Did you know that Wikipedia has an article on pareidolia? (And I agree with 98.217—the 'spider' does look more like Cthulhu.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When heads of state/government go on a visit to a foreign country, do they pass through the usual immigration controls and have to show a passport, declare the purpose of their visit, say how long they intend to stay, and so on? Astronaut (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have to go through immigration controls, but probably not the usual ones - there will be a VIP section for such people. --Tango (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heathrow deals with all visiting heads of states at the Royal Suite, as shown on the tv show Airport. The suite has it's own stand so that the incoming planes can make their way directly to the suite for the red carpet, band and handshakes. Once landed, various flunkeys emerge with the correct documents and deal with Customs officers on the ground. Generally, as a visit is rarely a surprise, all of the paperwork has been dealt with before the plane took off from it's point of origin and the receiving customs officers only need to give a cursory glance to check that everyone is accounted for. Nanonic (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's true in the UK - but I'm sure the standards vary WIDELY around the world. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. What country wouldn't lay on VIP treatment for a visiting head of state? Kind of defeats the point of a state visit. Security concerns alone would make it impossible for a head of state to queue up with everyone else. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know that how do the boxer get points in boxing. can anyone help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.240.151 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here (Professional_boxing#Scoring) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-point_must_system). Hope it helps ny156uk (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP was referring to amateur boxing, the type of boxing in the Olympics, the scoring system is different from pro. You get a point for every punch that lands the white part of the glove on the front of your opponent's head or torso. You can also get points if the referee warns your opponent for breaking the rules and the judges agree. Please note also that this current Olympic-boxing scoring style is under much scrutiny for not accurately measuring the success of a boxer in a fight.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia editors and contributors,

I would like you to answer a simple question regarding energy and stamina, if that is possible. Are there any reliable methods and/or techniques to significantly increase them? If so, could you please tell me what they are? I would sincerely and greatly appreciate it.

Many thanks in advance,

― Ann _{( user | talk )} 08:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good diet, exercise and rest. When your body is used to exerting extra effort for exercise on a regular basis (assuming you're healthy enough to exercise), then just getting through the day is not such a big deal. When you're well rested and filled up, that helps too. Caffeine is ok as long as you don't rely on it and sugar is ok as long as you don't have enough to get a buzz. If none of that works then see a physician because you might have some kind of blood sugar/thyroid/disease or some other kind of health issue to deal with. -LambaJan (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical exercise links to Aerobic exercise. From Caffeine - "Because caffeine is primarily an antagonist of the central nervous system's receptors for the neurotransmitter adenosine, the bodies of individuals who regularly consume caffeine adapt to the continual presence of the drug by substantially increasing the number of adenosine receptors in the central nervous system. This increase in the number of the adenosine receptors makes the body much more sensitive to adenosine, with two primary consequences. First, the stimulatory effects of caffeine are substantially reduced, a phenomenon known as a tolerance adaptation. Second, because these adaptive responses to caffeine make individuals much more sensitive to adenosine, a reduction in caffeine intake will effectively increase the normal physiological effects of adenosine, resulting in unwelcome withdrawal symptoms in tolerant users." - At the risk of going OR, caffeine can be likened to sprinting - you go faster for a little bit, but in the long run, you end up behind. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

when a women is on her period can she be pregnant79.68.40.177 (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be pregnant or get pregnant? A woman can appear to have her period even when she is pregnant, as it's not uncommon for there to be a little bleeding in early pregnancy. And yes, there are a number of

calendar-based methods of birth control, famed throughout the world as wonderful solutions for getting someone unexpectedly pregnant and then feeling really, really stupid afterwards. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It must be added that haemorrhaging (bleeding) in early pregnancy MAY be a sign for a serious complication. As WP must not give any medical advice, I strongly suggest the person in question to seek the advice of a physician / gynaecologist. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's assuming that this is about an actual person rather than a generic question, though. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard vastly unsubstantiated rumours that it occasionally occurs that a woman continues ovulating during pregnancy, but that it is uncommon. Citation needed. Steewi (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See superfetation and superfecundation. --Sean 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi People, When a wire transfer is made from a bank,does the RECEIVING bank know where the transfer originated from?? I understand that the sending bank can request the bank name that the wire transfer is made to,and to what account number,but I was just wondering if the RECIEVING bank knew where it came from?or does it just turn up in the persons account unknown of origin. Thanks, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.9.46 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever received one transfer and it came with lots of identification, though mostly in the form of numbers that only another bank could read. Given the world's general state of paranoia, it is difficult to transfer funds anonymously. In Canada, if one uses small-denomination postal orders (under $50.00, I think) that are paid in cash, neither sender nor reeiver has to be identified to the post office, but that is not a bank-to-bank transfer. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't specify what country you're referring to. And do you mean a domestic wire transfer or international? I suspect in the vast majority of cases, the receiving bank will know which bank it came from and have a reference for the transaction which they could use to follow up with the sending bank even if they don't know the person's name or account number. BTW, here in NZ fastcheques (basically a wiretransfer done online) between ASB Bank accounts show the sender's name. It's been a long while if I've ever received one from another bank so I'm not sure if it's the same if it's from a different bank nor do I know if it's the same if sent to a different bank. P.S. I asked someone who'd received an international money transfer, and he says it shows the name as well Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated some documentation about anti-money laundering procedures and related matters for an international bank, I speak with a degree of factual knowledge when I say that while it may not be required for a bank to know where a money transfer originates, from a purely technological point of view, most banks definitely make it their business to know. I mean, big banks are going to want to know where your money is coming from if you have a lot of it -- you can't just show up with a million bucks in cash and deposit it, they're going to want to know how you came by it, and you're going to have to provide paperwork for it. It's not that they care all that much, but organizations like the

FATF do, and no bank wants to be on the receiving end of sanctions from them. Indeed -- and now we're getting back to wire transfers -- the FATF has issued forty recommendations on how to combat money laundering, as well as another nine

since 9/11, and it's recommendation number seven of this latter set that addresses wire transfers specifically:

It's not impossible for a bank to receive a wire transfer without knowing where it's coming from, or for it to simply shrug and go about its other business when it happens, but these days it's very unlikely, because that way lies inconvenient extra work, possible sanctions and bad public perception, and any one of those things is something banks really want to avoid. In fact, just doing perfectly legal and diligent business with another bank that consistently demonstrates negligence (never mind criminal behavior) in matters like this can get a financial institution in trouble PR-wise -- there were a couple of real-world examples of this in the material I translated, but what with my brain being what it is, I've long forgotten the details. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Water Moccasin and a Cottonmouth the same thing or are they two different types of snakes ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.12.6 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Agkistrodon piscivorus, they're the same thing. Algebraist 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very aggressive little beasts, too, IMHO. Edison2 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When on the track is there a way to avoid the flying blue spiked shell from hitting you and exploding? 69.210.123.28 (talk)Bowser —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer - but (as the ref.desks' tame video game programmer) I'd say that it's very unusual indeed for game designers to put you into a situation you can't escape from - so there is almost certainly a way to do it. Either that information is in the little booklet that came with the game - or (more likely) the game designers decided that the process of figuring that out is a part of the skill of game...in which case it would be wrong of us to tell you! Good players will figure it out and do better as a result. I'd recommend trying different things. Is there some other collectable that'll protect you? Maybe swerving violently as it comes towards you? Speeding up? Slowing down? Hitting a "zipper"? Doing two of those things at once? Finding that out is part of the game. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, you can avoid a blue shell by not being in the lead when it's fired, by having just been hit by something else and thus immune, or by just plain dodging (this is tricky). Algebraist 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be interested to know that you can dodge a POW block by jerking the controller (which I didn't figure out until well into the game), but the whole point of the blue spiked shell is to be unavoidable. Just like the lightning bolt—you can't avoid it. Now, there is the rare exception that you are invincible (by using a star) when the blue spiked shell hits you, but you can't get a star if you're first.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WikiHow claims that you can dodge it. Algebraist 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be very, very lucky to dodge it. If I remember, the spiky shell has a 99.99% chance of hitting first place. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult, as it (and a great deal of other attacks) seemed designed to moderate the deviation from the middle of the race. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--24.188.247.12 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're going to get an answer. They don't ask you for your voter's card when you buy a car, and I can't imagine any way to gather a reliable statistic on this.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are these things called "polls". The one listed here doesn't sort by political party, but rather by self-labeled liberal vs. conservative, and the correlation is going the other way -- 15% of conservative men own SUVs, vs 7% of liberal men (19 and 5 respectively for women). I'm sure with more research I could find a survey that matches political party to SUV ownership. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That read like a problem out of a probability course. I can use

bayes theorem to find the answer here. p(_r_epublican|_s_uv owner) = p(s|r)*p(r)/p(s) = (p(s|r,_m_ale)*p(m)+p(s|r,_f_emale)*p(f))*p(r)/p(s) = (.15*.5+.19*.5)*.5/p(s) = .17*.5/p(s) = .085/p(s). lets say a quarter of the automobiles in my neighborhood are suvs then the probability of suv owners being republicans is 34%. wait sorry, that cant be right, im expecting something more than 50%. my maths is flawed. --24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your answer's wrong because one of your inputs is false. Given the data we have, it can't be the case that 25% of people own an SUV (unless there's a massive non-conservative non-liberal SUV-owning faction). Maybe 25% of vehicles are SUVs, but that's not the point at issue. Algebraist 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if i assume that the person driving the suv is either a republican or democrat I can use: p(s) = p(s|r)*p(r)+p(s|_d_emocrat)*p(d) = .17*.5+.06*.5 = .115. so the probability of being a republican given that he/she is driving an suv is .085/.115 = 74%. I think this is somewhere on the right track. but still polling data would be nice for this configuration. --24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also I forgot to use liberal/conservative than democrat/republican in the above comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.247.12 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in various magazines that the most fuel-efficient method of driving a car outfitted with a traditional manual transmission is the "Pedal-to-the-metal, short-shifting" technique, whereby the driver shifts as early as safely possible, but drives with the throttle fully open while on gear. My question is, does driving full-throttled increase the stress on the car in any way? If so, does the fuel saved by employing this method outweigh the increased stress on the car? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your premise.

The most fuel efficient technique is to be in the highest gear you can as soon as possible consistent with not "lugging" the engine and not pushing the RPM beyond the efficient range of the engine. Lugging is when you are running with an RPM that's too low...below maybe 1500 rpm (depending on the car). But "pedal to the metal"?! Hell no! Accelerate as gently as possible and as soon as your car hits maybe 2000 to 2500 rpm (depending on the car) you shift - as smoothly as possible. You certainly don't run with the throttle wide open - that's crazy. Anytime you're running over maybe 3000 rpm - you're wasting gas.

Running the car at high RPM or very low RPM does harm to it. Running at high RPM burns gas faster than low RPM. Hence, keep the RPM as low as possible at all times...but not so low as to lug the engine.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road & Track magazines claims that by driving full-throttle, the engine intake manifold is fully open and is at its peak efficiency. You would only put the "pedal to the metal" while accelerating, without reaching a high RPM. If the RPM's start to get to high, shift up and if you can't, then level off on the gas pedal. Like you said, it is always in one's best interest to keep the RPM's as low as possible to maximize fuel efficiency and this technique is indeed keeping the RPM's low by shifting. Perhaps another thing to point out if that this could only be used while accelerating, as again, like you stated, your RPM's will eventually get too high without any more gears to shift. Acceptable (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it depends on your car - but if you literally stand on the gas in my MINI Cooper turbo, its RPM will rocket up above 2500 faster than you could shift! But the idea that the engine is at peak FUEL efficiency when the when the manifold is fully open doesn't make sense. If it was true why wouldn't you want it to be fully open that when driving at a steady speed? That would suggest that you should stay in a lower gear - and we KNOW that's not true.

If your car can't gain RPM's very quickly (ie you have a low-torque engine) then you might well need to floor the gas pedal just to keep it in the 2000-3000 rpm band and avoid lugging the engine in those lower gears - but other cars (like my super-torquey MINI engine) need to be driven very gingerly indeed if you want to keep it in that rev range. So the correct advice is "Keep it in the low RPM range" because that works for all cars - not "Floor it" which only works for very low-torque engines.

I haven't done it with my present car - but I did (on a bet) try this "accellerate slowly, shift early" technique super-carefully and super-scientifically for an entire tankful of gas in my last car (which was a Supercharged MINI Cooper) - my gas mileage was spectacular - on a mixed urban/freeway cycle, I got better gas consumption than the manufacturer claimed for freeway driving! It was also the most boring two weeks of my life (made a lot worse because it took so much longer than usual to empty the tank)!

SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your later points, I would just like to point out that we probably do would want to be fully open while driving at a steady speed- but doing so would cause the RPM's (and therefore speed) to keep rising above the target speed. But if we were to keep it in a lower gear, the RPM's would be unnecessarily high and I'm assuming that the consequences of a higher RPM's outweigh the benefits of driving fully open when trying to save gas. Acceptable (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But RPM and throttle position are not independent variables! Let's simplify this a bit. Forget about the throttle position for a moment - the throttle is just a fuel/air metering device - it doesn't have an "efficiency". Assuming your car is less than 20 years old, the car's electronics can figure out the exactly correct amount of fuel and air to deliver no matter what. So let's just think about what's going on inside the cylinder:

• The amount of fuel the engine needs every minute is the amount that has to be combusted to produce enough gasses to push the piston from the top of the cylinder to the bottom multiplied by the number of cylinders multiplied the number of revolutions that each piston makes per minute...right?

• When you are accellerating, you need to get the piston from the top to the bottom in less time - and the way you do that is to use a little more fuel - that makes more gas - which makes for a higher pressure - which applies a greater force to the top of the piston - which accellerates the piston down the cylinder a bit faster - which makes the RPM climb and the car go faster.

• Even at constant speed: If the load on the engine is higher, it's harder to push the piston downwards - more force requires a higher pressure which requires more gasses which requires more fuel.

• To run the car at (say) 30mph and 2000rpm requires more down-force within the piston than driving at 30mph and 3000rpm.

The last two points are important. We have a dichotomy here: If you have to drive at a constant speed and constant RPM - but you have a choice of gears, should you pick the lower gear or the higher one? At first sight, it's not obvious:

1. If you opt for higher RPM the amount of down-force is less than at low rpm so you don't need so much fuel in each revolution of the engine.
2. But: The total amount of fuel you need is the amount of fuel per revolution MULTIPLIED by the number of revolutions so at higher RPM, you're multiplying by a bigger number.

The total energy delivered to the wheels is (naively) the amount of energy delivered per revolution of the engine multiplied by the number of revolutions per minute.

So from this naive viewpoint it's not obvious whether high or low RPM works best. Less fuel per revolution with more rpms or more fuel per revolution with less rpms? Well, the answer is lower RPM - and the reason is that frictional forces get worse at higher speeds so more of that energy is wasted.

Hence, for fuel economy, we want to be driving the car at the lowest RPM we possibly can. However, at some particular speed, the amount of force that has to be applied to the piston gets bigger at lower RPM. So at 30mph and 4000 rpm, the force you are applying to the piston (and the con rod and the bearings and the camshaft) is half what you are applying at 30mph and 2000 rpm. So in our efforts to save gas, we're driving at lower RPM and putting more stress on the engine. When the stress on the engine due to driving at very low RPM is more than it was designed to handle, you can damage it...certainly you'll wear out bearings and piston rings prematurely. This is called "lugging" - running the engine at lower RPM than it was designed to run.

