Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 27

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 27

What is the origin of the phrase"Kill them all;God will know which ones are His"

Dear Sir/Sirs or Madam/Madams, I inquired about the origin of the phrase now rendered,,approximately,"Kill them all;God will know which ones are His" once before but I unfortunately lost the answer to a sadly inadequate brain and a crashed computer back-up.I believe it was spoken in the Middle Ages during the suppression of the Hugenots but exactly who said it and what the exact circumstances were are lost to me. My ultimate goal for this and many other information quests is to eventually publish a book/website showing how most popular quotations are much,much older than previously believed by most people.Of course,many people don't know that "Lock,stock and barrel",meaning "in it's entirety" comes from a list of the main parts comprising a flintlock rifle,but I'm going for the more obscure examples. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Leprae

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprae (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 

It's attributed to Arnaud Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from good Catholics. Algebraist 00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also attributed to Simon de Montfort when Beziers, in the south of France, surrendered - during the Cathar crusade of the 13th century. The Wikipedia article attributes it to Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, but the locals around Beziers tell one it was Simon de Montfort. Search Wikipedia for Cathars and you have the whole story.86.200.2.102 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)petitmichel

Movies translated into most languages

What movies (top 3) have been translated (dubbed) into the most languages?--96.227.105.45 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an entertainment desk if you need to move your question there, click here [1] Julia Rossi (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Christmas in Fallujah

Mostly, I download music from Amazon.com's MP3 system but I would like to download Christmas in Fallujah which is not available. I am unfamiliar with iTunes and had some questions about iTunes. Do I (should I) need to install iTunes just to get to one song? Is iTunes compatible with my MP3 player, a Samsung YP-U1? (Based on the article, I doubt it.) Is this song on iTunes at all? --Blue387 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought iTunes were only for iPods. So no I don't think your Samsung YP-U1 is compatible with iTunes. Cause I already tried and my Sandisk and now my Sandisk MP3 player is dead. The computer no longer reads it and no matter if its new batteries or low batteries it won't work anymore.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Id download it. Even if it doesnt work for your MP3 player its still a nice music player. Also you could always get pirated music if your into breaking laws and stuff. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to install iTunes to download from the Store. I don't know whether your mp3 player is compatible with iTunes; however, it is possible to convert the AAC format used by iTunes and iPods into other formats using the iTunes software itself (right-click on the song and choose "Convert selection to MP3) to allow you to play it on a wide variety of devices. There are 4 results for "Christmas in Fallujah" on the iTunes store; I'm not sure which, if any of these, is the one you are looking for. --Kateshortforbob 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Farm

How much does a farm cost (median cost, maybe) in (a) a poor country, (c) a country of average wealth, and (b) the United States?--96.227.105.45 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota is a major agricultural state in the U.S. In 2004, the average price per acre for farmland there was $2067, with the average sale being 112 acres. In the southeast portion of the state, farmland sold for $3442 per acre. (where 640 acres equal one square mile, and 1 Acre = 0.4047 Hectares).[2]. The average Minnesota farm is 340 acres [3]. Corporations own a lot of farmland and may have extremely large farms, rather than small family farms as in older times. In Iowa, in 2007 farmland sold for an average of $2,900 per acre [4]. In 2004, the average Iowa farm was 353 acres [5]. In Illinois, good quality farmland sold for $3,450 to $5,952 per acre in various counties in 2007/ [6]. In 2002, the average Illinois farm was 374 acres [7]. In the days of family farms, 160 acres was more typical. From the stats for these midwestern farming states, the average farm would cost a little over 1 million dollars, before you spent anything for buildings, equipment, field drains, chemicals, seed, fences, etc. A typical farm would probably have drains, fences, and some buildings already there, but if the previous owner was contemplating sale they might need renewal.Edison (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Braces (suspenders)

222.153.32.146 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)are the patterns on men's braces (suspenders) printed onto elastic or are they woven into it. Where can I obtain machinery to do either job?222.153.32.146 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Deigh Davies

I'd think decent ones would have the pattern sewn in. The printed-on patterns quickly wear off. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of that island

Does the island currently occupied by England-Scotland-Wales have a name of its own? Other landmasses surrounded completely by water usually have a name which is independent of the country which currently sits on it:

• Example, Hispanola is the island on which one finds the countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
• "Great Britain" seems unlikely, is a political rather than geographical name.
• "The U.K." is too big, as it includes part of another island :-)

Surely the landmass has a separate name -- or does it? -- Danh 63.226.145.214 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was called Britain. Britain + Ireland + the rest are "the British Isles", as much as that pisses off the Irish. According to Wikipedia it is called Great Britain, and you are told to see also British Isles and British Isles (terminology). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

see also Pretani and Britannia for some discussion of the origin of the word Mhicaoidh (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Great Britain is the island. It is the largest of the British Isles, hence 'Great'. Like Little Glossop and Great Glossop or whatever. The political name which is often shortened to Great Britain is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

