April 12

From the medicine page: Medicine is the science and "art" of maintaining and restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients. If this is the defintion of medicine, which contains both an explicit nod to the scientific method and an implicit one to the idea that medicine actually works, why is alternative medicine allowed to call itself medicine at all? I don't want to start a debate, but once alternative medicine has been shown to work in clinical trials it simply becomes medicine, and the active ingredients causing it to work are likely to be marketed by "Big Pharma". So why is it not illegal for pratices such as homeopathy and naturopathy to advertise themselves as "medicine" in any form? surely that is at the least false advertising? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the problem is that nobody really enforces that because it isn't considered an issue, and would hardly go very far on court. Here in Brazil, homeopathy is officially recognized as a medical practice, and if you took it to court the judge would laugh at you for not believing the "wonderful" homeopathy. So, I believe that in the end the number of the people who see the problem is too small to change anything, especially something as wild and uncontrollabe as language itself. —

Talk 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Because it's read as "alternative medicine" not as clinical mainstream "medicine"? The problem with the view (that the word medicine implies sameness) is that though something can be proven in clinical trials, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is taken up and used in the field of clinical medicine as a treatment. It only affirms its validity and may be safely incorporated in a clinic or practice, eg a medical doctor who also offers acupuncture, herbal solutions etc. These alternatives are tested and gaining acceptance, but are not meant to replace scientific medicine. As you say, "Big pharma" puts big bucks into anything that passes safety/effectiveness trials because it's always onto the next saleable thing and doesn't necessarily mean it's medicine as we know it. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not really in people's best interest to convince most people that alternative medicines don't work. The placebo effect is extremely powerful and useful, good 'alternative medicines' are cheaper and less harmful than taking a drug you don't need and often provide a pleasant experience that adds to the placebo effect, and it takes some of the strain off the conventional system when people with colds press a crystal to their head rather than booking an appointment with their GP and demanding antibiotics. As long as the people who need to know (actual doctors, policy makers, drug manufacturers, etc) know that these things work on the placebo effect, as long as it's relatively easy to find out that it is the placebo effect at work, as long as there is sufficient regulation that harmful treatments are prevented and nobody claims to heal actual, serious illnesses with the alternative medicines (so that people who need conventional treatment get it), there is no benefit to convincing most people of the truth. There is even a disadvantage, in that the placebo effect will be much less effective. 79.66.105.94 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're in the UK, but you have a US Domestic money order. How do you cash it? --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer - I'm not sure you can, unless a Bureau de Change will accept them. If they did, the exchange rate and commission would be crippling, and the Money Order would probably be pretty worthless. Your best bet would be to contact a BdC before you travel to the UK, and see if they will take them. If people want to send you money whilst you're in the UK, Wire Transfers or payments to your bank account would be better (assuming you have a bank card with a VISA / MC symbol on it, in which case you can draw cash at any UK ATM) Samilong (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the US Money order is for a large sum, the fees and exchange rates make this very uneconomic. Use a different method of sending/receiving cash. Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discipline of a person's post-secondary education correlated with any aspects of their spiritual beliefs, if ethnicity is controlled for? NeonMerlin 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeonMerlin, are you asking if beliefs depend on/are affected by culture and education? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it that their choice of discipline corresponds to their belief system (cultural background aside). JR

There are some correlations, yes. This study found, for example, that biologists in the National Academy of Scientists were more likely to be agnostics and atheists than physicists, for example. Whether there are detailed studies out there, I'm not sure, but you'd expect some correlations to be present (it's no surprise to me that biologists would be more atheistic than physicists; the former spend a lot of time looking at how very small and wet things happen without intervention, the latter spend a lot of time contemplating things on so small and so large a scale as to be sublime). And of course there are disciplines like Theology and Jewish Studies which are going to be magnets for certain beliefs. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My father drives a 1989 Nissan Sentra and recently, the radio - specifically the audio but not the clock according to the shop - no longer works. I beseech your wisdom on replacing the dead radio. --Blue387 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like 'beseech' even better than please!--Artjo (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought I would never see that word anywhere else other than Shakespeare... OK back on topic: Just take your car to your local motor servicing centre auto-electrician (I think that's what they're called) and get them to replace your radio with a new one. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to most any electronics store (Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack even!) and get a new radio, get the harness and mounting brackets and such, and put a new one in yourself. If you like, you can also go to crutchfield.com and order one online. They'll send you instructions on how to put it in too if I'm not mistaken, otherwise they have a tech service line that you can call for help. It's not that hard to put in a car stereo. Or is it really that necessary to get a stock replacement? Dismas|^(talk) 13:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that saving money is important to anyone who drives a 19 year old car. The cheapest solution is to get a portable radio that can run off the cigarette lighter (you could run off batteries, of course, but that would get expensive). You can also buy a device that plugs into the cigarette lighter and gives you a normal home electrical outlet, for use with a radio that only has a regular plug. I'd put the radio on the floor of the passenger side, to prevent it from falling and being damaged in an emergency stop. The advantages of this setup are:

1) You may already have a portable radio/CD player/MP3 player, so don't need to buy one.

2) You can remove the portable radio when parked, both to use it and to prevent theft.

3) No installation is required.

4) If you end up getting rid of the car, you can easily keep the radio and converter.

5) You can easily upgrade to new technology by just unplugging the old device and plugging the new one in.

6) The 19 year old speakers in your car may be showing their age, too, and this method bypasses them. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, primarily for a vehicle driven most often by a single person, is to wear something like an iPod when driving. I used a predecessor, a Walkman, when I had to drive a car with just an AM radio and single speaker apparently only capable of producing a whining treble sound. StuRat (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safety warning on the above suggestion: you should not drive while wearing an iPod or similar device as it prevents you hearing necessary sounds such as sirens of emergency vehicles or horns of other vehicles. What you can do is get a fairly cheap device that plugs into the iPod and transmits the sound on a radio frequency, which you can then tune the radio to. Advantage - all passengers can hear it, plus safer option, etc. Disadvantage - of course the radio doesn't work anyway, which is the problem! BTW, it's not that common for the audio on radios to stop working like this, these things seem to usually keep going forever - how sure are you that it's not a problem with the speaker/s, or the wiring to the speakers, rather than the radio itself? Perhaps even the fuse on the speaker circuit has blown (I'd assume not the radio circuit if the clock still works). If you can check that out it could be the cheapest fix of all. Another suggestion, especially if you want to keep the original look of the car, is go to the wreckers and get a replacement from a wreck of this model - this would usually be pretty cheap, I'd guess under $20, assuming you can locate a suitable wreck. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US translation: "go to the wreckers" = "go to the junk yard". As for iPods blocking outside sounds, it doesn't do that if the volume is reasonable. And, conversely, a high powered car stereo will also block outside sounds if cranked all the way up. Then there's the added danger of all four wheels bouncing off the ground as the "music" plays. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check - has anyone checked the fuse? Cars that are modern enough to have a clock have TWO power lines: a high-current one to drive the tuner, amp, speakers, any motors, the lights, etc, and a very low-current one that keeps the clock powered when the main power switch is turned off. The symptoms given also match "the big fuse is toast" while the clock still works. -SandyJax (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirs> > I would appreciate if you would point me in the correct direction - I recently> saw an item on UK television regarding the 'rubbish dump' in the vicinity of> Midway Atoll. I am interested in finding out more about the problem with a> view to possibly doing some volunteer work to help improve the situation.> > I would appreciate if you would advise who I should contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.179.16 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our thread[1] above under Bigger than Texas has a link to the Blue Planet Society[2] as an example of groups who might have projects, a question like yours is deflected here[3] and there's a blog of someone who got involved here[4] that mentions Matt Brown, deputy manager of the Midway Atoll Wildlife Refuge which sounds central. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Bulgarians:

