Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 14

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.

April 14

Semen

Okay, my sex life isn't exactly suffering but it COULD be improved... my boyfriend's semen is actually tasty, apparently because he eats a lot of fruit. Mine is salty and disgusting... what makes semen taste better, in terms of food? I'm not a huge fan of fruit so is there anything that I can eat to improve the epicurean appeal of my semen?

-apologies if this sounds weird, i'm trying to make this question sound as unoffensive as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are online talk fests that relish this stuff? Wikipedia is not one of them (no disrespek). Julia Rossi (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless a Reference Desk editor happens to be an expert on this topic, we have to rely on published sources. I haven't been able to find any reliable research on this question. However, you can find sources on semen flavor if you search Google. I feel obliged to point out that semen in your partner's mouth (or any other body orifice) can transmit sexually transmitted diseases. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we're both clean, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a common urban myth that fruit juice (particularly pineapple, for some reason) is good for taste, but I haven't had any evidence either way (never tried!). I'd stick with it being an urban myth, unless someone else is willing to google (not me) about it. Steewi (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the pineapple semen idea was explored to amusing results in the Amanda Peet movie Whipped (film). --Mdwyer (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Playboy gets this question every so often in their "Advisor" column. You might try your local library for back issues. Dismas|^(talk) 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Yahoo Answers off line? Looking at the latest spate of questions, I'm begining to think so.hotclaws 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By a strange coincidence yes it was down this morning for a couple of hours for maitainance, clearly this was an urgent question for the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.187.55 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is true or not, but in the 4th season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm, an alleged 'blowjob expert' reports that spicy food makes semen taste good. Keep in mind this is a fictional sitcom. The Guide To Getting it On by Paul Joannides suggests popping a mint or a dab of touthpaste in your mouth prior to doing the deed to mask flavor. -Shaggorama (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: it took me a little browsing to find a more pertinent entry in 'the guide,' but as i suspected one exists. the guide (as cited above) suggests the following substances may effect semen flavor, although this is based entirely on 'what they've heard,' so don't take any of this as fact.

• stuff that may make semen taste bad: red meat, coffee, cigarettes, stress
• stuff that may make semen taste good: celery, fruits

hope this helped--Shaggorama (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done my own research, apparently fruit (esp. pineapple) is good. Luckily, I love pineapple - OP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't HAVE to be fruit. Pretty much anything with lots of sugars(yay slurpees!) in it will sweeten the --er. Pot. Alcohol will, to a lesser degree do it as well. Probably has something to do with all the extra sugars floating around in your body.142.33.70.60 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not request medical or legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need medical or legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. --░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ear canal as a body orifice

Sorry, but I just have to ask; in regards to Marco polo’s warning in the above question that semen in body orifices can transmit STDs, can semen in the ear canal do the same? (Yes, this is a serious question, and no, let’s not speculate on how it could happen.) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious as it might be, the speculation would be far more interesting.--Artjo (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Three things, one, how could something reproductive be small enough to enter an ear canal let alone transmit STDs; and two, the next time someone licks you in the ear to unnerve you at a party, best ask where that tongue has been. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And three, what about a nostril? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What sort of parties do you go to? Lemon martini (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A martini party?  ; ) * Julia Rossi (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Julia's first response, i'm positive ejaculate could reach as far as the tympanic membrane without the penis actually being inserted into the ear canal. SPECULATING, most STDs probably cannot be transmitted by this pathway, as the eardrum does not constitute a mucuous membrane. The nostril does, although I dont want to imagine how semen would end up in there.. Furthermore, there are some STDs that still might possibliy be passed through/to an ear, such as HPV (warts). WHAT A STRANGE QUESTION. Shaggorama (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ok, but only the left ear...I'm saving the other for Mr. Right." StuRat (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he wanted to have a brainchild.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the conception of a new idea. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When "you" think, what thinks?

