Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 March 21

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 21

American car companies

Why are American car companies like Ford and Chevy real good at building massive gas guzzling SUV's but struggle to produce fuel efficient small cars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

target market. Vespine 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They are being run by conservative, traditionalist dinosaurs?. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the title or author, but a year or two ago, someone published a book on the Detroit corporate culture. Part of the thesis is that Ford and GM are run by Midwestern frat boys and jocks who like big, muscular vehicles and see smaller, more efficient vehicles as a compromise of their manhood. Marco polo 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The American auto industry realized that they could take a tarted-up pickup truck, call it an SUV, and sell it for a much higher price, earning much higher profits for the auto companies. They then designed their marketing to make a large swath of America believe that owning a large SUV would alleviate their feelings of penile inadequacy/fears of castration. The auto executives then ran this play over and over again, even as it became clear that petroleum would eventually become too expensive to support the continued use of SUVs by ordinary workers. The endgame for this strategy is playing out now.

Atlant 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I blame it on the shortsighted corporate culture. Big vehicles were profitable, so building as many as possible was the best strategy for maximizing profits for that quarter. Anyone with half a brain could see that putting all their eggs in that one basket was idiotic in the long term, but they just don't care about that. The CEOs all bet that by the time the "long term" arrives, they will have moved on to ruin another company with a similar shortsighted strategy. Also see diseconomy of scale. 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

male in need in saving his relationship...

im a 25 year old male in need of help... i have been dating this girl for the past six mo. and im ashmed to say that i have a small manhood i really like her, boarderline love her we have alot of things in common but when it comes down to sex i feel im not pleasing her. we connect better at communicating then we do sexually, and i feel thats my fault. i have done some research online but everything seems to be some kind of magic pill that will help out my little problem. is there anything i can do naturally to enhance my manhood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.10.132 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

No, there isn't. And you really shouldn't worry about this. You say you "feel" you aren't pleasing her - have you actually talked to her about this? The chances are there is no problem at all. It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it that counts. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How big's your tongue? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the size that matters, but the motion of the ocean! (That goes for tongue too!)Seiran 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The best way to "enhance your manhood" would probably be to purchase a good book about sexual pleasure and all of the various nuances of it. "Size" is not at all the only variable here. My recommendation is The Good Vibrations Guide to Sex, an excellent, frank, and enjoyable book about all of the different elements that can go into a healthy and mutually rewarding sexual life — a book I myself own and recommend heavily. With this you will have more ideas, be more informed, and be more confident on the whole; and in the end it is your lack of confidence and comfort which is the most pressing danger to your sex life, not your penis size. Unfortunately since sex is not talked about in a very frank way in today's society (rather, it is talked about constantly — but very little is really said; most representations in this society are either just innuendo or completely unrealistic fantasy) it can be very hard to even get an idea of what sorts of possibilities there are out there which will be mutually affirming for both partners (note: porno is not a good way to assess this in a realistic fashion), much less things like more refined technique. --24.147.86.187 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's important to note that two of the most significant things a man can do to arouse and satisfy a woman sexually both require the use of his tongue; everyone knows the location of a woman's second most erogenous zone... but her most sensitive erogenous zone is between her ears. Anchoress 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think anyone's tongue is that long :P Vitriol 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the brain didn't have sensation =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Gene Simmons? Clarityfiend 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Richard Simmons? V-Man - ^T/_C 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course! It's her skull! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's usually men who prefer their penis to be big, women have other preferences. Talk to her. It's very likely she doesn't care about size as much as foreplay. When you say it's small, it's quite possible it's just in your mind. Have a look at penis size or this site to get an idea about average sizes. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Come on now... I don't think its just men who are entirely responsible for making more than a few millionaires off the sale of V i a g r a, if you know what I mean... Besides whever you over hear men in the sex business taking about what all men are supposed to like its not a big hang me down but a tight you know what... Nebraska bob 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly big in the fun gun zone either, but having been married twice, it's been big enough to fill a baby carriage three times over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CasualWikiUser (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Praise the lord and... or is it Haliluya and... better still... Hot dang! ...and pass the ammunition. 71.100.3.92 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HMMWV

