Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 12

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.

March 12

River of northern Iran

What is the name of that river in northwestern Iran that starts near Mount Sabalan, flows north past Ardabil into the Aras River? Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at one of my atlases, the river that makes a turn to the west after Ardabil, flows due north after that, and enters the Aras on the Iranian border with Azerbaijan, about 20 miles SW of Füzuli, is the Qareh. Not sure if there are alternate spellings. AlexiusHoratius 02:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wow! That was hard to find...this says that the river that flows through Ardabil is called the "Baliqly Chay River" SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The main river which flows into Aras is Qare Su. Baliqly Chay passes through Ardabil, joins another river, and makes Qare Su. By the way, there are also some other "Qare Su"s in Iran in other provinces. --Omidinist (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like that there are actually two rivers around the Sabalan region that join together and flow due north, but I haven't been able to find the name before I asked. Thanks for clarifying. Shannon^talk _contribs 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt vs Table salt

I was going through differences between sea salt and table salt. Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals. From this it looks like sea salt should be considered as bad as table salt, but sea salt is recommended when compared to table salt (?). Is it because of 2% minerals in sea salt ?! Just wondering, adding >2% minerals to table salt will make table salt better than sea salt ?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bad" in what sense? If you're trying to cut back on sodium, I expect sea salt is almost exactly as bad as table salt.

If your sodium intake is within limits, will substituting sea salt improve your health by supplying minerals you'd otherwise be missing? I don't know. It's not ridiculous on its face, but I don't have any data.

But if your doctor has said "ixnay on the altsay, because your BP is way too high", and you assuage your guilt by using sea salt instead, I don't think that's really gonna cut it. Speaking purely hypothetically of course — not offering any medical advice, nor do I claim any competency in this field. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll make it taste better than regular salt! I doubt that there's any other effect, unless you have some specific mineral deficiency. Paul Stansifer 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But is that really true? Does it really taste any different at all? I'd be most interested iun seeing the results of a blind test. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you think it tastes better, then it does taste better. This is an area where getting the scientific facts is not necessarily the path to maximum utility. --Trovatore (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but if the eater was not aware that it contained sea salt, and assumed it was just table salt, would they notice any difference? I am yet to be convinced. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to get the table salt in your blind trial to have the same crunchy texture, or that would be a giveaway. Possibly the texture is the only difference. Then again, I'm sure we can detect 2% of various things in our food, such as 2% burnt bits or 2% engine oil, so it's not unreasonable. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about sprinkling salt on to a finished meal, where the visual appearance is a give away even before they get to the texture. But in that case, the individual eater would be doing the sprinkling so of course they'd be aware of what they were putting on their meal. Now, what about using it in the cooking process itself, where it becomes totally dissolved? Would two identical steaks, one cooked with sea salt and the other cooked with an equivalent amount of table salt, taste any different? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. People often delude themselves into thinking silly things, like $2000 wires 'sound better' or even sillier things like certain digital streams sound better even though they are exactly the same stream. You may say caveat emptor or tough on such people but IMHO those who spread such nonsense to make money are committing fraud and I have no sympathy for such people. For those who are doing it out of ignorance and have no personal benefit on the RD even if this isn't the science desk, we should challenge any claims without good evidence, we can't force people to accept they may be wrong, but if we show them there's no evidence for their claim, and challenge them to do their own tests if they won't accept the evidence, perhaps some will begin to change their minds. We definitely should not be perpetuating nonsense on the RD. Coming from NZ, where iodine deficiency is a very real problem, it really irks me when people promote sea salt or uniodised salt without good reason and yes, if you're going to promote taste as a reason, I expect good evidence or failing that at least acknowledgement that what you're saying may very well be complete nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If the $2000 wires sound better to them, then they sound better. I'm not going to take that back. I happen to be just plain right about this. --Trovatore (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to believe something which sounds exactly the same as something else sounds better (e.g. two digital streams which are exactly the same), that's you're right of course, but since this is the RD, I call that nonsense, and will call it out whenever I see it. Sure you can make philisophical arguments about what 'better' means but as far I'm concerned if two things are the same, then they are the same, claiming one is better simply because some people have deluded themselves into thinking it is better when they are unable to detect any difference is not something I'll ever advocate. Sure if people are aware they are unable to detect any difference but don't mind because they are happy with the way their delusions make them feel, I have no problem with that. But the evidence suggests this is not the case for the vast majority of people. They will insist their delusions are real, in some cases even going as far as to outright reject any evidence while still believing their delusions are real. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, you changed your essay after I'd responded to it, without noting that fact — not really kosher. You're still wrong — the subjective experience is the entire point here, so if someone thinks his experience is better, then it is. --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did however inform you on your talk page (before you said anything here although I understand you were likely composing your message the same way I was adding something to my comment above). Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is not what pressure waves hit your eardrum; the point is how much pleasure you get out of it. If it sounds better to you, then it sounds better, period. So you can call it like you see it, but you're just flat wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I disagree, and from my experience as mentioned above, this is not what the vast majority of people making such claims are saying. They are genuinely claiming that there is a difference. Many are simply misinformed and will be surprised but have no problem accepting when it's shown to them their deep seat beliefs were incorrect, and in fact will often be happy that you've shown this to them (although the evidence has to be strong enough and they sometimes may require a fair amount of explaination). The more die hard will reject any evidence, even from their own senses and come up with silly reasons for why you evidence is wrong or the experiments don't work but they will still insist there really is a difference, they just argue you aren't showing it. They will often get worked up about it, if you challenge their beliefs precisely because they strongly believe their most be a difference (similar to the way religious people and those who believe in other pseudosciences tend to get worked up). A vanishing few are fully aware that there is no difference but don't care because it seems better to them (i.e. the case you're talking about). Again I don't really care about the later and isn't what I'm discussing here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'll just add one more thing and then I won't be back to this discussion unless someone asks me to on my talk page. My main point above, even if it got a little sidetracked in the discussion is that if you are going to say something "tastes better" you should at least clarify what you mean by "it tastes better". If you solely mean "I think it tastes better but in reality it probably tastes the same I've simply deluded/whatever myself into thinking it tastes different because of preconceived believes and emotions on my part, and there's no reason why you should share let alone embrace my delusions/whatever" then explain so in some meaningful way and I don't care since you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

