borrowed her surname to become his middle name. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not always the case that the wife takes the husband's surname traditionally. (The Chinese and Koreans haven't usually done this for a long while for example, even though children's surnames are usually derived patrilinealy.) And of course, some people don't even have surnames. And in some cases, the husband probably has traditionally taken the wife's surname (not aware of any specific examples). Matrilineality and Married and maiden names may interest you Nil Einne (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If woman never make the first move...

...how do lesbian woman date?--Quest09 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a sweeping generalisation that is far from the truth, lesbian women date the same way anyone else would. BigDunc^Talk

Women often make the first move, so your problem is based on a false premise. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. "If dogs never eat, how do they survive?" This sort of question is often a way of illustrating that the condition is false. Since lesbian women do date, we can see that "woman never make the first move" must be false. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually kind of a twist on Xeno's Paradox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha! They can only move halfway towards each other! (This is Zeno's paradox by the way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, Zeno. I guess I was thinking of "Xena's paradox" - she can't decide between Ares and Gabrielle. Anyway, the particular Zeno's paradox I was thinking of had to do with the arrow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad, lonely lesbian virgin here. I can confirm women do very often make the first move, I've just been too shy to accept it -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, is stopping you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LLV - Try moderate alcohol consumption - enough to disinhibit you without incapacitating you! Exxolon (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Candy is dandy, but lick 'er is quicker. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, who is this "Candy" and secondly why to you want to lick...oh...wait...you meant liquor - right? 'K Nevermind. SteveBaker (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Early morning workout

Due to changing work patterns I am changing my evening training sessions to early morning ones 6am or so to give me time to make it to work for 8am, so what I am asking is what is the best to eat before these workouts, as I don't fancy having to get up an hour or two earlier for food to digest, anyone got any tips on what I could do. I do a mixture of aerobic and anerobic exercise thanks.BigDunc^Talk 16:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how rigorous your training is, bananas work well in this situation. I used to run for 40 mins or so before work (got up at 5) and since I would eat breakfast after my run, I would have a banana first. It was substantial enough to ward off uncomfortable hunger, kept my blood sugar up, and had plenty of potassium for muscle-type stuff. I am not a nutritionist so I don't know of the chemistry, etc., but this comes mother-recommended! They taste pretty good too :) —Akrabbim^talk 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure if that has been outdated, but the general advice used to be not to eat directly before exercising, but rather afterward. What to eat would also depend on what you work as. If you're an office worker then your breakfast should look different to that of s.o. working in Package delivery. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. A single banana for me seemed to be just enough to give me what I need, but not enough to fill my stomach with lots of difficult-to-digest food. You don't want too much going on in terms of digesting, which is why a banana is good because it is relatively simple and quick to process. —Akrabbim^talk 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consult a professional, the Reference Desk cannot give advice of a medical nature Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking what food is easy to digest while running is hardly of the same type of question as, "I have a golfball sized lump on my back. Is it cancer?".

-difficult one

What on earth is the most difficult question to answer?Anyone.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate question for the Reference Desk. It isn't sufficiently well-defined to have a definite answer, so it's just a request for opinions and debate, and we don't do those here. Sorry. --Tango (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The most difficult is "Does God exist?" The second most difficult has to do with how much wood a woodchuck would chuck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"No" and "If a woodchuck could chuck wood - a woodchuck would chuck all the wood a woodchuck could chuck."". SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say both of those are very easy, but can I second Tango and say we shouldn't have a debate over this here? Algebraist 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

42. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The most difficult question to answer is: "What on earth is the most difficult question to answer?" -Arch dude (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No he does not. A more difficult question to answer is "What on earth is the tenth most difficult question to answer?" First you have to come up with the ten most difficult questions, then rank them in order to find the bottom. Anyone can come up with a few "hard questions" like "Is there a God?" or "Are we alone in the universe?". But can you think of ten? No, probably not. And if you did you would then have an almighty argument to figure out which order they go in.

That isn't the most difficult question to answer, of course, because for the same reason, the twentieth most difficult question is even harder to figure out. And the hundredth is even harder than that. And so on, seemingly for infinity.

But of course, it doesn't go on for infinity. There is a finite number of possible questions to ask (ignoring linguistics). So if you kept asking "What on earth is the nth most difficult question to answer?" you would eventually be asking "What on earth is the easiest question to answer?" Which is just as difficult as "What is the most difficult...?", but, once again, most people would be able to agree on something fairly trite, like "Does existence exist?" or "Does 2 + 2 = 4?" or "Is Bono a cunt?"

And just like before, "What is the tenth easiest question to answer?" is a much harder question. And the twentieth easiest is harder than that. And so on.

The answer to "What on earth is the most difficult question to answer?" is, therefore, "What on earth is the (n/2)th most difficult question to answer?" where n is the exact number of questions that it is possible to ask in the universe.

Hope this helps. --86.154.1.217 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "What is the meaning of life?"--AMX (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The hardest question to answer is the one that is never asked. Googlemeister (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Knowing the question gets you a long way to the answer. It's finding the question and then the answer (or, if you are aware of the superiority of dolphins and mice, vice versa) that's difficult. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I can think of two possible answers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, one obvious answer is "rutabaga". no idea about the other. PhGustaf (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's a third answer. My answer is either (a) all of them; or (b) none of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, now you've got me yodeling an old Frank Zappa tune. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have a whole host of disagreements with and criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld, one thing I actually agreed with was his much-mocked epistemology: you have the known unknowns (see this page), the unknown knowns (Acres of Diamonds), and the hardest of all the unknown unknowns. If you don't know what it is you don't know, then how in the world can you ask, let alone answer? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, at last, the explanation for the Iraq war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most difficult question to answer would be: "Do the dead like strawberry jam?" 117.194.224.90 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They like it as well as they like anything else. And it's reasonable to speculate that they like it better than they like being dead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the most difficult questions to answer are those that are undecidable. Wikipedia has a list of undecidable problems. Red Act (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Undecidable problems are not questions, but rather classes of questions. A specific instance of an undecidable problem may be very easy, such as the Halting problem with regard to

10 GOTO 10

Algebraist 13:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your definitions. If you count proving that it is undecidable as answering it (it is usually counted as solving it, and it's not a big stretch to consider solving and answering to be synonymous), then it isn't necessarily very difficult. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My answer to the OP's question would have been in the form of a question itself: "Which answer would you like to have?". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We know that there are mathematical questions that are quite literally unanswerable. Godel's theorem demonstrates that there are theorems that can neither be proven nor disproven - so in a sense, the question "Can this theorem be proven?" is an infinitely difficult one...in that no answer can ever be possible. There are others such as the halting problem in computer science which (although answerable in principle) could take you an infinite amount of time to answer. SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness results don't quite do that. They show the existence of unprovable unrefutable sentences, but that doesn't make 'can this be proven?' hard, since for Gödel sentences the answer is straightforwardly no. The more difficult question is 'is this true?', which for Gödel sentences has to be answered without recourse to a proof (or at least a proof in the system in question). That doesn't mean they can't sometimes be answered, though: for example, ZFC cannot prove its own consistency, but that wouldn't stop your average mathematician answering the question 'is ZFC consistent?' with a simple 'yes'. More recondite questions, such as 'is CH true?' are trickier: depending on your philosophy of Mathematics, they may be meaningless in one way or another, or they may have answers which can be grasped in various non-proof ways.

As for the halting problem and its ilk: as I mentioned above, this is not actually a question per se, but rather a class of questions. Algebraist 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A Gödel sentence is provable in the system if and only if it's false in the standard interpretation, so I don't understand how you can say that its truth is a more difficult question than its provability. -- BenRG (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Becuase I was being very unclear. That sentence was supposed to apply to unprovable irrefutable sentences in general, not just Gödel sentences. Algebraist 09:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to be very precise by what you mean with a question like this, and the original post is not precise at all. Taken completely literally, a valid answer could be that there are no difficult questions to answer. The first definition of “answer” in the answer article is “a reply to a question”, which when interpreted as a verb would be “to reply to a question”. With this definition, it’s easy to answer any question – you always just reply “rutabaga”. “Rutabaga” might not be a correct or even meaningful answer to the given question, but it is an answer, and it’s an easy answer to provide.

Even if the original question is modified to “What is the most difficult question to answer correctly?”, many questions that the poster might be thinking about are likely to be unintentionally easy to answer correctly. For example, take the set of all questions that can be correctly answered with one of the replies “yes”, “no”, or “that question cannot be validly answered with a yes or no reply”. Any individual question within that set of questions can be considered as being easy to answer correctly, in that there exists a simple computer program which will answer the question correctly. As a proof of that, write three simple programs: one which prints out “yes”, one which prints out “no”, and one which prints out “that question cannot be validly answered with a yes or no reply”. One of those three programs is a simple computer program which will answer the question correctly. Therefore, such a program does exist. We might not know which of those three programs is the program that we’re trying to prove exists, but it does exist. The program doesn’t supply a proof of it’s answer, but the problem as stated only requires a correct answer, not a proof that the answer is correct.

One way to make a question impossibly difficult to answer correctly is to ask a question that would require an impossibly large answer to answer correctly. For example, “What are the first Graham’s number digits in the decimal expansion of pi?” That question does have a correct answer, but it’s physically impossible to represent all of those digits, if each digit in the answer is required to have its own separate physical representation, because our universe isn’t large enough. Red Act (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's so bogus. Your "Yes", "No" and "Not answerable with a Yes or No" computer programs will only be able to answer Yes/No questions - if I ask "What is the 400'th digit of PI?" - and ignore the "Yes" and "No" programs which are obviously incorrect - is "Not answerable with a Yes or No" the "correct" answer to my question? NO! It's not - it's a true statement - but it's not the answer to my question. If you consider any true fact to be an answer to this question - then I might as well dispense with your three computer programs and just have a sign made up that says "I like chocolate" - which you'd have to accept as a true statement and therefore a correct answer to any possible question. That's OBVIOUSLY no good - you can't just present any old fact in answer to a question - it has to be the correct fact. So there are an infinite number of non-Yes/No questions that you can't correcly answer your way. There are plenty of questions - even very easy ones - that would require an infinite number of "guesses" to generate the correct solution. "What is two plus two?" for example. So: No - you are quite utterly wrong. SteveBaker (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, reread my post. I never claimed that one of those three programs would produce the correct answer to any question. In the pertinent paragraph, I very clearly temporarily limited the topic of conversation to only questions within the set of all questions that can be correctly answered with one of the replies “yes”, “no”, or “that question cannot be validly answered with a yes or no reply”. My paragraph makes no claims whatsoever about questions outside of that set, such as a question whose correct answer is “4”. You appear to have skipped over the second sentence in that paragraph.