I read that the workhorse vehicle of the US military, the HMMWV only has 150 horsepower. If so, where does the hmmwv get all it's towing and climbing power? Thanks. 64.230.6.164 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gearing. If you can use a low enough gear, you can pull a lot of weight and get up steep hills - you just won't do it very quickly. But top speed isn't a major requirement of most military vehicles. SteveBaker 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Its the torque, especially at low RPM. Torque is what makes towing and climbing power. The Hummer makes 290 lb-ft of torque at a low 1700 rpm[1]. Compare that to the 5.7 liter Hemi in a Dodge 2500[2]; it makes 345 HP (over 115% more) but less than 30% more torque at 375 lb-ft and that at a high 4200 rpm. The Hummer also a 2-speed transfer case and if you put mother in granny gear it will pull a house. --Justanother 15:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

business

why do banks request a business plan before a loan is given —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.22.143.191 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It's the easiest, although not necessarily the most reliable, way to determine a) how serious the applicant is, and b) how clearly they understand the risks and responsibilities of entrepreneurship. Business plans are difficult and time-consuming to write; just doing one weeds out most of the patzers. But. Let it be known that having a realistic and comprehensive business plan is not in any way shape or form a guarantee of success, but on the other hand the lack of a business plan is if nothing else a fairly good predictor of a poor loan risk. Anchoress 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For some strange reason, banks never accept my plan to spend their money on fast cars and loose women. StuRat 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiber optics

In Fiber Optics Technology, What does Layer-2 & Layer-3 application mean Can I send Internet & Intranet data & Bandwidth in the same layer.How

Sounds like it is refering to the OSI model, layer 2 being data link layer and 3 being network layer. As for what you can send, it doesn't really work like that, read those and see how you go.. Vespine 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Food spoilage

I read online that if perishable food isn't refrigerated for more than two hours, it can begin to spoil and it should be thrown away. However, are a lot of these places overly cautious? I've eaten a tuna sandwich (bread, tuna, and mayonnaise) two days after it was left in room temperature and never got sick. Then again, I also eat raw bacon occasionally and also have never gotten sick. I have some leftover fast food that was left out for about 28 hours but it still smells good... Rc251dc 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Russian roulette ring a bell? It's kind of like a lottery in reverse: you're gambling on a small gain while exposing yourself to a unlikely, but potentially huge disaster. Clarityfiend 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Been to a doctor yet ? Those Trichana worms will kill you. Those things are found on raw and undercooked pork - bacon included. Also, botulisim is also a hellish way to die. Ever hear about "Brain worms" ?! Also found in undercooked and raw food. Those things will turn your brain into mush as they kill you. See articles on PARASITES and DISEASES. 65.173.105.125 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also general food poisoning will either make you serverely ill or it will kill you. See a doctor NOW !!! 65.173.105.125 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I constantly eat food that's been out for a few hours, but it also depends on how easy something is to spoil. Pizza that's been out for a few hours probably won't be as dangerous as raw oysters left out for a few hours. I wouldn't eat mayonnaise if it was left out for a few hours though. Something heavily salted might be ok, since that's how food was preserved before refridgerators. But it really isn't that great of a habit, especially since refridgerators and microwaves are so readily available. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess this was a pretty idiotic question. I'm aware of Trichinosis, but just a question, how long can that affect you? I probably haven't eaten raw bacon in a year, but did it once in a while before that. If I haven't died now, is there still any risk of disease? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rc251dc (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Years. Check out trichinosis. Is being too lazy/hungry/impatient to cook your bacon worth being the setting for phrases like "acid in the stomach dissolves the hard covering of the cyst and releases the worms ... larvae break through the intestinal wall and travel through the lymphatic system to the circulatory system to find a suitable cell ... Soon, a net of blood vessels surround the nurse cell, providing added nutrition for the larva inside"? --TotoBaggins 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It obviously depends on the food and environmental conditions. I don't think a blanket "2 hour" rule is appropriate. The article on Foodborne Illness may have some useful info. Food preservation might also be informative. -- Diletante 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Already cooked, ready-to-eat bacon is available, you know. You can then take it out of the fridge, heat it up for 30 seconds, and bam you've got bacon in less time than you can say "WORMMMSSS IN MY STOMAAACHHH, THESE CYSTS THEY WILL NOT HEAAAAAAAL". -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Five points to Gryffindor for the Linkin Park reference. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some perishable foods last far longer than 2 hours unrefrigerated. An apple might last for a month, depending on how much pesticide the skin is laced with. StuRat 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Energy and Partcles from the nuclei

