Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 28

What do siamese cats eat?

What do siamese cats eat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.92.94 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat food? **groans** :) Vespine (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not much related to the above question, specifically, but this is a good article on cats, in this cat's opinion. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to [1], "Most breeders recommend a high-quality dry food, and most cats can eat when they like without becoming overweight." Nimur (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Siamese cats are mostly so spoiled they eat whatever they damn want. The most interesting thing about them are that many are afflicted with optic chiasm. Their optic nerves are tangled wrong, and they compensate by crossing their eyes, or sometimes just by walking into things. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The optic chiasm is an anatomical term -- what you just said is akin to stating that "Siamese cats may be afflicted with vena cava." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but as the article states, in Siamese "with certain genotypes of the albino gene" the wiring is disrupted. The cat's eyes will be crossed to compensate. My Siamese is just fine, though I often wonder why I bother feeding him at all since he pukes more often than a supermodel. Only half as spoiled, though. Matt Deres (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They've even been known to consume IP addresses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Siamese mice, surely? AllanHainey (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever's on sale!    :-D   
68.179.108.25 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

foreignn exchange rates

When I go to websites to see foreign exchange rates, they are always better than actual banks will really give you. I have to look at websites of each individual bank to see what their actual exchange rate is. Now I will be in Tokyo next month and I need to know some actual Japanese banks and their actual exchange rates. Can anyone help please with real links or sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a website showing current exchange rates at banks at Tokyo's Narita Airport. You will see that the "sell" price is different from the "buy" price. Somewhere between these prices is the exchange rate you will find quoted on many foreign exchange websites. The number quoted on these websites is the spot rate, which is available only to registered traders trading millions of dollars (or their equivalent) at a time. Ordinary travelers do not have access to high-volume currency exchanges. Banks and bureaux de change such as the one linked above offer travelers indirect access to currency exchanges for a fee, either implicit or explicit. That fee is the difference between the rate offered by the bank (or bureau de change) and the market rate you will see quoted on foreign exchange websites. Some banks and bureaux de change charge an explicit percentage or flat per-transaction fee in addition to the implicit fee carried by their exchange rates. If you are traveling, it can pay to use intermediaries offering the best (i.e. closest to market) exchange rates and lowest (preferably zero) explicit fees. In my somewhat extensive experience as a traveler, I have found that I get the best exchange rate by using my ATM card to withdraw cash from foreign ATMs. However, I have chosen to use a card issued by a bank in my home country that does not charge per-transaction fees for the use of foreign ATMs. If your bank does charge these fees, then you may be better off taking traveler's checks with you, but you should look around a bit in Tokyo or consult a travel guide to find a bank or bureau de change with a reasonable rate and low to nonexistent fees. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

God

What's the name source of the philosophy (maybe it's a particular quote) that the purpose of God is to watch? Sort of a silent witness type that observes everything. I've seen that theme come up in some literature and I'm sure they're borrowing it from somewhere, but I can't remember where. I don't mean mere Deism; I think it's more of a sarcastic humanistic "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" sort of thing, mixed with recognition of the genuine human need to be understood. Thanks .froth. (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut invented such a religion, IIRC, which basically stated that God created the universe and then stopped intervening in it entirely. It was not Bokononism, but a different religion, something along the lines of "God-the-indifferent" or some such. I forget which story it was from, perhaps an early one like Player Piano or Sirens of Titan or something. --Jayron32 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. It was Sirens of Titan. He calls it "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent". As to a more formal real-world philosophy that this is based on, I am not certain. --Jayron32 04:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah just the spark I needed. A long long stretch for the RD to recognize, but it's called "The Church of the God Who Makes No Difference" from Permutation City. Basically, God's function is to observe, because anything that observes is a God. Thanks! .froth. (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A parallel idea, I think (not knowing the science-fiction stories), might be the 17th and 18th-century rationalist notion that perhaps The Creator (seen as The Great Architect of the Universe) might have designed and built the Universe and set it in motion like The Watchmaker in the Watchmaker Analogy, but having given Free Will to at least one of His Creations, would have had to give free will meaning by abstaining from further intervention in the world's affairs. But the Creator would still be omniscient. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be deism as mentioned by the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question may be answered by Song of Songs 2:9. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

..or not. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. hydnjo (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaycee Lee Dugard

