Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 11

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

January 11

food imports restrictions + health

My cambodian roommate just got back from christmas break, and he brought with him 3 HUGE plates of seafood. He's sleeping and they're just sitting there on his desk- a 1' high heaping pile of dry tuna, a 1' high heaping pile of shrimp, and a 1' high heaping stack of whole, dead fish that have been smoked but they're staring at me right now. My question is: how didn't they stop him at customs?! I thought you weren't supposed to bring parasite-ridden seafood from third-world hellholes. Also, they're REALLY big piles and they'll be there for awhile. Please tell me A) I won't get sick from breathing tuna powder, which has made the room cloudy. B) It will go bad so he will have to throw it out. And C) that I'll eventually get used to this smell, which I'm convinced will never leave my clothes unless I burn them. --f f r o t h 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the US Customs and Border Protection website: "Personal quantities of seafood not intended for commercial consumption are not subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Most personal quantities of seafood are admissible, with the exception of endangered species which are subject to restrictions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." (as an aside, I also found out that it is illegal to carry a switchblade into the USA unless you only have one arm!) Therefore your roommate's fish stash is probably perfectly legal. As for questions, A-C. Who knows? Perhaps you could ask your roommate to store the fish somewhere more suitable. Rockpocket 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Grr, ok. He barely speaks english and it's pretty awkward so I try not to talk to him.. but this is really just too much. My pillow is going to smell like a giant shrimp! --f f r o t h 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Buy him some Tupperware. DuncanHill (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a sec, you got a roommate you don't speak with? I envy those piles of seafood. Your clothes will probably not smell bad, and you won't get sick from being in the same room with that, don't worry. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

I have a question about my internet explorer. Sometimes when i go on internet explorer, it will just close all of a sudden. I don't think i have any viruses or anything, but it has been doing this for a while. Does anybody know what it is?--Dlo2012 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Viruses or something? Try Mozilla Firefox --f f r o t h 02:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of IE and change to Mozilla Firefox-- its much faster and more reliable.--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also with firefox you can get add ons for wikipedia like twinkle that wont work in IE. And firefox FTW BonesBrigade 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This question fits better to the Computing desk. --Taraborn (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be a popup blocker e.g. Google toolbar, etc. 207.148.157.228 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You could easily have a virus or something and not know. Many do almost nothing. *Max* (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

Australian Senator being Prime Minister?

Has a Senator ever become Prime Minister of Australia? Or has the opposition ever made its party leader (the leader of the opposition) a Senator (as opposed to a Member of the House of Representatives)? (For example, the Greens leader Bob Brown is a Senator, so say if the Greens formed a majority in the lower house, would that make Bob Brown Prime Minister?) How would the House of Representatives be conducted then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Senator John Gorton was appointed Prime Minister on 10 January 1968, but the circumstances were extremely unusual. The Prime Minister Harold Holt drowned on 17 December 1967 and his body was never recovered. He was declared "presumed dead" on 19 December, and so another PM had to be appointed. It was assumed that his deputy William McMahon would be the obvious choice. But John McEwen, the leader of the Country Party, the minor party in the Liberal-Country party coalition, announced that he would refuse to continue the coalition if McMahon were the Liberal leader and PM. The Governor-General Lord Casey commissioned McEwen as an interim Prime Minister until such time as the Liberals could choose a new leader. On 9 January they chose Gorton, who was a Senator, but on the understanding that he would resign from the Senate and contest the by-election for the House of Representatives seat left vacant by Holt's presumed death. He did, and won it handsomely. Prior to the by-election, Gorton had resigned from the Senate as he was required to do under the Constitution. So, after having been PM as a Senator for a couple of weeks, he continued as PM for a couple of more weeks without being a member of Parliament at all (which is permitted by the Consititution up to 3 months), then continued as PM as a member of the House of Reps.

