Miscellaneous desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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

March 27

slumdog millionaire scene location

In the movie slumdog millionaire, there is a scene where there are 3 toilet shacks placed on the edge of what seems like a cliff with a scenic view in the background which looks like a sea and river delta. This was just before when young Jamal jumped into the shit to catch amitabh bachchan. Does anyone know exactly or approximately which part of mumbai the shot was taken? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 07:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English words starting with Q but not qu

Is there any non-proper word in the English language starting with q but not qu (besides "Q")? Albacore (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "non-proper" mean? You'll also have to think about just what counts as an "English word". Many words borrowed from Arabic are spelled without the u, like qanat. Staecker (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the words listed on Wiktionary, yes.--Michig (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proper adj. (grammar) Used to designate a particular person, place, or thing. Proper words are usually written with an initial capital letter. [from 14th c.] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Albacore means a word that isn't a proper noun. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a tuna fish. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inuktitut often has initial "q" without "u", so a good Canadian dictionary might help. The first word that comes to mind is "qiviut", wool made from muskox down. --NellieBly (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer must comply with Scrabble(c) rules, then QABALA (occult or secret doctrine, variation of CABALA); QABALAH (variation of CABALA, QABALA); QABALAS (plural of QABALA); QABALAHS (plural of QABALAH); QADI (Islamic judge); QADIS (plural of QADI); QAID (a Muslim tribal chief or senior official); QAIDS (plural of QAID); QANAT (gently sloping underground tunnel for irrigation); QANATS (plural of QANAT)' QAT (leaf of the shrub Catha edulis); QATS (plural of QAT); QI (a circulating life energy in Chinese philosophy); QIS (plural of QI); QINDAR (Albanian currency, variation of QINTAR); QINDARKA (plural of QINDAR); QINDARS (plural of QINDAR); QINTAR (Albanian currency); QINTARS (plural of QINTAR); QIVIUT (musk-ox wool); QIVIUTS (plural of QIVIUT); QOPH (19th letter of the Hebrew alphabet); QOPHS (plural of QOPH); QWERTY (the traditional configuration of computer keyboard keys); and QWERTYS (plural of QWERTY). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smelter ..

Is Smelter Like Smelting .. HarryPotterNot (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we said before, see our article on smelting. Your question doesn't make sense. If you're not a native speaker of English, you might want to browse through the list here to find a language you're more comfortable with; some of them also have desks where you can ask questions. Matt Deres (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No It Is Okay But Thank You . I AM A Native Speaker Born In Canada. You May Well Say I Am In Grade 6. HarryPotterNot (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a "smelter" is used in "smelting", yes. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learn to start every single word with a capital letter? That only applies with the titles of songs or movies or books, and even then there are exceptions. In normal writing, the only places capitals are required are:

the first word of a sentence
proper nouns, like Canada
the pronoun I. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget O, used as a marker for the vocative case. You might reasonably say that that's not "normal writing", at least not normal contemporary writing, but it was explicitly included in a text I used in high school. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, O Master. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a simple article about metallurgy that explains the purpose of smelting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Smeltings' is a fictional school in the Harry Potter books. The word is almost certainly taken from the metal-processing term smelting, which involves smelters. This is one of the ways J.K. Rowling suggests that the school is boring (unlike the creative magic of Hogwarts), is linked to Mr Dursley (who sells drill bits, which are made of metal that will have needed smelting), and perhaps reflects the old idea of a public school (an old private school where children generally stayed and boarded, like Harry does at Hogwarts) as completely changing and processing the child into a fine, upstanding adult. This process was generally harsh, reflected in the 'smelting' metaphor. 86.164.69.241 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a block-evading sock of 173.178.93.250. Or at least was. He's now blocked also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data entry

Hi. Are temporary data entry-based employment positions typically offered on gender preference, ie. the position is usually taken by females, or vice versa? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, that would illegal. I think the same in true in most western coutries (I don't know about the rest of the world). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean whether they use gender profiling formally. I'm asking whether data entry is usually a female-centric job. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more common for those positions to be filled by women, but I don't think that the reason is necessarily any gender preference by employers. There are two other possible reasons: one is that women are more likely to be looking for temporary lower-paid employment (perhaps this is a fault in our society and employment practice?); the other is a possible difference in gender psychology in that women, on average, are prepared to undertake this task more readily and more efficiently than men (though I know women who would not be happy with this employment, and men who would be). (... now I dodge the bullets) Has any research been done on this difference (if it exists)? Dbfirs 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 foods that don't go together