In the case of Jaycee Lee Dugard, the article mentions that her stepfather witnessed her abduction (and was initially a suspect). But the article says nothing about her birth parents. Who are they, and what are they saying now? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions "Dugard's mother, Terry Probyn". I've seen no mention of the birth-father. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, I missed that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Developed photos look washed out

I recently sent some panoramic photos (I added black areas to the top and bottom to make them fit a 40x60 poster - I then planned to cut off the black areas and mount them on the wall) to be developed by my local photo shop. When they came back, they looked considerably more washed out (brighter, with maybe a bit less contrast) than how they had looked on my computer monitor, which was disappointing. My question: how do I control what the final print looks like? I can make the image darker and send it to be printed again, but that's little better than trial and error. Is there a way to simulate what a given image would look like when printed? Do I perhaps need to adjust my monitor settings? Thanks! — QuantumEleven 09:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think properly adjusting your monitor settings should definitely be your first step! See color calibration. To really do it properly, you need a tristimulus colorimeter, but that may be overkill for your needs, honestly. Just using the calibration software that comes with Windows, for example, can result in drastically improved picture quality. Also, you don't mention how old your monitor is, but especially if you have an older CRT monitor, it's very likely that the picture just isn't as bright as it used to be, which obviously makes washed out areas appear to be much darker. I've run into this myself, with somewhat unfortunate results when areas I thought to be solid black in a picture really weren't. Buying a new monitor really made a difference there. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like some sort of auto-correction was done on your image without a real live person ever actually looking at your photo to see if that makes sense. The computerized enlarger could have looked at the black bars around your image and decided that the picture on average was too dark and then lightened it for you.

If you find a photo developer where you can actually talk to the people who will be doing the work, you can explain to them this issue and they'll be able to adjust the image manually APL (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively you could put 5 bars of color (printer's cyan, magenta, yellow, gray 50% and white) on the black part you wish to have cut off. (See if your printer came with a color test sheet or see if you can pick up a pantone scale somewhere or find a color bar margin in a used magazine.) If all else fails pick up a couple of those "color sample" leaflets at the paint mixing station at a local home improvement store. Cut out some swatches, match that to what you have on those color bars and then hand all that in to the printers' together with your image file. That way you can check your image when you pick it up at the store and throw it back at them for a do-over when you're not happy. (Before you pay. :-) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much everyone for your suggestions, I will try them! — QuantumEleven 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Long Road Trip

If one was traveling from Manhattan, NY to Fairbanks, AK by car, what would be the ideal car to use, the most important, needed travel items and, if obeying all traffic laws, how much time should one allow oneself to travel there and back? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea specifics of journey as I'm in UK, but surely any car is fine as long as it is in sound mechanical condition? The more comfortable the car the better I would assume, and things like air con, decent stereo etc will make the journey more enjoyable... But a car's a car when ur talking about the abilty of going from a->b surely? Gazhiley (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