Science has shown that thoughts appear in your mind before you acknowledge them (and take credit for it). When you think, "Hmm...I feel the need to drive across town and touch my dad's mailbox. Tonight at 2am? By golly, I'll do it!" The thought "appeared", including the thought to respond to the original thought.

Right now your mind is thinking. You have little or no control over it. You "think" you do, but again, those are just thoughts "appearing". What is it that is programming our minds? What is the phantomlike presence(s) that create conscious and unconscious thoughts, alpha states, dreams, and bursts of inspiration?--Sam Science (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Subconscious...maybe.71.142.208.226 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I think the research you're referencing is that of Benjamin Libet. I think the standard interpretation is that his research showed that our thoughts must be the result of material processes, with the only room for free will being "veto power" over whether or not to respond to the original impulse. Personally, I think this usual interpretation conflates phenomenal consciousness with access consciousness. I think Libet's experiments only show that we are not conscious of our thoughts immediately; that is, we do not immediately have the secondary thoughts necessary to identify and report on the primary thought. But I don't see how that shows that the primary thought wasn't a conscious one, in the sense of phenomenal consciousness. So, while I think your question is a good one, I don't think Libet's research, on its own, forces us to look outside free will for the cause of our thoughts. --Allen (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it that is programming our minds? -- Lots of things. Sensation and perception for one. You are, after all, alive and experiencing the world around you. Stuff comes in, stuff comes out. There's a funny metaphor about the brain being a gland that secretes thought. Body and mind respond to stimulation. What else? Emotions, habit, conditioning of one kind or another, the desire to avoid pain, the desire to feel better, and so on. The general topic is addressed a bit at Decision making ("who" decides?) and Executive functions. Finally, you may have more control than you think -- but I'm not sure how to address that topic offhand, without tumbling into either cliches or mysticism, so I won't try. I'll just suggest that while this kind of reasoning might lead to the abandonment of responsibility ("you" didn't do it, it just happened!), that would be immoral. Pfly (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Designing weapons

How do countries like Russia/China develop advanced weapons like fighters and tanks comparable to the US with only a fraction of the research budget? I know wages are lower in these countries but those savings can't account for the massive budget gap. So what gives?

Lotsofissues 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they reverse engineer existing US weaponry and improve them rather than start from scratch.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps, hard as it might be to believe, they use their own ingenuity. You may be surprised to find that not everything has been invented or perfected by Americans, and indeed a reduced budget might well focus one on the task rather than gold plated toilet seats and thousand dollar spanners 125.237.93.6 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't spend our money on $1,000 spanners; we spend it on $1,000 wrenches. (Or hammers, I forget which it was this week.)

Atlant (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An anecdotal example of some dubious veracity:

I read many years ago that the USA / NASA invested a significant budget in the development of a writing tool which could be used in zero gravity by astronauts.

The Russian equivalent of the Space Agency decided, that the good old-fashioned lead pencil would do the trick quite nicely for their own cosmonauts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, it's a little on the urban L side as you rightly sussed Cookatoo. Take a peek at this[1] in the article Space pen. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they just do it, as the Night Witches who flew almost 20-year old wood and canvas biplanes on night bombing missions, carrying only two bombs at a time. Roughing it and improvising was part of the life on Mir, the Soviet space station. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there have been a number of famous examples. --Sean 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would need some evidence that China has produced a weapon comparable to those in the West; I don't think they have. I'm not sure "Russia" has, either. The only test of the relative quality of two weapons is to pit them against each other. This has not happened with aircraft and ships, only with tanks, and the Russian ones got creamed like they were apple-crate go-carts. Sure, some F-15s have shot down some Mig-29s, and some F-14s have wiped some Mig-23s, but they were unfair contests. We haven't seen Eagle vs. Flanker, which would decide the title. As for ships and subs, a look at the technical abilities of a U.S. carrier battle group or a Seawolf class submarine suggest that their worthiest opponents wouldn't last five minutes in a real war. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush seems to be trying to arrange a full-scale test of this stuff, but I'm not as sanguine as you are about the survival of our carrier battle groups. It seems to me that the U.S.S. Cole, combined with the Turtle proves something about what can be done by dedicated combatants. A truly massive simultaneous attack of low-tech, cheap missiles might also prove something, Phalanx guns notwithstanding. But GWB doesn't learn from anyone's mistakes, his or anyone elses...

Atlant (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The foreign policy of the current administration of the US has no bearing on the question, nor does the potential efficacy of non-traditional warfare tactics. This is not the place to bash Bush or congratulate the Yemeni terrorists, both of which cants betray extreme POV and invite off-topic rebuttal. Please confine your remarks to well-referenced direct answers to questions. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gored your oxe, huh?

Atlant (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I conduct myself properly here, you will never know. Stop trolling, please, and conduct yourself properly. This insulting remark of yours and your off-topic nonsense below do not belong here. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My reply was quite close to the point. The base question here is how do political opponents of the U.S. develop comparable weapons at a fraction of the cost. I've merely answered a related question showing how a proper consideration of asymmetric warfare means they don't even need comparable weapons to defeat us. As you'll recall, our over-reliance on enormously expensive high-tech weapons actually recently led to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan almost running out of ammo for their guns because we no longer had the manufacturing facilities to produce low-tech bullets. This is a persistent problem with our military planners: it was also alleged during the height of the Cold War that we only had one week's worth of ammo stockpiled in Europe. If the Warsaw Pact had invaded, at the end of the week, we would have been forced to either surrender or "go nuclear". Apparently, our leadership never read Arthur C. Clarke's short-story Superiority, either. But then again, we know that neither Shrub nor Cheney nor Condi went to West Point.

Atlant (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And note that the Cole was only vulnerable to that type of attack because they were not prepared for it. Such an attack typically only works once. US ships now shoot anyone who approaches in a boat and refuses to identify themselves. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion about Bushnell's Turtle. I'm pretty sure you could still sneak up to our ships in a wooden submarine moving at fish speeds. For that matter, I've always suspected that a Piper Cub would make a good delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon. Being mostly made of wood and fabric, it probably has a pretty small radar cross section and thermal signature. Asymmetric warfare requires imagination, something the U.S. Military and current administration seem to be lacking. "Attack us with jet airliners? Who could have imagined that?" Well, Al Gore did in his report on how terrorists might attack, but Dick Cheney ignored that report. And a 1996 movie imagined it as well, in Panavision. But Condi didn't see that movie, I guess.

