Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 3

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.

July 3

Another musical question

<moved to entertainment desk[1] because we can't have original posters creating new desk purposes without consensus. And for optimal results! Julia Rossi (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)>

Nixon Road?

Could someone please tell me where this is? maybe someone could google it? --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Want to give us a town, city, county, state, province, country? --LarryMac | Talk 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco California? i just pulled that out of the air. --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] --LarryMac | Talk 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe opinion

will he lay down his arms if US threatnes to invaid? --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. If the US threatened to invade it'd probably get a LOT of opposition — people are not exactly happy with the US as the "interventionist" state, either domestically or internationally. Mugabe would probably try to encourage that, and bank on the fact that it would be easier for the US to do nothing than to start yet another unwanted war. (And the US probably is stretched too thin militarily to possibly open up a new front in a totally different region.) Anyway, there's no casus belli for starting a war with Zimbabwe—they don't endanger US security at all, there's no way you'd be able to sell something like that to Congress or the public without the "mushroom cloud" fear. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Zimbabwe has nothing the U.S. needs, so just like the Sudan, Bush may talk, but he won't do anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sudan does have some oil, so that might give Bush a reason to invade there. Then again, no matter where he decides to invade, his co-President Dick Cheney will get some lucrative no-bid contracts for his Haliburton buddies, and he'll receive "payment for services rendered" as soon as he leaves office. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The only possible military intervention will be from the African Union, which may or may not work. Intervention from non-African countries would just play right into Mugabe's anti-Western-influence spiel. Plasticup ^T/C 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are more important issues than whether Mugabe gets to claim that his country would be paradise if not for Western influence. To the American public, establishing true democracy is important, while to Bush and Cheney raiding the public treasury to enrich themselves and their defence contractor buddies would be the goal. So, it would be a win-win situation for all. StuRat (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Mugabe's propaganda machine is given any more fuel the invading forces could well find themselves "installing democracy" on another unwilling populace. We all know how well that works. Plasticup ^T/C 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"To the American public, establishing true democracy is important" — I personally doubt this. The American public cares about something called "true democracy" only in very inspecific ideological terms (most would not really know how to answer truthfully the question of whether the USA was a "true democracy"). They are not interested in wars in the name of "true democracy" unless they feel threatened. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki: Ranger?

Was Gen. Eric Shinseki (Ret.) a member of the U.S. Army Rangers? A Ranger Tap is clearly visible on his uniform, but the article does not mention him serving in the Rangers. Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He would only have to completed the Ranger's 2 month training course to recieve the Tab, and not have actually served in the Army Rangers. You will see most (all?) top US generals have it. Have a look at the other Chiefs of Staff in the template at the bottom of his article. Fribbler (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama and Mccains wife relationship?

what do you think of this? --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

they seem to be getting along with one another. clarify i didnt mean other type of relationship. --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a discussion topic, not a reference question. Plasticup ^T/C 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

oops --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) srry

Well-known people on WP

Are there any well-known/famous people who are known to have accounts on wikipedia...apart from Jimbo? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:RichardDawkins. I believe it's really him. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just outmoded superstition with no objective evidence to support it. ;-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedians with articles and Category:Notable Wikipedians. Best of luck in finding many household names in those lists, though. My favourite is Nicholson Baker. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the largest bird in Europe?

--TheGreenGorilla (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

did you know this answer? Well, here goes, the Great Bustard. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicago: 360 N. Michigan Ave.

Is the London Guarantee Building (near the Michigan Avenue Bridge) the same thing as the Crain Communications Building? I asked at Talk:London Guarantee Building but haven’t received an answer. --Mathew5000 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They certainly have the same address. Here's Crain in Chicago:[3] and here is the London Guarantee Building: [4]. Couldn't tell you how much of the building is occupied by Crain, but they appear to have their Chicago offices there. Fribbler (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Further delving shows me that as of 2001 the building is wholly owned by Crain Communications and has been renamed accordingly. Fribbler (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fribbler. I noticed in Google Streetview [5] that the building had "CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS" over at least one of the entrances, and I thought it was in the same place as the London Guarantee Building, but I couldn't figure out why the Wikipedia article did not mention it. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I walk by the building every day and can confirm that the Crain name has been stuck onto the London Guarantee Building. Deor (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Colouring Text

I am groping in the dark to find the right code for the colour "red" in my user page. Can anyone point me to a place that lists all the colour codes used in Wikipedia?? La Alquimista (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Colours suggests you can just use the HTML code "red". I haven't tried it out though. Fribbler (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Web colors. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 most famous Wikipedians?

Hi, a previous question reminded me of the time when I tried to browse through the Wikipedians with articles page, but soon gave up because it's just too long and I didn't find anyone I recognized by name. So I'd like to ask, who (in your opinion, I guess) are the most famous Wikipedians of them all? Are there any well-known celebrities or not? The only one I actually know of is Stephen Colbert, but that's sort of a given; and Richard Dawkins as mentioned before, probably. (And you know Jimbo never counts :D ) Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Do you mean wikipedians famous on wikipedia or in the "real world"? · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Real World, surely. The only two I know on the list by name are Peter Hitchens the journalist and John Romero of ID games. Fribbler (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that Ted Allen would be one of the best known among the general public (but he's not active). -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An American public ;-) Fribbler (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly a list of household names, is it. The only ones I've heard of, apart from the ones named above, are Nicholson Baker, Galen Strawson, Jakob Nielsen and Nigel Short. And I'm thrilled to see that Charles Ingram has an account (*cough*). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Real world, definitely. I'd rather wait a little while until Wikipedia gets more popular to start asking for celebrities from Wikipedia :) Anyways, I found Grant Imahara from Mythbusters. Cool... probably. Kreachure (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Weren't some country's royal family editing their article, identified by the IP being from the palace? Edison (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To readers of books, Poppy Z. Brite and Christopher Cerf, among others, are fairly well known. And Roger Ebert has edited WP, though not for a while. Deor (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Cuban, who only edited his own article (no surprise). I guess most of them are too busy doing stuff that we can write about. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Moon seems to have edited some of her own stuff in the past. --Masamage ♫ 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bamber Gascoigne is pretty well known in the UK. You can see a long list of articles whose subjects have edited Wikipedia at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Notable Wikipedian. Warofdreams talk 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Prz = Phil Zimmermann. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently wrote a stub for Myer Fredman, who has a username of the same name but is not active. He's famous in my world, but I wouldn't be surprised if the mob have never heard of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Squeek-squeek, I'm wheeling out the only one I know I can find, Mike Dash aka User:Mikedash. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Richard Borcherds, known on Wikipedia as user:r.e.b., is one of the most famous people in the world. (Except, perhaps, among non-mathematicians.) Michael Hardy (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Philip S. Khoury and J. Philippe Rushton are pretty famous to me. But come on, seriously, the most famous is obviously Mike Godwin! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont forget Weird Al--omnipotence407 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a fair number of people I'm came across who have edited their own articles or talk pages (and perhaps one or two other minor edits). E.g. User:RichardDawkins. If you count these you probably have quite a few candidates Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Stallman, who among other things founded the Free Software Foundation which created the license Wikipedia uses, edited as User:Rmstallman. Graham87 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Diamonds

At what tempreture do diamonds melt? If they sometimes come out of volcanoes, then the temp at which they melt must be hoter than magma, so what temp is it?193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Zionist

According to Diamond, "Above 1700 °C (1973 K / 3583 °F), diamond is converted to graphite". -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So at what temp does graphite melt? And what is the average temp of magma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For all your melting-point-of-graphite needs, heres a table from "the world of carbon": [6]. The Magma article gives a temperature range of between 700 and 1300 celcius. Fribbler (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And for all your science needs, there's[7]. Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Horticultural advice?

In my backyard we have planted four sweet basil plants. The two nearest the house are doing great—constantly perky, lots of big, fresh leaves, constant regeneration of removed leaves. The two a little further our are doing lousy—droopy, yellowish, not very many new leaves, nothing very large. Both receive pretty much equal amounts of water and sunlight. Both were initially planted in soil with fertilizer.

What might explain the differences between the two? What ought I do in order to help out the struggling pair? I don't have much of a green thumb, so if this seems obvious to those who do, I apologize... thank you. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What country/climate are you located in? Fribbler (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. USA, New England. Very hot and humid in the summer, occasional thunderstorms and heavy downpours. (And obviously in the winter everything dies. That's fine. We just grow in the summer.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Plant lots more basil seeds quickly. You will then be able to pick the leaves, even make pesto, before the fall/autumn. It should grow very quickly in hot and humid weather. As with some other herbs, it is a good idea to make weekly sowings so that you always have some at the right stage for picking. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We aren't planting seeds, we're working from plants (seeds are too problematic for me). The four plants all came from the same source at the same state of health. Yet two do very well and two do not. That's the question I want answered. Even two plants produces more than enough to make pesto at the end of the year—I know how to pick th leaves off to stimulate production. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I would consider if the ground is different for the two that are struggling, I would consider pulling them up *VERY CAREFULLY* and putting them in a different location, or else "work" the soil. This is where you take a spade or a gardening claw and "agitate" the ground around the plants. It the ground is too hard and dry, the roots won't spread well, and the plant will suffer. Soil acidity can also be an issue. I don't know off the top of my head what acidity is right for basil, but you could probably look it up at www.homedepot.com or something similar. The soil may not seem to be different, but it can change a lot within even a foot or two depending on what (if anything) was planted there before. Happy Gardening! Xavier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.67 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep my basil plants in pots indoors. They are VERY thirsty and need watering two or three times a week, but if I've forgotten to water them, they will perk up in a couple of hours when eventually watered. I suggest you examine the soil drainage around your plants. Astronaut (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd give you some advice, 98.217, but I've always been told that you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her appreciate it. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recession and prices - I am puzzled.

I always understood that western governments favoured spending their way out of a recession. Yet here we are surrounded by rising oil and fuel prices, rising food costs, rising mortgage and interest charges, and gloomy forecasts about the credit crunch and low investor returns on the world stock markets. Yet the people who are sitting on the capital that could be used to fuel a spending boom so as to get the economy going again are doing exactly that ie. sitting on it. On a more local note, I have been looking today at holiday costs (I live in the UK where the weather at present is very poor, unstable and unpredictable) and am surprised (having just returned from Tenerife where there is massive unemployment due to the downturn in construction and tourism)to see that despite the generality of increased consumer concern about the economy, most of the bigger holiday companies are charging an arm and a leg for a basic 14 day bucket-and-spade trip to the sun. No wonder the resorts were 40% down on seasonal trends. So what am I missing here? If I owned airplanes, or hotels, or jetskis, or bars, or restaurants that depended on bums on seats to survive, but which were all sitting idle, you can bet I would cut my costs to rock-bottom to entice the worried customers in and spend what little they dared on giving themselves a bit of fun; and me a decent income. Or is that too simplistic for our esteemed leaders? 92.17.189.128 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The airlines are badly hurt by fuel prices, and the restaurants by food prices. You can't cut your prices much when your input costs are skyrocketing. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Prices already are rock bottom. You said yourself that fuel costs are soaring. This is not a typical recession. This is a recession combined with surging commodity prices. Your complaint about unemployment exemplifies the problems of a recession (slow economy) and your complaint about trips costing too much exemplifies the problems of rising prices (inflation). If the government tried to spend its way out of the recession we would see even more outrageous inflation - which would just make things worse. The best "solution" is an increase in foreign investment, but with xenophobia ruling America and current account deficits in all of the afflicted countries, that savior is ruled out. You can thank the last decade of decadence for that. Plasticup ^T/C 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why people with capital are not investing, if you had a billion dollars of treasury notes, what would you do with it given all this volatility? Btw, the US has passed this act. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the things about capitalist economies is that people get to do what they want with their money. Taking the big picture it may make sense to spend in order to get the economy going again. But looking from the point of view of an individual it doesn't make sense. What happens if you spend lots of money and nobody else does? There is still a recession, but now you don't have any money left.