Hello, I have been searching for a few days on wikiepedia but haven't found the correct answer. My question is what are the energy and particles that are released from the nuclei of an atom. –211.30.205.243 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In what circumstance, radioactivity? alpha particle, beta particle, gamma particle, should give you the info you want137.138.46.155 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3 Untitled Questions (till now)

1. why is life so unhappy and so sad when there are hobbies?Warriorzsoul 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)warriorzsoul

2. the advantages of professional hobbies like painting, collecting, etc?Warriorzsoul 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)warriorzsoul

3. youngsters today earn alot of money thanks to the multinational companies. but its a shame that they dont have time to devote to themselves. why is it so?Warriorzsoul 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)warriorzsoul

It's called the modern world, get used to it or build a time machine :] HS7 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we in the modern world have much more free time than people from centuries past. We live a lot longer, most of us don't work from dawn to dusk or on weekends, and we have lots of modern time-saving conveniences like electric stoves and salad spinners. The reason we're still unhappy is because hobbies aren't enough to fill the soul-crushing despair of humanity. :) --TotoBaggins 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totobaggins is right, the average 'free' time in many nations has increased in the past 30 years. This can be down to less housework caused by more efficient products (washing machines/tumble dryer/dishwasher etc.) it can be down to a change in working hours (35 hour working week in France for example) or other factors. To answer part 1 you have to question individual's perception. Some say the 'keeping up with the joneses' is a big cause of unhappiness (or inability to keep up), or some say lack of social-groups (though arguably there are more sub-cultures now than ever before). The obvious advantage of hobbies is that it can lead to friendship (with fellow hobbyists) it can provide you with challenges, successes, keeps you occupied, can help give your life more 'meaning', makes you feel knowledgeable in a specific area and probably a million other psychological theories about why hobbies are good. I tend to think having a 'purpose' makes people happier, and perhaps a hobby can give life a purpose more so than someone without hobbies. I know for one I intensely dislike the idea of retiring and doing nothing at all with my days - maybe in time i'll tire and retirement will seem wonderful? ny156uk 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as "free time" and "working." In his very interesting book, Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology, Eric Bende describes his experiences living in an Amish-type community. Although he notes that the people work hard, the pace of the work is not "flat out" all the time and they spend a lot of time talking to each other. Crypticfirefly 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, of course, many of those who do NOT "flip the switch" on technology ALSO spend a lot of time talking to each other. Though many would suggest we're actually talking AT each other, and/or TO ourselves. Case in point: this/here/now. Jfarber 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Finland Files

I wanted to know how can I do to know in which institution I can find the 'birth certificate' of my grandfather. He was born in Finalnd, Helsinky.