Atlant (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an important part of the price difference is that the US, which has a tragically politically powerful military industrial complex to support, is happy to spend well past the point of diminishing returns. --Sean 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the smaller budgets lead to an incentivisation of creativity and novel solutions, in order to circumvent budgetary requirements. Agreed with Sean about the military industry in the US, they have powerful connections and there are only about 3 companies that can realistically compete for military contracts, so prices will remain sky-high, especially because of America's willingness to spend. Countries like Russia hardly have small weapons budgets, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an incredibly interesting question. They have very different funding models for the military and very different priorities in terms of weapons. In the US, for example, there has long been a willingness to reinvent the wheel each time and and a belief that being along the technological cutting edge is of primary importance; in Russia, by contrast, there is a long tradition of using preexisting designs and preexisting standards, on interchangeability of parts, of them being easy to repair. The old Soviet idea was to make up the potential deficits in quality with an increased quantity, and a recognition that cutting edge has its drawbacks as well from a production and maintenance standpoint. Interesting article on the subject: Leon Trilling, "Styles of Military Technical Development: Soviet and U.S. Jet Fighters - 1945-1960," in E. Mendelsohn, et al, eds., Science, Technology and the MIlitary (Springer, 1989). As for the old reverse-engineering saw, it's important to remember that it isn't like the Soviets would ever just take something and copy it exactly without re-testing every part on it. Their atomic bomb project is supposed to be the canonical example of their copying, but of course they didn't just say "Oh hey, this is great, let's just duplicate every part on it exactly! We totally trust our intelligence sources!" In reality the administrators kept the intelligence data as a "check" on their own scientists and used it as a way to direct research to areas they knew had already worked for the Americans. Most of the scientists working on the Soviet bomb had no idea that the final product was a copy and felt they had developed it all independently; in a way, they did, in a way, they didn't. It still required a lot of hard work and ingenuity, and they ended up doing a great deal many things that wasn't in the intelligence in any case (the primary Soviet achievement, one that the US did not see coming, was in its use of low-grade uranium ores; this is what made their project get finished quickly, not the intelligence). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By the List of countries by military expenditures and List of countries by population USA has only a military money / population -ratio of 1/1 = 1, but my mighty home country Finland gets a massive 111 / 41 ~ 2.7 score. Next Greater Finland will probably cover the whole Europe. --212.149.216.233 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are examples of direct copying, however. In the civilian aircraft market the Soviets directly copied the British/French Concorde to produce the Tupolev Tu-144. (They did make some changes because they couldn't duplicate all the features of the Concorde, like it's engines and wing curvature.) StuRat (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Next they'll be after our Silly String [2] ! 125.237.93.6 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Silly String (and derivatives) already made in China? Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Transportation---- truck/size /weight regulations--Michigan

I am trying to establish the heavy truck size & weight limits for Michigan(USA) from 1956 to 1974 for heavy Michigan multi-axle sand/gravel dump truck/trailer/combinations. I have used several search engines now without success in my research. Have any members out there access to or know where to obtain this information please, which seems to be very elusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coljenks (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

have you tried contacting the michigan DOT/MVA? --Shaggorama (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

trivia

trivia mostly preferred by the Americans and Asians. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.249.15 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Preceding question. Topic is? Kuronue | Talk 14:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, both America and Asia have a lot of nerds and nerds love trivia. Recury (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn straight we do. Did you know that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the world's population? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that?192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But bear in mind that fully half of Americans and Asians are below average. 130.88.140.1 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's the mean, which is usually is, then actually there's a good chance it isn't fully half Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the median was intended, since that works. Skittle (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

is it true?

That in Tokyo, a bicycle is faster than a car for most trips of less than 50 minutes? thanks everyones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Its hard to believe (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With the traffic, I wouldn't be surprised. Probably the same in New York City. Useight (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly true in central Boston for most trips of less than 20 minutes (based on OR), and even central Boston is less dense than most of Tokyo, so I would expect that this would be true for trips under 50 minutes in Tokyo. (Other than at rush hour, however, I'm not sure that it would be true for trips up to 50 minutes in Manhattan, because it takes less than 50 minutes to cross the island, and because the broad avenues, the West Side Highway, and the FDR Drive allow cars to move uptown and downtown fairly rapidly.) Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just a few asides, but Top Gear did a few tests like this. They raced a car, a bike, a boat and public transport across London, and the car came last by quite some way, with the bike first. They also raced a marathon runner against a car along the route of the London Marathon and the runner won. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many roads in Tokyo, at certain times of the day, that are unimpeded and there is no way a bike would beat a car going 50 or 60 km after a few minutes of this.

definition to describe this

dear reference desk, i have an unusual habit and was wondering if anyones else has heard of this before the fascination with hearing others passing wind is intoxicating to me. is there and definition to describe this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Only in it for money (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Insanity?--Artjo (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT!? You're right insanity.71.142.208.226 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Actually the correct term is eproctophilia, although it doesn't have a wikipedia page, or even a mention in any part of wikipedia. This was the site where I learnt this new titbit, though, and it seems to be entirely devoted to strange philias. Never call something insanity when in all likelihood it's much, much more common than you'd think. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Condemnant quod non intellegunt. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can call it insanity. When I hear someone cuting the wind I break out in a sprint. I don't go for their butts just to hear the noise. That is at least what I do.Cardinal Raven (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

But the OP mentions his habit being "intoxicating". Does that mean he inhales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.254.133 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Youngest autobiography writer

I've tried Autobiography with not much luck-who is the youngest person to have written an autobiography?Charlotte Church was 14 when she wrote hers and I'm sure Drew Barrymore was only 13 or 14-but there must be a younger one somewhere surely? Lemon martini (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is, but a Drew Barrymore fansite that wikipedia won't let me link to says that Guinness World Records acknowledges her as the youngest author of an autobiography. I searched this string, and all the results are about her, so I'm guessing it is indeed Miss Barrymore. Can't find anything official from Guinness about it, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not on the Guinness website for youngest people to do things, but there seem to be very few records viewable on the site. Probably saving as much stuff as possible for the book. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just be careful about the term 'written', while I do not doubt Miss Church's and Miss Barrymore's ability to write their autobiographies, celebrities often use ghostwriters because of their busy schedules and inexperience when writing. Often this ghostwriter is uncredited for their work. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It didn't get published immediately, of course, but Anne Frank started writing in her diary when she got it on her 13th birthday. She continued it until her family was found when she was 15, in 1944. That's probably the most famous child author, that we know was not ghost-written. -SandyJax (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article for credit card vs hard cash?

Do we have an article that describes the habits of different countries' population, in regards to stuff bought with credit cards as opposed to in coins or bills? I am not sure, but I think I've noticed that Americans use more bills than Norwegians do. But I'm not sure. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

One thing that I've never understood is people writing tags on walls. Apparently, a person chooses an identity by assigning a group of letters to himself, and then he tags this moniker on every wall he can think of. What does he get out of it? Who is going to know he did it? It's obvious the public won't know it, but how will even other taggers know he did it? Of course this kind of anonymous public writing can be a goal all to itself, but then there should be some kind of message, such as "Free Tibet now!" not just "some guy who you'll never meet was there". JIP | Talk 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all a complete answer : Being 'known' by a pseudonym is not that same as not being known. If I tagged up all the walls in WikiCity with some impressive work of art featuring my initials "APL" all the while never being caught by the WikiCity Police Department, then all the people in town would know of me and of my great works. The fact that no one knew who APL is and no one could pick me out of a lineup is a different matter altogether. APL (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But would that merely mean that "APL" is famous, or that you are famous? How would you prove being "APL"? And who would you admit, and prove, it to? JIP | Talk 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In this context, what's the difference? In other contexts who would care? I'm sort of surprised, honestly, that a long-time Wikipedia contributer would have a hard time with the concept that there can be pride in a work even when published under a pseudonym. APL (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the time, tagging is reputation-based. So obviously his mates will know that he's that tag, and it's not uncommon for people to use their tag as a moniker, so perhaps their rivals will know that x-tag is y-person. It's a lot like rapping names, and often the two are one and the same, as tagging and graffiti in general often go hand-in-hand with rap music. In London, where it's mostly high-schoolers who put up tags, if you are well known then people will likely know your tag. But it works the other way, too: if you put your tag in a dangerous or noticeable place, people will ask, "who is x-tag?" and their mates will reply "oh, he's y-person". it's basically all about street-cred. I hesitate to link it with gangs, because of the "organised" perception of gangs, but their are parallels, and all of the wannabe gangsters I knew had a tag, even if they didn't go about putting it on every surface they could. So even though there isn't some sort of international tagger newsletter that keeps them up-to-date on who's who in the world of spray-painted psuedonyms, word spreads because people talk. There's also the satisfaction of walking past it and thinking "I put that there". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's a subculture:"a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong". My rubbish bin was tagged by someone who's tag I knew so that truly honoured my bin. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about why you chose 3 initials as your user name, then why you made them different colours, and you'll have part of your answer. Taggers, maybe, don't have wikipedia to play with? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am doing more than just writing my name. I am contributing knowledge to an online encyclopedia. Are the taggers doing this? Are they doing anything except writing their name? I mean, common people who are not Wikipedia editors but just browse the Internet can benefit from what I have done here under my pseudonym. I have created and expanded many articles. This is the satisfaction I get out of this. But for taggers, the common people aren't going to benefit from their tags, they treat them as nuisances and try to ignore them. JIP | Talk 05:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there something about subculture you don't get? Taggers wouldn't get satisfaction in the same way you do, and the reverse applies. You are contributiing to your chosen culture, and they to theirs. As no contest goes, neither party is in the same ring. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet rebellion

Basically, I am involved in a rebellion on an internet forum. my job is to persuade people to join, so I thought a good way to do this would be to have an interesting logo of some sort. However I have searched around the internet a lot and still can't find one. I was wondering, since so many people come here, whether someone might know somewhere where I might find one I could use. Especially useful would be one that suggests that we're together and we will win and stuff without making it look like we're evil and violent, since that's what the people we're rebelling against are like. Also I would like it if anyone here can give me any advice on how to do this, since I've never been in an organised uprising like this before. 172.202.134.122 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally only have experience with MSPaint, but I know a lot of people make fancy logos with PhotoShop. Neal (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Find some logos you like for ideas and modify them until they're basically unrecognisable but end up standing for what you want. Or you can go here[3] and skip to this section: Step 2: Generate Imagery for an approach. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Finding Life Goal

I feel like I am at a dead end job in a corporation. I am bored with life. Does anyone know where online is the best career search meaning a quiz-like site to help determine what your passions are and which directions you can go to start a brand new career? --209.0.0.29 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but a small note: perhaps the 'best job' for you is no job. Seems to work alright for the every species on earth aside from one. Vranak (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hunting for food can certainly be a full time job. The other species just have less variation. APL (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But if someone asked you what your job was and you replied 'hunting & foraging' they probably wouldn't understand, or want to. Vranak (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your topic is about life goal whereas your paragraph is about job goal. Well, for the title, of course you have a purpose in life - to find a purpose. As per your question, I'd say find a job that makes you happy. But seriously, though, find a job where you are more qualified in. Probably ones matching what college degrees you have. Neal (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Maybe try Monster.com? · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter what you do, you will most likely get bored of it quite quick. I've never seen anyone who says they get up in the morning, leap right out of bed, and go to work whistling and bursting with energy and happiness. Don't try to mix your passions and your job. If you love to do something, then being forced to have to do it every day will make you hate it pretty quick. Rather, go to your workplace, do what you have to do, and then go home and do what you want to do. It works perfectly for me. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, possibly Monster.com. But maybe you should start your own business and be your own boss. Useight (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to start with a book, Amazon has this: What Color Is Your Parachute? 2008: A Practical Manual for Job-hunters and Career-Changers. The author Richard Nelson Bolles is also here[4] for people in your situation. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what to do. Your stuck in life and have no where to turn. You're alone... well no not really. Many people are struggling to find their "niche." I am stuck in a simular boat, but I am still in school, and able to turn life around. You may be as well, but if you aren't, don't despair, everything will be alright. I suggest making a list about degrees, or just things you like to do. If there is some way you can combine your two 'pros', and you like it, I say, go for it!!! Whatever happens, you need to be happy, and like where you are working. If you don't, that is not good, and you are back to square one.

It doesn't even have to be a job you are chasing. It could even be a new hobby. Just something to spice up your life. Also don't let anything get you down. Keep your head up high. You have a reason for living!!! Hope this gives you some new hope. Keep on going!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybestfriendrox (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion... Grab a copy of Eckhart Tolle's 'A New Earth' which offers some interesting insight into your question. See [5]--Ckdavis (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

historic enterprise value

Hi, I want to know whether the historic Enterprise value is taken to calculate the EV/SALES and EV/EBITDA multiples?