The reason the PM always sits in the House of Reps - barring the extraordinary circumstances outlined above - is that the government depends for its existence on money bills being supported by the Parliament, and money bills can only be originated in the House of Representatives. The government is always formed by a party or coalition commanding a majority in the lower house, no matter what the numbers might be in the Senate (which is often hostile to the government of the day). That said, there's nothing in the Constitution to require this, but it's a convention adopted by all modern-day bicameral Westminster parliaments. And it's a very sensible convention, because it would make no sense for a majority in the lower house to be led by a person who sat as a member of another chamber (despite ministers being drawn from both chambers). (The UK Prime Minister was often a member of the House of Lords in days gone by, but that hasn't been the case for over a century.) During the Holt-McEwen-McMahon-Gorton affair, the Parliament wasn't sitting, so it was never tested how the arrangement might have worked on a parliamentary basis. By the time the Parliament sat, Gorton had joined the lower house.

If the Greens formed a majority in the lower house, the Greens leader in that house would almost certainly be Prime Minister, not anyone in the Senate, including Bob Brown. They don't have a leader in the lower house at the moment, bectause they don't have any members in that house (there's only ever been one, to date). Bob Brown is parliamentary leader of the Greens overall, which would include any Greens members in the House of Reps, if there were any. That's until such time as they gained 5 lower house members, which would give them "party status" in that house, and they would then elect a lower house party leader. Brown would then become the Greens' leader in the Senate only. The only way Bob Brown could become PM is to get elected to a lower house seat. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answers and well explained, thank you very much Jack :) 203.208.109.169 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Drop by anytime. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Championship Belts

In the UFC, boxing etc. where a belt is the prize, do they have 1 belt that changes hands or does each champion receive one and keep it when they lose ?

Does anyone know how much a belt costs in say the UFC? Thanks, Killa Klown (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about boxing, but Im pretty sure the UFC beltholders get their own belt to keep, forever. I recently read about a past heavyweight beltholder, Ricco Rodriguez who attempted to auction off his belt for around 20 to 30k, [[1]]. 2deuce2 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

getting drunk faster?

Yes, this is a serious question. I was just reading the article alcohol by volume, and it stated that beer has 3-12 % alcohol by volume, whereas wine has 6-18 % abv. Does that mean that a person gets drunk at a quicker rate by drinking wine than they do beer? for example, suppose you drink 20 ml of beer versus 20 ml of wine. Which gives the greater effects? I just don't understand what the article means.76.216.113.87 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that those ranges overlap, so a particular beer may contain a higher percentage of alcohol than a particular wine. But if you mean say beer that is 5% alcohol by volume and wine that is 10%, then yes, the wine will have twice as much effect on you. This has a lot to do with why people tend to drink wine in smaller quantities than beer. --Anonymous, 07:24 UTC, January 11, 2008.

Random insert, but it is possible to get drunk faster on beer than wine. Ever heard of the funnel-in-the-rear trick? Pour some alcohol down there, and it reaches your bloodstream un-filtered, and will get you drunk much faster. But, beware of enemas. EWHS (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a lame, useless answer. For any given means of consumption, a stronger beverage would generally have more effect than a weaker one. The commonly-stated rule of thumb is that a typical serving of wine, beer, or liquor all contain about the same amount of alcohol. This is because the typical serving size gets smaller as the strength goes up, in approximately the right proportion. There are certainly exceptions, tho- the 12% beers for example. Friday (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As the anonymous reply says, yes, something with more alcohol by volume makes you drunker, faster. In Britain, there is a concept of unit of alcohol, so that a half of beer (300mls (ish)) is equivalent in effect to a small glass of wine (125 ml) which is equivalent to a single shot of spirits - 30ml or so, I forget. As the alcohol by volume goes up, the serving size comes down, effectively. I hadn't realised that this was a UK-specific term. Telsa (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

. If you really want to get drunk quicker, drink your wine through a straw. Ask the Science Desk why this works SpinningSpark 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this many times, but I've never heard a reasonable explanation of how it could work. I've always chalked it up as a myth. Friday (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted the question just now. I have also heard this, but like Friday have always treated this as a kind of urban legend. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: It doesn't work that way. Long answer here. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Drink 40% stuff [2]

--TreeSmiler (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at TreeSmiler's link, and this sentence jumped out at me:

The proof of alcohol is equal to twice the percentage so that 80-proof vodka is equal to 45% alcohol

Hmm, can't say that exactly inspires confidence right off the bat.... Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should read 'proof about twice the percentage'. I dont know the actual relationship as all drinks here are now quoted as ABV (%).--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In US usage, proof is exactly twice the percentage of alcohol (by volume, I think). ISTR that there is another definition floating around somewhere. But 80 proof is a standard concentration for vodka, and it's 40%, not 45%. --Trovatore (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof (alcohol) discusses the different definitions. Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bacardi 151 (151 proof) and Everclear (190 proof) are overproof liquors that you may be interested in if you want to get drunk quickly. I know taking shots of Bacardi 151 regularly is possible (I'm living proof), but I haven't consumed many shots of Everclear so reader beware.--droptone (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Food left out overnight

I made a big pan of chili beef last night, ate half of it, meant to refrigerate the rest and reheat it today. But I forgot and left it out in the pan overnight instead. It's winter here. Is it safe to eat? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Bacteria multiplies in beef left out of the refrigerator at room temperature more than 2 hours. So you need to throw it out to be safe. - Nunh-huh 09:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't analagous to having taken a hunk of raw meat out of the 'fridge and having left it at room temperature for twelve hours. You're absolutely correct: that would be dangerous. But in this case, the beef was (presumably) heated to the boiling point (and probably in an acidic tomato environment) so quite sterilized; new bacteria would have to arrive as infall from the air. I'm a fool so in the absence of any evil odors, I'd probably just reheat it to boiling for thirty minutes or so. Of course what you really want in this situation, is a food taster.

Atlant (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pooh. OK, thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Reheating it would likely kill the bacteria. So long as you don't eat it without cooking it a bit, you should be fine. EvilCouch (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The question was not what you could likely get away with, but rather what was safe. Food poisoning arises not only from bacteria but also from pre-formed toxins, not all of which are inactivated by heating. Similarly, any sporulated forms will not be killed by "cooking it a bit". - Nunh-huh 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My family leave leftovers unrefridgerated everyday in Winter, and I never had a problem with it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to be in the same situation as antilived (for years, now) and I've never had the slightest noticeable problem (neither me nor my siblings). --Taraborn (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It used to be common practice to nail a freshly killed goose/duck to a door by its neck, and wait until the meat was rotten enough for the body to detach from the head and fall. This was considered a good time to eat the meat, seeing as it was made softer and less leathery. This is called aging. I don't know if this applies to pre-cooked meat, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And something similar is still common practice in Iceland; shark meat (from the Greenland Shark) is prepared by letting it rot underground for six months prior to eating. There *is* a reason for this though - the Greenland Shark has no bladder, so its uric acid is instead leaked into its muscles, making the meat poisonous. After it's left to "breathe" for six months, the carcass is dug up and the meat eaten with Breniven (think aniseed schnapps). I can attest that it is the single most disgusting thing you're ever likely to consume in your life, and this is from a lifelong eater of Stilton cheese. The after-meal drink isn't nicknamed "Black Death" for nothing. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Im reasonably certain the food is fine to eat. Of course you would have to take into consideration its appearance, smell, and the ingredients used. For example a cooked pasta is less safe after 12 hours than cooked meat. And if it doesn't smell so good or taste so good then obviously don't eat it. As a small note you may also be concerned about contamination from insects (cockroaches, moths or flies which could have gotten to the food if left uncovered). Although we can't really advise you to eat something, the theory is that it should be okay. Rfwoolf (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Folks, when you tell the poster that it is ok to eat the dodgy chili you are working contrary to the spirit of the rules against giving medical advice. As a counterexample, I recall when I was in elementary school that the school's dietition had been at a conference at the other end of the state and brought back home on a long bus ride some leftover sandwich meat from the meal at the conference. She ate it after getting home, got food poisoning, and died. It had stayed too long without refrigeration. She probably thought it was just as safe to eat as some of the above posters. Then there is the question of whether the cat stuck his paw in it, if a cockroach ran across it, or if someone sneezed near it while it was out overnight. Might that introduce some undesirable bacteria? If in doubt, throw it out. Keep hot food hot, cold food cold, and don't mess with mister in-between.Edison (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost of throwing out the food: $5.00 wasted. Risk of eating contaminated meat: a lifetime of hemodialysis, and possible death. Do the math. Any restaurant that served a meat dish that had been at room temperature overnight would quite properly be shut down by the health department. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to scale back that claim a little... I'd hate to have to give up on my tasty lunchmeats --Mdwyer (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then, non-preserved meat :) - Nunh-huh 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if the OP ate the food after all ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 07:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was editing almost 24 hours later. If the food was *still* out at room temperature at that point, he's got noone to blame but himself :P GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes I did, with no ill effects. Sorry for not taking your advice, Nunh-huh. If it's any consolation, I probably wouldn't do it again after reading the points you made, even though I got away with it this time. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You might like to look into highly spiced foods that originated in warm countries to beat the lack of refrigeration. Food like curry and chili are meant to "preserve" the food temporarily. The best thing is that it's covered lightly even to prevent airborne contaminants. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Long socks and shorts

