Miscellaneous desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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

May 13

A few brain questions ....

1) What part of the brain is responsible for movement of the fingers?

2) If someone is unable to generate speech after an accident, what disorder are they suffering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.244.74 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the first question, but I can tell you there are a huge number of disorders that can render people incapable of speech, either from birth or during their lives.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) see Aphasia. Edison (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking at our brain article and then linking on to red nucleus. Enjoy! Richard Avery (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

culture study

is there any term for the study of cultures of the world, like, for example, which city is famous for what?? also, is there any study of popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.134.222 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Study of the world's cultures comes under Geography, I believe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study of the cultures of the world would be Anthropology. Which city is famous for what would be Culture, and a study of popular culture would be just that: Popular Culture.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image I'm looking for; Putin, Russia

I'm trying to track down a photograph I stumbled upon aaages ago, and can no longer find on the Internet. It's a photo of a bunch of Russian kids, wearing Putin Youth t-shirts, sitting and watching an image of Putin on a TV, and at the same time there's a poster of Putin on the wall looking down at the kids. The whole effect was really, hilariously creepy. 58.161.196.113 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~How can you see both the TV screen that the kids are looking at AND the poster on the wall behind them?~~Sorry, misread that. There was no mention of the position of the poster.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've tracked it down to a Something Awful thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2727109&pagenumber=1 But I can't access it because I don't have an account (not sure how I managed to get it last time). I doubt there's much overlap in the Venn Diagram of Wikipedia editors and SA goons, but if anyone can grab it and imageshack it for me I'd be in your debt. I need it for an argument with someone who doesn't believe Putin is pushing Russia back towards a police state. 58.161.196.113 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how does the wiki-neutrality/accuracy template system work? MA dissertation

hey,

I'm currently writing on my dissertation on the battle for fallujah, which roughly deals with the question whether online or print news provider give more accurate information on the issue. I consulted the wikipedia article and was immediately stuck by the neutrality/accuracy warning. I was wondering whether it is possible to find out who/how many people claimed that the article was inaccurate and who decides whether the warning itself is appropriate, that is, justified to be put online.

thanks for your help. meike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meikynei (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article you're referring to is Fallujah during the Iraq War, a look at the article's history indicates that some such tag has been on it at least since this edit of 9 November 2006. As for who decides, anyone can add or remove such a tag at any time, although it's likely that it will remain or be readded as long as a significant number of editors think that the underlying issues are unresolved. The best way to find out what those issues are is to read the article's discussion page. (By the way, questions such as this are probably better asked at the help desk, which is for "questions on how to use Wikipedia." The reference desk is for general-knowledge questions.) Deor (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help & advice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meikynei (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one-child law in China

The article about China's one-child law never directly answered this question (or else I missed the answer...) so here goes: if a couple's only legal child dies young, can they still have another child? Thanks, Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are legally allowed to have another child if the first one dies. In fact, slightly related, families in China can have as many children as they want, but they have to pay for the second one, third one, and so on. I have many friends in China who have brothers and sisters.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are in a politically undesirable group, or have earned the ire of the local party leader. China's "laws" can be extremely flexible. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some rural communities, the local cadre strictly enforces the one child policy, so some couples who already have a child give their second one to a childless couple. It's difficult to prove whose child it is, and it's quite a good thing all round.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In cities, it's a sticks-and-carrot approach: having only one child gets you a bonus payment in your pay packet, while having more gets you a fine.

Since 2002, the "fine" has become a "fee" (the "Social Upbringing Fee") imposed by executive order by the State Council, which, in the big cities at least, is indexed by the government to average income levels - currently three times the average annual per capita disposable income of the city's residents.

As you could imagine, unless one's disposable income is at least a couple of times above the city average, this could create a bit of economic pressure.

In more prosperous rural areas, the normal practice is to have multiple children, with the Social Upbringing Fee becoming a kind of headcount tax which supplements, or even forms the core of, local government income. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some rural places if your first child is a girl you are entitled to have another child, to take into the tradition of wanting a son to carry on the family name (and worsen the gender imbalance). --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other exceptions to the one-child policy: where each parent was an only child; ethnic minorities; foreigners... I think our article on the one child policy deals with this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would that rule have any effect on the gender imbalance? I assume that the 2nd children have the same approximately 50/50 sex distribution as the population as a whole. jeffjon (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, unless you assume that people who have a first girl have a natural-born propensity to have girls, and that gender of successive children are not independent experiments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a natural propensity for a couple to have girls?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect it to improve the gender balance, since couples would be less likely to abort or abandon their first child if female, given they have another go (and wouldn't if it was a boy). 80.41.104.220 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffjon It would affect the gender balance. 50% of couples have 1 boy. 25% of couples have 1 girl then 1 boy. 25% of couples have 1 girl then 1 girl. 3:2 Boys to girls. This is an overstatment of the situation...but you can see how it changes the gender balance.123.211.205.224 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there are 50% x 1 = 0.5 weighted boy, 50% x 1 = 0.5 weighted girl, then 25% x 50% = 0.125 weighted boy and 25% x 50% = 0.125 weighted girl, which, by your count, results in 0.625 weighted girl and 0.625 weighted boy. Gender balance: 1:1. That was precisely Jeffjon's point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on gender ratio, at birth the rate is between 105 to 107 males to 100 females, so the odds are a little bit on the side of male children. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gambling

Some consider investing in stocks to be gambling, but I disagree because stocks are not a zero sum game like poker or the lottery. Is this view correct, or are there gambling games that are not zero sum? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy of stocks to 'gambling' is about them being risky. You buy a stock knowing that it might go up or down, and that the factors affecting it are beyond your control. In that sense you are relying on 'luck' to get a positive return. 'Zero sum' isn't really relevant. However it's just an analogy, so you don't need to use it if you don't like it.

In answer to your other question, the first non zero-sum gambling game that springs to mind is Russian roulette. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea lotteries were run for free? The state takes a percentage before the money is shared out again. Gambling has nothing to do with it being zero sum. Investing in stocks isn't considered gambling as there is normally some expectation of gain rather than a loss as in betting on the horses. However if you are really really good you may consider a bet on the horses as investment rather than gambling - but you'll soon have problems placing bets! Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what I am looking for is not zero sum, but 0 or negative expectation, whereas stocks (in general) would have a positive expectation. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working as a bookmaker or running a casino has a positive expectation, but is generally prohibited in societies that prohibit gambling. The British premium bonds system is also a form of gambling with positive expectation (essentially a lottery where you can reclaim your original stake at any time). Other forms of morally dubious activity like cheating at cards or pool hustling will have a positive expectation (much as being a professional gambler should do). Investing in stocks is a form of investing your money in a business, which is not generally considered gambling (Muslims are allowed to put money into a business), although when it comes to a stock exchange it's much more abstract than buying a share in a private limited company or partnership. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owning stocks has historically had a positive long-term expectation, but that's no guarantee that any stock purchase you make today will ever show a gain. The S&P is down 33% from 10 years ago, and once you add in inflation there have been multi-decade periods where the real value expectation of market averages was negative. That said, the market does tend to outperform other forms of wait-and-see investments. On the other hand, a good poker player playing against other people can also have a positive expectation if they routinely play inferior opponents. In both cases you have incomplete information and are asked to predict future events, so I'd say the gambling analogy is a fairly good one. Historically one is more likely to do well on Wall Street than at Vegas, but that's perhaps just saying that the former is usually less risky. Dragons flight (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is a fine one. It boils down to information availability. If you have perfect information about the business you're investing in - you know every customer and supplier - what they are shipping and when and at what price - what every employee is paid, etc - then investing in that company is a science - not betting. However, if you had an equal amount of information about the horses in a horse race or the precise physics of a roulette wheel, then those would be a science and not betting. The problem is that you don't have perfect information - not when gambling - not when investing. So there is this big grey area between knowing all that there is to know about a company and knowing what return you'll get on your investment - to betting on a perfect random number generator where it's all down to statistics. Real gambling always falls somewhere between those two extremes. A roulette wheel is supposed to be a perfect random number generator. The dice on a craps table more or less the same (although there are people out there who can definitely bias the results). But you have definite information in games like blackjack - where the results aren't random and if you keep careful track of what cards have been played, you can even get a statistical edge over the house. Now we're entering a grey area where gambling and playing the stock market are not so different. When you climb the range of luck-versus-knowledge, you arrive at something like horse racing - which has about the same knowledge component as playing the stock market. You have the past racing form for every horse in the race, you know whether the ground is hard or soft and what the jockey is like...not a whole lot different from knowing the price-to-earnings ratios, the records from the last financial year, and that of the competitors - what the global market for widgets is - and the track record of the the CEO. So there is a scale from pure luck to pure judgement - and the stock market is towards one end of it.

The zero sum game thing is not relevent. Some games are only zero sum if you consider the 'house' as one of the players - in roulette, it's not a zero sum game because sometimes the ball lands on the 00 slot when everyone loses...but if you consider the house as a player, then it is a zero sum game because all of the money that's bet ends up in either the players or the houses pockets. But in the stock market, the money doesn't evaporate when you lose your shirt...someone won and someone lost. You just have to frame the gambling as two separate bets - one when you buy the share and another when you sell it. When you buy it - you are (in effect) betting the person that you bought it from that the value will increase. When you sell it, you are betting that it'll go down. If you buy a share and it's value halves and then you sell it - the money you "lost" was "won" by the person who sold you the share for more than its (future) worth. If the share had doubled in value, he would have lost that future worth and you would have gained. So buying a stock is like gambling with the person you bought it from. Seen like that, it's also zero sum - just like roulette. Even if you consider that your stock broker is taking a commission - but that's no different than the casino taking it's cut whenever the ball lands on 00. So the stock market is every bit as much a zero sum game as roulette.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the relative difference is that, on the balance, people will always make money at stocks, while on the balance people will always lose money gambling. That is, while we can find anecdotes of people winning big in Vegas, and losing big on stocks, if we average the systems out over long periods of time, to eliminate the outliers, and smooth out any long, atypical streaks, gambling always loses money for the participants, while the stock market always makes money for the participants. That does not mean that individuals cannot lose lots of money in stocks, it means that the entire system average making money for people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except both statements are false. Professional gamblers in things like Poker and Sports betting can consistently win over the long-term by using superior knowledge/skill against inferior gamblers. Likewise, people can spend a lifetime investing in stocks and lose money if they consistently make inferior choices (especially if one includes an inflation adjustment). Neither is a sure outcome for any groups of gamblers. Dragons flight (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not individual persons, but people as measured across the totality of a reasonably long period of time. If you take the sum total of all money placed into the stock market by all people over a reasonably long period of time, say 10 years, you will find that there is ALWAYS more money at the end then at the beginning. Over any ten year period, the sum total of all people investing in stocks made money. This is not to say that individual people did not lose HUGE sums of money over that time period, but if you add up all of the money gained and lost by all people "playing the stock market" over any ten year period, there is always a net gain of cash. However, with gambling, its the opposite. If you take all people who have gambled over any ten year period, and add up all of their gains and losses, the are MASSIVELY in the red. Again, some individual people are able to win at some specific games (say Black Jack or Poker), or some lucky people are able to put together random streaks at games of chance, but if you take all of the money gambled in Las Vegas casinos by the customers, and add up all of the wins and losses, the result favors the losses to a HUGE margin. Again, this does not mean that you cannot find specific individuals to buck either of these trends, but the difference is readily apparent when the two systems are looked at in total, rather than at the individual anecdotal level. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the stock market always makes money over any ten year period is simply false, including incidentally over the ten year period ending at the present. Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years was picked to be an arbitrarily long enough time period. If ten years doesn't work, pick a longer time period then. Try 20 years. Try 30 years. The point is not the specific time period you pick, its just that at some large enough sample size, the average of all money made and lost in the stock market comes out in the positive. Again, if the arbitrarily chosen ten year period doesn't work in a specific case (such as, for example, the current ten-year period ending in today) it only means your didn't choose a large enough sample size to smooth out the outliers. The point is, at some point, over some large enough average, the stock market makes money. That you can constain the randomness to a specificly defined sample size, or a specifically defined time period (such as choosing not a random 10-year period, but carefully choosing the worst 10-year period) then you can create situations where people lose money. However, once you establish a large enough sample size, and make it truly random, stocks always make money in the bulk. Over ANY reasonably random size of casinoes, the player ALWAYS loses money. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the stock market should have a positive expectation if you look long enough. This is not automatic. The history of the US stock market arguably supports that conclusion, but other markets are less generous. For example, there are 40 year periods where the average investor would have done better with a safe CD than they would investing in the Tokyo stock market. Even if that would average out eventually, once one is talking about lengths of time comparable to one's productive adult life, it still has be seen as a gamble. The stock market, on the large scale, tends to tracks expansions and contractions in one's national economy. If you are optimistic about the long-term growth of the American economy than it probably makes sense to be optimistic about the stock market. If on the other hand one is pessimistic about the mounting national debt, the risks from the retiring baby boomer generation, and the growth of competition in Asia, etc. then you might bet that the American economy will be moving through stagnant cycles for generations. There is no guarantee that the market must make money over any timescale that is relevant to individual lives. Dragons flight (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other confusion is that you're mistaking "making money" with "making more money than you would have done if you'd put it into a zero risk savings account"...or whatever. If you put X dollars into stocks - and after a year, you sell them and get X+1% back - you've actually lost money - because you could have earned more with zero risk in other ways. The point when you are "winning" is when your earnings exceed what you could have gotten without any risk whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling - by and large is betting on the outcome of an event (will I roll a 5, will my horse come first, will my team win game X or touranment Y) - the outcome you bet on is pre-defined. Investing is placing money in a company (ignoring the complications) in the expectation of a return (dividend or in share price). With betting you know your anticipated return before you place the bet - with investing you do not. With investment your returns are scalable - with gambling (excluding hedging) you either win X or you lose your entire amount. That would be my distinctions. It depends on how wide you make the distinction of 'gambling' and 'investing'. I definitely think it's a grey area but certainly in my mind investment is much better for society than gambling is (though of course i'm thinking of gambling as mostly betting on sports/event outcomes). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - that's a false distinction too. When you bet by buying a lottery ticket, you don't know what your potential earnings are because it depends on the number of other people who guess the correct number. But the uncertainty goes deeper than that. If I bet on the roll of a dice or the flip of a coin, I know the odds of winning precisely - when I bet on the stock market, I don't know either the odds OR the potential earnings amount. The uncertainty you're claiming distinguishes playing the stock market is there in (for example) horse racing - where the true probability of winning is unknown. Some forms of gambling (poker, for example) are even worse than the stock market in that you don't even know how much you stand to lose because you may have to increase your initial bet to stay in the game. In the stock market, you probably won't lose everything - but you might (eg if you had shares in the Enron corporation) - and in any case, what you are really betting is the interest you would have accrued over the time you own the shares if you had put the money into a nice, safe, savings account.

The more this debate goes on - the more convinced I am that there truly is no distinction. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With stocks, the companies you invest in generate wealth (sometimes less successfully then others, like AIG). Businesses create wealth using the money you invested while gambling only reshuffles it. Perhaps that is the key difference. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Successful race horses generate wealth for their owners. Casino's certainly make money from the people who deal with them. Sorry - close, but no cigar. SteveBaker (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To muddy things even more, you can buy stocks of companies that run casinos. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old debate, of course, and it's usually phrased as "are you investing or speculating?" If you are Warren Buffett then you don't invest in a business you don't understand, or in a business that's in an industry you don't understand. Buffett has said for several decades that he purchases businesses (or shares of companies) that are expected to generate a good return over a long time, such that the price paid for the shares is reasonable. Disasters can happen, but this doesn't make investing any more of a gamble than it is to purchase a house as an investment. (I know, I know.) Buffett also makes mistakes, such as when he purchased ConocoPhilips stock (page 16) near the height of the oil price bubble; but any endeavor is subject to mistakes and doesn't qualify it as a 'gamble', IMO. Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you and I though, Mr. Buffett can often purchase enough shares to be able to directly influence the direction of the companies he buys, which puts him in a position to tilt the odds in his favor. Dragons flight (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With gambling, if you have an enormous amount of money like Mr Buffett, you can invent a 'system' that makes it very VERY unlikely that you'll ever lose a lot of money (ie, have an occasional "ConocoPhilips" moment!) providing you're prepared to seek small rewards.

Suppose you're betting at 2:1 odds on a coin toss, and you want to win $1. You might bet $1 on the first toss in the hope of getting back $2 (for a profit of $1). If you lose, then you need to bet again - this time, you have to bet $2 - if you win, you get back $4 which includes the $2 you just bet, the $1 you lost in the first round - plus the $1 profit you're trying to earn. If you lose again then you have to bet $4 on the third coin toss, $8 on the fourth...and so on. If you sold your house and brought $65,536 with you to the coin-toss betting venue - then you're going to win $1 - just so long as you always call heads and the tail doesn't come up 16 times in a row. When you eventually get a head - you put the $1 of winnings away somewhere safe and start again betting at $1. You'll steadily earn $1 at a time until that horrible losing streak hits you. But if you start with enough money then the odds of you ever getting a long enough losing streak to bankrupt you can be made astronomically large. However, when it happens - you're really in deep trouble! SteveBaker (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not related to anything Buffett does ... but what's the name for that system? It's got a name. Any casino is very happy to let you try it, of course (especially when there are maximum table stakes). Tempshill (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martingale (betting system). Algebraist 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Two guys are standing on the corner. One pulls out a coin, and says to the other, “Heads or tails?” The second one says, “Heads.” That is an example of a zero-sum game.

2. I pull out the daily paper and scan through the thousands of stocks listed in the business section. There’s information about recent performance, dividend payments, trend lines, charts and analyst recommendations. On the basis of this collection of input, I purchase shares in a company through an honest, transparent and efficient stock market. That’s an example of a multi-sum game (win all, lose all, win some, lose some, win early, lose early).

3. “Psst. Hey, come here. Wanna a tip? Lucky Lady in the 4th. Can’t miss. The fix is in.” This is an example of a gamble. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All investment is a gamble. I can remember the time when (counting inflation) I was losing 10% per year with my meagre savings invested in a super-high-interest building society account. Sometimes I wish I'd just spent it all! More seriously, though, isn't the religious objection to gambling usually based on one person's gain being another's loss (near-zero-sum), whereas stock market gain (in normal times, not the last ten years) benefits everyone involved. Dbfirs 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If buying stocks is a gamble, then wouldn't running a business also be a gamble? Because stocks are just a % of the business. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, owning a business (or a share of it) is like gambling. If you own enough of a business to influence the way it's run, you can improve (or worsen) the odds on your bet. But usually if you're just working there (running things or not), you're not really gambling. Although managers do sometimes have an interest in the value of the firm. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to bankruptcy, one can run a risky business in the hope for big returns whilst knowing that if it fails they will just have 0 (instead of negative), although there will be some negative aspects (no cheap credit, etc). Also, many are saying that the stock market is zero sum, do not forget that with almost every stockbroker, one must pay a commission when buying and selling shares, effectively making it negative sum (in the same way that house rake makes poker negative sum). In the end, on the markets you are making trades based upon information you have, that others (inferior traders) do not (because you've researched the fundamentals more). In the same way, a poker player can be successful by playing hands with a positive expected value whilst his opponents play with a negative EV, that player will make a profit in the long term (even with rake). --Mark PEA (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

voldemort's last horcrux

dumbledore had said in HBP that voldemort's seventh and last horcrux was inside his body. but later in DH, there was no reference to this and the last horcrux was revealed to be a fragment of his soul concealed in harry. can anyone explain this??

(it might have happened that Rowling had explained this in DH, but i didn't follow it. frankly speaking, i didn't exactly understand "the prince's tale" chapter's great explanations about horcruxes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.139.37 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can get an in-depth explanation at our article on Horcruxs. Livewireo (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the part of his soul inside his own body was considered a horcrux. He intended to split his soul in 7 and create 6 horcruxes, he accidentally split it into 8 and created 7 horcruxes (the 6 intended ones, plus Harry). --Tango (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FBI WATCHLIST

If you want to find out if YOU ARE on the FBI WATCH LIST, is there any Freedom of Info/Public Record Act where you can lets say Email the FBI and they can say 'NO YOU ARE NOT ON THE WATCHLIST' (but since you've asked, Now You Are.)? I highly doubt the FBI is watching the Wikipedia Question board. Cheers, --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the fbi webite theres a comment about NO you cannot find out if you are on the TSDB watchlist. But isn't there a freedom of info act, I don't know, this may be a Law question. --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of information doesn't include matters that are sensitive to national security - having the FBI watchlist made public would presumably come under that category. You might like to check out Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment - although I recommend suitable headgear while doing so. SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can neither confirm nor deny that i am the kwisatz haderach is on our watchlist, if one exists and we knew who s/he is.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financing a Cambridge Education

For an undergraduate, it is under my belief that one does not need to pay for one's education at Cambridge University until one has graduated from the school right? As an international, does anyone know the exact cost per year? Suppose after I graduate and do not have enough money to pay, will I be able to pay it incrementally over a period of years or must I pay it all in one lump sum? Hustle (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Student loans in the United Kingdom (though it's not a great article, and you might be able to find a better explanation elsewhere on the net). There is no general "study now pay later" scheme. For British students, the system is basically the same at all universities (apart from the University of Buckingham, which is the only private university in the UK), from Oxford and Cambridge down to the lowest rated university. British students can borrow the money to cover the portion of their fees that is not funded by the government (all of it was until a few years back, at Cambridge and every other university). This money is paid over the university in advance: it is the student loans company that defers payment, not the university. Student loans are only repayable after graduation, and only while the graduate is making a reasonable income.

Foreign students' fees also have to be paid to the university up front, either by the student in person or through some sort of scholarship. The fees will be on the official website. Alex Middleton (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second part of your question, the exact cost will depend on the degree you take, the subject you read, and possibly the individual courses you choose. It may even depend on which college you attend. There is no substitute here for going straight to the source - ask the University. Even if this is just a casual enquiry, and you are not really interested in studying, they will probably be happy to tell you everything you want to know. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation UTC on Wikipedia

Our article suggests that UTC is generally the same as GMT, however all of the posts and answers on the RefDesks are marked with a time and then UTC after it. I am in the UK and we are in BST now, and the times of each post and answer are in BST, yet still marked with UTC. I believe Wikipedians in other time zones will have their own time stamped on it, and followed by UTC. So, therefore, adding UTC would be incorrect to the majority of the world, including the UK in spring and summer. Am I correct here or is there something I am missing?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there is something I am missing. The time stamps ARE actually the same as GMT on my PC. What about the rest of the world?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's all in UTC by default. I think in user preferences there is an option to set times to local time, but I can't see how that would be beneficial. It would be very confusing to have people using many different time zones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. I thought Wikipedia was sensing my computer's time and responding accordingly. Good answer, thanks.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My display of time is UTC and is one hour behind BST (as one would expect). Dbfirs 08:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all UTC. There is a setting, and I think some sort of java script to update it on the fly, but for the general user, it's all UTC. You might be interested to know there was a related discussion on date auto formatting (that would have changed all date formats) going on somewhere on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Question

I realize in a lot of books and movies. The blind guy is portrayed wearing dark sunglasses. Why is this?

Thank you for taking your time and answering this stupid question.

Wear the wing tip breaks ~Cardinal Raven (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Just because the person cannot see - that doesn't mean that their eyes don't suffer from exposure to direct sunlight, etc. Because they may be unable to avoid accidentally looking into bright lights - protecting their eyes may be necessary to avoid discomfort. I suspect there may be an additional 'social' reason - which is that when you talk to someone and their eyes are directed away from you - it looks kinda creepy. Wearing dark glasses avoids that. SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Because, in actual fact, the actor is not blind, and you would easily be able to tell if he had no sunglasses on, because he's looking around at other actors and things he has to use. He needs to be able to see what's going on, plus auto-cues (if any) and other things. --KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blind people often wear these glasses to make people feel more comfortable (it can be difficult for some people to speak with the blind as often (always?) their eyes will act differently to a sighted person). Sunglasses#Other names for sunglasses has a bit of detail as would looking online for 'cataract glasses'. ny156uk (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, Cardinal, is it a clever play on words that I don't quite get, or do you actually mean "Where the wing tip breaks" in your sig line? --203.129.49.222 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it's very distracting to have such taglines here. --Sean 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]