Say, for Ex: if I need to calculate EV/EBITDA for 2005, 2006 and 2007. I have historic EBITDA for all the three years and EV also. But, Do we actually take historic EV or latest EV for the historic multiples. I saw a Research Report having latest EV for historic multiples. I wanted to know the logic behind it.

Thanks

Santosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshhh (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate in chess

What is the largest number of pieces it is possible to achieve stalemate with? And the fewest moves to stalemate? Do those questions make sense? I had some trouble trying to word them without taking up a few lines. Thanks. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The questions make sense to me, and the article on stalemate seems to answer them both. (See Stalemate#Stalemate_in_problems: It's possible to achieve stalemate with all pieces on board. 10 moves is the fastest possible way to stalemate) ---Sluzzelin talk 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow can't believe I didn't think to look there. I guess I just thought that it wouldn't be there or something. Thanks a lot, this has been bugging me and some friends for a while now. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

US taxes - federal & Massachusetts

I'm trying to file my taxes in the US. I'm reading both on the official pages and on Wikipedia about the possibilities of tax deductions--either for business-related expenses or for hobbies (!) (Hobby loss rule). I'm a student and have paid some money for fun activities of course. It sounds to me as if I was allowed to deduct those expenses from the federal income tax! Is that correct? If so, how? And can I deduct expenses for trips to conferences?

And does state tax (Mass.) allow for the same?

Thanks a million. I know that Wikipedia is not a legal service, that all your help isn't legally binding and all the rest, but I'd just appreciate any help I can get because I'm pretty lost at the moment. Thanks, 128.119.130.188 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS: It'd be nice if someone could create the redirect from Hobby loss rule to Internal Revenue Code section 183 if that is indeed a common term.

If you carefully read the article on Internal Revenue Code section 183, you will see that you can deduct expenses incurred in pursuing hobbies only up to the amount of income gained from those hobbies. In other words, in order to deduct hobby-related expenses, you must earn income from the hobby equal to or greater than those expenses. The "hobby loss rule" is that you cannot claim losses on a hobby. As I read our article, however (and it may not be accurate), if you have engaged in an activity that generated positive declared income (after deductions) in at least three out of the past five years, then that activity is considered a business pursuit and not a hobby, and you can claim a loss on it. As for trips to conferences, I think that the same rule applies. If your academic career generates positive income that you are declaring as income (from teaching, stipends, or the like), you can deduct career-related expenses such as trips to conferences. Your academic work would probably have to have generated declared income for three out of the past five years not to count as a hobby in the authorities' eyes. If it did not, then here too, I would think that trip expenses could be deducted only up to your academic earnings. I happen to have the instructions for Massachusetts Form 1. It seems to me that Massachusetts uses the Federal rules to distinguish businesses from hobbies, though Massachusetts may have slightly different rules for deducting business expenses. Your best bet is to consult with a tax accountant or to read all tax forms and instructions carefully and draw your own conclusions rather than to rely on Wikipedia. Note that I am not qualified to actually advise you on this, that Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, nor will I nor Wikipedia assume any liability for this interpretation or possible misinterpretation of the tax code. If you choose to act based on this interpretation or possible misinterpretation, you do so at your own risk. You should consult a tax accountant for an expert opinion. Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that academic taxes can be a mess depending on whether the income is classified as a stipend, a fellowship, a teaching fellowship, etc. I had to declare as a self-employed contractor to deal with one stipend I received. Which means I now have to pay expected taxes. :-( --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is It a Bird? Is It a Plane? No its ...