Thank you very much in advance. Regards Fede —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Federico4981 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The Finland Statistics agency? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on this information on Finland's local register offices, they are likely to have a birth certificate if your grandfather was born after 1917. Before this date, there may not have been birth certificates. It is possible that you would need to search church baptismal records. On the other hand, there may be some record recording your grandfather's date of birth at a local register office even if your grandfather was born before 1917 so long as he was still in Finland in that year. From the same source, here are the details of the Helsinki office:

Helsingin maistraatti

Albertinkatu 25

PL 309

00181 HELSINKI

email: helsingin.maistraatti@eslh.intermin.fi

Marco polo 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's Budget puzzler

Hello. It's Budget day in the UK. BBC Online is reporting ([3]) that Gordy says "Tax exemption for capital gains will rise from £8,800 to £9,200, and will be £18,400 for married couples." Now, I'm no Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even I can work out that £9,200 x 2 = £18,400. Are we supposed to infer that unmarried couples would have a lower tax exemption, were married couples previously discriminated against, or is this just someone (Brown's or journalist's) tautology? --Dweller 13:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like just somebody that thinks really big numbers look pretty, and wants to impress people with them. And the "married" distinction might just be because technically the married couple gets 18,400 together, while an unmarried couple gets 9,200 each (since they're under no legal obligation to share with each other)? --Maelwys 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wonder if the married couple has any legal obligation to share it... but since it's the same figure, it makes no difference whether or not they do. --Dweller 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think a married couples allowance covers both persons as one amount ie. you can use some of you partners tax relief on your money. I think that's how it works but I'm not a tax expert - X201 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where separate allowances are applicable (such as PAYE) there are circumstances that allow for a certain amount of offsetting - often by jiggling figures around or transferring assets. But other than that, a married couple is normally deemed to have shared whatever capital gains that one party may receive. So, yes, the "£18,400" statement simply serves to confirm the rights of married couples. With some allowances/thresholds, the married couple figure is less than double that of the figure for single persons, so the distinction is worth making. Adrian M. H. 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As the crow flies.....

How do I find he air milke distance from one place to another. Perhaps its an error in my searching ability but I'm looking to see the distance as-the-crow-flies - or if possible the exact mileage from runway to runway from various airports. Specifically London (Heathrow)to Paris (Les Gallez - I think), but the more info the better!

Thank you!!

Lukeiam

A ruler and a map isn't helpful enough? :) The airport is called DeGaulle, named after Charles DeGaulle. Most flightpaths are very direct, it's not very off to simply take the strip-to-strip distance. 213.161.190.228 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for any significant distance, a ruler and a map produces a gross distortion of the actual (and shortest) flight path, as great circle routes don't appear straight on most projections. There are many tools to find the distance between two points; give [4] a try. — Lomn 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Try using Google Earth, and please read the instructions before posting. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about Biographers in the context of calculating runway to runway miles - but as far as I understand it to be, planes don't follow crow flies routes. Instead, they follow prescribed flight paths, which as Lomn suggests above, even for insignificant routes, can add many many miles to a crow flies journey. CasualWikiUser 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

African business mogul

How can I find a good American or British biographer who would be willing to write the biography of an African business mogul?° Please contact jitubohg AatT yahoo DdOotT com, urgently.

Henry and Eleanor's children

Question moved to the Humanities Ref Desk --Dweller 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

moved to here :) HS7 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Techno Brick

What is the definition of "Techno Brick" or "Technology Brick". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.245.220.253 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Haven't heard of it recently, but I know that over the years, many companies have called their electronic boxes a brick this or that. --Zeizmic 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to electronics? If that isn't it, this Google search may be useful. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps be referring to a 'Technic' Brick? If so, that would be a Lego part. SteveBaker 23:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

numinumismatsmatic coins

I would like to know value of Balaji coin minted by Mayer mint and distributed by Gold Quest International Ltd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiritmaniar (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I thought all coins were numismatic. THough I could be wrong again.

I think the poster is referring to coins produced specifically for sale to collectors rather than actual money. In any case the value is whatever someone is willing pay for it. Show the thing to a coin dealer and see what they offer. --Anonymous, March 22, 2007, 00:02 (UTC).

My friend

My friend slapped me in the face. What should I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.253.128.27 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

If they do it again, punch them in the stomach hard enough that they bend over, then as they're doing that, hit their face with your knee, that should stop them

What if its a girl?

Then you should ask yourself what you did to cause them to slap you. - Akamad 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter if its a girl? jk jk jk

Get new friends :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.145 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Watch several Three Stooges movies, and note that violence begets violence. Edison 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Either that or stardom. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk! Clarityfiend 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Turn the other cheek? Vespine 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You should slap her back or try to figure out what made this very rude "friend" of yours slap you. or both. or you could give her the silent treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.8.100 (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Tell her that you really prefer to be spanked. StuRat 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Alberts tool

Just how big was Prince Alberts plonker? I ve heard he had to have it pirced so he could tie it to his leg to stop it flopping about. Is thant true? They do call one of the piercings a Prince Albert dont they? And its said Q.Vicky was most impressed with his endowment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.145 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

According to the article on Prince Albert piercings, the story probably is not true. Crypticfirefly 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, we should note that the article suggests it is not^{added belatedly} true, but does not include any in-text citation in that section of the article. This may mean no evidence has been found to prove or disprove the theory...and it may mean the evidence is out there, but the article needs tightening up...but, given the outlandish nature of the claim, I agree it seems most likely that the story is not true. Jfarber 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are reading, but the one I'm looking at says this type of piercing "is often claimed to be named after . . . Prince Albert" and that "the claim seems highly unlikely." It goes on to state "No contemporary account of [Prince Albert] adopting the practice has come to light, and many suspect that it was a myth invented by Doug Malloy . . ." further noting that Mr. Malloy is known for inventing fanciful explanations for various piercings. This is hardly a "suggestion" that the story is true. But it would be nice if there were some citations. Crypticfirefly 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion, Cryp -- clarity shifts drastically when you accidentally leave out the word not. I have added it in with the usual notation for correction post-carelessness. Jfarber 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Male VS. Female Orgasm

"The average male orgasm lasts 6 seconds. Women get 23 seconds." - Menshealth.com

Why is this? What is different in women's bodies that lets them enjoy their orgasms for so long? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.0.44 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Thats the payment they get for having to carry, bear and bring up childern! I thot everyone new that

The Orgasm article has alot of information. specifically Orgasm#Evolutionary_purpose might offer some insight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It is also noted that Women's orgasms are less intense, and they can have them more often too. Rfwoolf 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because it takes women so bloody long to get there that most of 'em never have an orgasm - and when they do, they won't let go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CasualWikiUser (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

They (or you) are obviously not doing it rught. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.8.166 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh Dear. It's quite clear that "him above" is no older than 14 as any male above that age would know that he is correct in his assertion that I am not doing it right (forgiving his poor spelling). Of course I am not doing it right - that is my male destiny.

khadi........?

Actually, i'm a college student & i want a full detail about khadi viz.,- introduction, defination, importance, use, manufacturing proccess, side products, merits-demerits, past-present-future conditions of khadi........... & so much... THANK YOU my e-id is: <email removed>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.177.165.101 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Khadi and the references therein are a good place to start. Rockpocket 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Media View on Italy

I know this may not be the place to ask something of this nature, but I do not know anyplace better than here to ask. Can anybody tell me how the United States media views India? What I would like to know is if the media in the United States sees India in a positive or negative way. A friend of mine in India asked me to find this out for him because he needs the information for a project he is working on. If anybody can help me out with this I would greatly appreciate it. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Was that the opinion of the American media in Italy, on India? I think they have the same opinion as they have on Canada, which is to say.. not much of anything.--Zeizmic 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The only time they really cover India is when there's a major disaster (neutral) or for outsourcing of jobs (a little negative). Occasionally, they'll talk about how India's population will eventually exceed China's or when it clashes with Pakistan. Clarityfiend 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The mainstream U.S. media pay very little attention to India. The only countries outside the U.S. that get substantial attention are Israel and Iraq. Afghanistan gets a bit of attention, but only when U.S. troops are involved. Every now and then you hear how evil Iran and North Korea are. Every now and then another country gets mentioned, but usually in the context of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Every now and then India gets one of those, but it doesn't really stand out from the many other obscure (to most Americans) countries out there. The only exception is the occasional story on how Indians are taking all our jobs. Marco polo 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not make any claims about "how the American media views India." The American media is not a monolithic entity. There are thousands of newspapers, magazines, TV stations, Web sites and so on. That said, I agree with the previous posters who pointed out India generally gets very little attention in the American media relative to its size and population. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the occasional story (especially in the business press) about how many engineers and computer people India has -- that's generally a positive, although it may be written in a sense of "we better watch out for those smart Indians!" -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

