Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 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.

May 28

Answer this question pleese. (chicken or egg first ?)

What came first the chicken or the egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawolf (talk • contribs)

The chicken or the egg. On another note, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Anchoress 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The egg as a biological tool came long before chickens, but the chicken egg obviously came from a chicken. So the Chicken came before the chicken egg, but the egg came before the chicken -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicken and Egg are laying in bed. Chicken is smoking a cigarette and staring off into space. Disgruntled, Egg says, “Well, I guess we know the answer to that question, now.”

This is an evolutionary matter: Consider the very first creature who was sufficiently genetically different from it's parent that the offspring would qualify as "A Chicken" (under whatever biological classification scheme you'd accept) - and yet the parent bird - whilst very similar to a chicken - would fail that test and not be classified as a chicken for whatever subtle reason. That first chicken definitely hatched from an egg - so the egg came first. QED. I certainly agree that if you change the question to say "Which came first: The Chicken or the Chicken-egg" then we have more of a problem. However, that's emphatically NOT what the question said - so we don't have to worry ourselves about that. SteveBaker 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should get someone fluent in Ido Lojban to help us with this -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION!

• The Easter Bunny. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the egg came first. "Chicken" is just a human created classification. 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by the amount of people that say this question cannot be answered. When the universe began, there were a few hot particles, but certainly neither chicken nor eggs. Now there are both, chicken and eggs. So at some time between there was the first egg, and at some time there was the first chicken. Why should it be difficult to order the two times once they are known? The answer is off course the egg, as steve explained already.

But is a chicken egg a chicken egg because it was layed by a chicken, or because there is/was one in it :? And it is obviously the egg first: 'ab ovo usque ad mala', the egg is the very first thing :] HS7 10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article [1] "a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg. Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg" Mhicaoidh 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But that egg was laid by a bird that wasn't a chicken, and was therefore a [whatever that bird was] egg :) HS7 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the mutation that occurs to form a new species, chicken, happens in the embryo which is in the egg. A proto-chicken can't genetically change during its life to become a chicken, therefore the first chicken was the egg which hatched to be a chicken even though the parents were non-chicken. For instance, the first liger was the embryo produced by the mating of lion and tiger Mhicaoidh 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(Whilst utterly irrelevent to the original question - the answer to which is unambiguously "Egg")...What Mhicaoidh says is not really true: Suppose the parent ('pre-chicken') bird normally lays eggs that have pink shells with blue spots. The mother bird forms the shell - her body is a pre-chicken, not an actual chicken - so her genes would compel her to make a pink and blue egg. Only the genetic content of the egg would be that of a true chicken, the egg would certainly not be described as a chicken egg because those are white or brown without blue spots. Similarly, the non-genetic material in the egg sac would also be characteristic of the pre-chicken. Gradually, as the embryo develops, more and more of the internals of the egg would be true-chicken and less and less would be the nutrients placed into the egg by the momma pre-chicken. So in that sense, the egg from which the first chicken emerged was not necessarily something we'd describe as a chicken egg.

However, it's quite unlikely that the key feature that distinguishes our pre-chicken from a true-chicken is the colour of the eggshell...or indeed that the key genetic difference has anything whatever to do with egg production. So it's quite likely that pre-chicken eggs are actually 100% indistinguishable from a true-chicken egg and that the only thing that distinguishes pre-chickens and chickens is something completely different. If that is indeed the case and pre-chickens lay white or brown eggs with the exact same chemical composition to a true-chicken egg - then we may say that the first chicken hatched from a chicken egg.

Then you can layer on some 'nature versus nurture' arguments here - since that first true genetic chicken may have developed in a non-chicken egg - and in the first weeks of life was nurtured by a non-chicken, it may well have grown up looking like a pre-chicken and behaving like one too. Since it would be the only true-chicken on the planet, it would have had to breed with pre-chickens - so not all of it's offspring would necessarily be true-chickens. It would take many generations before you'd something that was both genetically and in truth a true chicken. Evolution happens in very small steps - and in reality it would probably be impossible to point to one individual and say "That was the first true chicken" - unless you were pointing to one very specific genetic marker in the chicken's DNA. SteveBaker 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you Steve on the small steps nature of evolution. In addition populations will contain a variety of mutations/variations so again I agree that in reality you can't point to one individual as the first chicken. The first chicken would still have to mate with a proto-chicken and lay eggs with embryos of varying degrees of chickeness so evolution can also be a dance, a small step forward and another one back.... Mhicaoidh 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask Nick. Unless you ask Fetcher. Atlant 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The egg came first: [2], [3] --Phydaux 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sea level

Not looking for exact numbers, but which is higher above sea level-the city of New York (US) or Melbourne (Australia). Thank you very much. Cuban Cigar 09:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are seaports. Are you looking for the highest point within city limits? —Tamfang 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Cigar 09:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Yes please.

the highest point in New York is much higher that anywhere in Melbourne.