So - what does this say about acceleration? If you accelerate rapidly, you must burn more gas than accelerating gently because more piston-force is needed. If you accelerate at high rpm then you need more gas than accelerating at low rpm because we have to remember that we have to multiply the amount of gas per revolution by the number of revolutions.

But (I suspect) the argument is that by accelerating hard to get to the shift point, you are burning more gas - but for a shorter period of time - so there would be no penalty to accelerating hard - but no benefit either (except of course that you get where you're going a little sooner). But that misses some practicalities. One is that human frailty being what it is, you won't be able to shift as accurately on the target rpm (this is more of a concern with a high performance car) - and the other is that in fact the engine is more complicated than I previously described. One thing is that the efficiency with which fuel is converted to gas pressure is worse under high loads - less CO2 is produced and more CO at higher pressures and temperatures and that's bad because the incomplete combustion of the CO is a waste of energy. Another is that by revving harder, you'll produce the same amount of extra heat energy - but in a shorter period of time. This overwhelms the cooling system and will result in engine temperatures rising - so the thermostat kicks in and you waste more energy circulating water, running the electric fan...you name it. All of these details mean that it's DOES matter whether you accelerate harder or more gently...and accelerating gently wins.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at a party when a secret was told about how I can speak "Foo", (or fu?).

It was funny how this silly, invented language was turned into an academic conversation, and truthfully, I've never researched the background on this until now.

i suppose it could be compared to the likes of PigLatin. Yet in all of my years I have never known anyone who can explain the history behind this. I have my story how I came to learn this, & few of my own assumptions.

I'm unable to find anything related to this on the internet and thought maybe Wiki could look into this for me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.121.31 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "Foo", could you describe it? Pig Latin is just a very simple code for English, is this "Foo" thing something like that, or is it an actual language? --Tango (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, and the article Language_game doesn't mention "foo" or "fu." Can you tell us more what this "foo" language is all about?--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that this is a

foo of liguistic morphology. --62.47.142.0 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Foo is often used as a metasyntactic variable - generally as in "foo" and "bar" (which come from fubar). It's also a common joke-ish suffix for "expertise in" - so Wiki-foo would be Wikipedia expertise - this derives from "Kungfu". But unless our OP will give us a few grains of information - I also have no clue. SteveBaker (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that its use as a metasyntactic variable and as a humorous implication of expertise have entirely separate etymologies. Expertise in wikipedia might be called be Wiki-fu (à la

foo (à la foobar). Plasticup ^T/C 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah - they certainly have different etymologies - but a heck of lot of people don't know that. Both are "properly" spelled "Fu" rather than "Foo" - but I've seen both uses with both spellings. http://www.seattlewireless.net/WikiFoo uses 'Wikifoo' for example. Anyway - this is probably nothing to do with the OP's question - but since our OP seems to have gone quiet, we'll probably never know. SteveBaker (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a brief clip of a team sport being played at the Olympics. It looked a lot like

I think you may have been mistaken in what you saw, as Handball as you describe it is being played at the olympics and has been for over 50 years with volleyball sized balls. Nanonic (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I know what I saw - this ball was the size of a tennis ball. --

^{talk email} 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the ball used in what we Americans call handball is a good bit smaller than a tennis ball. But it's a one-on-one sport, not a team sport -- like racquetball without the rackets. --Trovatore (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they had sticks, you may have been watching field hockey. Rmhermen (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handball is played with a ball roughly the size of a size 3 football (19cm dia.). A volleyball is at the upper limit of a size 4 football (21cm dia.). -LambaJan (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To help: An image that shows the size of a handball in play. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at Olympic_sports#Discontinued_sports and Olympic_sports#Demonstration_sports? If the clip you saw was old, then it could be one of the sports no longer practiced at the Olympics. I've been following this year's Olympics pretty well, and have watched a little of every sport they have played, and none of this year's sports fit your description.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you have seen this on the orf channel, you may as well give them a call and ask. After all, you are paying for the privilege of watching TV in this country. --62.47.142.0 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I sugggest

Kaatsen? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]