1. nod their heads when they mean no?
2. show soft porn at bus stops on giant screens?
3. believe that local Boza beer increases the size of women's breasts?
4. buy tigers to ward off thieves?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate dessert (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It could be true yet it could be false, you'll never know. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lord, no. Because that is an international crime. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Boza beer doesn't make breasts bigger, but breast surgery does. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. B.G.. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. <shake head> Clarityfiend (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the first one before, but I've no idea if it's actually true. I kind of hope the others are. Especially 4. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that 2 is also true: [5] [6] [7] D0762 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't 4 be rather expensive overkill? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 seems to be true as well, from wikitravel: "It is also important to remember the fact that many Bulgarians - contrary to most nationalities - shake their head for Yes and nod for No!" [8] And, from our very own wikipedia article Boza#Controversy "Boza allegedly has the ability to enlarge women's breasts" [9]. And, as amazing as it may seem, 4 also appears to be true: "With a series of burglaries rocking the village of Selisten Dol in western Bulgaria, residents found a novel way out. They purchased a tiger cub from the Sofia Zoo to guard their village. The ploy worked. The thieves have stopped thieving around in the village." [10] D0762 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if this book is reliable or not, but it claims that Bulgarians do indeed buy tiger cubs to ward off thieves, specifically that the village of Selisten Dol bought a tiger cub as a 'guard cat' Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the page for Boza states that Boza is indeed claimed to increase breast size, which is referenced by this story at news.au Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sorry D0762, only just noticed that we both provided the same links! Shows the power of google, I guess. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR, but adequate quan-titties of any alcoholic beverages seem to result in breast augmentation and miraculous cosmetic ad-hic surgery in any lustfully observed objects. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing that the Greeks also shake their heads for yes and nod for no. But that was on some TV documentary many years ago and maybe it was talking about Bulgarians. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard this of Indians (from India), but one never knows. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Indians nod in the normal way. The confusing nod is the third variety, with the exis of rotation passing through the nose from the front to the back, and indicates agreement or understanding ("OK"). 203.122.33.194 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expect that the dedicated Boza beer drinker might start to see bigger breasts everywhere. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Gomer Pyle just effeminate or was he also a homosexual? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

He was an innocent. You hardly ever see them anymore in the industrialized world. His self-image (a term he would not have understood) was untainted by programmed preconceptions of masculinity. We hard-boiled realist philosophers too easily mistake gentleness and piety for effeminacy. He adored women and saw them not as lust objects but as a complete element of his world, those lofty things that were to be respected, cherished, protected, courted, and married. There are worse ways to be. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather be Gomer than Sargeant Carter. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Between melodic death metal and regular, (unmelodic?) death metal? I'm just curious. I don't really listen to death metal aside from a tiny bit of Opeth (The Drapery Falls is one of my favorite songs) and a few obscure Christian death metal bands. Can I have some examples showing the difference? Like lyrical comparison or something? Just tell me. MalwareSmarts (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are Christian death metal bands!? 81.187.153.189 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there are. See

Avant-garde Sludge Metalcore? Those pages do make for some hilarious reading, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Squire Clarke's answer is pretty straight forward. It is true that the subdivisions of musical genre are somewhat arbitrary. However, bands classified as melodic death-metal are more likely to have a melodic structure outside of guitar solos, and a more melodic vocal line (rather than full scream). Non-melodic or thrash death-metal is more based on the rhythmic variation of the guitar riffs and drumming patterns, and have a more percussionist vocal style (i.e. based on rhythm rather than pitch variation). Steewi (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any documented instances of news footage being misunderstood because objects that were caught on camera were cut off by the overscan on viewers' TV sets? NeonMerlin 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am looking for information about Flat Rock in or around Barnesville, Ohio 43713 where there is supposed to be a great deal of native American Indian history and evidence. I hear it is west past the hospital, but was unable to find it on my last journey. Please reply yo jmichaelfader at yahoo dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.241.60 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Flat Rock, Michigan ? StuRat (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give an overview ? Dates etc ?--Gerrycan (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief overview in WP's article on

Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken with links to articles on some of the arms and people involved. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

DWM (Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken AG) existed from 1896 to 1945 in Karlsruhe. The plant was destroyed by the British at the end of WWII. There is an article at http://www.dwm-schlutup.de/ in German which contains numerous pictures. This article speaks of more than 10,000 staff, mainly forced labour, who produced ammunition, hand grenades and canons. The entire plant of some 190,000m² was camouflaged by the roofs being planted with grass and shrubs.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are mechanics jerks? is it the rough nature of maunal labor that furments their attitude? bskinner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.233.154 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most mechanics are jerks because most mechanics dont make enough money, and are always dirty with car grease and feel like they get asked stupid questions all day long, and most mechanics i have encountered are "rednecks" But dont take that as a real answer just my personal opinion --Nick910 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it may be class differences. Mechanics, being

blue collar workers, often have contempt for white collar

workers, as they represent the banker who repossesed their home, the lawyer who sues them for child-support, and the doctor who tells them their drinking, smoking, drugs, and unprotected sex may be the cause of their health problems. Many blue collar workers, like factory employees, rarely come in contact with white collar workers on the job, so it's not an issue there. On the other hand, auto mechanics often come in contact with white collar workers, since blue collar workers will often fix their own cars. If you put on jeans, rub some dirt under your fingernails, mess up your hair a bit, and research the problem on the car first so you can "speak their language", they may treat you better. I intentionally skip shaving on days I need to see a mechanic.

Some auto repair shops have a person specially designated to talk with the customers, who wears a tie, can speak proper English, and is polite. The owner presumably realizes that they will lose customers if rude mechanics answer customer questions by spitting on the floor, blowing a fart, laughing at the question, and leaving. My personal favorite story is when I was in a junk yard looking for a seat belt retractor mechanism. I was inside the car checking the mechanism to see if it was what I needed. I heard splashing water outside and then noticed the mechanic was pissing on the car tire. I suppose I should be grateful he didn't have a large lunch or I would presumably have gotten an extra special treat that day. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is class issues as well as power issues. Most mechanics can probably tell right away who knows something about a car and who doesn't. Someone who doesn't know about a car is in a distinct disadvantage when talking with a mechanic—a car is very complicated, and repair can be very expensive, so most people going to a mechanic are somewhat afraid of things going wrong and are going to put up with behavior that they'd otherwise find objectionable. That being said, I've met friendly, helpful mechanics—I don't think its inherent to the profession, though it might be common. A good, trustworthy mechanic is hard to find, but worth it even if they cost a bit more. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, talking with an "expert" is frequently problematic. For example, talking with a doctor you often get the distinct impression they don't care what you say at all, and consider you an ignorant waste of their time. I also get that attitude from some "experts" at Wikipedia, unfortunately. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My garage and mechanics are polite, friendly and quite happy to explain any work they are doing on my car, give me a full breakdown of parts and labour and won't do any work that isn't required or I haven't agreed to. Maybe I'm just lucky :) Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To increase the luck, it's often helpful to slip in a question related to "best practices" but in their language, such as I'd like to see the part causing all that trouble, is that possible? etc... Sometimes a mechanic like mine gets frustrated to be needed so heavily by the non-mechanic part of the population. Contempt there seems to rise in proportion to expensive car+rich client+reluctance to pay. Mine's an early T.corolla that's (to him) no sweat. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a somewhat recovered redneck mechanic, I can say that the thought process "he needs help" > "I can do this and make money" > "I will try to be nice" often gets stomped on by the competing "his car cost much more than I can afford" and "his clothes are much more expensive than I can afford" and "he's too busy making money to take care of his car" > "he can pay for what his car needs but doesn't want to" > "he is an idiot" > "I should fleece him as much as possible".

Would you insult your surgeon just before he operates on you? Many customers start the "my car needs..." process by showing their contempt for the filthy grease monkey who is about to repair their car' brakes. We are all human, but we are not all nice, and we don't enjoy being treated with contempt any more than you do. Unfortunately, after we deal with a jerk, we often go to the next customer with a chip on our shoulder, which leads to poor treatment of someone who did nothing wrong. For all of us, I apologize for that. -SandyJax (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why--68.167.233.154 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)are all the airlines suddenly going out of busniess ?[reply]

I'd say the main factor is fuel prices. As airlines raise fare prices to match, fewer people fly, and then fewer airlines can be supported by the lower number of passengers. Those which were borderline when fuel was cheap are the first to go under. Those that were making profits then may survive. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Uh oh. So what will happen if oil runs out?... ~

U) 23:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, airplanes would need to move to alternative fuels. The US air force is already planning on using fuel made from coal, for example. Unfortunately, changing over an airline fleet to use a new fuel is also quite expensive, so that would force the weaker airlines out of the market, too. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, can airplanes actually run on fuels other than oil? Also, coal would be even more environmentally-damaging, and if we run out of coal, our climate will be in big trouble. Also, would it be possible to design an airplane that runs on renewable energy, and not fossil fuels (and if we switch back to zepplins we'd better use helium rather than hydrogen and have them without flammable coatings). Thanks. ~

U) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, they can run on any liquid or gas with a high enough energy to weight ratio. Coal is converted to a liquid in this case, with the impurities (like sulfur), which cause pollution, removed. Other fuels could be generated by using renewable energy (on the ground) to generate those fuels from other materials, like biomass. Another type of fuel that could actually be used onboard would be nuclear power, but the obvious risks in case of a crash make this a really bad idea. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also electric aircraft. swaq 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I--or even better you, as my computer search skills are rudimentary (I'm old)--determine the percentage of youth under the age of twenty-one who own their own cars in the United States? paulzipPaulzip (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start[11] if you'd like to do the searching/reading/eye ruination. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<moved to science desk Julia Rossi (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

I read in an article that those who do not eat breakfast will become obese in their lifetime. Is this true? And if this is true does that mean that if you're someone like me who doesn't eat breakfast that I will to become obese or overweight? I don't eat breakfast because I don't or forget, but because breakfast makes me sick to my stomach. I have to at least wait three hours before I eat breakfast. Three hours prior to when I wake up.

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

I sympathize with you Cardinal, if i eat breakfast right when i wake up i get bad indigestion/stomach, so i don't eat breakfast much, but i am now 22 and i have not been eating breakfast for a long time since i was about 9 or 10 according to what i asked my mom, and right now i am 6foot 4 and weigh 200 pounds. Of course none of this is medical research, but this is my personal experiance --Nick910 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the age group of 18-29 and I weigh in this group 100-110. I just don't want my body to go froop because I can't eat breakfast or end up eating more because of not eating breakfast. But then again I also have to trust my body. It will tell me when its full and when its hungry. Though its kinda scary cause I've read a lot of articles about how someone could trust their body for so long until it goes against them. I don't want it to go against me.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

I also sympathize with you dear Cardinal. I have never really eaten breakfast because of the same reason Nick910 states. I am 18 I'm 5'4 and weigh 106 lbs and I have not gained/lost a single pound from not eating breakfast nor have I became obese... SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sources to back up my claim but the writer of whatever you read may feel that by not eating breakfast, you may be setting yourself up for either A) gorging yourself at lunch and eating more than you should or B) finding unhealthy snack food at work/school when you finally do eat. Dismas|^(talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B is most like me. I find the most unhealthy food to eat. The problem though is that if I haven't had breakfast and I haven't anything to eat. My stomach needs something inside of it and sadly the only thing is something unhealthy. Also its very hard to find lunch (brunch) when I'm really hungry cause nothing sounds good or nothing sounds appetizing enough. I understand where you guys come from. For those who can't eat breakfast.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Hi. Well, I heard that not eating breakfast will cause your body to go in survival mode (unless you're used to missing breakfast, I guess), and when you have lunch, the body says, "oh, great, I finally get food, so I'd better fatten up in case I need to go without food for another morning", but I don't have a source for this. Also, there are blends and drinks avalible for those too hurried for breakfast, and some breakfasts can be made so that they only take 5 - 10 minutes. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~

U) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure but are you talking about

Starvation mode?--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have always eaten breakfast (in fact even if I wake up at 2 in the afternoon I still need to eat "breakfast" food, which amuses other people greatly), and I am, well maybe not obese, but certainly not skinny... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who else's lifetime would you become obese in? Daniel (‽) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't eat first thing either.I only put weight on when I became immobile with health problems.hotclaws 06:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible politicians in the future will be replaced by computers? Obviously a very speculative question and i'm not saying all politicians, but say for example here in NZ we have 120

A scheme (not publicised widely) to replace all public personae with computer simulated bots has been implemented and was completed in 1984. Only a few backward countries still use humans in politics, films or sporting events.

As the last update of the hardware of

H.S. was deployed some 150,000 years ago, the model is considered to be obsolete and is neither supported nor serviced. There is a limited market amongst nostalgic collectors of pre-singularity organic artifacts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Computers are only as objective as the data that is put into them. The idea that mechanical decision-making would produce fair or even prudent ruling, much less "objective" ruling (and what, exactly, does that word mean in politics?) is naive. Almost no questions in politics are purely factual in a simple yes/no fashion. Should we do more to save the environment or to bolster the economy? There's no value-free answer to the question. Indeed, "values" themselves—not "objectivity"—are often what we try to hope for in a politician. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in way, perhaps. The goal of representative democracy, in theory, is to get the representatives to vote as their constituents would vote. A computer could certainly do that, based on polling what the constituents think about various issues. In practice, this would essentially be direct democracy, where the people vote directly (quite possibly via computer) on each issue. This would eliminate much of the corruption associated with reps who are really looking out for their own interests at the expense of their constituents and/or the country as a whole. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main job of representatives in parliament isn't to vote. They're there do debate, discuss, propose, negotiate and elaborate over budgets, laws etc. If all they did was vote, they could easily be replaced by any number of systems that polled/sampled/represented the will of the people. Somebody would have to decide on what they were to vote on, though, and that is where representing the will of the people get far more complicated. Imagine an automated, statistics based parliament doing the voting on proposals by a government of humans. That government would quickly learn how to play the parameters to obtain 50%+ for anything they propose by ammending smaller issues that brings in a few extra percent etc. With a fully predictable parliament, a government can basically do what they want. /85.194.44.18 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Politicians and civil servants have to spend a lot of time becoming familiar with a lot of things the general population have neither the inclination nor the time to become fully familiar with. How they eventually tweak proposals and laws, and how they vote, is dependent on this. When you vote someone in, you hope they'll do what you would do if you knew what they knew, not that they'll vote the exact way you'd vote if someone put you on the spot. When parliament debate how much to spend in different areas of the NHS and how autonomous trusts should be, I want someone who knows much more than me on the topic to spend time finding out about it and considering the ramifications of various decisions, then make decisions based on similar values to me. I don't want a machine to vote yes or no on some simplified situation based on what it thinks I want, nor do I want decisions made by polling the snap decisions of people like me who don't actually know a lot about the topic. 79.66.105.94 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to think that representatives take the time to read every detail about every issue and become experts on everything, but it's simply not the case. For example, I seem to recall that the US Congress was given the opportunity to read the full report on Iraq prepared by the CIA before voting to give Bush the authority to declare war, but hardly any actually bothered. And, being mostly lawyers, reps tend to do quite poorly when asked to judge the relative merits of scientific endeavors. If everyone could vote (either directly or via some computer system), I would expect to see scientists mostly vote on matters of science, educators on matters of education, etc. Hopefully then we would actually get some real expertise in the decision-making process. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And internet movements encouraging people to vote for the stupidest options on issues that few people vote on, etc. If you really expect most of the votes on educational and scientific matters to come from scientists and educators, I can only assume you do not read the newspapers. Representatives do not become experts on everything, I never said they did, but they're certainly going to be better informed than random people. Hardly any members of the US congress read the CIA report, but what percentage of the US population did? From a scientist's point of view, reps are often judging scientific endeavours badly; from the reps' point of view, they are not judging them on the same basis. The general population would also not judge them on the same basis. 130.88.140.1 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA report was restricted to only Congressmen at the time. Ironically, having a bunch of lawyers as Reps makes for very bad law, in that it's so complex you need a lawyer to understand it. US tax law is a prime example. Unless your situation is very simple, you would need professional help to do your taxes and get the optimal return in the US. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could do home improvement to my terrible looking apartment without pissing off the complex owner. I would like to install better cabinets so that I can hold more stuff. I would also like to change the door handles on my doors. Is it possible to do all of this without making the owner mad? What can I do to make him agree to letting me do these things to my apartment room?--SlaveofBetrayal (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking him, he might be more cooperative than you think. He'd benefit from those things too, as long as you don't have awful taste. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as you don't have awful taste This is a key importance. But yes just ask the man he might be willing. Maybe he thinks its just as ugly. 71.142.208.226 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

The last place I lived, our landlord told us he'd compensate us for materials if we repainted. He'd have had to approve the color choices first but that was all. We never did paint the place though. Weren't there long enough to justify. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]