My concern is when people just say "tastes better" but are intending the above, and given this is a RD even if not /S, people may be confused into thinking such statements have some basis in fact, rather then simply being personal delusions/whatever which others may not share, and in particular many people who approach the world from a more logical viewpoint are not going to want to share.

(And I suspect/OR that this is a majority of people since as I've mentioned the way people generally respond if challenged is either accept it or reject it because they don't accept the validity of the testing. Even those who do accept it may be in their imagination but still believe it anyway often also believe there may be something there you just aren't detecting but don't care that much either way. In other words as I said before from my experience/OR it's only a small number who actually fully accept its in their imagination/whatever but don't care.)

Now, if you mean "double blinds tests have shown I can taste the difference and I personally do believe it tastes better (perhaps with an explaination of why you feel it tastes better if you can describe it)" then I'm even more happy with you mentioning that. If you mean "double blind tests have shown that in geographical location X among people Y, A% of people find it better tasting & here are the refs to show that" then say so, the later of course being the best answer since this is the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my point: You keep repeating this thing about "deluding oneself" into thinking that something tastes better. It is not a delusion!!!!. There is no such thing as being "deluded" about your sense perceptions. You can be deluded about how they relate to external reality; you cannot be deluded about what they are.

So if you think coffee tastes better in a pretty mug, then guess what, it does. It really, factually does. The reason it tastes better may be psychological rather than anything related to the neurochemistry of your oral and nasal cavities. So what?

And obviously double-blind methodology is simply aggressively missing the point here. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy to delude yourself into thinking something tastes better.

While you're correct that barring some kind of bizarre mental illness, if you think you're happy then you are. But you're wrong in assuming that people can accurately compare their memory of one thing with their current experience of some other thing.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that our logical, conscious understanding of our own pleasure is accurate. In fact, people are very poor at logically analyzing their own emotions. It's entirely possible to fool your conscious mind into thinking you enjoy X more than you enjoy Y, when in fact you don't. You would think that you would notice this error immediately, but naturally you stop eating Y in favor of X, believing that you are maximizing your pleasure when in fact your memory of Y is faulty.

(Later, when X is unavailable you might be forced to try Y again and realize your mistake.) I'm surprised you've never noticed this effect.