My sister insists that this is a fashion faux pas, but I can't find any mention of this on teh internets. Is this true? If so, can someone give me a source? Borisblue (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a source for everything, you know :) It all depends on whether you think it looks OK. Personally, I think it looks a bit strange and I would not wear that combination. While we're on the subject, wearing socks with sandals is also a bit of a no-no. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Richard says, socks and sandals... but long socks and shorts? apart from your sister's attempt to educate you peer-pressure wise, It depends who's wearing this combination. For girls these things make for cute combinations – but for guys if it's someone around 12 to 15+, it could be a skater or pre-teen, even preppy thing; if it's someone older, it's seen as conservative and being "out of touch" with popular culture and unstylish. In Australia it's considered daggy but that doesn't stop people who want to, from wearing them. It's kinda the inversion of being a fashion victim. Someone cool with it may well come across as being indifferent or even anti-fashion. As for me I'm more impressed by people who're not so self conscious about these things. _||_ Julia Rossi (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when playing basketball and tennis, I wear soccer socks that go above your knees. I am often seen in public like this, and I actually get compliments from strangers. I guess the psychedelicness of the red and white tie dye socks with white shorts is attractive? But, then again, I just do it for sports. Not all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of many school's uniform in here, so I guess it is quite uncool to wear it other than when you need to... --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that uncool (?). Personally i have absolute no problem with individuals wearing long socks with shorts, and i attend the same school as Antilived. Bonjour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.21.58 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Best -Free- Music Download Software

My grandmother is getting a new computer and high speed internet, and I've been told that I can use that computer as my music headquarters and whatnot, seeing as she has a studio there for me as well. In your opinion, what is the best music download software? (i.e. LimeWire, iMesh, Frostwire) Why? Why not the other ones? I'm looking for good quality music downloads. EWHS (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want free software or free music? We're really not here to help you infringe copyrights. --LarryMac | Talk 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (since I'm not in prison), LimeWire isn't illegal yet. Software similar to this, downloaded from the actual sites. I don't want to steal anyone's software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but as I recall, it's not the downloading from P2P sites that's illegal, but the providing of files to the network. So, provided you're just a "leech", you're not *technically* breaking any laws. It's still pretty cheapskate not to buy tracks for the whopping price of $0.99 from iTunes instead, though. 90.242.157.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right to me. Numerous individuals have been prosecuted for doing nothing more than downloading. To answer the OP's question, I would look at BitTorrent. Loads of great free music available for legal download through that protocol. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between civil law and and criminal law. Something being illegal implies it is a violation of criminal law i.e. the government can bring a case against you. Most of the P2P cases simply involve civil law, i.e. the company who own's the copyright sues you for violating their copyright. In most cases, these people have distributed (i.e. uploaded) content which often makes it even worse. This isn't surprising since with most P2P programs you are forced to distribute. But particularly when all you have done is downloaded content it's often not a violation of criminal law, i.e. it's not illegal. This all depends on jurisdiction obviously (in the U.S. I think it is a against the law simply to possess copyright violating material). BTW, personally I use eMule for my P2P purposes. And I would never purchase DRM encumbered audio, even if it's trivial to remove. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fun Quote

Not really a question, but I got bored one day and wrote this quote in Latin. I'm not 100% sure of the syntax, but kudos to whoever translates it. No using translators, either. :-P

Regular Script "Petediemcumoptissimumvivistumvivediemindiebus"

Nicely spaced and punctuated script, for easier translation "Pete diem cum optissimum vivis, tum vive diem in diebus"

EWHS (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can make out,it's something like... He lives life with optimism,he who lives life day by day...or words to that effect Lemon martini (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat close...take the verbs that end in -e (pete and vive) and make them imperative. That should help some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question about Jail (TV series)

When did Jail (TV series) have its 2nd season premiere? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

tv.com will often say Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another "fun" quote

As the fun quote guy above asked a q about latin, I've got one. What does "Noo ani Anqueetas hiq qua Videum" mean? Weasly (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not necessarily pure Latin, and comes from Stargate SG-1. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is apparently similar to Medieval Latin, and reads "We are the Ancients. The place of our legacy." See Ancient (Stargate). Think outside the box 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not similar to Medieval Latin at all...nor any kind of Latin... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, do bear in mind that this is from the same show that contends that neutronium can be readily mined from random planets, that humans have spread across three separate galaxies, and even if those humans were taken from Feudal Japan or Ancient Egypt, every one of them is capable of speaking perfect English. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo64 fan games

Are there any Nintendo64 fan games out there, like ones that'll run on an emulator like Project64? Weasly (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to search Google for something like: Nintendo 64 homebrew, or Nintendo 64 homebrew games. Homebrew is the term usually designated for the type of games you are describing.--droptone (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ailsa Craig Engines

Why has this page been deleted?

I am the grandson of the founder and have full copyright on this. Please restore.≈≈

Chris Kisch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.19.130 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ailsa Craig Engines was deleted because "17:39, 5 January 2008 Jj137 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ailsa Craig Engines" ‎ (This item appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.ailsacraigengines.co.uk/index.php?page=history, and no assertion of permission has been made." That is to say, because the article included copyright material from another site, it had to be deleted under Wikipedia policies (to comply with copyright law). DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some further information about how to proceed at User talk:Ailsacraigengines - basically the copyright holder needs to email the Foundation to give the appropriate permission for the text to be used on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And it should be added that Wikipedia will require more than just the permission of the copyright holder, the material must be released under a free licence, typically by the website in question placing a GNU Free licence on the copied page. SpinningSpark 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for the crook, not the Nazi

I remember seeing this slogan pasted about a while ago, but I don't recall the details. Who was the crook, and who the Nazi? Why? Where? When? 90.242.157.16 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The crook was Jacques Chirac, the Nazi Jean-Marie Le Pen. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Duncan's answered the who, the where and when are easiest: 2002, France. As for the why, Chirac was put as a crook over his "cooking the books" as Mayor of Paris to fund his campaign, while Le Pen was a "Nazi" thanks to his (and his party's) somewhat extremist far-right ideology. The French presidential election in 2002 was essentially a lesser of two evils vote and, at least in my opinion, the French made the right choice. Though I'd've personally voted for Lionel Jospin over either, had I been of majority (and, y'know, French) at the time. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• In Louisiana, they had the opportunity to "Vote for the lizard, not the wizard" and "Vote for the Crook. It's Important" when David Duke ran for governor in 1991. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

wagyu where in the uk can i get it

Iforh (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick search on Google.co.uk turns up a number of inviting sites advertising "Kobe-style" beef. Bear in mind though that in the same way that you can't get non-French champagne (well, other than in the U.S.), you'd have to order directly from a Japanese supplier to get "genuine" wagyu beef. Still, the British alternatives should do fairly well as an alternative. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the applies to you, but in the USA we've got a ban an Japanese beef imports, so we can only get Kobe style beef right now. See the article that the other editor linked to see what it takes to be Kobe or Wagyu. --Mdwyer (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pottery

Ok, I was wondering this. Why is it better to create pottery using coils of clay instead of molding by hand?T3hStoner (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By molding by hand, do you mean slabs, casting or wheel work? Coils offer strength and scale and don't need a wheel or other mechanical tool. Amphorae in ancient times were built using coils as far as I know. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And just as additional note, coil pots are a lot easier to make than hand-molded in terms of symmetry, consistent thickness etc. Hand-molding on a wheel, for example, is extremely hard to get right, and you'll probably end up covered in muddy water from head to toe. --Kateshortforbob 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But by using coils of clay would that be able to streghten it for that when you heat to it make it solid?T3hStoner (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is your question about the best or easiest method to make an object for firing? The coils are a thicker "wall" in the pottery, but I'm not sure what you mean by "strengthen". Do you mean do the coils stay upright better because they are thicker while you get it ready for firing, or during firing? Pottery needs to be 1) shaped, 2) dried (say in a drying cupboard or bench), then 3) fired. All kinds (forming, coil, and wheel work) cope with this treatment, but making coils is the more simple or manageable approach. Each method is strong in it's own way, so it's really up to you and your skills level, you think?Julia Rossi (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FastCupid

FastCupid.com is a company that runs dating websites. It seems to run the personals websites for nerve.com and The Onion

I think there are more sites as well. Can someone help me find a complete list of personals sites run by FastCupid? --24.189.12.121 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in Bible

With all seriousness, the opening lines of the Bible says something along the lines of, "On the first day, God created the Earth. On the second day, he created the rivers or humans..." But no where does the Bible mention dinosaurs... From archaeological evidence, it is pretty safe to assume that dinosaurs came before humans; the Bible does not give mention to this. What's going on here? Acceptable (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He was moonlighting and didn't want the IRS involved? --WebHamster 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From the point of view of the Bible's own logic, dinosaurs would have been created on the sixth day, along with the other "beasts of the earth", and man was created after that. Or you can assume the Old Testament is a man-made work created many centuries before dinosaurs were really understood. Whatever floats your boat. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are figments of the collective unconscious. Sort of like God. They exist because we want them to exist. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's one flaw in your logic, BrainyBabe: we've found the dinosaur bones. So far we've not found any physical evidence of God's body. -- Saukkomies 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to criticise the Bible you ought to get your facts right. God did not create the Earth on the first day. On the first day He created light (let there be light . . .). The second day was neither rivers nor humans, but the whole day was taken up with just seperating Heaven from "the waters" (quite slow going this creation business you see). It was not until the third day that we got the Earth. At least those are the facts as presented in my King James version. Now for the real info (which is not in the Bible but comes from my own personal OR). The dinosaurs survived the flood because they were on Noahs Ark (that's why it had to be so big you see) but later died out because they failed to adapt to the traffic conditions of the 20th century and road kill took out too many of them. SpinningSpark 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, rest assured, I'm not criticizing the Bible. I'm just trying to figure out where the dinosaurs fit in. Acceptable (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Young Earth Creationist sites that have postulated that the Leviathan mentioned at one point was a dinosaur. But on a more serious note, the discovery of dinosaurs and the unambiguous knowledge that extinction existed posed a major problem for Christians at the time, as neither fit squarely into the standard Biblical story as it was commonly understood. These were, along with other things, elements on the intellectual path towards an evolutionary theory of life. One does not normally picture a ground sloth in the Garden of Eden or hopping up on the Ark... --24.147.69.31 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

They dont fit in because according to the Bible, the earth is only about 4000 years old. Interesting huh?--TreeSmiler (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the first few days are sort of screwy, since if we, as the bible's writers presumably did (having no access to quartz watches), define the day as one rotation of the earth, then we have days before days existed... - mattbuck 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And light before the sun. And day and night before the sun and earth. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't really make a whole lot of scientific sense no matter how you try to parse it. It is clearly, as far as I can tell, not meant to actually be a literal history of the universe as a scientist would understand it. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus managed to make lots of "predictions" too, the problem is that they shouldn't be understood "literally". --Taraborn (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"And light before the sun" actually, the standard model of the Big Bang theory agrees with this. The point at which electrons/positrons were "frozen out" of the quantum chaos was immediately followed by mass matter/anti-matter annihilations and a huge burst of light. This happened rather sooner than one day after creation by the way. It was at this point that the universe ceases to be opaque and becomes transparent. Surprisingly, the remnant light of this event can still be found today. "And day and night before the sun and earth", I really wish people would actually read the bible before they criticise it. Day 3: Earth, Day 4: Night and Day (And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night). I am not a Creationist, but it does ones argument no favours to misquote the other side. A Creationist misquoting Scientists would be mocked - this has to work both ways. SpinningSpark 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of Genesis 1:4 is interesting. The phrase And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness has been taken by some to represent variously the creation of good and evil, the separation of good from evil, or the demarcation of the boundary between them. For those who insist on trying to put a scientific slant on the story (which is a silly thing indeed), it could be taken as a metaphor for the creation of time itself. Before Creation, there was no Universe and no time.

There are, of course, many different schools of thought on the meaning of Genesis, and I would refer interested readers to the original King James version for reference, and to our articles on the Book of Genesis, Allegorical interpretations of Genesis, and Creation according to Genesis—as well as the scholarly references linked therein. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This image was up on Conservapedia for a while, before being taken down, and take a look to the right to see the Creation Museum's take on humans living alongside dinosaurs. :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew the camera was an old invention. But they had colour film in those days? Wow! you learn something new on Widipedia every day. SpinningSpark 14:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, I note that in Genesis 1:20, we got sea creatures and birds on the fifth day:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

In Genesis 1:24 we got all the land animals:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

So we got birds and aquatic creatures on day 5, and land creatures on day 6. (Plants, if you're interested, showed up on day 3.) That means T-Rex was day 6, and pterodactyls were day 5. Unless, of course, one prefers the interpretation that dinosaur bones are all part of an elaborate practical joke by God (or Satan), in which case fossils would show up on day 3 when God created land. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From a Jewish perspective, do a Google search on /Torah dinosaurs/ and you'll find plenty of discussion on the matter. Basically, Judaism says that if science contradicts one's interpretation of the Torah, the interpretation is wrong. The Torah itself can never be wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to "the Bible", the earth is 5767 years old, not 4000 as has been mentioned here.

The whole point with the Abrahamic religions (excluding christianity maybe) is that there is a single God who has created nature and can override its rules at will. Rejecting the Torah on the grounds that "you can't have light before you have a sun", or any similar claim, is laughable. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One rabbi told me Adam was created 5,767 years ago, but that the universe could be billions of years older. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is possible, if by "universe" we mean the chaos that existed before the genesis started. I'll try to look into that. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am Christian, I suggest don't taking the Bible too strictly, or you will believe only 144,000 (or so) souls will be saved at the end of times. Also, people used to live over 900 years before. And remember that there may be certain misconceptions (like the eye of a needle, where it could be talking about a rope instead of a camel). Could the 7 creation days have spanned thousand of years in between instead of just 7 days? That is the explanation an evangelical friend told me. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, friend, I'm afraid I don't know Hebrew, but the point you're making is very common, and was believed by C. I. Scofield, as well as many other prominent Christians. The standard argument for this is II Peter 3:8, which says, "...a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." The second clause in this verse negates the possibility of the first referring to a "day" as any period of time: it is just saying that time means nothing to God. However, the Hebrew word "day" is "yom" which in the Old Testament almost always refers to a 24-hour period, and the plural "yammin" absolutely never refers to anything else.[3] Hope this helps. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "yammim" can also mean "year" or "years" (it's probably used this way several times in the Mikra, I'll look into that. And it can also mean "seas", but I'll have to check if that's indeed the same word). But that is irrelevant, each day of the creation was one day, otherwise god wouldn't have sanctified the Shabbath. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not a Hebrew expert, but aren't the words "yammin" and "yammim" different? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen the word "yammin", and I'm not sure where you found it. The closest match is "yamin", which means "right" (the direction). That said, both endings "im" and "in" can be used for pluralization, where "im" is more common in modern Hebrew and in the Mikra, and (if I'm not mistaken) "in" is more common in medieval writings. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that transliteration details (such as single versus double "m") depend on the Niqqud, which I do not remember precisely for all words. So I may be using "incorrect" transliteration. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, the word I found in a quote which was in italics. It does indeed say "yammim." I'll try to be more careful in the future :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I can find any web sources; but interestingly, some people (like me) believe that dinosaurs do still exist. Here's the logic: the word "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard," right? So, a dinosaur as it was first described was nothing but a terrible (read: big) reptile. Now here's the kicker: reptiles grow constantly their whole lives.[4][5] Therefore, if living creatures did live longer back then, as is proposed by some, then any reptile would have the potential in, say 800 or 900 years, to become as big as dinos were. These suckers already have an advantage over most, since they get so huge in their current life span; and if you look at many reptiles, they look scarily like dinosaur fossils. Just a thought! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 04:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanging/aging meat

Related to the discussion above on food hygiene, how does hanging meat work? As I understand it, the fresh carcase is hung in a cool place for several weeks to improve the taste. How do butchers know when it is ready? Is this used for steak tartare -- what about food poisoning and microbes? I can see nothing under hang or meat. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Curing (food preservation) article will help? --Mdwyer (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Curing is another process. Aging of beef comes in two forms, wet aging and dry aging, but both are usually done under refrigeration. The process tenderizes the meat through the action of the enzymes already contained in it (and not through bacterial action). The tenderization is rapid for the first 7 to 10 days, and much slower after that. (DIfferent cuts are aged for somewhat different times.) So usually it's 3 to 90 days and it's done. Anything longer than 28 days doesn't do much for palatability and may result in unwanted flavor changes, and risks bacterial contamination. Since steak tartare is usually finely chopped, the initial tenderness isn't really a big issue, so it would be a waste of aged steak. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nunh-huh, that's a succinct introduction and it makes sense. I'm not doubting your word, but can you guide me to sources? I'd like to read more. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm just googling "wet-aged beef" and "dry-aged beef" and picking some that are web-available (some good refs are in Food Science journals but are less accessible):[6], [7], [8] . I also just realized we have: Dry aged beef and Wet aged beef, with some associated refs. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm kinda getting the idea. Thanks for the tips - there is nothing useful under rot, decomposition, preservation, or anything else I would have thought of. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Steakhouses strive mightily to disassociate "aging" from "rot" and "decomposition" :). Go figure.... - Nunh-huh 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The strangely preservative effect of rotting is mentioned in passing in an essay prepared by a travelling bishop for the BBC. He describes the burial of unspecified food by the islanders of Tikopia, and how it ends up weird but edible (he is more diplomatic). The point is that such caches cannot be swept away by tsunami or other natural disasters: [9]. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)