England & Scotland are united independent kingdoms. Wales is a Principality that is joined with England. The three make Great Britain. Add Northern Ireland and you have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The generic name for England, Wales and Scotland is Britain. The Union Flag is the crosses of the two kingdoms - England: St George (red 'plus' on white) and Scotland: St Andrew (white 'multiplication cross on blue). The Union Flag is only the Union Jack when flown on a jackstaff - i.e. on the bows of a ship. (But the most used name is Union Jack.) The Flag is not symetrical. When flown upside down it should be a distress signal, but often it is flown wrongly in error these days.86.200.2.102 (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)DT

The interesting thing about the flying-upside-down thing is that there's no chance whatsoever of it working. Suppose you're actually in distress and attempt to summon assistance by flying the flag upside-down. Most people won't notice, but even worse, of those who do notice, every single one of them will automatically assume that it's upside-down in error, and instead of actually providing assistance will just say "that idiot's flying the flag upside in error which is a distress signal, don't these ignorant plebs know the difference?". And the poor sod who is quite properly flying it upside down as a distress signal gets no help and dies. -88.110.26.180 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually 86.200.2.102, you're not quite right about the union flag. It's actually got the northern irish cross of Saint Patrick in it too, as is shown by this nifty diagram. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

82.200 writes, "England & Scotland are united independent kingdoms. Wales is a Principality that is joined with England. The three make Great Britain", while 79.66 writes, "Yep, Great Britain is the island." These are, of course, two conflicting answers. England, Scotland, and Wales include many other islands besides the big one where England borders the other two: for example, the Isle of Wight in England, Skye in Scotland, and Anglesey in Wales. If you look in any table of islands, you'll see that Great Britain is the answer to the original poster's question, as 79.66 says. But the same term is commonly used when a short phrase is wanted that refers to England, Scotland, and Wales in combination, as 82.200 says, as well as being in informal term for the whole United Kingdom, as 79.66 also says above. To refer unambiguously to the island, people use expressions like "the British mainland" or "the mainland of Great Britain".

The same linguistic ambiguity arises with many other land masses where a political unit or grouping includes the whole of the land mass and just a small amount of other stuff. For example, Australia, Iceland, or Manhattan. If it matters, you just have to make clear which type of entity you mean.

--Anonymous, 06:10 UTC, April 28, 2008.

Although, when geographers talk of the continent called Australia, they mean something other than just the land that's occupied by the country called Australia. To them, it also includes the island of New Guinea and various smaller intervening islands. Thanks, geographers, for an extraordinarily confusing and dumb choice of terminolgy. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that's a third usage. --Anon, 05:32 UTC, May 1, 2008.

Girl who likes me

This girl i know asked me out erailer and i really didnt no what to do so i avoided the issue but still left it open for discussion. I kinda like the girl and stuff but idk what to do. Advice? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Flip a coin? (Wikipedia knows.) Better still, take a step, then decide again, take another step, decide again... You don't have to have all the outcomes at the beginning, as you know. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If the girl asked you out you should take a chance. I know how rushy that sounds or doesn't sound as clean cut as what Julia said, but these thing happen ever so once in a while. You either need to seize the moment while its still there and open. Or you can let it go through your fingers. What is there to be nervous about? You like her and she likes you. I'm sure that seizing this moment would be the biggest pay.

Always

Cardinal Raven (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Ask yourself 'what if I never get asked out by a girl again'? This may be the opportunity of your life. Say YES, what have you got to loose. After the date, if you didn't enjoy it, so what? You've learned something. Your a little nearer to discovering exactly what your looking for in a partner. Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Says on your page you're 14. (I peeked.) Girls tend to be a bit ahead at that age. You don't have to go and marry her. Go out, do something you both enjoy, (heavy metal maybe?) then see if you'd like to go out to do something else together (paintball??). The thing is to not rush into something you don't want to do. If you like doing some of the same stuff that she likes doing, then why not do it together. --Lisa4edit (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're luckier than I am. I think you should act on it while the opportunity is still there. Go out with her but remember to take care of and respect her okay? You might learn a thing or two about the opposite sex. I also endorse Lisa4edit's advice. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My apols for being in machine mode, the coin flip was inappropriate – glad you have so many insightful replies since. best, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Who will Make History?