Incidentally Western governments have not tended to spend their way out of recessions since the days of Thatcher and Reagan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - I accept much of what goes before, but if the future looks so bleak, with no sign of a silver-lining on the edges of the current and looming stormclouds, are we maybe looking at the prospect of another "inspired" war on - now let me see - Iran, to loosen the taps on the oil-wells and also to boost production of US Arms and Munitions? I would have preferred building say a Hoover Dam across the Colorado River but somebody already did that.92.17.189.128 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How would attacking an oil-producing nation increase oil production? Plasticup ^T/C 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is actually a good idea. I had a similar idea that the U.S.A. can accomplish -- that is to utterly destroy a large oil-consuming nation to decrease global demand. China comes to mind. JeanLatore (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your use of the word "accomplish". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But we've already accomplished so much! Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the UK is still not in a 'technical' recession yet is it? Isn't it 3 months (or quarters?) of negative growth that's required? Anyway the problem with your idea is that the travel companies (and other companies in general) need to ensure they turn a profit. They can sell some units for under 'cost' provided they make an overall profit, but whereas during a positive economic climate it is easier to find people who are less sensitive to price, as the economy turns gloomier people tend to become more price-sensitive. Traditionally we see luxury goods sales drop in these times - holidays are (to many) a luxury that can be forgone. Personally i'm interested in how this economic-climate will affect fair-trade/eco/green sales - are these things going to suffer as people feel the pinch and try to save costs, or will people's desire to help/buy 'ethically' strong enough to survive a gloomy economy when cheaper alternatives are available during a time of need? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be amazed to see a sizeable slow-down in what has (in the past decade) been a extremely fast growing market. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I echo the OP's puzzlement. Say there's a travel company with an unsold holiday whose normal sale price is £1,000. At that price, I wouldn't buy it. But if the travel company reduces the price of the holiday to £500, I may well buy it. And yet the point being made by several posters here is that the company would never do such a thing. But why on earth not? If they reduce the price, they make £500. If they don't, they make nothing. Why do they act in such a counterintuitive fashion? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be that the company incur more costs selling that holiday for £500 than never selling it at all. If they don't sell it then maybe they pay nothing to the hotel/airline/other companies, yet if they do sell it they pay fixed-costs to those (as per an agreement) thus sometimes it makes more financial sense to not sell the holiday than to sell it. The risk of not-selling the holiday will be that in the future hotels/airlines/etc. will be more careful about how many seats/rooms/etc. they allocate your firm because they cannot trust your occupancy rates. This could be entirely incorrect but logically a sale isn't automatically better than no sale. I doubt that the tourism industry is seeing a major drop-off in occupancy rates, because I doubt that they will have expected this summer/holiday-season to be as high-volume as the last. Their 'buyers' will surely act on information/research in deciding what expectations to set for their sales during that year (certainly the business I work in takes into account many factors in considering it's expected sales-volumes/growth for the year.) ny156uk (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You meant "...yet if they do sell it they pay Variable costs...", right? Fixed costs are incurred regardless of the sale. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I was thinking fixed more in-terms of that when they fill a room/seat they pay a pre-agree price to the firm (e.g. I'll take 250 nights between July and August in your hotel at a room rate of $10 a room - or something similar) ny156uk (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture since the mid 1990s

has anyone else noticed that not that much has changed in pop culture, music, fashion etc, (at least for white people) since the mid 1990s? JeanLatore (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. My experience has been quite the opposite. Plasticup ^T/C 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