Todt Hill (formerly Yserberg or "Iron Hill") in Staten Island is New York city's highest point at 410 feet. Fort Washington/Bennett Park (Long Hill) is Manhattan's highest point at 284 Feet. Flagstaff Hill is Melbournes highest point but I cant find how high....yet Mhicaoidh 11:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I could believe that Flagstaff Hill is the highest point in the City of Melbourne (= CBD), but the urban area known as "Melbourne" includes a number of different city councils and is far bigger than the CBD. There would be many places in "Melbourne" that are higher than Flagstaff Hill. What's the source of your info, Mhicaoidh? JackofOz 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When in Melbourne (my favourite aussie city) I do as my colleagues do and my perambulations are pretty much confined to the CBD: the high points for me are located in a triangle between the art galleries, Fed Square and RMIT, centred particularly on a little bar in Swanston St called Cookie. I remember the museum is an uphill trek and I was thirsty at the top, but the Flagstaff info I got from here [4] , confirmed by a few other sites: "Flagstaff Gardens are Melbourne's oldest gardens. They take their name from a flagstaff erected in 1840 at the settlement's highest point, in order to communicate between the harbour and town". However there may well be a higher point in wider metropolitan Melbourne. Mhicaoidh 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely convinced of it, but I can't identify such a place right now. I'll do some research and get back to you. Thanks. -- JackofOz 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But if you are going to consider the urban agglomeration of Melbourne (outside of municipal limits of Melbourne proper), then you would need to compare it to the urban agglomeration of New York, which covers an extensive area outside of New York City, including some hills more than 400 meters above sea level. Marco polo 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd be surprised if the questioner was interested only in the CBDs, rather than in the total areas generally referred to as "New York" and "Melbourne". JackofOz 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this and this, Mt Cooper is the tallest point in metropolitan Melbourne. According to this, it's 137.3 metres tall (451.5 feet). I guess the questioner is interested in naturally occurring land elevations. If you add skyscrapers into the mix, it might be rather different. Melbourne has the Eureka Tower, the second tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere at 322.5 metres above ground level (1,058 feet), but NY has many very tall ones that would make it seem a bit puny. JackofOz 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

May I just say Auckland, city of volcanoes, has Mt Eden at 198m, approx 650 feet, just out side the CBD, and the western edge of metropolitan Auckland runs up against the Waitakere Ranges at 1555 feet. Hooray for us! Mind you in every other aspect I have to admit to the utter inferiority of Auckland to Melbourne and New York. Except for the beaches. And the harbours. And the number of boats. And the ethnic diversity. And the climate. And...  : ) Mhicaoidh 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

...sheep?

LEWIS SURNAME

Hello from the USA! Can anyone tell me if the surname of "Lewis" originally came from Wales??? PLEASE this is very important!! Thanks, Robert E. Lewis Sr. [email address removed]

I would guess that it has several origins, including the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, but that most of them are from the English form of Louis. —Tamfang 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis (surname). Dr_Dima.

sdrowkcab

Sorry, this is a bit of an odd question, but are there any words I can write backwords that mean the opposite of what they mean written forwards. They don't have to be spelt particulatly well, if that helps.

"On" and "No" could be considered exact opposites in some senses, such as Boolean logic, but they are a bit short. Laïka 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Semordnilap is palindromes spelled backwards, and it could be considered its opposite, since a palindrome spells the same word backwards and forwards, while a semordnilap spells a different word backwards and forwards. 83.79.160.105 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. The best I can come up with is tip, which is a protrusion or a mound, and a pit is an indent or a hollow.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many anagrams, but I would think relatively few anagrams are precisely the reverse spelling of each other. (Golf/flog is one that comes to mind, but they're not opposite in meaning.) There must be a list somewhere of the subset of anagrams that are reverse spellings. It would be a simple matter to check such a list for words that are opposite in meaning. -- JackofOz 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Or, to approach it another way, very few anagrams at all are antonyms (unite/untie is one I know), and even fewer of these are reverse spellings of each other. JackofOz 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perl tells me these are the words in my dictionary whose reverse is also in the dictionary (first direction only, no palindromes, 2+ letters). --TotoBaggins 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

