A have quite a simple question. Everybody knows the name "John F. Kennedy International Airport" is to commemorate the 35th President of the United States. When you talk about the name "Washington Dulles International Airport", which person are we commemorating? Foster Dulles or Alan Dulles or both or someone else? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.224.32 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Dulles International Airport tells us it's named after John Foster Dulles. It's right there in the lede paragraph, just a click away. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington, as well.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only indirectly. It's named primarily after the city. If the capital was named Garblestone, the airport would presumably have been "Garblestone Dulles International Airport". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between acts of God and acts of parliament?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on both. Might as well look them up yourself rather than expecting someone to paraphrase here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Parliament sometimes take Acts of God into Account. Acts of God do not take Acts of Parliament into account. For further info, see responses to the OP's question[4] on the Humanities desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for similarities ... both are potential ways for insurance agencies to stiff their policy-holders ? StuRat (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The difference is in the definition of the word "Acts" which has two different and distinct (though distantly related) meanings in each phrase. In the "Acts of God" phrase, the word usually means "actions", this definition is what is meant by Acts in "Acts of the Apostles". In "Acts of Parliament" it means "a law". Of course, God also has laws (the substance of which depends on your own personal religion), but that isn't what is usually meant by "Acts of God." That phrase usually just means "Things God did", or in a legal sense, "Things which are beyond human control" are usually refered to as an "Act of God". --Jayron32 01:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a magazine from 1999 that surveys mutual funds and makes some recomendations. (The economy was booming in 1999.) How can I tell how well those 1999 recomendations have done? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this mutual funds calculator, but honestly I don't know how you can find a fund's past fee schedule (front end load, deferred sales charges, MER, etc) if you were not their client. Royor (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1999 magazine article gives that data. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link posted by Royor is forward-looking, and you want something that is backward-looking. Fortunately, that information is readily available. Just plug in the funds' symbols on a finance website, such as Yahoo Finance. You can look up the symbols there, if the 1999 article doesn't give them. You don't need the fee schedule, since fees are reflected in the reported returns. John M Baker (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to look from 1999 until now, to see how well the old predictions preformed, by comparison. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name for that? It's common in hunting knifes and military knifes. It's there to avoid your hand slipping into the blade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.67.214 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb grip ? Here's a pic with the thumb grip at top and a finger grip below: [5]. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the guard; see knife for illustrations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but sometimes crossguard. Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which colours do the karakul and pakul caps come in? Grey? Black? Brown? Tan? White? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.235 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some quick Googling, it looks like that list is about right for karakuls, while pakols also come in red, orange, yellow, green, and blue, so pretty much every color (haven't seen any purple/violet or cyan yet, though). Also note that while pakols are usually single color, karakuls are often two-tone, like the one Hamid Karzai wears. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which colours do Sherwani and Nehru (both sleeveless and full-sleeve) coats come in? Black? Grey? Brown? Red? Blue? White? Tan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.235 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I need to teach you how to Google. Go to www.google.com, type sherwani coat, hit enter, then pick Images at the top. View the results. Do the same for nehru coat. Also try the word jacket in place of coat. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give a man a fish, and he will thank you, teach him how to fish, and he will be eternally grateful. But, best of all, give him free lifetime meals at Red Lobster. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

thumb

Hello, not sure if I'm in the right section. The picture of the men on the girder having lunch is a picture that has been in my family for years, more then one of them. My stepfather William Carlsen has said that his father is the second or third man in the picture. My stepfather died maybe 15 yrs ago and my mother when she was alive and the picture came up in conversation would also say the same thing. I have no other information, but the pictures and them saying that his father is in the picture. Now that the third man has been identified I'm believing that the second is Bill's father. Are there any records from the company that hired them that would have their names or paycheck information. I don't know where to look for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.164.117 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title and the pic. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

One obvious question is: 2nd or 3rd from which end ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the left. Our article Lunch atop a Skyscraper has names (sometimes more than one) for all except the man second from the left. I'm guessing that's the guy in question. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph does not prove that there was nothing between the beam the men were sitting on and the street hundreds of feet below. Similar scenes were common in silent movie comedies, with a platform actually just out of sight below the image area. This is not to gainsay that ironworkers took huge risks to create the infrastructure and buildings we still use today. Edison (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are other similar images which show how precarious such workers actually were while peforming their job [[6] and [7]. The real story behind the people who actually built most of New York's skyscrapers during the 1920s and 30s and onward is actually quite facinating. A substantial proportion of these workers were recruited from the Mohawk people from Upstate New York, a fact noted in our article on the Mohawk people and which has been covered by number of good books and documentaries. --Jayron32 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be picky, but both of those examples are the same with regards to the fact that you can't see what's three or four feet below the worker. That's what Edison is saying — there may be a platform or net or something so that the fall is a dozen feet rather than many hundreds of feet. I've no clue myself. But personally I think the "lunch" photo has quite a drop, even if there was a platform there. It would have to be several dozen feet below them to be out of the frame, and that would still be a very dangerous if not fatal fall. Photos from downward facing angles (like this and this and this) make it clear to me, anyway, that this was pretty dangerous work. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that always bothers me about that photo is the strange "glow" around most of the people in the scene. It definitely makes me wonder if it's a fake. 216.136.51.242 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the photographic equipment and film of the time, I imagine Ebbets might have had some difficulty getting detail into the mens' faces and into the cityscape below with a single exposure. He might well have used the darkroom technique of dodging and burning to get greater dynamic range into the final print. Astronaut (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that there would still be records of construction company employees from the 1930s, and even more unlikely that any records that do exist would include pictures or other information that could be used to identify a man in a photograph. Your best bet is to contact the Bettmann Archive, which owns the copyright to the photograph and has taken an interest in the workers' identities, to the extent of hiring a private investigator, according to our article on the picture. John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When is the earliest known design of the bow of any boat narrow in the front? I.E., when was the front of any water vessel very pointed, like a canoe? Approximate date? But what group of peole? In what geographic location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarickert (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First created on the 1st of August 1782 at 3:56pm in the afternoon , by the 'Shakers' who where a sub-species of the homo-sapien – and its spelt 'bowl'.--Aspro (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sauce boats were described as far back as 1690 and they too are canoey shaped things...--Aspro (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mislead our users, Aspro, not even in jest. The front of a vessel (boat, ship, canoe ...) is indeed a "bow" (not a "bowl", that's a container for water or other stuff). If you're correcting spelling, you can start with "where" (in who where a sub-species) - it's "were". And the "its" in "its spelt" is "it's" (an abbreviation of "it is", and thus requires an apostrophe). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