how so my friend? JeanLatore (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The following were undeniable catalysts for several revolutions in pop culture since the mid 90's, especially for 'white people': Backstreet boys, Pokemon, Britney Spears, Columbine massacre, Google, 9/11, iPod, Paris Hilton, Iraq War, Youtube, Social networking, many new TV shows since the 90's which are too many to be listed by me here, and a million other things that I don't have the time to list here but nevertheless prove to us that pop culture changes in an almost weekly fashion nowadays, and in fact much faster than in any other era of contemporary history. Kreachure (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You left off Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

the macro-differences are miniscule. Compare 1986 with 1996. Then compare 1996 with 2006. Furthermore, most of the songs on "new rock" radio these days are regularly 15 years old. I doubt back in 1985 the "new rock" stations were playing stuff from 1971 still. But that's what we have with Pearl jam, nirvana, stp, smashing pumpkins, etc still all over the new rock radio now. Fashions are pretty similar to the mid 90s, esp. for young women. JeanLatore (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean pop-culture is more nostalgic today than it was then, and also as a testament to how good those acts were. If you think the internet hasn't caused a huge change in popular culture, then I don't know what to say to that. You-tube, myspace, iTunes and peer to peer networks have all had enormous impacts on pop-culture. -- Mad031683 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retro is a significant part of modern pop culture, but it's not the core or the majority of it. Kreachure (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Retro is great, at least I enjoy it. I still play games on my NES and Nintendo 64, listen to 90s music, and I'm wearing a Pokémon t-shirt right now. Useight (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this. The Simpsons episode "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" aired in 1993 and had all kinds of hilarious 80s references -- Rubic's Cubes, Baby on Board signs, Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault, etc. There was just so much quintessentially 80s stuff. Recently there was an episode that took place in the mid-90s. It just wasn't that funny, and not just because The Simpsons isn't generally as funny as it used to be. The 90s just weren't all that different in terms of pop culture. Emasculated R&B pop on the radio, Seinfeld on TV, Super Mario games on the Nintendo. Technology has changed greatly since 1995, but not culture. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The online things are the biggest changes over the past few years - social networking, online free media (legal and illegal), instant messaging and pop-forums brought the internet out of Mom and Dad's basement and into the valleygirl's bedroom. In the mid 90s, chatting online was (stereotypically) for slashdot worshippers, tech staff, creepy cybersexers and roleplayers. Now it's for cool people, tweens and OMGLOL! fans. The reason it doesn't seem like so much change is that we've lived through it (and many of us as our forming, teenage or young adult years. It's not so noticable. Steewi (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this Youtube video reminds me of how much technology has changed culture in the last decade, but maybe that's just me. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I happen to totally agree with JeanLatore, especially in regards to fashion and music. As 60's, 70's and 80's all had true essence of orginal styles (fashion) for each decade, ever since it has been a mixture of elements from each of those eras.When Cobain and the Seattle scene exploded (grunge) it changed music on a grand scale. Its funny how I remember being excited around the year 2000 to see what was coming next. Well, nothing happened...yet. Don't get me wrong, I think there are some excellent artists making superb music these days, its just that many times I am hearing everything all over again now. Young bands sounding much like bands of the 80's, tired new rock acts that sound like Pearl Jam or Nirvana left over and re-heated.Yes, the 90's had iconic acts, people and culture that defined that decade, but ever since its been a remix of everything since the 60's. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

sleep loss

Is there a link between sleep loss and brain damage or cognative impairment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.66.167 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can get serious brain damage from a lack of sleep, but you do function best by getting right around 8 hours of sleep. Its not good to get much less, and its also not good to get too much sleep. Grango242 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask a doctor. Wikipedia cannot give medical advice 4.158.201.138 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who was asking for medical advice? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes (especially cognitive impairment), and in a big way. Sleep deprivation sums it up pretty well. Kreachure (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)