abut, agar, ah, ajar, am, are, ares, ate, avid, ay, bad, bag, ban, bard, bat, bats, bed, bin, bog, brag, bud, bun, buns, bur, burg, bus, but, buts, cod, dam, debut, decaf, decal, deep, deeps, deer, defer, deliver, denier, denim, deres, desserts, devil, dew, dial, diaper, dim, dog, don, doom, door, dos, draw, drawer, draws, dray, dual, edit, eel, eh, em, emir, emit, ergo, evil, eviler, fer, flog, flow, gal, gals, gas, gel, gem, girt, gnat, gnus, got, gulp, gum, gums, guns, gut, hahs, ho, hoop, it, keel, keels, keep, knits, lager, lap, leer, leper, lever, liar, loop, loops, loot, looter, loots, lop, mar, mart, mat, maws, may, meet, mils, moor, mu, nap, naps, net, new, nip, nips, nit, no, not, now, nut, nuts, pals, pans, par, part, parts, pas, pat, paws, pay, peels, pees, per, perts, pets, pins, pis, pit, pols, pools, ports, pot, pots, pus, raps, rat, rats, raw, rebut, redraw, remit, rot, saps, saw, sleets, sloops, smart, snaps, snips, snit, snoops, snot, spat, spay, spit, sports, spot, spots, sprat, stew, straw, sway, tort, tow, way

I don't see any opposites in that list. It's beginning to look like there isn't a word for something like this because (at least in English) there aren't any. SteveBaker 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, SteveBaker's list has turned up words which which have the same (or very similar) meaning: yaws and sway. Laïka 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more interestingly, "yaws" is also the name for a tropical disease that affects, among other things, the bones, and which can actually make one sway. --Charlene 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(I can't take credit for the list - TotoBaggins was the one with the kick-ass Perl skills.) SteveBaker 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "tip" and "pit" would count. Neil (►) 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Bard is certainly not drab, but that's stretching things a bit. If I really had kickass Perl skills (or else more devotion to this question), I'd read in a dictionary of antonyms, and print out the ones where the edit distance for reversals is low, to broaden the search to allow minor misspellings, as the OP specified. --TotoBaggins 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather liked leper - repel. (Being a kind of social leper myself) -- JackofOz 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Solresol has some word-pairs that qualify. —Tamfang 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gelato / gourmet ice cream

I'm interested in the following:

What is the size of the U.S. gelato market? And/or, what is the size of the gourmet ice cream market? (if possible, it would be great to get both of these numbers in grocery versus retail store bought).

Also, I would be highly interested in any reports on the growth of this market.

Thank you so much for any help you can offer!

Best, Robyn

I'm not sure how you define "gourmet ice cream". Just about any ice cream could qualify, depending on the def you use. Without a precise def, any figures we find could have Ben Jerryrigged. Perhaps how they are packaged could be one criteria. The rectangular cartons that leak out the corners could be considered "non-premium", with the cylindrical containers that are properly sealed being called premium. We can call this the Sealtest. StuRat 06:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Three-way phone calls

Are three-way phone calls possible in the UK, and, if so, how is it possible to connect one? Thank you, 81.151.242.82 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BT offer conference call packages which allow up to 20 people to take part - the organiser has to have a "BT MeetMe" account to set up the "meeting room". Other people can then ring the number in order to join the party call. You can find out more info at BT Conference Call MeetMe. Other phone providers probably have similar services. Laïka 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BT.com has a page about using 3 Way Calling. Briefly: While on a call, press Recall to get a dial tone and call the second party. When ready to join both parties, press Recall to get a dial tone and press 3. --Bavi H 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

am looking

am looking for a famous american pair who used to be famous.they are both dead.the guy was a recluse.when he died he had beards and long nails.he married a judges daughter.its not howard hughes but the celebrity has a full article on him in wikipedia.

The article Recluse contains a list of more-or-less famous recluses, though many were only out of the public eye for a year or two. I don't see anyone in the list who jumps out in answer to your description. Perhaps you, or another editor, will have better luck. Bielle 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When you say "pair" do you mean a married couple, or could you be referring to brothers? That sounds a bit like the Collyer brothers. If not them, then you may want to peruse a page I came across in my search: User:Clapaucius/List of people widely considered to be eccentric. 152.16.188.111 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Author musicians

I'm looking for names of people who are or were equally accomplished both as musicians or composers and as literary fiction authors. The only one I can think of is Kinky Friedman. Thank you for helping out. 83.79.160.105 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems Bob Dylan shows up as a musician/writer, though I can't say i'd ever heard of him being a writer. I think Madonna has written some children's books. Also Ricky Gervais has written a children's book, performed as an actor and, well, at some point sings in the hit series The Office. This (http://www.43people.com/tag/musician,author) shows a list of people tagged on 43people.com that have both musician/author tags (not heard of half of them!) ny156uk 18:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ricky was also the lead singer in Seona Dancing, atlhough they only hit 70 in the charts. Confusing Manifestation 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Jimmy Buffett? "Tales from Margritaville" was a New York Times" best seller. His bio was also a best seller.