I just threw in the answer “that question cannot be validly answered with a yes or no reply” to broaden the set to include questions which ask for a yes or no answer, but for which neither “yes” nor “no” is a correct answer, such as “Given ZFC, does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? That question ostensibly asks for a yes or no answer, but the correct answer is neither “yes” nor “no”, since the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) can be neither proved nor disproved from the ZFC axioms. Red Act (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardest question to answer is the question you do not know the answer toChromagnum (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GRRRR!! The easiest question to answer is the unsolvable riddle. "I cannot resolve this one." answer. end of. ~ R.T.G 12:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog T.V. switch

Why exactly is the purpose of switching from analog to digital TV broadcasting? Is there a plan to use that type of signal for something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.158.143 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that digital signals suffer a lot less from interfearance cuased by buildings and the landscape so (in theory at least) they are more reliable. This however is not 100% true in reality as a week signal is often upset by atmospherics. As far as the civilian world goes there are no plans to use the old analog signals for anything once the T.V. stations stop broadcasting on them.--AMX (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The latter response is untrue. For the purpose, see the article Digital television transition, which has a "Purpose of the transition" section. The DTV transition in the United States article notes that although "low power television stations" are permitted to continue analog broadcasts on the same frequencies for several more years, that article's "Frequency reallocation" section discusses the plans for those frequencies. Some frequency ranges do remain unsold and unplanned-for, at least for now; see Free the Airwaves#White Spaces Coalition. Other countries may have other plans for the newly released frequencies. Tempshill (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, the "switchover" was, over the next few years, supposed to free up a lot of extra frequenices for emergant technology, namely WiFi variants, and in particular 3G phone capability. I was watching a news special about it, and it was quite a saving in terms of frequencies, at least 75% if memory serves. Then they made a comment about how many more things one could do with that. Apparently, it was getting rather cramped, made worse by the poor quality of wiring in the UK (and hence, preference for wireless). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica's GDP per capita

What is the GDP per capita of Antarctica? Since the only people there are highly paid scientists and expensive equipment, wouldn't it be pretty high? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GDP is only a value of goods and services made in the country. I am not sure if pure scientific research would count as either of those. Now Antarctic waters generate a lot of fishing. That probably gets counted in the GDP of where the vessel is registered but I don' know for sure. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the scientists work, if it can be added to GDP of any nation, be credited to their home nation? After all, Antarctica doesn't have any permanent residents, no government, etc. From what I can see, about the only thing that "belongs" to the continent is its top level domain of .aq. It doesn't even have its own dialing code. Dismas|^(talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Last I heard .aq was actually administered in New Zealand.  :-) Dragons flight (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The "D" in "GDP" stands for "domestic". That means internal to a country. Antarctica isn't a country and doesn't have an economy like that of a country, so I don't see how you could define its GDP. --Tango (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the larger stations, such as South Pole Station, have a significant population of craftsmen and laborers (e.g. carpenters, electricians, drillers, cooks, etc.) that support the scientific staff. Dragons flight (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tango you are talking about GNP, in which case all actions there would be credited back to the original nation. If for the purposes of this exercise we call the whole continent one country, then it would indeed have a pretty decent GDP. Scientific research counts as production, just as all R&D does, or any other service. The amount it counts as is simply the price the scientists are charging (/would be charging) including expenses to do it. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The N can be defined in different ways, but surely Antarctica has no nationals as it has no citizenship and no permanent residents. The GNP for Antarctica would be 0. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, but since the question is about GDP Antartica could reasonably be considered to have some. As you say, GDP is about the location of production divided by the number of people living on a country, the GNP is about the citizenship of those people, and repatriates it. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When do US immigration officials stamp US passports?

I'm a US citizen and I've traveled a fair amt outside the US, but had never gotten a US stamp in my passport upon returning. Last Christmas when I was returning from Spain I got one though. That time I was flying through NYC. My last trip when I returned through Miami I didn't get any stamp either. My roommate from NYC (who flies thru NYC generally, obviously) says she normally gets stamped when returning from abroad. Is it that only NYC airports stamp US passports? I think much of the time in the past (when I didn't get stamps) I've flown back through LA but I don't really remember. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OR here but I have never gotten a US stamp on my (US) passport (only the foreign countries. I have returned both through JFK in NY and LAX in LA. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why a country would ever stamp one of their own passports (unless they have restricted internal travel like the USSR did, I guess). Whenever I've received stamps in my (UK) passport they have been short-term visas issued on arrival, you get a dated stamp when you enter and one when you leave. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)