India is alternately presented as overpopulated with poverty-stricken, uneducated masses engaged in ethnic and religious warfare, and full of doctorates and computer professionals trying to take US jobs. StuRat 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell as a Brit living in Texas, most (but by no means all) Americans are blissfully unaware of any and all international matters - except where it directly affects the USA (ie Iran/Iraq). It's not really their fault - Newspapers and Television news carry almost nothing of international affairs and the schools spend almost no time teaching world history or geography compared to the years they spend on US history and the history of whichever specific state you happen to live in. As a result, the general populace will probably still remember all 50 state capitals and a good number of them will remember the official state flower of Indiana (it's a Peony) - but they will hardly be aware of the existance of India, most would be unable to point to it on a map. Some would probably go so far as to tell you that it's considered polite to call Indians 'Native Americans' now. This may sound like a ridiculous exaggeration - but it's truly not. I have a distinctive British accent and I get asked where I come from all the time. On one notable occasion, (a Jack in the Box drive-thru) the conversation went "I love your accent - where are you from?"..."I'm from England"..."Oh - so what language do you speak there?". I laughed so hard I thought I was going to choke! I believed for several months that this would be the worst example I'd ever come across...until a conversation with a seemingly educated lady in an Antique shop: "Iloveyouraccentwhereareyoufrom?"..."I'm from England"..."So how long does it take to drive from there?"...<sigh> SteveBaker 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Dreamy smile) I love Texas... V-Man - ^T/_C 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently was asked where my accent was from by a shop assistant in San Diego. "Scotland", I replied. "Where is that" she asked, but before I could reply, her (clearly better educated) colleague butted in with, "near New York". I regularly get asked if I'm an actor after people hear my accent. I presume its because the only Scottish accent your average San Diegan hears is on TV and, somehow in their twisted logic, they think that means everyone from Scotland who lives in America must act. Rockpocket 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That may yet be true... For seriousness, though, it seems that all Americans have to be actors, in one way or another. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Being from the US, I can attest to the low educational priority placed on world geography and social studies. I've never had a single geography class, although we were at least asked to learn the names of the continents and oceans in Earth Science. I had various classes that touched on world cultures, but it was very hit and miss. I recall studying Western European history and ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, for example, but nothing on India, China, or Latin America. I took all college-prep classes, too. I suspect that those who took all easy classes didn't even get that much. I've tried to plug the holes in my knowledge since school, just like that little boy putting his finger in the dyke in ... Antarctica ? :-) StuRat 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note: Tonight, while watching Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, I watched as the contestant nearly lost her $300,000 (Don't ask for conversions, Google it.) on a 1st grade world geography question. It was "Which continent is also a country?" her answer was almost "North America". - AMP'd 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to mention that. You can be that stupid and still get $300,000, I think that shows how low our standards have become. I wonder if the check will be presented by the Prime Minister of the Democratic People's Republic of North America ? StuRat 03:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone that has voiced their opinions thus far. I appreciate your assistance, and if you wish to continue discussion I will come back and follow it until it is archived. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmentalism ......Is it for real OR a Multimillion $$$$$ Con Job ?

I've heard from several people, news sources that the Environmental movement and related activities are a multimillion $$$$$ con job - and worse. One guy said that donating money to EarthShare.Org is like hiring a arsonist to burn down your house, since they give it to what HE called "Environmentalist Whackos". Agree ? Disagree ? IF I did'nt ask this question, someone may, and may NOT be so nice about it either. 65.173.105.125 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming is also claimed to be a massive scam perpetrated on idiots and weak minded fools according to people I've ran into as well. 65.173.105.125 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

MY area is ultraconservative, just as San Francisco is ultraliberal. In my area, even Disney is prohibited as being part of "San Francisco Values". 65.173.105.125 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• People say all sorts of stupid stuff, and "the environmental movement is in it for the money" is high on that list. Which "news sources" were these that you heard this from? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but I couldn't figure out what question you are asking. The reference desk is not about polling how many people agree with a given ideology, instead it is for facilitiating research to answer specific questions. Thanks -- Diletante 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing gets posted on the Science desk every week or so. The article Global warming has a good overview. --Zeizmic 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the 'reference desk is not a poll'/soapbox, i see little reason not to allow it to be a place for wikipedians to theorize (in an attempt to answer questions set). In truth you would be well advised to realise that global warming is something with strong scientific backing. What is not discussed very often is why global warming has to have an entirely negative impact, or indeed why it must be stopped (rather than adapted to). There is definitely a section of the pro-green brigade that wish to use the huge concerns of people about the environment as a vehicle to try push their anti-globalisation agenda. This does not dilute the strong evidence showing our impact on the globe, but it is difficult to raise this concern without being called a nay-sayer. This is why many consider the debate to be almost a 'religion' due to the uncompromising attitude of some 'greens'. There is no reason to believe that global warming has to have a negative impact on the daily-lives of the people of the world, it is a matter of political choice. People wish to frame the issue as science, but science provides direction of what is happening under given scenarios, it does not provide the political (and social) solution to the effects. That is something every member of a democractic nation must decide: How much we are willing to change, what we are willing to tolerate being asked of us by government etc. People who wish to moralise the argument don't appreciate that this is nothing more than another political issue to debate. ny156uk 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right there, global warming does not necessarily have a negative impact. Nature will adopt to the changes, that's without a question. The only question we have to answer is if the human race can and wants to adopt to the changing situation. The Sahara desert getting drier, - people there can either give in to the changes or migrate. More hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, - people there can either give in to the changes or migrate. Malaria migrating to North America, - people .. (see above). To be continued. -- Meister 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RD says The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Users leave questions on the reference desk and Wikipedia volunteers work to help you find the information you need. If you read the article on library ref desks it doesn't mention that the librarians provide their own theories, only that they use their knowlege of library organization to help find information. That said I know that many people use this reference desk as a chat/joke/discussion board, these people are easy to spot. -- Diletante 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there have been many very real environmental disasters, like Love Canal, Chernobyl, and PCB contamination. Those who wish to prevent such things are environmentalists. So; no, they aren't all wacko tree-huggers. StuRat 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you were in it for the money, wouldn't you just go into the corporate world? Why in the world would you go to work making $22,000 for Greenpeace or whatever to help construct some kind of ridiculously elaborate worldwide scam? I don't agree with everything environmentalists do, but to say they're in it for money is ridiculous. -- Mwalcoff 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant vs Michael Jordan