She's probably concerned about weather issues. Depending on how she goes, she could wind up crossing most of Canada. APL (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, tho APL. But I'm a girl --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. No offense. APL (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to drive the whole way and not take any ferries, then you'll have to take the AlCan or Alaska Highway. There's some information about the road here. You'd want a car that's sturdy, and your dates of travel should be planned for June through August. A quick Google Maps query shows a route that enters Canada in Manitoba, with a total distance of 4,283 miles, taking about 3 days 1 hour. Obviously, one would need extra time for meals, refueling and sleep. --LarryMac | Talk 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AlCan is open year round - your preference for summer driving is not a requirement. Note that there are few roads in and out of Fairbanks - your options are pretty limited. You should also pay close attention to your gas tank; even along the major roads in Alaska, gasoline stations can be over a hundred miles apart. Nimur (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How many hours a day do you want to be driving? Google gives 3 days 1 hours non-stop. If you drive 8 hours a day that's a little over 9 days each way (assuming you want the fastest way, which is unlikely to be the most interesting way). Google is usually conservative so you could do it in a little less than that. As far as car to use, I'd agree it doesn't make a lot of difference as long as it's in good working condition - unless you're doing it in winter, when you'll almost certainly want something with 4 wheel drive for any icy bits. I drove from Austin, Texas to Calgary in a Jetta by going across to the coast and up, and I was pretty comfortable in it (a backseat passenger would have disagreed). As far as travel items I brought which I'm glad I did, other than an "emergency road kit" I got at Target or somewhere, I bought this little box that plugs into the cigarette lighter and provides a regular wall plug that you can plug in a laptop, charge a cell phone or use any other reasonably powered household appliance (I used it for a desk lamp when I couldn't see). Here is something similar. Also, a tape adapter is very nice, I used it to play music from my laptop (and iPod). TastyCakes (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were to leave much later in the year than now, I would bring blankets in case you break down so that you can try to avoid hypothermia. Also obviously pack warm clothes. A flashlight is always a good idea. Personally, I would want to bring music. I would also carry some relatively nonperishable food (granola bars?) and bottles of water, again, in case of breakdown and also because distances between outposts on the Alaska Highway can be great. For the same reasons, you will need to stop for gas at points along that highway even if the tank is not close to empty, because you could run out before you get to the next outpost. If you are at all mechanically inclined, you might bring a tire jack, spare tire, and tools for quick repairs, since you could have a long wait for rescue in case of breakdown. You might want to look into what, if any, coverage AAA or CAA offer along your route. Marco polo (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On the same note, I've heard them say that a candle generates enough heat to stop you freezing in a car. That said, I have no idea how accurate "they" are. TastyCakes (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems unlikely; as it fails to account for even basic things like how large of a car, and how cold it is outside. I suspect it's a myth. A zero-degree sleeping bag will stave off hypothermia for a long time, though. Nimur (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to work in snow caves and igloos (so say reliable survival books I have read). Cars probably aren't that well insulated, but if you do the trip in summer it hopefully won't get too cold. A candle or two would certainly make a difference. Blankets would be required as well. --Tango (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A car is effectively uninsulated: both metal and glass conduct heat quite well. For comparison, six inches of packed snow provide as much insulation as typical blown fiberglass. --Carnildo (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When this question is asked, people usually recommend buying the current edition of The Milepost for advice (more reliable than "I've heard" and "It is supposed to work"). The web site for the publication is at www.milepost.com. And incidentally, it says right on the home page that any sort of car is okay. --Anonymous, 17:55 UTC, August 28, 2009.

Well, I've driven through some reasonably remote regions of Alaska in winter and in summer (so this is better than just "I've heard" or "I found on the internet")... but I'm just a random guy on the internet. If you're doing it in winter, expect delays. Consider carrying a gun (I was surprised to hear this advice but several motel owners were surprised I'd even consider being out without a pistol - I'm not usually one for arming myself on my road-trips, but when in Alaska, do as the Alaskans do... I guess). Recognize that most of the roadway is not suitable for "interstate-style" driving - it's not designed for that speed; nor that level of convenience. There will not be rest-stop, cell-phone coverage, gasoline, food, for long stretches. Plan ahead, keep a paper map, and make sure your car is in very good shape. Towtrucks aren't cheap when they have to make a hundred mile round-trip. If you find yourself 50 miles from Tok and 50 miles from Big Delta, with any kind of a car problem (no matter how minor), you can find yourself in a very serious situation, and very little in the way of communications equipment. It's strange to drive on roads which do not have lights, powerlines, or any other sign of human existence - even for just a few miles. It's even stranger if you deviate at all from any of the four main roads (for this, we needed six-wheel-drive trucks). There will be stretches where you can be tens or hundreds of miles from the nearest house, (let alone the nearest town)... very surreal. Nimur (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

More Original Research, a.k.a. "free advice": Nimur is absolutely correct to say "make sure your car is in very good shape". I would add to that, "drive something common", something any shade-tree mechanic can fix if needed -- and in the same breath I'll admit that's not as easy as it once was. I drove most of that route a number of years ago in an old Plymouth with a Slant-6 engine because because (with the VW Beetle) it was one of the most common engines in North America at the time, thus both parts and expertise were readily available.

You'll see more of Alaska (and less of the Yukon, or whatever it's called nowdays) if you relax the road-only requirement, and take a couple of ferry segments up the southeast peninsula. Such a route lets you visit Ketchikan, Juneau, and Skagway, and if you drive westbound on I-90 or the Trans-Canada and eastbound on the Yellowknife Highway you avoid a thousand miles of "backtracking". That route also has the advantage that you're driving "downhill" on the AlCan, a definite plus if it's raining whilst you're navigating one of the gravel sections.

Equally as strange as roads with no lights or powerlines are (in my opinion) "towns" consisting of four buildings clustered around a diesel generator. That's remote!

More opinions free for the asking, and worth what you'll pay for them ... DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In that spirit, the OP should be sure to stop along the way, in Bill, Wyoming. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to amend my previous reply slightly. After having rechecked how long ago my trip really was -- longer than I thought, BTW -- I determined that I probably ought to fact-check a couple other things I said earlier.

Apparently, the Alaska Highway is now completely paved, for starters. So, my comments about driving downhill on gravel can be ignored. I'd still drive the circular part of the route clockwise, as described above, though! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All four highways are now paved all-season roads. In winter, plowing can only keep up with the snow to a point. I think the Dalton Highway up to Prudhoe Bay is pretty much all paved, too. But you need permission to drive that - either via a commercial tourist bus, or if you're doing work in Prudhoe Bay. Do not attempt to drive the Dalton without a plan - there will be no services for 400 miles until you get to the oilfields. The TAP pumps are usually manned, but they're not "open for business". Nimur (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wedding Objection

In a traditional (USA? Christian?) wedding ceremony, there's a point towards the end where the officiant says "If there is any reason X and Y should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace", or something to that effect.
Are there any well-known cases (outside soap operas) where someone has objected? Is there any procedure in the ceremony to determine whether the objection should be sustained, or the objector should be dragged out of the church? Or is that all up to the parties involved?? jeffjon (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason an objection is raised only in movies is because it is a rhetorical question, or perhaps incredulous is a better word to describe it. It is said to strengthen the validity of the marital union by force of non contest. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Found some answers for the second question, but not the first - any well-known non-fictitious objections? jeffjon (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is no entirely rhetorical, but anyone with a genuine objection is likely to mention it before the ceremony states. To wait until that point would be incredibly spiteful. (Unless you were late and the ceremony started before you had a chance to say anything.) --Tango (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone in the church secretly knows or has evidence to believe that the engaged couple are actually close related (as when the bride's father is secretly the father of the groom) or that one of them is already married, then it would be better to say so and prevent the union than to wait until after the ceremony and then let it be known.It certainly should not be asked "toward the end" of the service, but before the vows are exchanged. I have not heard this question asked as part of marriage services in several religious denominations in services in the U.S., so I would be interested to know which denominations still have it as part of their wedding ritual. It is said to be part of the "traditional wedding service" dating back to the "first half of the 1300's" when no one in the world would have used or recognized those words, and when the "church" would likely have been Roman Catholic. Edison (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone say otherwise? I was suggesting objecting before the ceremony, not after. After is a little late (although the marriage could still be annulled). --Tango (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A fictional work [2] says it is in the Anglican service.Edison (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[3] says the traditional "marriage banns" wherein the marriage was publicized in advance for a specified time had the same function of allowing anyone who knew of consanguinity or previus marriages to notify the priest so the service would be cancelled. The civil marriage service in Georgia (U.S. state)(1915) said "If there is any one who has any just and legal reason why this marriage should not be performed, speak now, or forever hold your peace." Obstacles to marriage might include: not of sound mind, male under 17 or female under 14, undissolved previous marriage, impotency, or nearness of relationship, by blood or marriage, per Section 2932 of the Civil Code of Georgia. Per [4] this code said a man could not marry his stepmother, mother-il-law, daughter-in-law, stepdaughter, or granddaughter of his wife, with similar prohibitions for women. Drunkenness at the time of marriage by contrivance to gain consent was a fraud. Marriage between white persons and persons of African consent was prohibited, so in the past that would have been something a viewer could object to. I could not find the prohibited degree of consanguinity. This does not furnish the instances you request of shouted objections during the ceremony, but it points out what some of the bases could have been. [5] says that the prohibited relation is "closer than second cousin" except for some states who allow first cousins to marry, or who allow 1st cousin marriage if both parties are elderly. Edison (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually been to a real wedding where this part of a the ceremony still happens? I always had the impression that that was phased out centuries ago except in Hollywood? APL (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I'm inclined to believe that this line of reasoning evolved from an era when all the possible objectors might have no other chance to actually be co-present with the bride, groom, and respective families (e.g. arranged marriage or geographic separation). As such, the objection really should have been raised at the first possible chance. If travel or freedom of assembly were sufficiently impaired, the first and last chance to actually raise such an objection might be the wedding. Nimur (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

One objection to an Anglican wedding could be that it is before 8 am or after 6 pm, believe it or not! See [6]. A present Anglican liturgy says " If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now; or else for ever hold your peace." Another Anglican site says "First, I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now."Edison (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A well-known case that isn't a soap opera? How about Jane Eyre? Chapter 26.

The service began. The explanation of the intent of matrimony was gone through; and then the clergyman came a step further forward, and, bending slightly towards Mr. Rochester, went on.

"I require and charge you both (as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed), that if either of you know any impediment why ye may not lawfully be joined together in matrimony, ye do now confess it; for be ye well assured that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful."

He paused, as the custom is. When is the pause after that sentence ever broken by reply? Not, perhaps, once in a hundred years. And the clergyman, who had not lifted his eyes from his book, and had held his breath but for a moment, was proceeding: his hand was already stretched towards Mr. Rochester, as his lips unclosed to ask, "Wilt thou have this woman for thy wedded wife?"--when a distinct and near voice said--

"The marriage cannot go on: I declare the existence of an impediment."

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one vague account of an objection by an ex-boyfriend. It did not work. An uncle objected at a wedding becaue he did not like the bride's previous religion. It did not work. Consensus of websites is that the objector should have spoken to the innocent party in the wedding, or the officiant, and it is generally inappropriate to wait and make a stink during the ceremony. It smacks of the drunk ex-girlfriend who is likely to be escorted out and arrested after shouting "I'm his common-law WIFE!." [7] relates two incidents. In one the priest excorted the objector, the couple, and the parents to a private room to hear the objector's case, and called off the wedding. In the other, he heard the objection right in the wedding hall and rejected it, then had the ushers escort the objector out. If someone expects an objector, it would pay to train the ushers and to have a rent-a-cop for security and to make an arrest if necessary. Edison (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I picture the ex-girlfriend objecting because the groom is impotent. The bride yells "Not with me he ain't" and several bridesmaids and guests chime in "Not with me, neither!" and the ceremony continues, then the ex objects again because the delay has caused enough passage of time that it is past 6 pm. Edison (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I found this item interesting. It looks as though a wedding was declared invalid because (or at least partly because) the "just cause or impediment" bit had been removed from the service, and so no opportunity was given for any objection to be raised. Seems like it may still be a necessary part of proceedings, in some jurisdictions at least. Karenjc 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like in that case the ex may not need to worry after the first objection if the bride didn't already know and storms out after finding the groom has been sleeping around with her friends and family (or whoever the guests and bridesmaids are). Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OR When I remarried 3 years ago in an English civil wedding, this declaration formed part of the ceremony. First there was a space for people to object to the wedding, then we each had to declare that we knew of no reason why we should not marry each other. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough someone actually bothered to write an instruction sheet for how to do this [8]. This quotes one judge saying it has never happened for him and he also mentions the only reason it will be stopped is if the person objection is married to one of the participants [9] which seems a bit odd since I presume any objection which would make the marriage illegal such as incest would mean it has to be considered but maybe that's because it's unlikely the person could reliable show that it's the case so if it's denied it won't stop the wedding whereas a marriage certificate may be sufficient grounds to stop the wedding (obviously if the bride or groom walks out or refuses to go ahead it will stop too). This source linked to from the earlier agrees it's rare [10] nowadays in the US. It does point out is that in the modern world where some jurisdictions require marriage licences the need for objections (and I guess the chance of them succeeding) is perhaps low since a lot of that would have been checked out already. One thing it got me thinking, in a number of jurisdictions civil marriages may only (or are commonly) performed at a registrar's office or via some other government functionary and the ceremony is technically just a formality. In such situations, objections would be irrelevant since the people are already married. I believe this is fairly common in Malaysia among non Muslims anyway [11]. (I don't however know whether objections are even asked among Christians in Malaysia so it may be a moot point.) Back to the main issue, there are a few comments in this [12] which tell of some semi-joking objections as well as one were the ex-husband called up before hand and said he was going to stop it, but was of course stopped. And also some other interesting or odd stories (e.g. one who loved someone else and told a friend a few days before but said they would go ahead because the arrangements had been made and the person they loved didn't ask them not to do it; a few months later this person told the same friend the same thing!) 2 celebrants say they've never had objections nor no-shows/walkaways. www.associatedcontent.com/article/178812/what_to_do_if_someone_objects_at_your.html (spam filter) and one of the comments in the earlier link suggest in a number of jurisdictions it's up to the couple (but if they do have it, they should make sure they know how to deal with it). This [13] mentions someone whispering don't do it loud enough so the groom could hear which seems semi rude, but no objections were asked. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The "or forever hold your peace" bit interests me. Say I was aware one of the parties was already married to someone else, but for whatever reason I chose to remain silent about it at the wedding. Does that prevent me from ever telling the authorities about it later? What difference would it make who later let the cat out of the bag? The bigamous party would still be in hot water and the marriage would still be deemed invalid. I would also be in hot water for not speaking up when I had the chance, but that seems to be a different issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Found a guide to the marriage and civil union service on the Wokingham, Surrey website. The registrar has to ask if anyone in the room knows of any legal impediment etc. and the couple have to confirm it themselves (with various forms possible). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of friends of mine quarreled so fiercely just few weeks before the wedding, that he ate all the invitation cards. However, they eventually made peace and got happily married. But everybody was really holding his breath at the moment of "speak now or forever hold your peace". --pma (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just occasionally the Internet throws up something delightful that makes you very happy. I will treasure the mental image of your friend eating his wedding invitation cards for years to come. Thank you! Karenjc 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Church of England, the wedding is also announced "in church for three Sundays during the three months before the wedding", so that people who know of a legal impediment can say so ASAP, and not just on the day. [14] AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - Banns of marriage --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All three UK weddings I've been to recently (one civil, two Church of England) have had this part. In the last one, the vicar actually made a joke of it, saying something along the lines of "and supporting <football team> is not a good enough reason". 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I got married to a Japanese lady in Japan. As a British National, I was required to go down to the consulate in Osaka to have an interview, whereby I was required to say that the marriage was for love and not for convenience. While I was there, I was told that a notice would be put up on their noticeboard for 21 days announcing the impending doom marriage, and it was there so that if anyone had any objections they could tell the embassy and have it disallowed. After the 21 days I had to go back to be told in person whether it had received any objections or not. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never been at a wedding where that line was mentioned. I personally always thought it was just some Hollywood fiction to give a good excuse for a dramatic plot device. Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Megrahi's arrival at Tripoli Airport

I suspect I won't get an answer to this but here goes anyway - when the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset al Megrahi arrived at Tripoli Airport after his release on compassionate grounds from his Scottish Prison Cell, he was pictured arriving to a rapturous welcome. On the plane's steps there were many people including Colonel Gaddhafi's son - but behind them was a young man maybe in his mid 20's wearing a smart grey suit and carrying a bag on a shoulder strap over his left shoulder, keeping a very serious, almost nervous look on his face. And later in the week when Megrahi was seeen meeting Gaddhafi, the same young man emerged from Megrahi's car, this time wearing a traditional (white satin) Arabic robe, but also standing behind the two principals with the same serious look about him. Anyone know who he is? Maybe a relative, or a diplomatic escort? Just curious. 92.23.188.84 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be private security. The release of a suspected bomber is sure to cause some security concerns, but that is just a wild guess on my part. Livewireo (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Gaddhafi's private plane was en route to Glasgow to collect before the announcement of al Megrahi's release was made, it clear the Scottish and Libyan authorities were in contact about the logistics of his return. I expect, then, that the gentleman in question is a member of the Libyan Presidential Guard, or another state security detail. See [15] Rockpocket 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"In contact" being a more polite way of saying "in cahoots". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes it is more "polite", but why do you insinuate that it's less accurate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Need the answer

What is the term when referring to a calender date the has the same numbers?

For example: 09/09/09 or 10/10/10 (Sept/9th/2009) or (Oct./10th/2010)

Thank you......Henry Hurd —Precedingunsigned comment added by74.100.38.181 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Moved from help desk by User:Intelligentsium

Why do you think there is a term for this? --Anon, 23:28 UTC, August 28, 2009.

And the Language desk would be the best place for questions about words. Dismas|^(talk) 00:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a tautology, but that would not be specific for calendar dates. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mere repetition does not a Tautology (rhetoric) make. Redundancy must also play its part, which it does not with a date in the sort suggested. Neither is it a Palindrome. I think it's just a repeated pattern with no more particular accepted name.--Tagishsimon (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Heroin

Can an administrator change the name of the article from the (defunct trade name) "Heroin" to the chemical name (and like all other drugs on Wikipedia) "Diacetylmorphine"? There is no article named "Ecstasy" but there is an article named MDMA. Thanks Tdinatale (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name, not the technical name. Heroin is the most common name for that drug. We do have an article on Ecstasy under that name: Ecstasy (drug). --Tango (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, "Diacetylmorphine" redirects to "Heroin", so everybody goes home happy. PhGustaf (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And note that in general, the place to talk about potential renames are on the talk pages of the articles in question, not the Reference Desk. --68.50.54.144 (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)