In the case of Titanic, the bow did become a bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't get a specific date for you, since obviously many boats had pointed fronts, from antiquity. Perhaps the real question is, what is the oldest boat, since presumably it had a pointed bow. Usually being made of wood, ancient boats tended to rot away in a few thousand years. Human artifacts have been found from 130,000 years ago in Crete: [8]. Since that's an island, this implies that they got there by boat. (I suppose it's possible it wasn't an island at some point, and they just walked across, but archaeologists don't think so.) StuRat (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the first, but excavated: the Khufu ship from 2500 BC. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest extant boat is apparently the Pesse canoe, which as a dugout canoe, is indeed pointy in the front. I got this information from the obscure article titled boat. --Jayron32 01:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've ever tried to paddle a craft that presents a vertical surface to the water, like an oil-drum raft, you'll know why it didn't take a whole lot of brains to appreciate the need for a pointy bow. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But on reflection, they seem to have got along without pointy ended boats in Wales for a few thousand years[9] (see Coracle). Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A flat leading edge is definitely out, but either a sharp point or a gentle bow, as in the coracle, could work. I expect that the sharp point leads to more directional stability, while the rounded bow is easier to turn. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the skill with a coracle is to STOP it from turning! A good sculling draw-stroke is required, and you need to be able to do it one-handed if you want to go fishing at the same time. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just as I indicated, it would be easy to turn a coracle, perhaps too easy. This is why pointed bows are more common. The coracle looks like it might be useful in extremely small rivers, where you need to be able to turn on a dime. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking ordinary Northumbrian spokeshavers' coracles here?  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I confess that I had to use Google to find that you were referring to Flanders and Swann of blessed memory. See Design for Living, or you can hear it on YouTube at 6:20. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've obviously been neglecting my Flanders-and-Swann-listening for far too long, because I firmly believed it was a Monty Python quote when I posted it, and I would have bet millions and millions of dollars that it was John Cleese who uttered those words. Thanks for the correction, Alan, and for saving me rather a lot of money I don't have. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

On a parting note, I'm sure it's only at Wikipedia that one can find mention of karakuls and coracles on the same page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

i am interested in contact information of newly built private refineries and crude oil marketing companies in the USA, CANADA, EUROPE and ASIA. the answer should be in form of listing, which should include phone, email, websites etc. i will be grateful if you will do me the honor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenagoastate (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your oil research assignment doesn't sound crude, it actually sounds quite refined. I doubt that wikipedia contains that level of detail. But have you looked at specific oil company articles, and google, and that kind of thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The back cover of I Am America (And So Can You!) has a picture of Stephen Colbert holding a copy of the book. What is on the back of that book? Interchangeable 00:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a riff on the fireplace mantle portait he has on his show, which is updated every few years. Here he is standing in front of it: [10] You get the idea. Just a reference to this little funny thing from his show. --Jayron32 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on a news story at Google News just now and when I arrived at jpost.com. No big deal, I knew I was going there. But it was my first visit to this site and I was rather surprised at how busy and helter skelter the page layout is. To me, it's very cluttered. Is this site always laid out that way? Does anyone frequent it enough to be able to say with any authority? (Yes, I guess I'm looking for some WP:OR here) It just seems quite the opposite of the cleaner "everything under drop down menus of various departments" look that I'm used to. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it too, and it does look kinda amateurish. Sad, for a website that seems to want to be taken seriously appears to have a webdesign team which has no clue how to do so... --Jayron32 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds familiar. Hot Stop 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than how bad it looks, it bothers me how slowly it loads, what with all the pop-up ads, banners, etc. It looks like a kid trying to impress his teacher by using every possible web design element on a single page. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been that way, as I recall. I'd visit it more often if it were easier on my computer and connection. Ha'aretz is closer to my personal views, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see others. Israeli newspapers in English have likely never been big money-makers, so I guess The Jerusalem Post feels the need to take on as many ads and promotions (including self-promotions) as it can. Ha'aretz has a Hebrew edition with no doubt a larger circulation, while I don't think The Jerusalem Post (The Palestine Post during the Mandate, and a fairly liberal paper until bought around 1990 by Conrad Black) does. Any corrections or clarifications welcome. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood self-promotion by the media, on their own outlet. Surely they would be more likely to retain an audience if instead of ads for themselves, they used that space to provide content. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm a fan of the film Local Hero, I looked up the film's main location, the village of Pennan, in Google Street View. Those who know the film will know that there is a red London phone box there. I found the phone box in street view [11] but there are a couple of odd things about the photo. First, there is a white pick-up truck parked next to the phone box, but it is partly obscured due to the photo being weirdly distorted. Secondly, the actual word 'Telephone' on the phone box seems to have been (deliberately?) blurred out. Does anyone know why the distortion has occurred, and why is the word 'Telephone' on the phone box blurred? --Viennese Waltz 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both are artifacts of the way Google Street View generates its images - keep in mind that Street View is available for many locations, there must be millions of photos used to create the Street view images and there is no way anyone is manually checking all these photos - all processing of raw photos is done by software, which, while generally quite impressive, has a number of problems. Street View photos are taken with a panoramic lens, then the software tries to do all sorts of clever things like stitching together several images, projecting images onto a 3D model of the environment, etc. This works quite well in general but it causes the occasional weird distortion effect. The distortion at the lower end is very common in street view images, it's also noticeable on all the houses in the street. The parts that are distorted are practically directly below the Street View car as it drives around and takes photos, and apparently there's nothing the processing software can do to fix such heavy distortion.

The blurring of the word "telephone" happens because the software tries to automatically blur personally identifying information (faces and license plates) - this also generally works to an impressive degree, but occasionally the software will blur out something it shouldn't. In this case, the software apparently thought the "telephone" sign was a license plate. -- Ferkelparade π 11:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the conclusion I reached by moving along the roadway. All the license plates are blurred out. And if you go one "step" to the left in the frame you linked, turn back, you'll see that one of the "telephone" markers is now readable, while the other one (which looks a bit more like a license plate might look) is still blurred out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a little pedantic they are not London telephone boxes but Red telephone boxes. Richard Avery (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box in question is a K6 Telephone Kiosk, designed by Giles Gilbert Scott in 1935. The 'Telephone' sign is white with black writing, and approximately 640mm x 107mm. In the UK, car front number plates are white with black writing, and 520mm x 111mm. The software obviously automatically blanks out number plates by looking for anything white with black writing around 500-700mm x 100-150mm (or so), hence its confusion here. There is a reporting tool to notify Google of errors in Maps and StreetView, although you might consider it to be a waste of time in this case. But at least we know how it works now! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, our Pennan article says: "The phone box was in fact originally put there only as a prop for the film, and then removed, but as a result of public demand a genuine telephone box was installed a few metres from the original spot, and has been a listed building since 1989." Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had about five cats, but I've never seen anything like this. My current cat rarely sneezes, however, if he lays on his back with his paws up in the air, and I stroke him lightly either on his cheek, jowl, or under his chin, after about five seconds of this he will sneeze. Any ideas what causes this? Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he's got the hang of what fascinates you. Damn smart these cats. Richard Avery (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen cats get so into petting that they drool. If, in this position, the saliva then drips onto the back of his throat from his mouth, this could make him sneeze (as a way of clearing the airway). StuRat (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has bothered me for a very long time now, but why are there some places that have "No Photography" signs, but do not have any other signs? As in, there are no "No Smoking" signs, no "No Food and Drinks signs" or "No Pets Allowed" signs? For example, in my country, there is a construction supplies distributor called Wilcon. In their home depots, on their doors they have a "No Photography" sign (ironically, below a notice that says "Area monitored by surveillance cameras"), but no other prohibition signs, not even a "No Foods", "No Pets" or "No Smoking" sign, which are common in other shopping establishments. Why do these places care so much about prohibiting photography while not even placing a sign that says No Smoking? Photography doesn't kill, but smoking does. Photography doesn't litter the place, but foods, drinks or pets do. I know it is usually for security reasons, but why don't they place a "No Firearms" sign if it's a security thing? I don't get the point if photography is prohibited for security reasons if any form of weapons are not explicitly prohibited as well. And please, don't mention any places which ban photography, only say why sometimes they only place a "No Photography" and do not place a "No Smoking" signs or other similar signs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they don't want people to shop in the store then buy on Amazon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'No Photography' signs will be there to give them the option to bring sanctions against you (like removing you from the store) if you break the rules, and to remove the defence 'there wasn't/I didn't see a sign'. Any other behaviours would presumably be permitted (such as not wearing evening dress), culturally expected (like not spitting, or taking all your clothes off), or prohibited by law (smoking indoors). There is no need for them to display a sign prohibiting something you wouldn't do anyway. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why wouldn't they have "No Pets" or "No Food and Drinks" signs? Besides, I'm not aware of anyone who would walk into a furniture store only to take pictures of the furniture. What's the point of putting a "No Photography" sign if they probably won't do it anyway? Besides, even in some other places which prohibit photography they also have a "No Smoking" sign. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a sign that they regularly cheat their customers and don't want any reporters doing exposés in their store. If they have it posted, then they can justify ejecting the reporters, not due to having something to hide, but just because they violated the rules. They then typically say the reporters should submit a request for an interview through the proper channels (which they plan to ignore completely). StuRat (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Really? Seriously? Royor (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning photography is completely separate from banning smoking. Why would the two be connected? And as to why they don't have a "no firearms" sign, maybe they support the right to bear arms or fear a negative campaign from the NRA (or are operating in states where concealed carry is illegal). Your best chance of obtaining information would be to ask the company which is prohibiting photography. If you tell them why you need/want to take photographs, they may be reasonable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion, including opinions from people purporting to be lawyers. Essentially, stores have nothing to gain from unauthorized people taking photographs and lots to lose. As for why there aren't "no smoking" signs, smoking is already illegal in public spaces, including retail stores, in many jurisdictions. Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical reasons for displaying "No Photography" signs are (off the top of my former-photographer's head):

• to prevent the annoyance of frequent flashes to other patrons – common in places like stately homes but probably not applicable in the instances the OP mentions;
• to protect flashes causing delicate colours in artworks, fabrics etc from bleaching – again not likely applicable here because frequency is unlikely;
• to prevent unlicensed photographs of copyrighted/protected performances and artworks, or of artworks that the venue profits from by selling its own postcards, etc – possible in some of the OP's examples;
• to prevent rivals from easily recording and copying proprietory or non-proprietory items, designs, layouts, display ideas etc – quite likely in some of the OP's examples;
• to protect the privacy (and conceivably safety in these stalkerish and terrorist-ridden times) of the venue's staff and patrons – very likely.

In the UK, for example (and I think the US has similar rules), one has the theoretical right to photograph anything or anyone visible (with various exceptions) while standing in a public place provided the results are not used to an individual's detriment, but generally not in any privately-owned place, which includes business premises and many open-air apparently public spaces into which the public is permitted but does not have an absolute right to enter. I Am Not A Lawyer, so do not take this for definitive legal advice, but our article Photography and the law may be of interest. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.163 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So one of the chief myths that films have about guns is that when the protaganist hides behind a table or a car they are suddenly safe, despite the fact that even a pistol can easily shoot through such things with ease (and even some walls so I gather). My question is, in the extremely (I cannot stress this enough how unlikely this is) unlikely situation that I encounter a hostile gunman and am in a position to find 'cover' what is it worth me hiding behind? Or should I just treat everything I'm likely to encounter as not being there in this situation, and just try and survive by other methods? 130.88.172.34 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brick (solid, not veneer) or cinder-block wall provides a fair amount of protection (a house without brick walls may still have a brick fireplace) and a solid wood door offers some. Also consider that they aren't likely to hit you if they can't see you, so even a flimsy door offers protection in that way. As for a car, hiding behind a car door won't help much, but you should be safe behind the engine block. A ceramic on steel bathtub should offer some protection, but not a plastic one. If you know ahead of time that somebody is going to shoot up your house, the basement would seem to be the safest spot. Of course, if you don't know until the firing starts, then you might want to take cover wherever is closest, like the tub. If caught outside, a large tree offers good protection, as does a ditch or hill, since the bullets won't go through many feet of dirt. A light pole or telephone wire/electrical wire pole may offer some protection, but they usually aren't big enough to hide behind. Support poles for large signs sometimes are. Hiding behind an above-ground pool would work, as would a full tank of fuel oil (contrary to the movies, they do not explode into a fireball when shot up). Hiding underwater would work, but, without gear, you can only stay down for a minute or so. Might be enough time to survive a drive-by shooting, though. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to MythBusters, the following could be bulletproof:

Under 3 ~ 8 feet of water depending on bullet velocity

If you are lucky, behind 3 pizza boxes in a warming bag/Bathroom tiles covered in a fiber-reinforced gypsum cement

Royor (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, do not get a pan and wear it all the time. :P Mrlittleirish —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ned Kelly would disagree. Royor, you missed the Mythbuster episode on telphone book armored car and the mulberry paper armor. What is bulletproof will vary depending on what you are facing. Air marshall bullets are less penetrating than hollow point which are less than full metal jacket which is less than armor piercing rounds. Black powder weapons less than handgun, less than long guns, less than specialty machine guns and sniper-type weapons, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It depends on the thickness and brittleness of the material and the force of the bullet striking that material. While plasterboard / MDF is dry and brittle and likely to explode from a heavy force striking it, a maple or oak table that is 2 inches thick will probably stop an average handgun shot (not a magnum, shotgun or high calibre rifle obviously). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you Rmhermen, but the OP did ask for "everyday objects". PS: Yes it very much depend on what you are facing, which is why I used the weasel word "could" Royor (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British Army Field Service Manual gave these figures for the penetration of a .303 British rifle bullet:-

• Bullet Steel plate, best......................7/16"
• Steel plate, ordinary mild, or wrought iron....3/4"
• Shingle.................................................6"
• Coal, hard..............................................6"
• Brickwork, cement mortar.........................9"
• Brickwork, lime mortar..........................14"
• Chalk...............................................15"
• Sand, between boards or in sandbags........18"
• Sand, loose........................................30"
• Hard wood, e.g. oak.............................38"
• Earth, free from stones (unrammed)...........40"
• Soft wood, e.g. fir.............................58"
• Clay...................................................60"
• Dry turf or peat................................80" [12] Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the standard .303 bullet is a full metal jacket rifle bullet. It's much more penetrating than anything reasonably fired from a handgun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The penetration values stated are surprising, if the claim is that one bullet of that type will consistently penetrate a typical 9 inch thick brick wall, or 40 inches of dirt, 60 inches of clay or 38 inches of oak. Soldiers in combat have generally used lesser thicknesses of dirt or other materials as protection from rifle fire. What army felt it necessary to put a wall of sandbag over 40 inches thick in front of their positions to guard against rifle fire? It would have been possible to fire down at a slight angle at trenches or foxholes and penetrate the several feet of dirt or clay and kill the soldier sheltering low in the trench. This article tested various bullets and none penetrated more than 6 inches of sand (they did not test the .303)Edison (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the tabulated values aren't the thicknesses that a single bullet will penetrate (consistently or otherwise), but rather guidelines for the construction or evaluation of fieldworks that are expected to see lots of such bullets. If someone has a copy of the Field Service Manual, we could see what the chart actually is intended to represent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about science and even less about firearms, but I'd guess that two factors that haven't been mentioned so far would additionally be crucial:

1. the range at which the target was struck. I suppose bullets reach terminal velocity, but then begin to lose their fight against the friction of the air. If it's begun to slow down, (or hasn't yet reached terminal velocity - but I'd guess that happens pretty instantaneously) it will penetrate less.
2. the angle at which the target was struck. Maybe a .303 bullet will penetrate oak to 38" of depth when fired at the perpendicular, but if it hit an oak surface at an angle of 30° or more, I'd reckon on it barely denting the surface before it ricochets.

OK, ignorance on the table, scientists and gun experts, please demolish my thoughts! --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) PS Did Mythbusters look at the "bible in the pocket saved my life"? And do we have an article about that meme?[reply]

They have indeed tested the myth before (though they used a regular book rather than a bible). A thick book stops a small caliber bullet, but not a .357 magnum. Smurrayinchester 10:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal velocity doesn't apply because the bullet isn't undergoing constant acceleration. All the acceleration happens in an instant at the beginning. The bullet will be going much faster than its terminal velocity would be if it were just dropped from a height, but that isn't relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... so from the moment the bullet is fired, it's slowing down? If so, it makes my point 1 all the more pertinent. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what means would you expect a bullet to gain velocity after it leaves the gun's barrel? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By means of my ignorance ;-) I thought it might accelerate from its stationary start rather than instantly reach top speed. I never was any good at physics --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't quite instantaneous - it accelerates all the way down the barrel - I was being a little lazy when I said "instant". Once it has left the gun, though, there is no force acting on it that could accelerate it and, by Newton's first law, if there is no force there can be no acceleration. (There is gravity pulling it down and air resistance slowing it down, of course.) --Tango (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own O.R: a 22 long rifle bullet easily penetrates full thickness 1 inch seasoned lumber. It will penetrate about 1.5 inches into the end of a pine timber. Edison (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you refer to finished softwood lumber. But I'd be very impressed if you can penetrate 1 inch of seasoned Ironwood, southern live oak, or even plain old German/English/European oak. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're able to further the OR (safely!) but if you are, is there a distance from which the bullet no longer penetrates? What if the wood is at an angle? --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would all depend on the angle. Naively, it would seem that the force applied to the wood would steadily drop from 100% at 90 degrees to 0% at an angle of 0 degrees, but there actually seems to be a certain critical angle, below which it will ricochet off the wood, only leaving a dent/divot. How the bullet hits WRT the grain direction also matters. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, the table quoted actually says: Sand, between boards or in sandbags: 18". The US Army Engineers Field Manual 1909 says: "The thickness of ordinary earth required to resist penetration at ordinary battle ranges is 3 ft. (ie 36 inches) for rifle fire..." (p.358) Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed recently that canned vegetables have gotten more expensive, relative to frozen. That is, while the same vegetable, in frozen form, used to cost around twice as much per ounce, the cost is now about the same, at least here in Detroit. Specifically, it seems to me that the price of canned veggies has gone up, while frozen veggies have stayed the same. I have therefore moved my long-term veggie purchases from canned to frozen, since it's easier to get quality, salt-free veggies in frozen form (with fresh preferred over both, of course). So:

1) Can anyone verify this ?

2) What caused this ? A surplus of frozen veggies ? A shortage of canned veggies ? A price war between frozen veggie makers ? Increased price of can metals ? New technology for freezing veggies less expensively ? StuRat (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the price of metals has risen sharply in recent years, as have transport costs. Canned vegetables are heavier (and therefore more expensive to transport) than frozen vegetables, partly because of the metal in the can but also because the cans tend to contain more water than bags of frozen vegetables. Of course, there is an added cost for refrigerated transport, but maybe the weight savings is greater than the cost of refrigeration. Another thought is that there may be a space issue. It may be possible to get more vegetables into a given truck in frozen form than in canned form because bags can pack more tightly than cylindrical cans. This would distribute the overhead associated with each truck over more units. Meanwhile, abundant supplies of cheap natural gas (as an energy source) may have held the initial cost of refrigeration down. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to 1) Yes, I've noticed the same tendency in the UK. I commented on it only last week. Dbfirs 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose that's good, in that frozen veggies tend to be healthier, but bad in that they could all be ruined in a power failure. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this novel available for download anywhere online? I don't mind if it isn't free. 149.169.108.238 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Play, US$12.95: [13]. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why the heck do they have those — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.0.62 (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article (and my taste buds), Twix bars don't have nougat. Are you referring to the divots in the crunchy portion of the snack? I would suspect that it helps the caramel hold on to the bars. Basically giving the bar more surface area for the caramel to adhere to. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wow so it isn't even nougat. and yes that makes sense. as a close friend of mine who works in organic chemistry says, everything comes down to surface area. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.0.62 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the holes are 'docking' holes (see Cracker (food) and Roller docker) from the production of the biscuit to prevent over rising. A lot of biscuits (uk sense of word) have these. ny156uk (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Board Meeting an elction is due to take place to appoint a Chairman, there are 12 Board Members eligable to vote. There are 2 nominations for the post of Chairman, namely the current Chairman and a new nomination, the ballot ends in a stalemate 6 votes for each candidate. What happens next ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.135.229 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the by-laws of the organization. If the number of voters is an even number, one of the officers (often the chairman) gets two votes to break ties. This is not always the case though. Dismas|^(talk) 10:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How common is it for the chair to get two votes? In cases where the chair has a casting vote, I'm used to them not voting unless there is a tie. Quite common is for a tied vote to just count as a negative result, though. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most boards that I'm familiar with don't have an election for the chairman. Instead, someone proposes a chairman and there is a yes/no vote on that proposal. If it gets a majority, they are appointed. Usually, you have a discussion before hand and know before the proposal is officially made that it will have majority support. If no proposal for chairman can get majority support, then you have a problem! You need to find a compromise candidate that a majority will accept. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, IIRC, most boards run meetings via some variation of Robert's Rules of Order or other similar guidelines, and I don't think Robert's Rules allows for head-to-head elections. Someone makes a motion to nominate a person for a position, and there is a yes/no vote on the motion. In a board of 12 people, any vote needs a clear majority to pass, so a nominee with only 6 votes would fail the motion to elect. Someone would then propose a new candidate, and there would be another yes/no vote, and so on till a motion on some candidate got 7 votes. --Jayron32 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help, Why do some high ranking German officers wear one chevron on the right sleeve of their uniform whilst others do not? Bobbitty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbitty (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does World War II German Army ranks and insignia or World War II German uniform or List of military decorations of the Third Reich or Uniforms and insignia of the Schutzstaffel help? I've not looked through them in much depth, but they seem to be fairly comprehensive articles. --Jayron32 14:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenwinkel für Alte Kämpfer—Honour Chevron for the Old Guard. (More colloquially, the Old Fighters' chevron.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about World Naked Bike Ride in 2012? The official website http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org is now just a flimsy front end for the wiki site http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org, which doesn't work. Accessing it at all gives an error about an invalid function. I can't even notify the staff about this, because their contact information is also on the non-working wiki site. Did the wiki site ever work? Is there going to be a World Naked Bike Ride 2012 anywhere? I would find it pretty difficult to organise, join, or visit such an event when it's impossible to see where and when it is going to be. JIP | Talk 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I really don't understand is that why some editors don't search google before posting here!!! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the guy's name but I just saw an amazing video of a US MLB pitcher who now plays outfield throw a ball to home plate directly to stop a man from scoring, amounting to nearly 300ft with such precision accuracy that the announcer said he was the best arm in baseball ever for an outfielder. My question is: if outfielders need to throw infield for almost anything they catch or field, why not train them like pitchers all the time? Perhaps this is a stupid question because I can't imagine that the managers and trainers don't think about baseball 24/7 when I think about it for just 3 minutes one day in my life after seeing this video. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright -- his name is Rick Ankiel. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankiel is a special case; he's pretty much the first player since Babe Ruth to be able to make the transition from pitcher to position player, so you really cannot base what should happen based on how he did it. Most outfielders aren't supposed to make a throw like that, instead they are trained to throw to the "cut-off" man (an infielder who positions himself in shallow outfield to catch the ball from the outfielder and relay it to the correct place.). Outfielders who try to throw out a man "on the fly" from the outfield directly frequently go horribly awry, though such bonehead attempts occasionally lead to spectacular recoveries like the Jeter "Flip Play" as seen at 4:10 here. Outfielders are trained from little league to "hit the cutoff man" since most don't have the kind of accuracy Ankiel displayed on your play. If they did have that kind of accuracy they'd be pitchers instead. --Jayron32 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's just accuracy. If you throw to the cutoff man you can throw lower, which means the ball wastes less time going up and down. It takes time for the cutoff man to catch the ball, spin, and throw to the plate (or other base), but I believe even with that, it's still faster. --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for the cutoff man is to allow the play to be adjusted based on what's happened while the ball's on the way in. If there's a rundown or a runner from third didn't break to the plate the cut-off man (if he's on his game) can adjust, and can at the same time make up for inaccurate outfield throws when a player tied to a base or the plate can't. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though occasionally a cut-off man can be the reason things go bad, c.f. 1946 World Series and Enos "Country" Slaughter's Mad Dash, aided by Johnny Pesky holding the ball a bit too long before relaying it home. --Jayron32 03:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there was the time that Dave Winfield plugged a seagull, if you recall that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few outfielders are able to make the throw from the outfield to home plate directly, but they're the exception. Roberto Clemente was one, as was Dave Parker, who famously threw out Brian Downing at home in the 1979 All-Star Game on a throw from the right field corner. But these are the top 1% of outfield arms; I'm not sure that most pitchers would be able to make such throws; they practice throwing at a target 60 feet and 6 inches away, not 300 feet, and even at the shorter distance, they often miss. --Xuxl (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Parker play.[14] The right field corner was 316 feet from the plate, and he was some distance in front of that, but it was still a bullet. It's one of those situations where if you throw to the plate, he might score, but if you throw to the cutoff man, he will score, so you take your best shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outfielders are not trained like pitchers because it is much more important for an outfielder to be able to hit well than for a pitcher to be able to hit well. Speed and agility are also much more important for outfielders than for pitchers. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the list of famous people from Rochdale and found I was missing (Anna Jacobs). I don't wish to sound conceited but I think that with 57 novels published, I should be included. I'm very proud of coming from Rochdale, actually.

I don't seem to be able to edit the page on Anna Jacobs, either, even though it's lacking information I could easily supply. I gather one can't touch one's own page. I did make changes a few years ago, but they vanished.

I'm therefore a bit at a loss as to how to add myself to the Famous People from Rochdale page. I was born and brought up in Rochdale. I'm a novelist with 57 novels published, many of them set in Lancashire. I'm currently the 8th Most Borrowed Author of Adult Fiction in the UK library system. For verification, see: http://www.plr.uk.com/mediaCentre/mostBorrowedAuthors/top20Authors/2010-2011Top20Authors.pdf

You can find out more about me on my website at http://www.annajacobs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.88.91 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to edit Anna Jacobs ? You are allowed to edit your own article, but try not to make it look like a press release. Just remember this is an encyclopedia, and you should do fine.

What happens when you try to edit List of people from Rochdale ? One possible problem is that they expect sources, so unsourced changes may be deleted. After all, we have no way of knowing if you really are Anna, and you wouldn't want random people to be able to make permanent changes with "facts" that they just invented.

One possibility is that those articles don't allow edits by unregistered users. If that's the problem, you just need to register and sign in. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a genuinely well-known author, so I've added a mention of Rochdale in the article about you, and a brief mention of you in the Rochdale article. The edits you made to your own article are still there. The only part removed is the promotion of your own website. You are welcome to add more, but make sure that the information is factual rather than promotional, and cite sources (such as the Rochdale Observer). Dbfirs 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history, nobody has added or removed Anna Jacobs to/from List of people from Rochdale lately (nobody is reverting her changes). You should be able to edit it by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top-right of the page, and format your entry like the other entries on the page. Remember to click "Save page" afterwards. Have a look at Help:Editing and Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia for more information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Writing about yourself is not precluded, but it is discouraged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of people from Rochdale is really difficult to edit, for you would have to start a new ===J=== section and include a reference, which is too difficult for a Wikipedia beginner. Several editors claiming to be Anna Jacobs edited the Anna Jacobs article in the past with remarkable contributions ([15],[16]), but as long as the official Anna Jacobs website remains silent on her birthdate, birthplace and real name, there is little hope to get it fixed. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would ROCHDALE-born author Anna Jacobs do? Alansplodge (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Posts on the names of the SBS include Special Boat Section during WWII, Special Boat Squadron "after the Second World War," and Special Boat Service in 1987. However, there is another statement saying the Special Boat Squadron designation occurred in 1977, certainly after WWII, but leaving uncertainty of the name between WWII and 1977. Is it correct to assume that SBS was known as the Special Boat Section during the Korean War? Is there a direct reference? Thank you. Rnfriedman44 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Dictionary of Naval Intelligence By Nigel West has an entry entitled Special Boat Section which says: "However, in 1951, two Royal Marine Special Boat Sections were created to conduct operations during the Korean War.". The immedeate post-WWII history seems to be rather more complicated according to The Royal Marines 1939-93 By Nick Bijl, Paul Hannon which I'll let you read for yourself. An even more detailed account can be found on this website which says: "In 1950 this (ie the Small Raids Wing) became the Special Boat Wing , made up of Special Boat Sections, thus reviving the initials SBS, and both an operational and training unit. Swimmer-canoeists, as the members of this unit were known from the start, were among those who volunteered for No.41 Independent Commando, the RM unit which served in Korea 1950-51." Another, similar account is here. Good luck sorting that lot out. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry because this is a bit tricky/complex, but I've had no response to this and it's bugging me that I can't work out a definite answer.

Several sources - quite a few actually - state that Poppy Cannon was Anne Fogarty's sister. But there is some confusion as to the parents. I posted most of the following info on Talk:Poppy Cannon but haven't had a response, so I thought I'd ask here.

1) Anne Fogarty's parents, as per this book, are stated to be Robert (a shopkeeper) and Marion Whitney. The same source also indicates that Poppy was her sister. Many sources do link them as being siblings.

2) However, Yale, here, states that Poppy was born Lillian Gruskin in Cape Town, South Africa, the eldest of four children. Her parents are stated to be Robert (an artist) and Henrietta Gruskin.

The similarities are:

Both have fathers called Robert. Both are one of four children (Poppy the eldest, Anne the youngest). Both are said to have lived in Pennsylvania. (Poppy in Kittening, Anne in Pittsburgh, although the family could have moved around Pittsburgh, I guess.)

The big difference is the surnames and the mother's names: Henrietta Gruskin vs. Marion Whitney. Different parts of Pittsburgh.

I tried Googling Gruskin and Whitney in Google News to see if anything came up linking the names but just got five lists of attendees/graduates - no marriage announcements or anything.