I was given a puzzle that I can't solve. The challenge is to find 3 foods, none of which go together. For example, everyone knows that ice cream and roast chicken together does not work. Now I must find one food that does not go with roast chicken, neither with ice cream. Can anyone else think of three examples of such food? --Porelmundo (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a tomato soup and ice-cream sandwich? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if you eat one right after another anyway? Do you puke like if you drank Bourbon with Vodka? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that most of the pairs you think of are on either side of the sweet/savory divide. Since generally sweet things are considered not to go with savory things, it's easy to come up with such parings. (Note that not all such combinations are considered bad - some are even classics, like sweet and sour pork or American turkey and cranberry sauce.) Once you have three items, you have to find an additional opposition to split, so that each pair falls on either side of some dividing line. I might suggest strong flavored versus delicate. So you might have blue cheese (strong & savory), oysters (delicate & savory) and chocolate syrup (sweet). - Now that I say that, though, there will probably be someone who points out some restaurant which serves a marvelous gorgonzola and chocolate oyster gratin. -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taste is incredibly subjective, and varies a lot not only from culture to culture, but also from individual to individual, so there is really not any conclusive answer to the OPs question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question would appear to be not exactly unanswerable, but just that there could be many possible answers. For example, I recall a Flintstones joke about "ice cream and ketchup". 174 gives some hints as to what could be a basis for coming up with examples. This might connect also to why meals are separated into "courses". Ice cream and roast chicken wouldn't "mix" very well, but as separate courses they're fine. The OP just needs to use his imagination a bit. I was thinking of liver, onions and jalepenos. All three are wretched separately (by my taste), so combining them would be triply wretched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just goes to show how much tastes are individual (and, perhaps, culturally conditioned). In the UK, liver and onions is a very traditional and popular dish, featured regularly on school and canteen menus in my experience, and one of my favourites. Porelmundo might like to contemplate Heston Blumenthal and his menus at The Fat Duck. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add some references to the debate here is a post on a molecular gastronomy blog which discusses flavor parings and reveals, "the good, the bad, and the ugly"-style, the results of a taste test. There's a triple ugly cycle of malt, caviar and blue cheese. However, such results should be taken with a grain of salt, as it also points out that some of the bad and ugly pairing (such as anise & garlic or basil & caviar) were listed as good pairings by other flavor pairing resources. It says this "... is a good reminder that binary mixtures are not actually food and this real life is more complex." -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like oatmeal, garlic bread and (American style) whipped cream? Googlemeister (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porridge with cream would be quite nice, I think it is often eaten with milk or cream. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken, ice-cream, and cottage cheese. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oysters, licorice sauce and strawberry jam. Yumm. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hákarl, petai, and Nutella. Bon Appétit! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy spells when calling psychics.

What can you tell me about the story behind dizzy spells when calling psychics? One time, I tried calling one when I was 13, and got dizzy so I hung up. Then there was a psychic hotline infomercial that gave the advantages about calling them. One of them was "no dizzy spells."

Why would psychics give dizzy spells to callers? How do they? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the psychic would say it's because they're tapping into your energy field which would make you feel disorientated. I've never heard of this phenomenon, however _{(and I'm one of those strange ones round here)}. Maybe a psychological explanation would be that, at some level, you feel consulting a psychic is "wrong" and you are experiencing an extreme form of cognitive dissonance. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had you heard before you called that you might get dizzy spells? If you are expecting something like that to happen, that can be enough to cause it to happen. It's a bit like a reverse placebo effect. Psychic hotlines are a complete con. There has never been any reliable study that has shown their predictions to be any better than random chance. That means you are no more likely to get dizzy spells while on the phone to them as when on the phone to your grandmother. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had to be dizzy to call a psychic. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the OP may simply have the cause and effect the wrong way around! --Tango (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were slightly nervous calling them about whatever it was, I find that can make me feel a little strange, perhaps dizzy, at times. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you believe in psychics, you shouldn't believe in telephone psychics. They're just a call-center of ordinary minimum-wage people reading from scripts.

"No dizzy spells" is just another way for their advertisement to pretend that they're actually doing something special. APL (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the so-called phone psychic to tell you what the name was of your first pet or first car. If they answer correctly, you might want to make some revisions to your online bank account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person(s) or subject matter excluded

Why would a famous American actor be excluded from, or not found, in Wikipedia?Fjh3cherokee (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not spelling the name correctly. Who are you looking for? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they famous, they certainly could have an article written about them. It is possible that nobody has gotten around to writing one writing one yet, though. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps there was an article, but it was recently discovered that the whole thing was cut+pasted from somewhere else and was deleted as a copyright violation (and no-one has gotten around to recreating it). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for American actor Timothy Scott (b.1937 - d.1995).Fjh3cherokee (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not exactly a household name, but looking over his credits, he might squeak in. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely notable. It's also possible that nobody got around to writing an article about him yet. I don't want to do that, myself, but did at least add him to the disambiguation page for Tim Scott. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shagbag! Looie496 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shagbag Noun. A sexually amenable or available woman. Derog. How is this slang expression appropriate here? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shagbag is the name of the character this actor played in In the Heat of the Night (film), one of my all-time favorite movies. Sorry for the obscure reference. Looie496 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I thought you were insulting me, for some reason. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

