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.
Our article on urinary tract infections says "Men engaging in anal sex should wear condoms to protect themselves from bacteria found in the bowels." which indicates that it's certainly possible. If you're specifically worried that you might have a UTI, your doctor or a walk-in clinic would be the place to go. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What language do air traffic controllers speak? Won't a pilot crash when he flies to another country and can't understand the ATC when he's trying to land? Its not all just numbers and letters, for sure. JeanLatore (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English. This is also true for radio at sea. I was shocked to hear the first officer of a large Japanese container ship radioing a small Japanese trawler in Japanese coastal waters (about a mile from shore) speaking English. I was on the bridge of the container ship, the trawler was in plain sight and clearly Japanese, and the first officer was Japanese. -Arch dude (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the Air traffic control article? In the third paragraph it says: "To ensure communication, all pilots and all controllers everywhere are required to be able to speak and understand English. While they may use any compatible language, English must be used if requested. The native language for the region is normally used."
Yes, there have been incidents where language trouble has contributed to acceidents. Here's an example. But a lot of ATC communication involves a small vocabulary of standard expressions, so the amount of English people have to know isn't that large. --Anonymous, 02:46 UTC, May 17, 2008.
Also, "how do they learn English?" strikes me as a bit of a silly question. I mean, how does anyone learn another language? They hang out with people who speak the language and pick it up as they go, or they go to school. I would imagine that English classes are pretty easy to come by in just about any urban setting in the world. It may take a bit of money, of course, but if you're in the process of becoming an air traffic controller, for example, I doubt that's going to be the stumbling block... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the Seaspeak article interesting as an example of a similar case. If your interactions with the person on the other end of the radio can be limited to a number of present and agreed formulae, then learning the language to an adequate standard is far less of a chore. -- Karenjc22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to cite a film in a paper in MLA, I cannot use most online sources, and my teacher has provided examples for various types of citations, but I can't tell what information I'm supposed to include. Here are the two examples:
Kurosawa, Akira, dir. Throne of Blood (underlined). 1957. Macbeth (underlined). By William Shakespeare. Ed. A. R. Braunmuller. CD-ROM. New York: Voyager, 1994.
You might get better results posting your query on the Language reference desk. As you're an unregistered user, I'd prefer you do this yourself as I have no way of ensuring that you'd find the relocation but are more likely to read this suggestion here. -- Good luck, Deborahjay (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask my teacher. The MLA is, to be charitable, a work in progress (as styleguides go), or maybe I'm just not smart enough to use it. It seems that exceptions are the rule, and each professor is free to interpret its recommendations as he or she or whatever sees fit. That said, you should buy a copy; mine only cost $25. It has lots of good stuff in it aside from the styleguide. From what I see in it, the citation you want might well read: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, dir. Tim Burton, perf. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman, Paramount/Dream Works, 2007. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading our article and others on Passports (and in particular following the link to the British Royals site which explains why HM the Queen does not require one), I got to thinking about not only other heads of state, but also the entourages who accompany them.
I wouldn't try to guess whether or not President Bush has a passport or needs to use it on arrival in another country. But, large numbers of people travel with him, and I would guess that not all of them have diplomatic passports. So, upon arrival in another country, does everyone else actually go through immigration, check passports, etc?
Likewise, given the heightened security in the US of the past several years, His Holiness probably didn't have to show Vatican Passport #1 on his recent visit -- but upon their arrival, did everyone else on the plane have to stand in line with the unwashed masses and explain why they were coming into the country, how long they were planning to stay, etc?
I don't know, but from a security engineering perspective there's no reason to bother with the usual immigration checks, because it is (I would assume) much harder to bluff your way onto Air Force One than to bluff your way through immigration. If you don't trust someone who was observed to deplane with the President, checking their passport and asking about the purpose of their visit isn't going to help much. A more reliable approach, if you're going to do a security check at all, would be a transitive "he's with me" scheme. A trusted official from the local government visually identifies the President, who then crosses the security perimeter; the President visually identifies some people from his entourage, who cross the perimeter; they identify their subordinates, and so on. I have no idea if anything of this sort happens in practice, though.
If the President's entourage does ever have to go through immigration (because of some inflexible legal requirement) I think it's safe to say that they won't stand in line with the unwashed masses and then be separated afterwards. That would be an enormous breach of security that would totally negate every other precaution they'd taken. This is all just guesswork, though. -- BenRG (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but your answer starts with "I don't know", continues to "I would assume", ends with "This is all just guesswork", and everything inbetween is pretty much what I would have guessed myself. For reasons not included in my query, I'm of the belief that common sense may not apply in this case, and I was hoping for a more fact-based reply. Anyone with first-person experience in this area out there?
-- Danh, 70.59.79.51 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of years ago the Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, a long-time friend of this country who'd been here many times, was outraged when he was required to go through a security gate at Brisbane Airport, which meant removing his shoes. He complained long and loud about the discourteous treatment shown to a visiting foreign dignitary by his Australian hosts, but the hosts said "one rule for everyone, no matter who they are". Presumably this protocol was based on the theory that terrorists come in many guises, often from the least-expected quarter. Whether they'd apply the rule so rigorously in the case of the Queen of Australia, the Pope, or the U.S. President, I couldn't say. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modern airports, Schipol near Amsterdam, for example, have VIP services that allow foreign dignataries, heads of state, government officials, and other VIPs to skip the regular immigration lines and desks, and their documents are processed by immigration officials while they may wait briefly. Usually they are being met by local hosts, or their own ambassadors or officials of the receiving country, and they will have access to phones, food and drink, and there may be press facilities in or nearby to such a VIP facility. I believe that at Schipol, anybody can request and pay for VIP service. I assume that in other places VIP services can be more restricted, perhaps only available for government officials, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.41.211 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way to check for this would be for the charity to first send everyone to a different page for each link, say http://www.redcross.org/Wikipedia_entry.htm from Wikipedia. On this page you would count when each person enters, then redirect them to the main donation page. You would then employ some software to monitor incoming people from the various sites, and send alerts if the number drops dramaticaly from any one source. The person who gets the alert would then check out the source for vandalism. A less technology-intensive but more labor-intensive approach is just to have someone manually check all the links each day, by picking on them and carefully checking the resulting web address. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, what are the customary measures taken in pubic hygiene. I mean like, is it typical for men to shave their pubic hair? How short is normal? stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.187 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pubic hair is there for a purpose, and does not require cutting in order to maintain good hygiene. The folks that cut it don't do so for hygiene-related purposes; or if they do, they're either misinformed or have a medical condition that needs special treatment. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the purpose of public hair? And how long do you let it grow before cutting? down to your knees?
Since its been very hot weather over the past few days I was wondering why if our body temperature is 37°C, why we feel hot when it's 30°C? Because this is 7 below the body temperature but I feel hot even when its 24. User:Val3 (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your body generates around 100 joules/second of heat which needs to be flushed into the environment to keep your body temperature constant. If the ambient temperature is significantly lower than body temperature then you'll lose that much through your skin. Otherwise the body has to fall back on its uncomfortable evaporative cooling system. -- BenRG (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason you feel hot in that situation is that your skin temperature is much lower than your internal body temperature. Therefore, if the ambient temperature in your location is the same as your internal body temperature, you'll feel incredibly uncomfortable as your skin is not used to feeling that warm. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're probably wearing clothes which help retain the heat that your body generates, and if not, maybe there's sunlight warming your skin. When naked and in the shade, and especially if there's a bit of a breeze to carry away your body heat, you might well find 30° perfectly comfortable or even on the cool side. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, May 18, 2008.
There's a talking sponge that wears trousers and a tie, lives in a pineapple under the sea, and makes burgers, and you're criticising the relative scale of the humans and the sponge? ;-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D)16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they would be huge on screen. All you'd see were their feet. Actually, when humans are featured like pirates and such all you do see is their feet unless they are narating.
It is my habit to switch of lights , fans and other electrical appliances while not in use. I keep asking my office colleagues to do the same but they never do it. I have been switching off these lights for the past 2 years. How can I make them understand the importance of being environmentally conscious?
sumal (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any authority over your colleagues, you'll find it difficult to enforce this. You need to involve management and get a formal policy drawn up. Any company should be able to draw up a policy and justify enforcement on environmental and/or cost ground (electricity costing money after all). One thing to bear in mind though is certain appliances/lights consume far more power at startup than they do in operation. It's usually more efficient to leave flourescent light tubes on for instance than switch them on and off repeatedly so you need to take this into account. Exxolon (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it's an urban myth that turning fluorescent bulbs on and off uses more energy than leaving them on, for any sort of real-life pattern of usage. While fluorescent bulbs do draw a sharp spike of current when starting up, that extra energy is equivalent to only a few seconds of 'on' time. In other words, if the light isn't needed for more than a few seconds, less electricity will be used if it is shut off between uses.
This picture is complicated somewhat by the question of bulb lifetime. Fluorescent tubes generally accumulate much of their wear and tear during on-off cycles; bulbs that are frequently turned on and off will have a significantly shorter service lifetime than bulbs left on continuously.
In other words, one must seek to strike a balance between electricity savings (from turning bulbs off when not in use) and the financial and environmental costs of potentially more frequent bulb replacements. The U.S. Department of Energy suggests that your break-even point will be at anywhere from five to fifteen minutes of off-time:
For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes, it is probably more cost effective to turn the light off. Or in other words, if you leave the room for only up to 15 minutes, it will generally be more cost effective to leave the light(s) on. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes.[1]
Now, while office lighting is almost certainly one of the most conspicuous consumers of electricity, fluorescent tubes draw relatively little power compared to most other electrical devices in the office. As the original poster noted, he's also making an effort to shut down office appliances when not in use. Turning off the copier, coffeemaker, computers, etc. at the end of the day or when not in use for extended periods is going to make a much bigger dent in the electric bills than adjusting the lights. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DOE was also considering bulb life-span, not just at-the-socket power consumption. That may account for the difference between their results and "MythBusters". (Or it could simply be because MythBusters is unscientific light entertainment, of course.) APL (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mythbusters addressed this specific question in one of their episodes. For modern lights, it is always more energy efficient to turn them off when not in use than to leave them on, even for fluorescents. They didn't address it in the episode, but older fluorescents did use a lot more start up power than modern (w/in the last 20 years) fluorescents, so that may be where that myth came from. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone, Sumal - the people I work with are particularly frustrating. In our kitchen, we have a very large kettle (it could hold about 15 litres of water) which is always heating the water in it. There are 6 levels of heat: level 6 is for constant boil and at level 1, it monitors the temperature and if it gets too low, it increases it. So the way to use it would be to put the cold water in, turn it to 6, wait for it to boil, then turn it back to 1 and keep it that way until you add more water. Many people use it and keeping it off would cause too much wasted time.
But the people at the office feel that the water's not hot enough unless it's on 6 which I pointed out to be false by showing that water from level one (just before it started to boil again) was fine. But nobody cares and whenever I walk past, it's on 6. If you spend too much time complaining, people look at you as though you're an ultra-environmentalist set-the-chickens-free freak. I would imagine that if I complained to management and asked them to spend resources to draw up a formal policy (and implement it and monitor afterwards), they wouldn't be too pleased with me.
In my case, the major problem is that too few people really care. If you can find a way to increase awareness then that would be great. Last year some of the guys watched the Al Gore movie and they were talking about it for a few days and they seemed genuinely concerned (so maybe you should suggest that) but nothing happened. They still drive SUVs and fast sports cars to work (nobody carpools) and the average daily trip is about 120km (75 miles). I don't mind harping on and on to my friends and constantly nagging my family but at work, one has to consider one's career so this really is a tough one - all the best!
Some other factors to consider are employee efficiency and safety. If employees wanting to make a copy have to wait 5 mins for it to warm up each time, that will reduce their productivity. If employees find themselves walking through a dark office because they don't know where the light switches are they could injure themselves. So, it's a balance of these factors and saving electricity. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, should 'double-symble' in that article be 'double-syllable'? I didn't want to be too bold, since my musical knowledge is negligible.) Angus Lepper(T, C, D)16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have purchased a MP3 player but can not figure out a way to keep the ear buds from falling out of my ears. Is this a common problem with a common solution or should I start looking for an adhesive? 71.100.14.205 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exxolon is correct. To expand on his answer a little, ear buds come in many different sizes and shapes. Anecdote time: I, for example, went and stupidly left my ear buds at home a couple of years ago or so when I was leaving for a business trip, and had to purchase a new pair at an airport in order to not die of boredom on the plane. Unfortunately, as I was in a hurry, I pretty much grabbed the first pair I saw and ended up with ear buds that had excellent sound quality and the right size and shape for, oh, a coffee cup, or that's what it felt like when I tried to stick them into my ears. They were simply way too big to wear comfortably; just getting them in took some work, if I turned my head they tended to pop out because I couldn't fit them in properly, and after about fifteen minutes, my ears started to ache. Good thing I also brought a book. Sounds like perhaps they would've been the right size for you, though, since you have the opposite problem. I suggest you find a good consumer electronics store with a good selection of portable music players and accessories and explain your problem to one of the people working there -- if they're any good at their job, they can probably help you choose a pair that's good for you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are handy with a pair of pliers and want to salvage your ear-buds you might be able to fashion something like this [4] or [5]
using the temples from an old pair of glasses. Make very sure there are no wires sticking out at odd angles that could hurt you!! (P.S. the examples are not my favorite company, just something that google spat out.)Lisa4edit (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't thank you enough for this idea... just happened to have a 200ft roll of 17 gauge aluminum electric fence wire lying around. After cutting an ~6" length I used a pair of needle nose pliers to make a small tooth pick diameter loop on one end, to avoid getting impaled. Then with the loop just below the ear I started wrapping the wire around the back side of the ear over the top and back down to the front where it could be bent back under the ear bud handle. From there it was just a matter of wrapping the remainder of the wire around the ear bud handle two or three times. Done! (Dad loves 'um!) 71.100.14.205 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're very hard to recognize until 50-100 years later- you can't go to Barnes and Noble and request the latest classic. That said, historically there tend to be a limited number of works that endure the test of time- perhaps one or two in a year. We can make educated guesses about which current works will still be enjoyed a hundred years from now, but there's no way to know for sure.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question about retrospection in future terms, nice. Are you calling for some retroactivity, M.Esq? Even book awards are not really a guide to the longevity of the work since the zeitgeist which seems to inform the choices also changes, as do the literary reasons for these choices. Nobel Prizes may be an indicator. A quality of universal myth or humanistic themes might help. The really interesting thing is when people follow their collector's passions (or obsessions) and build up a hoard at the personal level of now "classic" comic books, or fetishise a particular writer's first editions, giving them bullion or prestige in the long term. Those guys are unconsciously at first anyway, very patient. You could go through the Penguin's Classics series, looking for what they have in common, though mostly the publishers respond to demand/sales and put the books into reprint. It'll be interesting to see what POD technology and e-book publishing do to these processes. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the name of the islands off the coast of North Carolina
Does anyone know a way to give money in the wake of some urgent need -- say, the hurricane in Burma, or the quake in China -- without the organization getting your contact info? --75.17.63.41 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And PayPal won't give them your name? I didn't see anything about that in the link, and I sort of assumed that merchants who accept PayPal generally expect to know whom they're dealing with. --75.17.63.41 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about wanting to give anonymously. My mom made the mistake of giving money to PETA because she didn't like the thought of animals being tortured. They then responded by making sure that her mailbox is always full of pics of tortured animals, along with the urgent request for more money. StuRat (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)