However, All of this philosophical debate about subjective experience misses the point. Unless you only ever prepare food for yourself, when you're preparing a recipe you want to know if there is an objective taste difference between the two items. And if so, what. The same goes for building a stereo system that will be listened to by more than one person. APL (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You say "it's very easy to delude yourself into thinking something tastes better". On the contrary, it's a logical impossibility. --Trovatore (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Beware, people who make money selling sea salt are going to make all sorts of claims about it. As sea salt is the sort of thing that is sold in health food shops, then its easy to tuck it in with health foods. I try to avoid all salt in my diet, by not adding any and avoiding processed foods. I make my own salt-less bread. My food tastes just as good as with salt. If you add up all the salt in food you eat in a day, then you will probably have an unpleasant surprise. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, both about how marketing works, and the potential risks of salt, or more specifically, sodium. We do need some salt, but there's already plenty of salt in foods, generally, so it's not normally necessary to add any. One oddity: The OP said "Sea salt has 98% NaCl and 2% other minerals; whereas table salt has 99.9% minerals." That last part should say "99.9% NaCl and .1% other minerals", right? Especially as he seems to have corrected himself in the next sentence. But I don't like to mess with other people's posts directly. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt makers sometimes claim that because it tastes nicer you can use less (which is presumably healthier, if true). More scientifically, salts which contain not just sodium chloride will also have additional minerals and trace elements that your body requires such as iodine - manufacturer sites[1]products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/ - so that is healthier. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hence, the use for iodized table salt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and specifically, because a lack of iodine can cause goiters. Unfortunately, iodine has a nasty taste. That's why they added it to salt, because salt has such a strong taste, that it tends to cover up the iodine. However, you can get uniodized table salt, and it does taste better. I suspect that that's what's going on with sea salt, too: it tastes better because it has less iodine than regular iodized table salt. But, of course, if you skip the nasty tasting iodine, you're putting yourself at risk of an iodine defficiency. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You can get enough iodine by eating seafood occasionally, such as sea-fish. You ought to be eating oily fish (such as salmon, sardines, mackeral)for health reasons anyway. You should not eat salt just to get iodine. 89.242.121.98 (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Most table salt sold in the UK is uniodized. The main difference between sea salt and ordinary table salt is that sea salt has a higher proportion of dead fish and sewage in it than table salt. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

for double blind tests (or similar) showing uniodised salt tastes better Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, again, that most people in the Western world get PLENTY of salt in their diet as it is—way too much, from a health standpoint. The incidence of iodine deficiency is practically nonexistent North America and Western Europe. Don't add more salt to your diet out of fear of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't be adding salt for fear of iodine deficiency. However, the question of whether you should choose non-iodised salt vs. iodised salt is a valid one Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Though does it matter in practice? If you eat out every once in awhile, surely you get enough salt and iodine, provided you don't just eat in places that serve sea salt? I am presenting this as an honest question. My understanding is that Americans in particular get a huge overdose of salt from eating out. I imagine that most of that is iodized? If that were true then you'd never really need to intentionally add additional iodine to your diet, right? (Since the amount of iodine required to avoid deficiency is very small.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since more relevant to the original question I'll answer this but also leave after that. This ref says

The proportion of the US population with moderate to severe iodine deficiency (<50 µg iodine/L in urine) has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years, 2.6% in NHANES I vs 11.7% in NHANES III

I'm not sure if that reallys means 11.7% of the American population has moderate to severe iodine deficiency or I misunderstood something (didn't read it in depth) but either way, I'm not sure if the problem is really that small. Nowadays of course, you're probably better then many in the past and in the US still far better then many other countries, but the recommendations are I presume set on what should ideally be minimum level for the average person based on the evidence available. [2] does at least suggest the problem may not be getting worse at least from the 90s-2000.

Also I'm not sure how much the overconsumption of salt from eating out helps since [3] says

Contrary to popular belief, four-fifths of the salt in American food is not iodized. That would be fine if we only consumed fewer over-salted, processed, prepackaged, and fast foods (which do not contain iodine)...

The site may not seem the best but it does have a HONcode which seems to suggest it's not complete quackery.

BTW, as mentioned in the 1st ref & hardly surprising, those on a sodium restricted diet are at obvious risk although iodised salt may not help much here (although it would make sense that of & salt they do use for it to be iodised without a good reason to the contrary particularly if they're reluctant to take external supplementation).

And as you may guess from the womentowomen site there's more likely to be a problem for women, pregnant and lactating ones in particular [4]). This isn't an uncommon problem with many nutrional requirements although as with many isn't an easy thing to solve, supplementation is useful but many pregnancies are unplanned and the mother may be unaware for weeks that she's pregnant which can be a problem in itself. Also while I'm not sure if this is a problem in pregnancy, if you suddenly increase iodine intake that will generally be a problem in itself causing hyperthroidism [5] & the w2w ref

The w2w also suggests iodine intake in the US is "marginal" & something that may seem to the contrary

As recently as 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine defined our iodine status here in the US as “marginal,” based on data acquired from the International Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorder and the World Health Organization (WHO). More specifically, the WHO data suggest the greater risk in the US is not iodine deficiency per se but iodine-induced hyperthyroidism (overproduction of thyroid hormones) or iodine-induced hypothyroidism. Interestingly, both these problems can occur when people who are already iodine-deficient are given too much iodine, too quickly......

I haven't hunted the original ref but while it may suggest many Americans are taking too much iodine, the w2w conclusion is not that nor have I seen any other refs saying that. (Many refs mention the lack of major problems from Japan's very high level & the first ref mentions they don't have much more hyperthyroidism then the US although they do have one type less common in the US.)

Other then perhaps an unavoidable issue without carefully targetted individual nutritional profiles, my guess is that it may also be a combination of 1) immigrants to the US having a sudden iodine increase (c.f. the first ref on sudden iodine increases) 2) migration within the US due to substanial differences between geographical areas 3) iodine deficiency is often picked up on in the US and treated with supplementation (which would imply it does occur often enough for this to be a detectable problem) but this is done poorly/too fast.

Either way these & a few other things I read lead me to believe a resonable number of Americans will benefit from increased iodine intake. Again I emphasised this because a key point when it comes to nutritional things like this, it's not that the level is critically low but that a higher level will generally be better & in particular, you're more likely to be lower than ideal then higher than ideal bearing in mind that while hyperthroidism is a problem if it does occur from what I gather you've either suddenly changed your level, are 'unlucky' or perhaps have other major problems like are consuming way, way to much salt in which case the excess iodine may be the least of your worries. I haven't see any recommendations Americans in general should avoid iodised salt because they're like to be overconsuming iodine.

My impression (i.e. WP:OR) is it's perhaps only a very minor problem compared to other parts of the world (both in terms of the number of people affected & the how low their level is) and as the US is a developed rich country, people don't tend to care about it anyway since they can take care of themselves. Within the US the problem isn't big enough particularly compared to other issues that it get's much attention & it's not an easy thing to resolve anyway (mandatory fortification tends to be controversial).

Iodised salt doesn't have to be the solution but if you don't have a good reason not do take it or you believe you'll get little benefit but don't have any real evidence (e.g. if you're regularly tested and you level is within recommended range then that's different) then I think it's something worth considering from what I've read.

P.S. Just to re-emphasise what I said above, if you're planing to increase your iodine level do it gradually & seek medical advice if necessary.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Kosher salt. It does not usually have additives like anti-caking agent and iodine. It is one of the kinds of salt suitable for aquarium use. --Kvasir (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea salt tastes different because of magnesium chloride which has a much stronger sensation than NaCl. This also absorbs water and makes the sea salt sticky. the small amount of sulfates, iodides or Potassium or Calcium salts would not make much difference to flavour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that minerals like potassium and magnesium help to regulate sodium concentrations in the body, as well as to regulate other bodily functions. I don't know that the trace levels in sea salt would actually make any significant difference, but there is a value to taking in a more comprehensive spectrum of these chemicals. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube

How do you solve the last corners if they are in the right position but oriented differently?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's heaps of websites detailing solutions to the Rubik's Cube. Try Googling it, and you'll see there's hundreds. See if you can find the solution there. Chevymontecarlo. 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Snap them off and put them back in the other way around. 148.197.115.54 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that be the disassembly algorithm?  Buffered Input Output 14:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This site's instructions are good. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

backstreet boys

its written in Wikipedia that they had their first concert on july 8, 1993, but i checked some other sites and they showed that its actually may 8, 1993. can anyone help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.137.170 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses references to show that the statements in articles are true. References are links to sites and books that say the same thing as in the article. The actual Backstreet Boys article uses the MTV site, [Located here] as a reference (Go to the link and scroll down to the 'biography' section). Try looking on several websites for their first concert dates - if they say the same date then it's more likely that whatever that date is is true. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo. 16:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That MTV link doesn't give a date for the first concert. Many of the sites that say July seem to be Wikipedia clones. But this is a discussion for Talk:Backstreet Boys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Open_admissions and academic quality

Can a university have both? At least, in some fields like art?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take the liberty of rephrasing your question so the Reference Desk can give a proper answer: "Can anyone point me to examples of a university or college that had open admissions and high-quality, highly regarded academic programs?" (The way you phrased it, everyone could lazily answer "yes, it is possible.") 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they could say simply 'yes.' But, perhaps the OP just wants to know if being selective is a condition to being good. I personally believe that it is not, you can be a good educator and accept any student who knocks at your door. You'll try the best and the result will not be consistent. On the other side, highly selective institutions could have excellent students coming out of them, without being good educators. It is the selection effect that makes their student above the average.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do we mean by academic quality? Quality of teaching, of research? Quality of an individual student's potential education? Or do you mean the ability of all of the students to do well according to various types of testing regimes, earn extremely high amounts, etc.?

Sure, it could, in theory, have all of these things. In practice, the performance of the students (however measured), on average (individuals can certainly buck the trend), probably drops as you widen admission requirements. That doesn't preclude the possibility of hiring excellent faculty for the most part (though "quality of students" is a factor when considering where to work, in my experience—working with students who are just a step or two out of high school is a very different sort of job than working with slick Ivy League kids), though it probably does, in practice. Academics want to work in places with money and/or status. Theoretically an open university can have both, though I'm not sure in practice that they do. That being said, there are some notable exceptions. The College de France has free and open lectures, and is renown for the quality of its faculty. Many excellent academics have worked for the Open University. City College of New York is ranked higher than many other institutions which have more selective admissions requirements. There are probably other examples as well. On average, though, if you are considering institutions like community colleges, open admissions does seem to be correlated with both a decrease in the quality of instructors (as measured by the standards of the wider academy) and students (ditto). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only endorse the three recommendations of Mr.98. I have also heard of the quality of these institutions. Furthermore, I have to add that it also depends on the field of study. In many cases, like classics, history, or philosophy, there is not a lot of competition (at least in Europe), so the university is in practice open for all who know the language and have a high-school diploma. --ProteanEd (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WILDLIFE QUESTION

I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUGAR GLIDERS ARE LEGAL IN PENNSYLVANIA. I SEE ON THIS SITE IT STATES THEY ARE LEGAL AS HOUSE PETS...BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME STIPULATIONS ON THE SALE. CAN I GET A PERMIT? I'VE SEEN THEY DON'T ISSUE THEM ANYMORE? I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE I CAN PRINT OUT IN BLACK AND WHITE THE EXACT GUIDELINES/RESTRICTIONS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.249.102 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read the conditions at the top of this page, you'll see that we can't give you legal advice. You could try contacting the State Veterinarian's office whose details are given here; they should be able to advise you --Normansmithy (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sugar Glider article has some general info on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is asking what the law about something in a state is asking for "legal advice"? It is pretty hard to figure out what PA's laws are; there's not a list of specific animals that I can find -- most likely it's internal Game Commission policy, since they consider each application individually and specifically. (For example, for big cats and such, they'll want to know what provisions the applicant has made for safety, etc.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this Pennsylvania law, "A new applicant for an exotic wildlife possession permit shall provide documentation of at least 2 years experience of hands-on work with the designated species, including care, feeding, handling, training and husbandry. This experience shall be from a recognized/approved facility and the owner, manager or licensee of this facility shall provide a letter of reference." If you feel you can meet these requirements, you should contact the Pennsylvania Game Commission to request a permit. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't write in capitals either. There's no need, as it won't get people's attention any more than any other question. Chevymontecarlo. 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it may turn people away. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fat people

I'm 6'1" 260 lbs. I'm overweight and I have a gut. However, my arms and legs don't have drooping fat. But when I watch TV shows like Judge Alex and Maury and trashy shows like that, the people are absolutely enormous. I have terrible eating habits and I don't exercise, but I don't look anything like them. What exactly makes them so large?