As sources go, I'd tend to assume that Yale know what they're talking about, but the lack of extra corroboration for the Gruskin link is confusing. My guess - which can ONLY be speculation - is that the Whitneys were originally called Gruskin (as per the Yale bio) and changed their name to Whitney for whatever reason, with Henrietta also changing her first name - or - sudden thought - was Marion Robert's second wife, and Henrietta's maiden name Gruskin? (although doesn't explain why Yale say "Robert Gruskin") All a bit confusing and I'm not sure you guys would be able to help but I thought I'd ask anyway as I'm a bit flummoxed. Thanks so much in advance!! Mabalu (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if i have been in a viper parade can i still volunteer to go on the system ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konne69 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're talking about VIPER, right? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you should probably email them and ask -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cheers mate :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konne69 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. One of the purposes of the Wikipedia reference desk is to expose places where Wikipedia's coverage is weak or missing altogether. Thanks to your question I did some research and created Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording. I'm afraid it doesn't answer your question, but it does explain a bit what VIPER is. Worse (hint hint other refdesk layabouts) it exposes how poor the existing police lineup article is. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grr, I love and hate the English language. "no, thank you" can mean "no, the thanks belong to you" and its opposite "no, I'm not interested in the thing you said". Naturally I mean the former. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the meaning I took: that you can't be in VIPER after having been in a line-up (presumably as the alleged perp). I noticed we had nothing on Local Criminal Justice Boards today, but I'm less diligent than FMcW. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This is a strange question but how the hell are you supposed to eat pumpkin seeds? I got a bag, never had them before. I guess they're edible without shelling but they are impossibly salty, and the shell is not very food-like. On the other hand, they are impossible to shell and such meager pickings after you try. What's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.27.24 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I buy pumpkin seeds from the supermarket, they're soft and green and look like the 2nd picture on this webpage. It sounds to me like you're getting ones that look like the first picture on that site (aren't they just for parrots, who have a tougher beak than you?). I don't know how to shell those. But if you do get 'em de-shelled (or buy them de-shelled, or get a parrot to do it for you) I recommend dry-frying them (just put them in a hot pan for a few minutes, with no oil or anything). Once they change colour just a tad, pour them over salad. They're just great that way. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd boil them. That should definitely remove some of the salt, and might help them open, too. If not, at least they will be softer when you eat them whole. Just soaking might help, too. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We used to buy and eat baked or (maybe it was roasted) pumpkin seeds when we were kids. We ate them whole, and they were indeed heavily salted, with a fairly soft shell. Now, sunflower seeds are much harder. The experts crack them in their teeth, swallow the "meat" and spit out the shell, seemingly all in one motion. (This has become a widespread substitute for chewing tobacco in baseball.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ones I have are these to be exact. The reason I bought them is that a friend recently introduced me to pumpkin seed oil, which is incredibly delicious and is apparently used a lot in parts of Europe (especially Austria) for various things. Anyway, it's amazing and different on salads.Getting back to the seeds, maybe I just bought the wrong variety. No offense but the though of soaking them is not appetizing to me. I donlt think even the most mouth fixated baseball player could work with the ones I have.--108.54.27.24 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question (obviously). I've just created my 1,001st WP page, which was, naturally, Category:Music based on One Thousand and One Nights. I got to thinking about the original stories, and then about the fact that, even though we generally like things to be in sets of nice round numbers, we are also attracted to things that are just a bit extra (but not too much extra). There's a certain mystique to, e.g. One Thousand and One Nights that would not be shared by One Thousand Nights or One Thousand and Two Nights.

Here are a few more examples:

• year and a day is a phrase with a long history
• a baker's dozen is a real dozen (12) plus one
• various 101 Dalmatians (although 102 Dalmatians wrecked my premise)
• various other things at 101 (disambiguation)
• Twenty-six Men and a Girl
• One Hundred Men and a Girl
• Six Million and One
• the age of majority was traditionally 21
• tea is traditionally made with one teaspoon of tea per person, plus one for the pot
• drinkers, singers and others like to have One for the Road (I had to link that because, surprisingly, we have no article on the general expression "one for the road").

Is there some overall theme or description of this phenomenon? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an expression of fullness. The added digit only accentuates the sense of "filled to capacity" that presumably is present in the first quantity stated. That would be my initial explanation. By the way, I don't think the "Twenty-six Men and a Girl" and the "One Hundred Men and a Girl" are properly examples of what I think you are centrally describing as I think it is the gender that stands out as opposed to the additional small quantity. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you come up with some interesting ones. Why don't you ask something easy, like "Why is the ocean near the shore?" or "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" or "How high is Mt. Everest?" The first term that came to mind is "whimsy", and I also wonder if there's any connection, at least on some level, with numerology. It's worth pointing out that round numbers are typically boring, as well as automatically sounding like estimates. "A year" could be flexible. "A year and a day" seems a lot more exact (although "forever and a day" doesn't really). Speaking of Everest, the original surveyors made several measurements, and to their non-amusement, they averaged to exactly 29,000. That sounded like a round number or a guesstimate (which it arguably was), so they announced it as 29,002. Another number that sounds nifty is in 2001: A Space Oddysey. It sounds more elegant somehow than 2000 or whatever. By the way, an alternative definition of a "baker's dozen" is "12 of today's and one of yesterday's." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't see any connection between your examples, I mean the reasonings for each of them are all quite different. "Year and a day" is just a very clear way of stating more than one year, baker's dozen was about ensuring the customer was not be jipped, 101 dalmations is in my mind due to better Phonaesthetics than 100 dalmations, room 101 (you didn't bring up but...) would be because we don't count things beginning at 0 as 0 is a lack of a thing. "Six million and One" the title is to separate out, to make particular note of this one person. Age of majority varies greatly around the world and in time. Tea is done like that to account for residue on the pot. One for the road...just means taking one for the road...though sometimes I take two for the road...

That said, I don't believe there is a word/concept for the idea you speak of, I think you just think too much. This could also be a case of a bias, giving more value to points which support your idea and less value to those which do not support the idea, and being less critical than normal of examples when they work in your favour. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]