Where does the quote "Is It a Bird? Is It a Plane? No its ..." come from? --helohe (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit after "No, it's.." tells us this. This is a cliche from the old Superman shows/comics/whatevers. It's possibly this predated that, I suppose, in which case I've no idea where it came from. Friday (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't actually questions; the intro, as it was seared into my memory in my youth, runs: [Announcer:] "Faster than a speeding bullet … more powerful than a locomotive … able to leap tall buildings in a single bound …" [People on street:] "Look, up in the sky!" "It's a bird!" "It's a plane!" "It's Superman!" [Announcer:] "Yes, it's Superman—strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men … Superman! who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands—and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!" That's the TV intro, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it, or something similar, was used in radio days as well. Deor (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, the TV show was Adventures of Superman (1952–58). --Anonymous mortal man, 22:53 UTC, APril 15, 2008.

And, of course, seared into some of our childish minds by the novelty song "Is it a bird?" "No!" "Is it a plane?" "No!" "Superman!". (What was that song? "Comb your hair! Ski!" etc) 130.88.140.1 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Superman" by Black Lace. I still bear the mental scars... -88.110.219.32 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd thought it was called Superman but then couldn't find it mentioned on Superman (disambiguation). It must have been on the album Party Party... 79.66.125.86 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a little handholding, please

I nominate the following statement, from the top of the reference desk pages, as The Understatement Of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is huge.

I'm good with searching, and this RefDesk stuff is pretty spiffy, and now I'd like to go further, but I need to be pointed in the right direction. (1) I don't grasp the usefulness (as in, how am I supposed to make use) of talk pages. Are they a mechanism for one-to-one chat (like IMing, which I never got into, either)? Could someone point me toward the Talk 101 page? (2) Likewise, the Embassy stuff looks like it might be a solution for another issue I have, or maybe not: if I have some translation questions, which I'd like to direct to a native speaker of language X, is that the place?

Gawd, this thing's huge! Danh 209.181.224.8 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For questions about using Wikipedia, please try the Help desk. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a wealth of information about talk pages at Wikipedia:Talk pages, and guidelines for conduct on them at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To briefly summarize, there are two types of talk pages on Wikipedia.

• Pages in the User talk namespace (which all start with the prefix User talk:). These pages are for communications with and between specific Wikipedia editors. If you wanted to leave a message for me (User:TenOfAllTrades), you would add it in a new section at the bottom of my user talk page (User talk:TenOfAllTrades).
• Pretty much all other talk pages. These pages start with the Talk:, Wikipedia talk:, Template talk:, etc. prefixes. These talk pages are to discuss the page or article with which they are associated. (For example, discussion about our article on Albert Einstein takes place on Talk:Albert Einstein. Discussion about how the Wikipedia:Reference Desk operates takes place at Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk.)

Note that the purpose of all of these pages is to work on and improve Wikipedia. Discussions on Talk:Albert Einstein should be about the article – how to improve it, what edits need to be made, the quality of the article's sources, etc. – and not just general chat or questions about Einstein. (If you've got general questions about a topic, then here at the Reference Desk is a good place to ask!) There's a bit of flexibility on this point on user talk pages; many of our contributors have friendly working relationships and engage in good-natured banter from time to time—but Wikipedia isn't MySpace, an instant-messaging environment, or a debating society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

One more thing—Wikipedia also has the Wikipedia:Help Desk. That page is full of helpful people just like the Ref Desk, but is focused on providing people with help in understanding how to work with and on Wikipedia. You might find it a good place to ask future questions about how to use Wikipedia. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you've got general questions about a topic, then here at the Reference Desk is a good place to ask!" I always thought the article talk page was supposed to be a good place too, as if you have not been able to answer your question from the article it could do with improving on that point. But you'll usually get a quicker response on the ref desks, and people seem to have started to oppose asking questions on talk pages. Nice general summary Ten! 130.88.140.1 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia disclaimers

I remember a Wikipedia: page with a list of links to other online encyclopedias that have disclaimers to prove that the others aren't always accurate either. I've looked, but I can't find that page. It may have been near WP:WWISG and WP:RTCO, but I can't find anything. Does anyone know where it is? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be looking for Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That must have been moved there from somewhere else. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)