I was under the impression that Canadian and American lifestyles are pretty close to the same, but on my excursions to the US, there are more very large people. Why is there a difference? What are they doing that I'm not that make them so much bigger? Aaronite (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, this isn't a judgement: as far as I know, I should look like that too, but I don't, and I don't really understand why. Aaronite (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Body chemistry, metabolism, genetic makeup, that kind of thing. With the (near) exception of identical twins, every body is unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They take in more energy than they expend?--79.76.188.14 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They spend too much time sitting on their butts answering Wikipedia Ref Desk Q's. :-) Butt seriously, those type of freak shows either go for "hotties" or the hideous, because that's what their viewers want to see. So, those people aren't representative of Americans, thank God. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is completely speculative, but I think that Canada's educational systems are better on average than U.S. educational systems. As a result, I suspect that a larger percentage of Canadians than of people in the United States are aware and appreciative of the importance of good nutrition and exercise. Furthermore, in some low-income communities of the United States, there is an entrenched culture of eating and drinking high-calorie foods (especially soft drinks) and avoiding exertion. There may well be cultures like that in Canada, too, but because extremes of income are much greater in the United States (see our article Gini coefficient), a larger percentage of the U.S. population lives in poverty. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is also completely speculative, but I think that the combined factors of drinking bagged milk and proximity to A. alces makes Canadians more susceptible to illnesses therefore necessitating a public health care system. Seriously though, I think fat people (okay, fat Americans) know that eating junk food and not exercising is unhealthy - they just don't care. It's not a lack of education, unless you're trying to make the argument that the Canadian school system is better at stigmatizing obesity than the American school system. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, though. Coreycubed (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some have blamed high-fructose corn syrup, which is used heavily in the US because (for political reasons) it's artificially cheap relative to cane sugar. Is HFCS used much in Canada? —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Canadians just burn more calories shivering ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you any idea how many calories you can burn singing O Canada? Also, it is a well-known fact that Timbits bind to fat and flush it out of one's system. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm relying on the negative calories found in Diet Coke to do the job. (Actually, I prefer to call them "Dark Calories" - a rather specific form of Dark Energy that's found only in Diet Coke). SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Many Americans live in low-density neighborhoods where you have to drive to get anywhere. Canadian cities tend to be somewhat higher-density, and many more people get to work by public transit (which necessitates walking to and from stops). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The gulf between calories consumed and calories burned is larger for them than it is for you. End of story. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Andrews, Scotland.

I have visited St. Andrews regularly and have just returned from yet another visit there. And I always forget to ask at the local Library or Tourist Information Centre why it is that Saint Andrews is so called. Oh I know it is named for the Patron Saint of Scotland St. Andrew but it would make more sense to me if the town had been named St. Andrew's (Town or City) or the City/Town of Saint Andrew. I walked around the graveyard surrounding the ruins of St. Andrews Cathedral and actually found a few headstones that remembered a deceased loved one or more who had been "a prominent academic or a respected cleric, or a successful businessman of St. Andrew's", but in the formal absence of the apostrophe I began to suspect that it's presence on a headstone several hundreds of years old might suggest a mistake had been made by the stone mason. So the absence or even the presence of a possessive apostrophe keeps me guessing. Why then is the famous University Town that is named for Scotland's Patron Saint named St. Andrews, without the apostrophe? Thanks in anticipation. 92.30.44.225 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A chap called Saint Rule allegedly took Saint Andrew's bones from Constantinople to Scotland "for safe keeping" and buried them. The full story is here[6]. I expect the apostrophe just got left out, like Harrods. However, St David's seems to have kept theirs. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't read my own sources. Rule took the relics from Patras, (where Saint Andrew was crucified) to Scotland, so that they WOULDN'T be taken taken to Constantinople. Simple! Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at other similar names (St Johns, St Peters etc) you will in each case find places with and without the apostrophe. I speculate that in many cases the spelling became established before the use of apostrophes for possession became as firm as it is today. --ColinFine (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a government-controlled convention in Australia and some other countries that geographic names dispense with apostrophes, even though we abide by standard spelling rules in all other contexts. So, here we have places like Wilsons Promontory (not Wilson's), the Princes Highway (not Prince's), Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock (not Ayers' Rock), etc. We also have places called St Peters, St Marys, St Helens, and a few others. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has various 18th century texts including a 1792 volume of Samuel Johnson that spells it without the apostrophe[7] There's not much from before 1700: I only found one text, from 1654, and it also spells the town "St Andrews"[8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.1 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Constitution

Is there a 28th amendment to the bill of rights. There is an email floating around that states there is. Regarding the disparity of the new health bill by the president of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William A Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the "Bill of Rights". What you are probably asking is if there is a 28th amendment to the Constitution. There isn't. See List of amendments to the United States Constitution. Rimush (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. There aren't any amendments to the Bill of Rights itself. Our article has a list of amendments to the United States Constitution which stops at the 27th, Variance of congressional compensation. It passed in 1992 and no amendments have passed since then, nor have any been proposed in the last thirty years. Usually, anything you read in "an email floating around" is the sort of thing they debunk over at Snopes. In this case, a cursory search seems to show that they have already done so. Coreycubed (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights had 12 articles, of which 3 through 12 were adopted as amendments 1 through 10. Article 1 or 2 of the BoR, I forget which, was eventually passed as the 27th amendment. The other one of the 12, if I recall correctly, had something to do with allocation of representatives, and probably is of little consequence at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That would have been Article the First, rendered virtually irrelevant by Public Law 62-5. If Article the First had passed (and Public Law 62-5 had not) we could be looking at a House of Representatives cap of about 5,600. And you thought today's government was getting big? :P Coreycubed (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would go further towards countering the claim that people are inadequately represented under the current system. And the newly expanded Congress could hold their sessions in Nationals Park. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Without that clause (and PL 62-5), the cap is 5/3 as high. So? —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see, there could be as many as 5,628 representatives or some such. No stadium needed, just a good high school basketball arena. Ironically, the original idea seems to have been to keep the Congress from being too small, rather than from getting too large, which could be the consequence of it passing nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see Congress even bigger...around 250 million. In other words, all adults with citizenship. We could vote with computers or by phone. Special interests couldn't bribe all of us, as that only works when you have a small number of "representatives". It's called Direct Democracy. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even politicians only partly understand most bills, do you really think it is a good idea to have the general public, who will mostly have no understanding at all of the bill, voting on it? Direct Democracy tends to dramatically increase the Tyranny of the Majority problem, too - take a look at some of the direct democracy that goes on in Switzerland (the recent ban on minarets is an obvious example, but the local votes on individual citizenship applications are rather interesting too). --Tango (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bills are absurdly complex now, that's part of the problem, because they're written, and voted on, by mostly lawyers. If everyone voted, they would insist on simpler bills. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much trouble people have figuring out the wording in a simple referendum, or even in how to use a voting machine (as per Florida, 2000), the thought of the public voting on even "dumbed down" bills is fairly scary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, the stupidity of many thousands of people gives us some really bughouse crazy elected officials. Not sure that it would change that aspect all that much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Congressman are at least accountable to the voters, and can be voted out if they support bad legislation. The voters themselves are accountable to no one and can't be "voted out" if they pass bad legislation - unless you make everyone's vote a matter of public record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In theory they can be voted out, but the reality is that there's such an advantage for incumbents that they rarely are. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They can, in fact, be voted out, and often are. You can't "vote" the citizenry out, though, except through societal pressure. Making everyone's vote on every measure a matter of public record would be necessary to achieve accountability - and would likely increase majority tyranny, as those in the minority would be afraid to vote in favor of something that's seen as unpopular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as protecting minority rights, that would be far easier if everyone voted, since the majority of citizens are members of one or more minority group (assuming women are included), whereas only a small portion of US "Representatives" are. So, who is more likely to vote for minority rights, the minorities or rich, white protestant men ? (Perhaps the Senate could be kept as is, so we would have both a popular vote and the "deliberative process by experts" you advocate.) StuRat (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You count women as a minority group? The split is pretty close to 50/50 (I think with a slight female majority, in fact). Women are under-represented in politics, but that doesn't make them a minority group. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, women are often considered a minority, due both to having the numeric minority in elected offices, business executives, etc., and to having historically been a class which was legally discriminated against and marginalized. They are also frequently included as a "protected class", meaning you can't fire someone just for being a woman any more than you can fire someone just for being black. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware if it's common women specifically are a Protected class. Our article doesn't mention it and it's primarily a US term anyway. Sex may be, as with race. This means you can't fire someone for being a woman or black, but you also can't generally fire someone for being a man or white. The later may be a less common issue but it doesn't mean the law discriminates based on sex. There are some cases when it does, here in NZ, male assault female is a specific offense but it doesn't sound like that's what your talking about Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sex" was added as a protected class to remedy discrimination against women, not men. If there are some men out there who got fired for being male, and they can also use the law to their advantage, that's a bonus.StuRat (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bills may be "absurdly complex" now, but that's the price you pay for having meaningful and fairly-applied laws. Can you imagine what a mess we'd be in if every law was as "simple" as the Second Amendment? Ordinary people may think it's obvious what simple words mean, but lawyers (and philosophers) know different. FiggyBee (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the OP might be thinking of the proposed amendment to prohibit flag desecration, which would be a constitutional restriction on freedom of expression, hence it would "amend" the bill of rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost photo