Isn't Kobe Bryant as good as or better than Michael Jordan? Kobe basically is doing now what Jordan did in the 80's and 90's. Kobe can match Jordan in terms of scoring output and Kobe has significantly more range in his jump shot than Jordan did. Also, Kobe has all of MJ's moves including the fadeaway jumpshot. Isn't Kobe a complete equal to Jordan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Your best comparison would be awards/trophies and in-game-stats. I suppose that Jordan has been more of a commercial success, but perhaps Bryant's commercial success are bigger in the US than here in the Uk. Jordan has 5 NBA MVP and 6 NBA Finals MVPs. From what I can find on wikipedia Bryant has won no NBA MVP or NBA Finals MVPs. A look at both player's wikipedia pages and both are truly some of the best basketball players in history. Personally I believe Jordan took the sport to another level but it really is a matter of opinion. I admit my opinion is altered hugely by the fact that Jordan was the basketball hero in my youth, whereas Bryant will be for many today. ny156uk 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit biased towards Jordan because of certain personal aspects of my life. Although, trying to look past that... I would say that not only was Jordan a better player, Jordan is simply an outstanding individual off the court. Jordan had the ability to lead and lead effectively. He worked with Phil Jackson and brought the team together as a team. While Bryant has some good stats, he's just not as reliable as Jordan was. Bryant needs a lot more consistentcy to be up to par with Jordan. Quite simply, his career has been rocky. Then there's the men off the court. I know you didn't really ask for this part of it but here it is. Jordan was a role model to a lot of kids. He would give money to charities and stressed the importance of his family. That's pretty much the reason why his divorce was such a shock, not only to me but to many people. Jordan has also been able to do so many other things besides just being a great basketball player. It's like everything he touches succeeds. It's partially to do with his celebrity status but that will only carry things so far. At the root, a person has to have the character to pull it off. Dismas|^(talk) 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of basketball but these issues apply to any competition, even chess. You really can't compare sports stars from different generations, the sport they play is essentially different and it's usually the greatest stars that change the sport. Jordan changed basketball as we know it today, his impact was and I think still is unmatched, even if people like Kobe approach his "statistical" prowess. Vespine 00:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. By the description given, you'd think that Kobe Bryant was trying to be Like Mike. In the world of sports today, nobody really wants to be a carbon-copy of some other hero. To address the question, Michael Jordan is on the other side of the hill that Bryant is on; he is (from what I hear) on the decline, while Bryant is on the rise. Not exactly fair. But if I were asked which of the two would be superior in a hypothetical "at their prime" match, Jordan would pwn Bryant so hard. Nuff said. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Kobe is also an iffy character, not the stand-up role model Mike is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.135.99 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, it is possible to compare sports stars of different eras, even people who played utterly different sports. See Donald Bradman#Statistical assessment, where a table compares the Don's achievements (as a cricketer, who retired in 1948) against people like Michael Jordan, Pele, Jack Nicklaus and Ty Cobb. The table compares standard deviations above the mean for a selected metric relevant to each sport. What one makes of such comparisons is of course a matter of opinion and interpretation. JackofOz 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Free money...

...Not offered here, of course. But what I'd like to know from some bizarre trivial thought is, does anyone know of research or guesstimates into how much loose change is kicking around the streets at any one time? I'd prefer figures to relate to the UK, but any would do. Has it been guessed how much money people drop and lose in their lifetime? Theediscerning 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Over the space of two years, I collected and kept every bit of loose change I found on the streets, and it eventually came to around six dollars, unless you'd count that five-dollar bill I found that one time... The area type probably has a big effect on that, though; for reference, I was in Pittsburgh. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One month in Stockholm last summer, I found two bills of 500 + 100 kr on the street while I was biking around. (Unless I dropped them out my pocket first, which feels strange, and which I prefer not to believe...) That's about 60-70 US$/Euro, but that was an exceptional month... =S 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'm asking because I pick up all loose change I find, and have added it up annually. My best is £20 and more, as that year I saw a £10 note floating towards me one evening. Of course the area concerned is of importance, as is country - I'm guessing that as here in the UK, all our currency up to the £2 (almost $4US) is in coin, which would survive in dirty corners much better than dead presidents, I'm at an advantage. But well done Wakuran...! Theediscerning 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to knowing where to look. My mother was paying for a meal at the drive through one day and she dropped a coin. She opened the door and got out to pick it up, and found enough money there that we could have payed for the full meal for it. Apparently a lot of customers drop change there. My max is about $25 in quarters picked off the floor of a gaming arcade. Shui9 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't see many street cleaners booking ocean cruises!--88.111.180.64 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Mint once estimated 300m disappeared over about 20 years.martianlostinspace 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading someplace that the number of US 1c coins that are discarded is actually causing a measurable amount of pollution in areas around landfills and other places where the concentration of discarded coins is high. Since the average person in the USA now earns one cent every 1.6 seconds, it is no longer worth the effort to bend down to pick up a dropped penny. SteveBaker 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)