Miscellaneous desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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

July 4[edit]

Gold from Mountains[edit]

Does ore or gold nuggets come down from a mountain or hillside and end up in the streams or rivers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.147.26 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See gold and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Gold_In_Rocks Plasticup ^T/C 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, initially it is embedded in the sides of mountains and hills and then through circumstances it falls away or down the hills into the streams (is that correct?), is that why it is so often found in streams and rivers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.241.13 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the UK: Aliens or Hoax ?[edit]

From the UK:Aliens or Hoax? Just what is this, real aliens or CGI?65.173.105.131 (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. Your own link explains that these are humans wearing masks. This is a form of advertisement, see viral marketing. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Can this be placed in any appropriate articles?65.173.105.131 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not notable enough for that at the moment. This has already been discussed on the desks, see here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

getting solution[edit]

what are the steps involved in finding a solution in any area?11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)59.93.112.77 (talk)

Assuming this isn't asking a stupid question on purpose. The steps involved to finding a solution are a matter of logic: First understand what you want to achieve, second detail what you need to do to achieve that - ideally in a step-by-step process. Try to break things down to their important parts and work on solving each of those in-turn. Obviously to cover all 'solution finding' you must be quite generic but different business-theories exist on solving different problems. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above and the list Process including Business process might be helpful. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identify all the relevant components of both the situation you are currently in and the situation you would rather be in, match up similar components and make a reasonable plan to accomplish the goal presented in each matchup. Review to make sure that no action for one matchup runs counter to the goals in another, or make sure that if it does the effect is acceptable. -LambaJan (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia like Question[edit]

I love Wikipedia but I would like to try something new do you have a suggestion on where i can edit freely about just about everything type of encyclopedia? thank you --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about an internet forum? Personally, I enjoy giveupalready for a more discussion-based internet experience. Plasticup ^T/C 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are alternative Wikipedia-type encyclopedias where you can write about anything (the only example I can come up with is WikiPilipinas). Try searching on Google for similar, non Philippine-centric encyclopedias. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sky i found zilch sorry but thanks --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking for Encyclopedia Dramatica? I am not sure what type of thing you are looking for. Plasticup ^T/C 13:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia [1] welcomes people to edit the hell out of articles with humor being the goal, as well as being a "giant mass of misinformation." There you can add nonfacts to articles such as Uncyclopedia's Thomas Edison article [2], to supplement the present nonfacts such as that his first invention, when he emerged from the womb in 1147 was a steam powered rattle, or that Edison's electric distribution system lost out to Tesla's alternating current system because Edison had "Electricity men" deliver batteries door to door each morning, or that he invented the electric chair to treat hemorrhoids. Edison (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also everything2. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And H2G2. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is what you're looking for, it hosts wikis on just about evrything, most of them don't have as stringent writing policies as us.--Serviam (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or get yourself some free web space and write whatever you like. It's what the world wide web is for, after all. -Hence Piano (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is eye salt?[edit]

I have wondered this for years and never found an answer. Anybody here know? Thank you. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plica semilunaris of the conjunctiva located on the inner corner of the eye produces Rheum, also known as as "matter," "sleep," "crusties" or "eye boogers" according to Discoverymagazine.com [3]. It has the function of keeping grit out of the eye so it does not irritate the cornea or sclera. It is a combination of mucus , tears , dead skin cells from the eyelids, leaked blood cells, and dust from the environment. Edison (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never put salt in your eye...never put salt in your eye...PUT SALT IN YOUR EYE. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just pure eyewash, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.137.118 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roasted chicken[edit]

You can buy roasted chickens in a plastic pouch which arent cut up in supermarkets these days. What I was hoping someone could tell me is that if it is safe to buy the roasted chicken, keep it in the kitchen then re-heat it in the oven when I need it warm again? Thanks, 86.145.104.228 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "in the kitchen" mean "in the refrigerator"? If so, I'm sure it will be fine. Plasticup ^T/C 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No because you need to let the chicken cool before putting it in the refrigerator. 86.145.104.228 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but it's certainly safe to buy the hot roasted chicken today, let it cool down, then put it in the refrigerator and then re-heat it and eat it, say, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Of course, you don't want to leave it lying around in the kitchen unrefrigerated any longer than you have to, but it's really no different from any other type of leftovers, and I would expect it to stay edible just as long as any other type of chicken dish as long as proper refrigeration is maintained. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the more often you re-heat/cool the product the more likely it is to go off/food poisoning/etc. However that all depends on the conditions in your kitchen, AND how it was when you bought it..

Personally though I have no issues buying that pre-cooked chicken you described (the type that is found in the fridge section, not the sort that is still hot when you buy it), and re-heating it in a microwave or oven. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to keep it in the fridge, and eat it fairly rapidly though.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion about re-heating chicken (and other fowl) (once cooked) is more widespread than might be imagined. The problem is that many chickens, when slaughtered, carry a strain of salmonella poisoning, which, when heated to the recommended levels, for the recommended duration, is killed off; hence, salmonella-free cooked chicken (or fowl), and unless the carcase is re-connected with another source of salmonella poisoning, it is perfectly safe to eat, either immediately, or soon thereafter, whether cool, or hot after re-heating. So yes, you may safely put it into the fridge for a day or two, so long as it is kept away from any other cooked or raw meats, or eggs for that matter, after which it may be re-heated whole, or in slices, or in chunks for say a casserole type dish. And clearly, given that it should already be salmonella-free, and further given that it will be re-heated to a temperature that will be hot enough, for long enough, to provide a tasty and nourishing hot meal, it will still be perfectly safe to eat. But will my wife believe me? No chance. If it isn't eaten the same day as purchsed, it goes in the trash can.92.16.245.183 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tricky part is in the "free" part of salmonella free. Obviously, it's possible to completely kill off the bacteria, but I don't know if it's a good idea to assume that they're all dead, when it could be that the bacterial load has simply been reduced to the point where there's not likely to be infection - if eaten while still hot. A single germ of something is not going to make anyone but the immuno-compromised sick, so it's perfectly safe to eat, but left at the wrong temperatures (which will happen during repeated cooling and heating cycles) that single bacterium could multiple to dangerous levels without coming into contact with anything else. I'm okay with cooling store-cooked poultry and re-heating the next day, but I wouldn't do the trick more than once or for more than one day; those conveniently warm birds are usually the leftover whole raw chickens nobody bought on the shelf the week before. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog breeding = animal cruelty?[edit]

Are there any notable groups that oppose the practice of purebreeding dogs altogether, contending that selectively breeding animals into (what are, in my mind) grotesque shapes and sizes results in genetic defects and serious health problems for these poor animals? I am the only one who views this practice as cruel? (I'm not looking to start a debate/diatribe--I am merely wondering if there any known organizations who share this view). Please also note that I'm not interested in the distinction between "responsible," licensed breeders and the shadier, puppy mill sort--I am talking about moral and philosophical opposition to purebreeding in general.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's philosophy you want then I'm sure Peter Singer is opposed to the practice. You could see what the RSPCA in the UK has to say about it, but I doubt that they have denounced purebreeding per se. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are see Dog_breeding#Criticism and Dog_breeding#Genetic_defects as well as the linked http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,163404,00.html

Biologically, this is just asking for trouble. For one thing, the characteristics judges and clubs have decreed to be gorgeous can themselves be bad for the animals' health -- huge heads on bulldogs that make it difficult for them to be born naturally, for example, or the wrinkled skin on Shar-Peis that sets them up for rashes. For another, the best way to produce a puppy with a specific look is to mate two dogs who have that same look. As with any species, though, the closest resemblances are found among the closest relatives. So breeders often resort to inbreeding, the mating of brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters. Or they "line-breed," having grandparents mate with grandchildren or cousins with each other. "If we did that in humans," says Mark Derr, who wrote a scathing indictment of America's dog culture for the March 1990 Atlantic Monthly, "we'd call it incest."

suggest you read it all, obviously it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that "there are moral questions arising from a practice that increases an animals pre-disposition to genetically inherited diseases"..

'Notable groups' certainly includeds 'many vets', Search for "anti pedigree" for more details. eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/3797783.stm

If you were looking for an organisation set up to oppose this I'm afraid I can't find one, maybe here would be a good place to start http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/nobred.htm

I think it's more general to use the less condemming tone of 'let's not make pedigree our only concern and thus show some restraint in breeding for the general welfare of the offspring'

Personall I adore Dachshunds but I wouldn't encourage it..(they suffer from spinal problems Dachshund#Health) 87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most animal rights (as opposed to animal welfare) groups are against breeding dogs for human enjoyment or use in principle. This includes groups such as Animal Aid. However, in practice they tend to promote a more pragmatic view and focus their attention of issues of cruelty and abuse, largely because much of their human resources come from people that "love animals" and hence tend to keep them as pets. As any successful organization knows, it doesn't pay to piss off your patrons. Most of these groups do advise, if people wish to have a dog, to take a mixed breed rescue dog from a pound.

There are people that maintain a strict abolitionism philosophy, though, such as Gary L. Francione and Roger Yates. These guys are totally against any human exploitation of animals as pets and spend as much time criticizing other animal rights groups for take a "new welfarist" approach as they do promoting their own ideas. I don't believe there is a well organized group mainstream that has formed their ideas yet, though. Note however, that it isn't the issue of pure-bred vs nonpure-bred that they are working on, its more one of any pet ownership. Rockpocket 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bribery[edit]

Do abrahamic religions forbid bribery? 89.146.76.39 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Exodus 23:8. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what of indulgences? Could they not have been construed as bribes? The church certainly accepted them for a long time!

Atlant (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and some others thought so too , see Indulgence#Protestant_Reformation

The false doctrine and scandalous conduct of the "pardoners" were an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, protesting against what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs"

87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly have you been offering an omnipotent deity in terms of favours, S.dedalus? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIscapped FAcebook PRofile[edit]

I just registered for a Facebook profile, and accidentally capped the first two letters of my last name. Is there a way to fix this? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is here. It looks like you will have to make a request, and Facebook will have to review it.--omnipotence407 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That did it. Thanks! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a whole computer a CPU[edit]

How did that start? 67.169.56.232 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Synecdoche. It's a pretty standard device. Consider also "screen" for "monitor". Matt Deres (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Schenectady.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy har har. —Keenan Pepper 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]