This is a very eerie question. Last week, I've seen a ghost photo at one of my friends' computer. This was a very disturbing photo, not one with those orbs or ectoplasms.
In the foreground there is a smiling woman with two children with Halloween costumes. In the background, there is a tall dark figure (a ghost?) with a pale face that seems to be hanging from the celing wrapped up in a long veil. Under the picture, there was a description from the person who took the photo.
I've meticulously searched for it in the most prominent ghost-photo sites, but with no success. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask him about it? That would be the most direct way to find out, as there are probably gazillions of fake ghost photos circulating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a very logical answer! But unfortunately, he doens't know. We talked about it lately, but we both weren't able to find it again. Also, he was the one to find and show it to me, and now he has no clue about the original site.--151.51.61.156 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate he didn't download it or bookmark it. Is there any chance it's in his history of sites visited? I know these questions are kind of elementary, but ya never know. Or did he in fact download it? If so, there's a site (I forget its name just now) that can track down the sources of internet photos if you have a copy of the photo on your PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I believe you're talking about "tineye.com," which is a kind of reverse image-search. OP, give it a shot if you still have the file. AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that they were wearing Halloween costumes, the most likely explanation (having not seem the photo in question) is that it was just a Halloween decoration. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A possibly more interesting story involves some couple whose wedding photo, which is up against a wall, appears to show a "demon" peaking over the guy's left shoulder. It's obviously a photo of a dog (you can see its tail on the other side), but they've made a big thing of it. Always take photos with a grain of salt, especially if they're about stuff like spooks. Although it would be interesting to see the photo anyway. What about the caption? Do you remember what it said, or part of what it said? I've found surprising results when posting part of a sentence to some obscure statement. Google is amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When they can make Forrest Gump shake JFK's hand and have blue aliens ride dragons, I'm sure they can add a ghost to a still photo and make it as disturbing as you like. Astronaut (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

These days, you can fake anything in a photo extremely easily. You can also fake video - but it's harder. Consequently, any photograph that you don't personally know the history of has to be regarded with deep suspicion if it purports to show something controversial like a ghost. If we could see the photo - it's likely that we could spot something in it that would reveal how it was faked. But finding a photo from just a description is very difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell from some of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in your time? FiggyBee (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to still bother you with my silly question! My hope was that someone had seen this photo so he/she could report it here. For example, I was able to track down you dog-demon photo: [9] (but I can't find the tail (-: ). The possibility to find the photo in my fried's computer is near to zero (and he surely didn't save it).
It was allegedly a "real" ghost, not a Halloween decoration. And was really disturbing!. Obviously, I'm well aware that it could be (very likely) a hoax.
The description was something like: "I was taking a photo of my children and later we saw this strange thing". If I remember correctly, she mentioned the fact that they moved from the house because of it. She also wrote that, even if the ghost seems to hang from the ceiling, they haven't a fan or a chandelier in that position. --151.51.61.156 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I had seen the "demon" thing only in quick clips on a video. What I thought was the tail was her bare shoulder. The couple claims other photos taken in that vicinity don't show that creature. But they don't show us the other photos. They claim that fear of this "demon" drove them to the straight-and-narrow on drug abuse. So even if they're wrong, it served a purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)