This is an interesting question who will make most history. The win of Obama or the win of Hilary Clinton? Which will make history more the first black president(no offense just stating it how they would in a textbook.) or the first woman president?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Can you please define how you can have more or less history? Looking at it one way, Clinton could be credited with more historical trivia due to A) being a woman B) becoming president after having been first lady. All Obama has going for him in these respects is that he's black. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus he's only half-black. Clinton as far as we are aware is all woman. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been plenty of black leaders of country's, and there have been plenty of female leaders of country's, all around the world. The usa seams to have took its time in catching up with the rest of the world in this regard. What I find fascinating (as a non-american) is that, even in these troubled times, America might be on the verge of electing a man, to the position of president, who was educated in Indonesia - a Muslim country. I'm not muslim myself, but I think that would be historic.Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Having talked to some people in the UK who arn'ty even sure who's standing, maybe you better qualify that as American historyhotclaws 11:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Who will make history? Ummm...they haven't won yet. McCain has something to say about that. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say it would probably be more historic if Clinton won. To win, she would need the Democratic nomination, but realistically she is unable to win on either delegate count or popular vote. So for Hillary to gain the nomination the superdelegates would have to go against the will of the people/party members. So she'd be the first major female candidate for President, and her nomination would be a "triumph" of pragmatism over democracy. Obama would be the first mixed-race President, and I'm sure he'd qualify as the first black President by most people's standards. But Hillary would be on of the few Presidential candidates not chosen by the American people but instead by senior party members. And not to forget that McCain would be the oldest first-term President if he wins. No matter who wins, it's afirst, but Clinton would be the most controversial, and therefore would probably be the most historic.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys have a funny notion of what "historic" means. The media have fooled a lot of people into believing it means "extraordinary", "noteworthy", "remarkable", "unique", "record-breaking" etc. It means nothing of the kind. Everything that has ever happened since the dawn of time, and has been recorded, is historic. Nothing is more or less historic than anything else. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the role of the Korean financier in this Sri Lanka-Zimbabwe arms deal gone awry?

"Whilst the mystery over the missing mortar shipment continued, ZDI forwarded fraudulent documents to the Sri Lanka Army to obtain payments for the military hardware. That was to be made through a Korean financier-Kolon International Corporation (KIC)- in five instalments after a grace period of one year.

The Sri Lanka Army had already remitted $ 1,724,443.50 to Kolon International Corporation as the first instalment but later asked them not to release the money to ZDI since the 81 mm mortar shipment had not arrived. This money is now accumulating interest at KIC. Be that as it may, the Army, in a strange move, made direct payments for shipments that arrived."

Some sort of quasi-escrow? Why did Sri Lanka already remit if there was a grace period?

Also looks like the stated business of Kolon is to buy dyes in one place and sell wool somewhere else. So why are they the financiers?

Lotsofissues 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Top World Ports

I am looking for a list of Top World Ports by the ammount of traffic, or perhaps by cargo capability.

I hope to find a list of at LEAST the top 100, but more would be nice...

The closest i could find is the top 25 from 2002 here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/maritime_trade_and_transportation/2002/index.html

Can anyone help? :)

137.81.113.204 (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried all of these?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ahhh, not quite 100 but much better than what i had, thank you! I think that plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_seaports will give me enough of what i need! 137.81.113.204 (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

One last question though, what about rather minor ports in obscure places like madagascar and Jan Mayen etc (im looking at islands here...)? What im looking for specifically is city names of such places (surely if theres no major port there must be a major ferry landing or something to get to mainland? 137.81.113.204 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of islands would be a good place to start. Looks like you could reach more than 100 in a jiffy. There are some islands that are too small or too unshippable (?) to have a harbor, but most do. --Lisa4edit (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jan Mayen specifically has no port at all, and no real population other than meteorological and military staff (18). Transport by air. Not at all comparable to Madagascar. :) 81.93.102.185 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see.... Yes it would seem like i would need to manually look at each island to see the circumstances.... It is good that wikipedia itself has so much of this information, though i didnt know where it was at the time!

I do wonder if an island area is small enough if people wishing to visit literally just take a smaller craft from another place and run it ashore in a sandy area or such.... interesting concept! Well i think ive gotten all the help that is feasible from this... Thank You all for your contributions! :) 137.81.113.204 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is for work, get [Lloyd's List Ports of the World 2008]. If you don't have money to spend, you can get a 2005 top 50 list from [The International Association of Ports and Harbors], or 1979-2000 top 100 lists from [here] (near the bottom of the left column). 84.239.133.86 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

car

does a vehicle need to be left on for a while before beeing driven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.83.147 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Years ago, yes, today, no--Artjo (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Though it's still a good idea to let the engine warm up a bit in cold weather. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember, however, not to leave your car unoccupied. A minute is all it takes for a thief to steal a car in warm-up, especially if it's new. Often it takes several minutes for a car to warm up in the winter, so if you have to go back inside, don't stay for too long and try not to leave the car completely unattended. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Buy yourself an extra set of keys, and lock the car before you leave it running. The whole city of Edmonton seesm to do this all winter long. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys—there seems to be a lot of 'wisdom delivered from on high' here, but very little in the way of actual sources or evidence-based comment. Can anyone provide links to reliable outside sources that comment on this issue one way or another? I'm sure that a lot of people hope it's necessary to let a car warm up in cold weather before driving just so that the heater is working by the time that they get inside. Let's have it—is there current information on this topic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Car Talk (use your own judgment as to how well they qualify as experts) has laid forth repeatedly that:

• Carburetor-based engines benefit from warming up (from 1999)
• Fuel-injected engines do not benefit from warming up (from 1994, 2008)
  • Caveat: high-speed highway driving still benefits from a warm-up (on account of getting the oil moving better, if I recall correctly) -- see above sources
• And the quick rule of thumb: "If you can drive away without stalling, then no warm up is required."

See also on the 1994 source that warming via block heater (as opposed to warming via idling) is good. — Lomn 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My diesel fuelled car has a little light (looks like a coil?) that comes on temporarily when I switch on the ignition. It is my understanding that I have to wait for that light to go out before starting my car. It works without waiting, but apparently it is better for it. I assume it is 'heating' or 'charging' something but either way I just do as i've been told. ny156uk (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your glowplug. — Lomn 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, I'd say no, but there are some exceptions:

1) Older cars may not run properly when cold. If they want to stall when first started you should let them run until they warm up first, to prevent stalling in traffic. I believe one reason for this is that water condenses in the engine when the temps go down, and needs to be driven out. You might notice a lot of steam coming out of the exhaust when the car is first started.

2) In cold weather any car may have snow and ice on it. Warming up the car with the defroster and defogger on is one way to remove it, while you scrape ice from the windows or just wait for it to melt from the car's heater. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

One old reason (still applicable?) was that the pistons were sized to expand when hot to fit the cylinder neatly. When they were cold there were lots of unburnt gases blowing past the piston.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates/Going to Mars

If Bill Gates wanted to, could he be the first man on Mars? Could he afford it? Could he afford a return trip?--BillGatesIsRich (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, using his vast fortunes, he may be able to attempt to be the first man on Mars. However, whether he would actually make it onto the planet is probably unlikely. Acceptable (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He may be able to fund a mission to Mars but he might not be physically and mentally fit enough to actually land there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's 52 now, and really starting to show his age. Useight (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that we don't have the technology yet to get humans there alive and well. Cosmic rays are really nasty. Mars Radiation Environment Experiment may tell you more. It would also be nice if you could not just land but also get back. With water on Mars, making hydrogen might be an option. There are lots of big and little questions that we don't have the answer to yet. In twenty to thirty years we may know enough. Bill's grandkids might get to go. --Lisa4edit (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The cost of the Apollo program was about $23 billion, or about $135 billion in today's dollars according to the article. Bill Gates' wealth is $58 billion, most of which is tied up in Microsoft stock. A Mars program would be far more expensive than a moon program. So no, Bill Gates probably could not afford his own private Mars program. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

what kind of sun-glasses are this?

This glasses rocked my world. They look like Ray-Ban Wayfarers but I'm pretty sure they aren't so if anyone can tell me what brand they are or what's the name of that colour effect the glasses have I'd appreciate it. Extra points if someone finds them online.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pigs

How much does the average pig eat in a day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This site http://www.prairieswine.com/database/pdf/2110.pdf has a table for a new feed for domestic pig. Don't know how representative that is. The feed amount also depends on age, sex, season and how close to slaughter the pig is. Hope this helps. --Lisa4edit (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How to get a school to be named after me?

I want to be famous. I wish there a school is named after me. How to get a middle or high school to be named after me? What should I do? Jet (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I;d suggest donating a SHIT LOAD of money to a school district or school. That might work. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would if I'm rich like Bill Gates. Jet (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally schools etc are named after people who've done statesperson-like things for their nation, or who've contributed something of value to the entire planet. The minds of such people are concerned with anything but having a school named after them. Fame is, or may be, a by-product of service, not something you buy. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, if one isn't picky about what level school we're talking about - Robber baron (industrialist) . If we are, there's always getting shot while being a politico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmandius (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to be rich, but you may not live to see it happen. If you go to the poorest area you can find and found a school there and teach all your life, they'll probably name it after you ... after you are dead. If you have enough money you can just go and found your own school/ college. Good luck. --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You could always change your name to that of an existing school... Gwinva (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what robber barons have to do with having schools named after you. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie + Andrew Mellon = Carnegie Mellon University for starters; they and their ilk may or may not have had children... -- Ironmandius (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just steal the letters of your schools sign and place them with letters that spell your name. That is the shifty way without having to waste your life or money.Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven