January 14

Estimated value of 72 Silver Half Dollar coins year starting 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.36.74 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give you $36. --M@rēino 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you $36 plus 50c p&h. Alternatively, have a look at what they are going for here Rockpocket 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have four questions to ask you:

1. What was the average life expectancy of the world in 1669?

2. What was the average life expectancy of the world in 1900, at the beginning of the 20th Century?

3. What was the average life expectancy of France in 1900, at the beginning of the 20th Century?

4. What was the average life expectancy of the world in 1950, at the middle of the 20th Century?

When I say life expectancy, I mean life expectancy for both males, females, and overall in years to at least one decimal place.

This World Health Organization presentation gives 31 years as the average world lifespan in 1900. This site gives 68.2 years as the U.S. life expectancy in 1950, but not the whole world's. A Washington Post article from 1950 I found (viewable only through subscription databases) gives 48.23 for males and 51.08 for females in 1900 and 65.16 for males and 70.4 for female in 1950 (it doesn't specify whether these numbers are U.S.-specific or worldwide, but I'd assume U.S.-specific based on the high values). This article gives the 1900 life expectancy among the French working class as 47. I know none of this was exactly what you were looking for, but I hope it helps. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that 31 might have been the average age at death in 1900, but it wouldn't have been a typical age. The numbers are skewed by high infant mortality - if you made it to 16, you'd probably make it to 60. FiggyBee (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the global average, it's also affected by the low average lifespan in Third World countries. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the average life expectancy of Australia in 1900, at the beginning of the 20th Century?

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication 3105.0.65.001 (Australian Historical Publication Statistics[1]), the life expectancy at birth in the period 1891-1900 was 51.1 years for males, and 54.8 years for females. In 1999-2000, it was 77.0 and 82.4 years, respectively. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are some foods that help you lose weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No foods help you lose weight, only a good diet can. Try looking around in google for a good diet plan that suits your needs.--Dlo2012 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a little harsh, Dlo2012. Any
  diet fads and nutrition. --M@rēino 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry I had to do a double-take on "No foods help you lose weight, only a good diet can." Well I may be wrong, but exercise is still a tool for weight-loss these days right? ;) Croat Canuck If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I's a simple equation. Use more calories than you take in and you will lose weight. What you actually eat makes little difference. If you exercise a lot then carbs will burn off first, so a high carb diet will enable weight loss. Whereas if you eat a lot of fat and/or protein then efficient exercising will create muscle which weighs more than fat so you'll gain weight. Swings and roundabouts really. This advice, of course, does not take into account nutrition and healthy eating. It's only related to weight loss. --WebHamster 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP may have been looking for

Negative calorie food. Before beginning any diet, however, you should first consult your doctor. The human body requires more than just calories in order to function properly, and many fad diets deprive the body of nutritional elements such as minerals that are needed for good health. Your doctor can help evaluate your nutritional needs and develop a diet and exercise regimen that is right for you. SWAdair | Talk 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Who are you? Four tildes please, and before I misinterpret your question, can you clarify? Julia Rossi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also clarify. Who says that "many people" have "misintepreted" his work? How many is many? Who claims his work is humane?90.9.212.53 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