Leonard Cohen, Minou Drouet. --Allen 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some googling (site:en.wikipedia.org "was * writer * composer" and similar) returns many matches, among whom I have heard of Anthony Burgess, Léo Ferré, John Cage, Arnold Bax, Spike Milligan, Ezra Pound, Steve Allen (comedian), Thomas Moore, Serge Gainsbourg, Labi Siffre, Boris Vian, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Dwayne Wayans. I also discovered Jára Cimrman. jnestorius^(talk) 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its stretching the definition of accomplished, but Madonna wrote The English Roses, and Stephen King, Amy Tan, Barbara Kingsolver and Matt Groening are among the authors who moonlight among The Rock Bottom Remainders. [5] One member of the group who is, perhaps, equally accomplished as both a writer and composer is James McBride. Rockpocket 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Shel Silverstein, Steve Martin. --Allen 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon is an acclompished musician, as well he wrote his own biography. As to my knowledge all of the The Beatles members have written the biography about The Beatles.

Racing

If all motor racing were outlawed, how much gas and oil could potentially be saved?

Do you really mean "How much gas/oil is used in motor racing?" Because outlawing it does not mean it does not happen. And even if it does not happen, the people who would be racing would have time to do something else, which might involve using gas and/or oil. --Tugbug 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently read that the amounts of petrol, diesel etc used by spectators driving to watch other sports (football, soccer etc.) is in the same ballpark. Can't find the reference right now, but I'm looking for it /85.194.44.18 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There would be no significant or practically measurable savings. It's simply a matter of scale. — Lomn 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's got to be utterly negligable. The gas used by the crowd getting to the event would dwarf the amount used in actual racing - which means that you'd save more gas by banning (say) baseball than motor racing since there are more spectators going those sports. Granted that race cars are generally none too fuel efficient - and they'll rebuild the engine between races - so you know the oil isn't going to last more than one race. But 50 cars driving for a few hours in a race is just negligable compared to several thousand people driving an hour to get to see the race. It's not worth worrying about. The way to cut the amount of gas consumed is to require typical daily-drivers to be more fuel efficient - there isn't another way. There are plenty of nice cars that get 40, 50 or 60 miles per gallon - so how come the average US car gets 22 miles per gallon (in theory, using EPA numbers) and closer to 15 mpg in practice? We know how to do this - it's just a matter of having the political will to make it happen. Personally - I'd bet that the research that goes into automotive technology because of racing does vastly more to improve the world's gas consumption than the gas they consume in actually racing them. SteveBaker 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider also that Ethanol was used this year to power Indianapolis 500 race cars. Edison 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which previously used methanol. Dragsters often use methanol, also; especially if they're using nitromethane. Gzuckier 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

visa for usa.

I am due to travel to florida next easter on holiday. I have a conviction for a.b.h dating from 1987. will i need to get a visa to travel?

First of all, you don't say what country you're coming from, secondly, I have no idea what "ABH" is, and third, we cannot give you legal advice -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably "ABH" = "Actual bodily harm". --Tugbug

Their IP is from the United Kingdom. [6] A.Z. 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet is to contact the US Embassy in your country and enquire, they should be able to help you figure out whether or not a travel-visa will be granted. If, as is suggested, you are from the uk their website is...http://london.usembassy.gov/ ny156uk 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The IP resolves to the UK. If you hold a British Passport then this page would suggest you will probably not be able to travel under the US Visa Waiver Programme and therefore may require a visa. I would suggest you contact the US Embassy in London for clarification,

• US Embassy, Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE. The Visa Information line is 0904 245 0100 (calls are charged at £1.20 per minute). Rockpocket 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that rip-off £1.20 a minute phone line, the actual visa costs $100, and you will have to go to the expense of travelling to the US Embassy in London (or the consulate in Belfast) to be interviewed for the visa, and they require people with convictions to schedule their interviews for 9 a.m., so you'll probably have hotel expenses too. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (by which your 1987 ABH conviction would likely be regarded as "spent" by the UK authorities) does not apply to the US authorities. The US is NOT a very welcoming country to people who have any blemish on their criminal record, since just being arrested - even if you weren't convicted - makes you ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program. Have you considered going to Disneyland Paris instead? :) -- Arwel (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Printing a flag

I'm trying to print a picture (specifically a flag) at a size of 11.5" x 8.5". Sure it's distorted, but that's beside the point. The size of the paper is 11.5" x 8.5", and the printer can't print outside a narrow margin. Is there any way I could still get a 11.5" x 8.5" flag printed, like through the use of poster printing?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to use the borderless mode to print it if your printer supports it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't. Could you please explain a bit further?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've used Proposter before. I think there is a trial for it. --Proficient 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)