data

finding census info

Just wondering, is there any way of seeing the results of the recent census, not the actual information people filled in, I know that is private, but the resultant numbers? Hypothetically, could I look up the precise number of people that, for example, claimed to be members of a particular religion?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the 2010 Census of the United States. Our article has some preliminary results and here is the official website. --Thomprod (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the official date of the 2011 UK Census is today, so the results aren't ... um ... all in yet.--ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a more useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did it happen that the British censuses all seem to occur in years ending in 1? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they started in ~~1810~~ 1801, Census in the United Kingdom, as opposed to the US that started in 1790, United States Census. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. (1801, actually, not 1810). The article doesn't exactly say, but it seems like maybe 1801 was the earliest they could get it accomplished, and of course they've done it every 10 years since. It was done in the USA for the purpose of apportioning representatives. Without having headcounts, how could Parliament proportionally represent the people? Or maybe it didn't?. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Census in the United Kingdom#History for the 12 reasons to do a census. Nothing to do with representing anybody. See Elections in the United Kingdom#History and Representation of the People Act 1918 for the when the general population was allowed to vote. I'm betting that neither the UK or the US used any of the early census results for proportional representation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Rotten and pocket boroughs regarding disproportional representation in the UK. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, the numbercrunching will take a few years and you should be able to see the numbers in a few years time. I've had a look on the census websites and couldn't find a clear date for this. The actual personal data is embargoed for 100 years, and your great-great-grandchildren will be able to see your details (and be driven mad by the questions they wish to ask you!). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the UK census the first outputs are due September 2012. These will be in the form of tables. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hello everyone. I am currently conducting a study into the effects of alcohol on the brain, during which I was presented with a very perplexing question that I am not quite sure how to answer. A friend of mine, a recovering alcoholic, recently went to an AA session but he had to give his name. Why is this? --92.29.142.213 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He probably only had to give a first name, and could give a fake, if he wanted, as they don't check your ID. Thus, he can maintain whatever level of anonymity he's comfortable with. They do, however, need some "name" so they can call on him to speak. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So he doesn't actually have to use his real name then? He will be delighted to hear that. I am still slightly confused as to why it would be called Alcoholics Anonymous, as you really are not anonymous if you give a name. In fact, does the very principle of the program not rely on people being open and honest? Furthermore, does it mean I could attend one of these meetings and say my name is "Pete" when in actual fact it is "Bob?" --92.29.142.213 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What people who attend are worried about is everyone in town knowing they are an alcoholic, and losing their job, etc., as a result. For comparison, when people in the US military seek psychiatric treatment, this tends to destroy their careers because it goes on their record. So, the AA treatments are designed not to do that. Of course, there's always the chance that somebody there will recognize him and tell others, but then that person (who presumably is also an alcoholic) would be subject to the same treatment. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine went to an AA meeting just the other day and was told he must show proof of I.D. Suffice to say, he was put off by the whole experience and is back on the drink.--109.153.32.31 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. Have they changed their policies ? StuRat (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 12th of Alcoholics Anonymous's "12 Traditions" states that anonymity is its founding principle. I'd be astonished if there were any requirement for formal identification in any AA program run in the US or Canada. I know nothing about other countries or cultures. Bielle (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's odd. I went to a meeting with a friend a few years ago and there was no ID check. Maybe they check IDs if AA is court assigned and your friend just got caught up by some over-zealous AA representative. Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 11th "tradition" declares "we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films." expanded to "Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed.". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraged to be open and honest but that doesn't mean that you have to give out your real name. At the most basic level, a name is just something to call someone. If you want to go by Pete, then that's what you go by. They (AA) realize that not everyone is going to be absolutely comfortable with giving their real name to a collection of strangers and talk about a potentially embarrassing part of their life. Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why does it have "anonymous" in the title? --92.29.142.213 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because, except for the one case above, it is. You don't have to use your real name. But it's still nice for people to be able to call you something rather than just "Hey you". Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in the format of the shared-experience AA meetings, any one who wishes to speak introduces himself as "Hello. My name is Bielle, and I am an alcoholic." The meeting responds, "Hello Bielle." And after that, Bielle tells her own story. Bielle (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, my name is Noyfb, and ...". StuRat (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It is a neat irony that all the responders to this question are using names but they are all anonymous. well, apart from me! Richard Avery (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still could be anonymous, if that's a fake name. And, even if it's your real name, I imagine there is more than one Richard Avery in the world. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It must be confusing when everyone introduces themself as Bielle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All together now...I am Spartacus and I am an alcoholic... Lemon martini (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that even though you might not be completely anonymous to people *in* the meeting, there is a strong tradition of being anonymous with respect to people *outside* the meeting. That is, one is not identified as a member of AA if one does not want to be, and there is a strong tradition of respecting the privacy of the others in the meeting. It is considered bad form to repeat the (sometimes very personal) information which is shared during the meetings. Substance abuse (and even seeking treatment for it) is and has been stigmatized, and the (partial) anonymity is there so that people would be willing to come, and more importantly, talk about their problem without fear of stigmatization. "Alcoholics confidential" might have been slightly more accurate, but at the cost of being much less alliterative. -- 174.24.203.209 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that your friend was required to attend AA as the result of a court order and produced ID in order to prove compliance with the order? John M Baker (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should call it "Alcoholics Pseudonymous"? Qrsdogg (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]