The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.
A mentor of mine once told me that I would be worth a lot more (to job interviewers) if I had numerous liscenses. Where may i find a list of liscenses? (U.S., Minnesota) Musli Miester 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your field. Some fields (such as electrician, plumber, general contractor) require licensing. See MN department of labor and Industry[1]
In other areas (such as computers) certifications are important, such as MCSE [2].
There are a multitude of other types of training and certification.
Many people, in many industries look for a combination of three things in evaluating candidates for jobs. Those would be education, licensing or certification, and experience.
If you give more information about the area where you feel your interests and skills most fit, we can give you more information so assist you.
Atom 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you would be worth a lot more if you spelled it correctly - licenses. --Proficient 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some parts of Minnesota, having your driver's licence, fishing license and hunting license might impress an employer.Edison 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard rumours that Einstein wasn't good at math. Someone corrected this by saying that Einstein may appear he wasn't good at math because he was doing an extremely difficult branch of mathematics. Does anyone know what difficult branch of Math that Einstein found difficult?Jamesino 00:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Einsteins capabilities at math were relative, you might say. Compared to you and I, I think his math skills were exceptional. Also, in his area of math, he obviously knew that very well. On the other hand, he may not have been strong in other areas of mathematics. Like most areas of science, mathematicians often specialize in one specific area.
See the article Albert Einstein for a fascinating description of his life.
Einstein's marks were poor in many of his school courses, as he very often took no interest in them. It may not reflect his actual mathematical ability, but rather how little effort he was sometimes willing to expend on his schoolwork. - Rainwarrior 01:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some question whether he needed David Hilbert's help to find the final mathematical solution for his general relativity equations, and he'll never be spoken of in the same breath as Isaac Newton as a mathematician, but compared to mere mortals, I'd say his math skills were plenty good enough. Clarityfiend 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: he turned out to be a mere mortal too. Or does he hang with Elvis? :) DirkvdM 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, I went to an exhibition about Einstein's time in the Netherlands and Belgium, and they said that the story about an underachieving Einstein is a MYTH. They explained that the maximum number of points he could get at school was 6 (not ten), so when he got a 5 or 6, it was GOOD.Evilbu 08:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not a mathematician. He was gifted at math compared to the general population, but he had help developing his theories mathematically. As a mathematician, he was a great physicist. This is not unusual.Edison 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: it's true that Einsten shouldn't be spoken of in the sentence as Newton when it comes to mathematics, but then again, Newton shouldn't be spoken of in the same sentence as Gauss, Hilbert, Euler, Riemann, or any number of other mathematicians (I'm not saying he was a bad mathematician, he did discover calculus, he just wasn't Gauss). The two disciplines are very different, remember that. Oskar 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have reference handy at the moment, but as far as I remember, the claim that Einstein wasn't good at math is an urban legend, brought to life by a careless biographer, who studied records from Einstein's high school year. And there he found that Einstein got a 5 in math, the second-worst grade in the German grading system. However, Einstein spend his early high-school years in Switzerland, where 5 is a the best grade, and it seems that his Swiss record was wrongly transcribed when he changed to a German school. Simon A. 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best grade in the Swiss school system is a 6 (not a 5). The worst a 1. Lukas 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Reference Desk,
I have been searching for hours now both on Google and through your site about information on I believe either Polynesian, Micronesian, or Oceanic Nautical charts that are made out of wood, shell, bone, etc and used for navigating ships celestially. They are adjustable, in a grid format, made mostly of bamboo or wood indigenous to the area and are mounted to the wall. 72.207.244.39 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)I believe these are mid-19th century but I could be mistaken. I have seen one before but lost the contact info for that person that owns one. Thank you for your time and assitance in this matter. Take care.
Sincerley,
Ben Diller[reply]
I removed your e-mail, as posting it on a public site like this can mean it gets picked up by spambots (which you really don't want :). In answer to your question, the charts demonstrated wave patterns, so if you search for "Polynesian wave chart" or something similar you'll get quite a few hits. This seems to be a pretty informative place to start: [3]. There's also a great article in a journal called Imago Mundi ("Marshall Islands Navigational Charts", by William Davenport, Imago Mundi, Vol. 15. (1960), pp. 19-26) but you have to have university access to read it online ([4]). Hope this helps! Ziggurat 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me find articles or books on the long-term effects of emotional abuse on the abusee? I am finding alot about what it is to be an emotional abuser or signs of emotional abuse, but not much on the kinds of reprocussions that the person who was emotionally abused over years has to deal with. Thank you for any assistance,
Jennifer L----
You could start with the Wikipedia article about emotional abuse and follow the links. Durova 14:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, if I click on that link, I will get an unending string of swear words and insults. :-) StuRat 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So whats new? How long have you been exposing yourself here? 8-)--Light current 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I normally go down to the city park whenever I feel like exposing myself. :-) StuRat 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're that guy with the weird eyes, foul odour, and really tiny dick, who keeps on flashing unsuspecting passers-by and innocent bystanders. It's good to finally match the name to the face. :) JackofOz 05:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that flasher you intentionally go to the park to check out must be somebody else, as I live on the opposite side of the world (in more ways than one). :-) StuRat 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, are you the guy who always stares at me when I go down to the park then? :} Temp
I can't tell unless I see a photo of you. :--) JackofOz 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy with weird eyes,foul odour,really tiny dick at a park.... it couldn't be the gentleman pictured here could it? ExhibitionismLemon martini 09:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard a lot of people saying that they got good grades but aren't good at standardized tests so they couldn't get into the college they wanted. Is this a valid condition or is "not good at tests" basically synonymous with "not being smart enough to do well"? --frothTC 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They might get nervous and such, but most of the time I would say it is an excuse. --Proficient 02:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their scores on standardised tests are likely to be a (relatively) better reflection of their "being smart enough to do well"; they might get very good grades on a test which consists only of the question "what is your name?". --Yesitsapril 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is an excuse, but the tests are limited in what they measure besides the ability to do well on a test. For example, doctors in the US take a long series of those tests, from the SATs in high school, to the MCATs to get into medical school, to National Boards for licensure, to specialty and subspecialty certification exams. I have been involved in resident education for years and it is quite difficult to see a clear relationship between the quality of clinical performance and the test aptitude. Being good at tests is a skill some are blessed with and others work at, but it is only a crude indicator of how good you are at anything else besides test-taking (except maybe being suited to work at the reference desk). On the other hand, good grades can be obtained in many ways and are much harder for someone to fairly assess and compare. alteripse 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just the reverse, a very good test taker. I've been known to ace a test when I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. The problem is that the test makers leave clues to the answers in the test, which I can pick up on. StuRat 11:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deal dude. I'm probably in about the same place you are right now to a lesser extent. Are SATs/ACTs important? Yes. Basically, they are the only way that colleges have a standardized way to compare two students from different schools. However, they are just a piece of the puzzle in the application. They won't make or break you, but they will hurt/help your application. Grades are important, extracurriculars are important, good essays, and recommendations are also important too. Standardized Tests are just a piece of the puzzle that the colleges look at when deciding whether or not to accept you. --AstoVidatu 13:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest StuRat that you are now much older and wiser than those for whom the tests were designed. You can see the hints in the question, but Im not sure the normal candidates would. Heres a little test for you on 3 dimensional geometry that you should be able to slove mereley from the clues (or lack of them) in the question.
You drill a 6" (exactly) long hole through the centre of a sphere. What is the volume of the sphere remaining? --Light current 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a little bit like a silly question. What diameter does the drill have? Does it taper? Through which two points on the surface of the sphere did you drill through? Also, what's a shere? --80.229.152.246 17:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems like you dont have enough info, but you do. THe hole is parallel sided like the drill used to produce it. You drill with a diameter as your centre line. 8-)--Light current 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how you could work out the original volume from that, but not the remaining volume. Skittle 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to think laterally: the info you are not given obviously has no bearing on the answer! 8-)--Light current 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John W. Campbell, Jr. had an amusing solution to this: Assume that there is a unique solution and that there is sufficient information, because it would be rude to present the problem if it didn't have both. In that case, it doesn't matter what the diameter of the removed part of the sphere is, so assume that the diameter is zero, in which case the remaining volume is is a sphere of diameter 6, or 36π. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You get the prize for answering correctly (and for quting the correct logical process of thought). However, I cannot give you the prize for super intelligence, as you obviously saw the answer somewhere else.--Light current 00:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, uh, yeah. I didn't independently determine that Campbell had figured out such a solution. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is sufficient information, there are two possible answers: either the drill bit is of zero diameter, and the whole sphere is left, or the drill bit is larger than six inches in diameter, and there is only a hole left. --Serie 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt specify the drill diameter. It must vary with the sphere size in order to get a 6" long hole.--Light current 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the info you need is there. Be sure not confuse volume with mass. It could be a hollow sphere and the volume would be the same. Sosobra 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to know either the size of the sphere or the width of the bit. The length of the hole is helpful.. but useless without knowing how wide the bit is. You could find that width by figuring the size of the sphere with the length of the hole, but you'd have to know the size of the sphere --frothTC 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't get good scores on tests but get good grades may be getting the good grades by working hard. This will carry them much farther in life than someone who is lazy but intelligent enough to pick out the correct answer based on clues the teacher puts in the test unwittingly. One of these clues is that in a teacher-written question, the longest answer is often the correct one, since the teacher puts in lots of qualifying phrases to reduce arguing about any ambiguity. Professionally written exams control for this factor. I have seen people with above average but not spectacular IQs do very well in graduate school and in careers if they are hard workers. Of course, some people just go into a panic and can't think straight when they have to do a timed exam which is important to their future. One thing which can help with that is preparation: take a practice exam under timed conditions similar to the testing day. Cognitive behavioral therapy might also help if one can afford to see a professional.Edison 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people can handle standardized test, how the hell are they going to handle real, non-standardized ones that are thrown at them in real life? PhilcTECI 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many differences in doing things in the real world versus on tests:
Getting the right answer all the time is far more important in the real world. (If you're an architect, and 7 out of 10 of your buildings don't fall over, that's not a passing grade in the real world.)
Getting the answer in less than an hour is far less important.
Getting the answer without using a calculator is far less important.
Getting the answer without asking for help from an expert is far less important.
Getting the answer without using any reference materials is far less important.
So, in many ways, doing well at tests shows you have just the opposite set of skills as are needed in the real world. StuRat 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It isn't possible that a person could do well at a test and be successful in the 'real world?' ( btwI have never taken a test that wasn't in the real world, I like to fantasize about more risque things then the SAT)Sosobra 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. They are two distinct skill sets, which have some overlap (the ability to get correct answers), and many other skills which do not overlap (being able to find answers alone for tests and with others in the real world). It is quite possible to be good at both. My point was that being good at one does not guarantee being good at the other. StuRat 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world I have many times had to give fast accurate answers without references, calculators, or consultants. The good part is that the questioner may not know the correct answer either! But in the worst case you might be held to the answer you are forced to give on the spot. Edison 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sides of a highway are usually named with the name of the highway and the overall direction of traffic flow: the side of Interstate 90 running from Boston to Seattle is "Interstate 90 west". When two highways share the same stretch of road, the road gets both names, so one side might be both "Interstate 82 east" and "US Route 97 south". Is there anywhere where one side of a road has both a "north" name and a "south" name, or both an "east" name and a "west" name? --Carnildo 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much mileage in doing that. Isn't it just called, for example, Interstate 82? I think I misunderstood your question.--Shantavira 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could see it happening like this:
HIWAY 2 WEST <<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HIWAY 1 EAST
^
^ HIWAY 1 EAST &
^ HIWAY 2 WEST
^
HIWAY 1 EAST >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< HIWAY 2 WEST
Yes, Interstate 81 and Interstate 77 (among many others) do this. I-81 is a SW-NE tending highway, and I-77 is a NW-SE tending highway. The two share pavement for about 10 miles, signed North and South simultaneously (as are two US highways that also share the pavement). See wrong-way concurrency. — Lomn 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used to drive one every day -- a northbound stretch of freeway in Berkeley and Oakland that is simultaneously I-80E and I-580W. (And backwards the other way, of course.) Provided minor giggles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, is there any stretch of road that's got all four directions? --Serie 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any four-way "wrong way multiplex," but King and Weber streets in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, go north-south-west-east in the span of a couple miles. Erb Street divides Waterloo streets into "north" and "south" suffixes, while Queen Street in Kitchener divides that city into "west" and "east." Because King and Weber streets run northwest-to-southeast, they wind up in both halves of both cities. -- Mwalcoff 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man has been around in his present form, like youand i for 100 000 years, now if one looks at the last 2000 years and sees the advances made, it begs the question what have we been doing for the other 98 000 years. why has there been such an advancement in the last 2000 years? Or
is a theory that I had previously laughed off possible, that man has achieved great advancement in various fields previosly such as the Atlanteans having great advancement in religion, then were destroyed, and we now have great advancement in technology... Any comments...193.115.175.247 08:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say most technological advancement appears to have happened in the last 20,000 years, not 2,000. Each development required earlier developments, and this leads to an increasing rate of new inventions. For example, without the prerequisite of knowing how to build a fire, most of modern technology would be impossible. So, while it may seem like little progress was being made during the first 80,000 years or so, it was all necessary to get to where we are now. StuRat 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was no shortage of advances in that period. Man got all the way to the Axial Age. In some fields, such as philosophy, there haven't been many advances since then. (Some would argue a decline.)--Shantavira 11:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another way you could look at things is by "weight" of importance of each invention. Like StuRat said, most of our modern inventions require the initial invention of fire to exist, so the invention of fire could be considered thousands, millions of times more important than the invention of something like Wikipedia. Wikipedia took less than a decade to get where it is now, and if you multiply that by a few factors of a thousand, you can imagine a relatively accurate time frame required for the invention (and taming) of fire. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People were doing amazing feats of technological innovation several thousand years BC: they established trade routes from Europe to China, they developed ceramics, copper, bronze, iron, and glass technology. They did astronomical observations and developed civil engineering. They built massive civil works. They did not just sit around for 98,000 years. Some unknown ancestors as smart as Newton figured out technological innovations in the prehistoric era which the subsequent development of our arts and sciences built upon. Edison 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another important element, is the approximately exponential growth in population and especially the increase in population with time available to explore new ideas. 10,000 years ago the world population is estimated to have been 4 million people and nearly all of them would have spent all day looking for food on a subsistence diet. Today the world population is about 6 billion, and although there is an embarrassingly large fraction of them still living in subsistence, there are millions if not billions with enough leisure time available to think of new things. And of course advances in technology, in health and farming etc. is in part what helps to support the increase in the world's population (although also note the warnings of Thomas Malthus).
I don't have the figures, but lets estimate that there are 10 times as many theoretical physicists in the world today compared with 1900 (the world population has increased by a factor of 4 since then, but the number of physicists has probably increased more rapidly). 10 times as many people working on the same sorts of problems won't make the rate of advancement increase by a factor of 10, but it might make things move forward say two or three times more as quickly.
There are also important step changes along the way that facilitate the spread of ideas; spoken language (way back when), writing (~4000BC), printing (6th-15th century) and perhaps the Internet (1980s). More importantly throughout these last 20,000 years there has been very little change in human DNA, so things like brain size (or other factors that might affect intelligence or ingenuity) have remained the same. It is suggested that if you could raise a Paleolithic caveman in the modern world with modern teaching, he would be pretty well indistinguishable from anyone else. However we are now on the verge of being able to manipulate our DNA directly, so the pace of change in the next thousand years might be very dramatic indeed as long as we can cope with the social pressures. -- Solipsist 16:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We consider our technological advances greater for two reasons. One is that they are our advances and the other is that we take what was done long ago for granted. One of the greatest advances of mankind is the development of agriculture, breeding and city building. Without that, we could never have done what we did in the last 2000 years. We may think our computers and the Internet dwarf any previous achievements, but it's just an extension of communication, like bookprinting was. It all started with the invention of writing. Strike that. It started with spoken language. Conpared to that all that came after it was peanuts. Looking into the future, 10000 years from now people will be little impressed with what we are doing right now, compared to what they are doing or, if they think deeper, those things that were done before us. DirkvdM 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me use this oportunity to use the bit about 'taking for granted what was done before' to take a stab at selfrighteous capitalists. They complain about taxes taking away 'their hard earned money'. But put them in a third world situation with no connections and al the poverty the local population have and they will achieve as little as that local population. The wealth they have was given to them by their ancestors. They just found cleverer ways to get a larger piece of the pie. Thousands or even millions of times larger than the pieces others get. Of course they work millions of times harder. :) DirkvdM 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxpayers may not work a million times harder than those in the Third World, but they work more than a million times harder than you. :-) StuRat 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that last sentence confused the argumentation. I should have said that even if they did work a million times harder, that would still not be an excuse to take a larger piece of the pie. DirkvdM 05:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one "upper class" neighborhood in every major city. All of these neighborhoods have robust articles because they played roles in the history of the city, and are subjects of folk fascination. This is Wikipedia. Why question why? Because "value" = this doesn't sound like it interests me? leave me a message
For this to be encyclopedic, you need to use a criterion less subjective than "rich." You could use census data to derive a list of, say, "U.S. neighborhoods containing census tracts with per-capita incomes over $200,000." To be encyclopedic, the list would have to include all such neighborhoods. This would involve some work. A list based on a random group of people's subjective judgements is not encyclopedic. Marco polo 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there's a couple of topics about cannabis in progress on the science desk and I'm currently looking at an album cover with a picture of Bob Marley smoking a huge spliff on it, my enquiring mind wishes to know - how big was the biggest spliff ever made? --Kurt Shaped Box 12:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of suits do they wear? i wanna replicate for my formal.220.239.228.252 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Reservoir Dogs article suggests they were designer suits created specially for the film. I realize that doesn't help much, but it does suggest you won't get one off the peg. Maybe a fan site could help.--Shantavira 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what the Nec means after some of the categories in The SIC code book? For example, the category of Medical and Hospital Equipment has a SIC code of 504700 and has a total of 7,468. The category of Medical and Hospital Equipment, Nec. has a code of 504799 nad a total of 909. I'm just wondering what the difference is. Thanks.
"Not Elsewhere Classified". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to die from a hangnail, if it becomes infected and is left untreated and your immune system can't handle it. But, rather than making funeral plans, you might want to clip it off. StuRat 20:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I get a hangnail, and I'm dumb and try and bite it off, but I pull off more. That makes me wish I was dead. If you were contemplating suicide, that could tip you over the edge. Vitriol 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we don't seem to have an article on How to extinguish a burning butt just at the moment. But now there's a redlink, I'm sure someone will create one any day now. I only hope it's in time for your little .. ah, problem. Best of luck in the meantime. JackofOz 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I fell into that burning ring of fire...and it burns, burns, burns, that ring of fire." :-) StuRat 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the song that goes like, "burns burns burns! the ring of fire. the ring of fire." or something? --216.164.249.26 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, you could always decide to perform an upper decker while your butt is on fire. That would be quite an accomplishment. --216.164.249.26 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THere is another way: Fire extinguisher butt you must be careful not to insert the nozzle! 8-)--Light current 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw these adult movies where ... (no, better not). JackofOz 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a metal can outside a homeless shelter which had written on it "Extinguish your butts here." You might try to find such a device. Edison 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On British buses years ago when smoking was allowed, there used to be cast metal plates with the word 'STUBBER' moulded on them attached to the rear of the seats. Interestingly (?) the word spelled backwards is REBBUTS. Conicidence or conspiracy? --Light current 05:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be conicidence if they were smoking pot from bongs. :) JackofOz 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a result of a vindaloo, yoghurt is supposed to be good.--Shantavira 09:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet yoghurt... I love that snack... 惑乱 分からん 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain to your girlfried why you are sitting in 2 gallons of yoghurt? CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 05:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That must be where the term Girl Friday came from. Girl Frenday would have sounded silly. :--) JackofOz 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, 惑乱 分からん if you really like it that much I have 2 gallons I could let you have for half price. I just have to find the rest of the strawberry bits. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 05:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I actually doubt that the cost of importing 2 gallons to Sweden (before it turns bad), would be a better deal than buying 10 liters at my local convenience store, even if you would sell it at half price... 惑乱 分からん 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance...but this would seem to be the result of an arse-onist :) Lemon martini 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem more and more to be able to work out songs Ive heard and harmonise them at the piano keyboard. Its rather uncanny - its as if someone else is playing , not me! Ive found a number of rules for the chord progressions that I apply, and now the songs are coming thick and fast. I am a musician (bass player) but Ive never had any piano lessons.
Should I buy a piano to develop this skill at home for self amusement and learning of tunes?
Should I take piano lessons to try to learn to play from music.
Should I forget all about it, as it may only be a passing phase?
I'd keep it up. You can learn a lot about harmony, voicing, chord alteration, counterpoint etc etc etc. It will broaden your scope on the bass too, and you can use it for arranging and composing. A lot of great jazz horn players, though by no means all, played and play the piano reasonably well too. ---Sluzzelin 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that makes sense. Im not learning anything new on the bass now really. Its so easy to find the jazz chords on the piano like Dm7, G7, Am7,Em7 (in the key of C) I am of course starting to work out all the tunes in the key of C (or Am) so its just the white notes at present. When I'm familiar in C, Ill try F,Bb,Eb,Ab,Db--Light current 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible! But Im a beginner compared to those two pianists. After just a few weeks/months playing twice a week for an hour or so, Im just getting a natural feel for the harmonies of the tunes Ive heard. After all this time reading bass music and not really learning anything, I just find it strange now that it seems so easy!.--Light current 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway Im not sure I want to be a 'channel' for Liberace 8-)--Light current 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would explain why you go a bar looking to meet a man. :-) StuRat 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have my piano now. Its not a grand, but its grand (and feels/sounds like one) 8-))--Light current 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally leaned too hard into my hands, and felt my hands push against my chin so that something on the inside seemed to get crushed. UI don't feel any pain there, though. Will I die??? --216.164.249.26 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well eventually, yeh. Who knows! maybe you crushed your spine... or your brain... or your throat... all are unlikely, as you are stil alive, but more to the point how would we know! If you think your going to die, why are you asking us, why aren't you in casualty, and if you dont think you are going to, why waste our time? PhilcTECI 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fotr those not in the know "Casualty" is the same as the "emergency room" of a hospital. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. and Britain: Two peoples separated by a common language. Cars with windscreen and bonnet instead of windshield and trunk, going up in the lift to the first floor to watch the telly before revising for the maths exam instead of going up in the elevator to the second floor to watch the tv before reviewing for the math exam. Having someone knock you up early in the morning instead of ordering a wakeup call. Biscuits instead of cookies. Edison 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the the Deathclock. And then end up finding out you're going to die in 2 weeks and do a bunch of stuff that gets you in a lot of trouble and in jail that people with a limited time left would usually do, and then end up dying in like 40 years and regretting ever listening to me. Maybe you should think about it first. I was supposed to die 4 months ago, still waiting. ;) Temp
Wrap the body in chicken wire, weigh it down and drop it from a boat into fairly shallow water (though not shallow enough to be uncovered at low tide). Undersea critters will make short work of it. EDIT: You might also want to stab it a few times to allow the beasties to get inside. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is going to notice/care about the few small bones that wash up (unless you're very unlucky) and the big, identifiable stuff (e.g. skull, pelvis, femurs) will probably stay within the wire wrapping long enough to be erroded away to sand... --Kurt Shaped Box 02:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree! Its too risky! And DNA can be got from bones. Anyway, didnt you read the question?--Light current 03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you somehow could drop the body in the middle of the Pacific over the Mariana Trench with weights attached to the body, wouldn't that make the body fairly difficult to find? --ClockFace 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We counsel strongly against any felonious acts. I assume you wish to write a mystery story. One can't argue with success, so start with people who were never found: List of people who have disappeared and Category:Disappeared people. Unfortunately there are few details. For famous unfound bodies with more conjecture about methods, see Helen Brach and Judge Crater. Methods as dissimilar as burial under the sidewalk at Coney Island and a trip to a blast furnace were pretty effective. Edison 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THat reminds me of the Mafia favorite: Using the body in the construction of some concrete edifice. (usually a roadway). Also I believe there may be a few bodies inside the Hoover dam
I think you're referring to roofies. And I hope you like prison. Dismas|(talk) 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proper way to use roofies. Check out the lyrics to Date Rape (song) for a preview of the merry social life that awaits in prison - what goes around really does come around. Durova 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ever "rapeable". JackofOz 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Everyone is always rapeable. And I'm proud of the twisted OP for not dropping the silent e and maintaining the /ai/ sound when making his word. Hyenaste(tell) 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article just says it's a sedative that makes people forget what happened. But there must be loads of drugs like that. Does it also make people 'willing'? That would make it very useful to rob people, making them clean their bank accounts for the robber. Is that what happens? The robbery section does not say. DirkvdM 05:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, people don't have to be willing to get raped. Only too consciousless (or weak) for resistance... 惑乱 分からん 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, "willing to get raped" is a contradiction in terms. JackofOz 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaahh, true, it's an oxymoron... Anyway, I think I should recommend the asker to be nice, instead... If you're nice, hopefully you could find a nice, horny girl that would stay with you for some time... ;) 惑乱 分からん 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He: "So help me, I'll rape you!" She: "So rape me, I'll help you!"Edison 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rape me, my friend! you know... Actually, I was referring to more equal sex last time... 惑乱 分からん 09:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks British judging by the right hand drive cockpit. Jamesino 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about cars, but might it be a Lotus of some sort? Just has that look about it. Skittle 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No registration plate - no indicator lights - no reflectors - no reversing lights - no marque? And just because of all that you attack we Brits? Shame on you.
It may be a kit car or one that was assembled with the express purpose to try and set some sort of speed record. Thus, no need for license/registration plates or lights. Dismas|(talk) 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like most popular online games in the past (warcraft, starcraft, diablo) it was the high-level play that kept the game alive for so long. For some reason the CS system allowed for creation of really in-depth strategy, and even at the highest levels of competition (let's say sK vs. Team 3D) extremely trivial judgements and small advantages in skill made huge differences in tournament gameplay.
The existance of a well-formed online league CAL, and a well-funded (millions of dollars in prizes) well-hyped (large promotion budget) and well-reported (match play-by-play over shoutcast was very popular, and relatively high quality) international tournament CPL also helped loads to keep high-level players interested and motivated in the game.
The developer (which became Valve after the betas were done with) frequently updated the engine code and server code to make internet play smoother, and even listened to fan requests on a few occasions (maybe not enough).
Other than that all I can say is that the game came at the right time, when a game somewhat like it was required to inspire all those used to playing DM games like Quake III. I'd be surprised if any game will ever be so lucky again. I don't consider CS to be popular any more, because it's well past it's prime, but since there have been so many hardcore players in the past, people will probably always go back to it every once in a while to refresh their mice and catch a wiff of CS nostalgia. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was so popular not so much because of realism or anything like that, but the fact that the multiplayer game was well balanced and there was a really good strategy to it in addition to the tactile aiming skills. There were many ways you could approach the game, but you had to coordinate it with your team. Teamwork was more or less required to play the game (as a lone gunman would usually be knocked out, and have to sit out the rest of the round). Not all FPS multiplayer games are like that, and CS did it really well. - Rainwarrior 17:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- long joint - record sleeve?. ---Sluzzelin 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