So, when I'm playing a simple octave chord consisting only of one bass note on the Low E strong and a the same high note on the D string. How do I keep the intermediary string (the A string) from ringing? How exactly do I mute it? A link to a picture or video would be great. Sorry for the dumb question; I know this is basic stuff.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge dampening with the heel of your plucking hand? Slight contact with the finger of your fretting hand? --WebHamster 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't bridge dampening mute all strings equally? Or am I supposed to be able mute 1 string at a time with my strumming hand?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the skill. :) If done right bridge dampening can help stop ringing without actually muting any string. All it takes is a small amount of pressure to stop a string ringing. --WebHamster 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My left hand is an uncoordinated mess, so I'll practice the bridge dampening option first.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to play octaves (they are not chords), why not just pluck the two strings with your fingers?--TreeSmiler (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're not chords per se; I just wanted to make it clear I was strumming both strings at the same time, as opposed to in sequence. I don't want to pluck with my fingers; I played the bass (never with a pick) for many years and am thus already proficient with my fingers. Since I am new to picking (and have no guitar experience), I wish to develop basic technique.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play the octaves as if you are fingering a power chord, but with only two fingers. Your index finger will mute the middle string, whatever it is (the A string in this case). You might still be able to hear the pick clicking against the muted string, and if you have enough distortion you might get some accidental harmonics that way, but otherwise it will be inaudible. (This is how octaves are played by lazy rock stars like Billy Corgan and Rivers Cuomo. If there is a more professional way, I don't know it :)) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed damping the intermediate string with the index finger is another legit way. I believe this method can also be used on chords where say you only want to play the inside 4 strings. Apparently this technique was used by Freddie Green (arguably the best big band guitarist ever)--TreeSmiler (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you do it useing upstroks. but basically all you need is practice, then you can develop your own technic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's already well fed. One would imagine he'd have higher standards. Bellum et Pax (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be his system is unable to metabolise something that he needs, or alternatively he must like the taste. Most hounddogs agree when asked that they prefer a little pussy now and a gain ;) --WebHamster 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Dog has this to say "Animal feces. Dogs occasionally eat their own feces, or the feces of other dogs and other species if available, such as cats, deer, cows, or horses. This is known as coprophagia. Some dogs develop preferences for one type over another. There is no definitive reason known, although boredom, hunger, and nutritional needs have been suggested. Eating cat feces is common, possibly because of the high protein content of cat food. Dogs eating cat feces from a litter box may lead to to Toxoplasmosis. Dogs seem to have different preferences in relation to eating feces. Some are attracted to the stools of deer, cows, or horses." Which may help, or it may not. DuncanHill (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a vet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse, one of mine instintively tries to disguise his scent. This involves rubbing in excerement. Always a nice surprise when you go to put his lead back on. Lanfear's Bane | t 12:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cat's diet is necessarily more high in protein and actual 'meat' than a dog's is. Cats are almost pure carnivores, while dogs, as I assume you're aware by your question, will sink their teeth into pretty much anything they come across. However, a cat's digestive system is not particularly good at extracting nutrients, meaning that their feces still contain a lot of calories and other, um, goodness that could be extracted by another animal. To put it in a bluntly flippant way: the cat shit is probably better than the stuff you've been feeding the dog, bacterial considerations aside. Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are chipped dinner plates and bowls safe to use with food? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaadowmisha (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search doesn't turn up any results, but I would imagine that the only danger would be from cutting oneself on the broken glass. Most china safety issues are from the actual glazing on the china, not the original content (see here). I'll keep looking though. Also please remember to sign your posts using four tildes "~~~~." Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why chipped plates should be unsafe. (Presumably the food goes nowhere near the chip.) Cracked plates, however, should be thrown out as bacteria can live in the crack, which also compromises the strength of the plate (or bowl).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some episode of Seinfeld, Jerry tells George that once you start wearing baggy/comfortable pants, you signal to society that you "give up on dating". Or something like that. Since I don't remember exactly, I cannot search and find a script on the Web.

Can you tell me which episode? Or even provide an accurate quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.13 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is

The Pilot, Part 1

, and the quote you probably want is:

Jerry: "Again with the sweat pants?"

George: "What? I'm comfortable."

Jerry: "You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweat pants? You're telling the world: "I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.""

--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea it was in the pilot... I even watched the pilot recently! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.13 (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the pilot-pilot, it's the episode when a show about Jerry (called Jerry) is going to be made and they all meet their counter parts while they are doing the pilot.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.13 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In one episode of Seinfeld, George starts doing everything the opposite way. Stuff go well for him this way. Eventually he falls back into his old miserable self. Did he stop doing things the other way around? If so, why? What happened?

2. How come the outro to Star Trek clearly shows stars as "little dots floating in space"? Isn't it supposed to be a show popular with "geeks"? This is not good for the suspension of disbelief, even if it looks cool as an effect (Windows 3.1 screensaver).

3. How exactly did the dolphins in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy supposedly find out about Earth's fate beforehand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.13 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For (1), you are talking about The Opposite--droptone (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For (2), are you referring to the closing credits for

Star Trek:The Next Generation? I think the answer is that it's the closing credits, so why spend a ton of money on them? Also, if we take the graphic literally, the stars are light-years away, so they'd look like little dots anyway. --M@rēino 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

How do you know stars don't move like that? You've never stared out the

bow window of an Enterprise class vessel moving at full impulse. ;) --M@rēino 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

<geek>The starship Enterprise in Star Trek: The Next Generation was actually a Galaxy-class vessel. </geek> TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For (3), my recollection (someone, correct me if I'm wrong) is that this part of the joke isn't something that's explained in any of the books, not even So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. One of the signature Douglas Adams techniques is making several bizarre declarations and then only explaining half of them, so it's not at all out of keeping for him to never follow up on this half of the dolphin joke. It's possible Adams is mocking the Order of the Dolphin, but that's pure speculation, and it's more likely just a throwaway gag. --M@rēino 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the dolphins were able to read the notice that was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." --LarryMac | Talk 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since both the dolphins and the mice were more intelligent than humans, I took it they were in league with each other and the mice tipped them off.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that sign would only have revealed the impending demise of Arthur Dent's house. Perhaps (with their vast intelligence and unspecified space-travelling abilities) they visited the regional planning offices at Alpha Centauri. Algebraist 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Are you complaining that the stars move too quickly, relative to the Enterprise? Or are you complaining that the stars are only rendered as pinpricks of light, as compared to something more interesting? How would you have preferred the stars to be drawn? APL (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean 2). Anyway... I am complaining that the stars are shown as little dots that float in a black void instead of actual distant little dots that wouldn't move at all since they are so far away and are in fact huge gas spheres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.13 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the moving stars provide a sense of Great Speed for the spaceship? On the same topic, how come spaceships in Star Trek (and most Sci-fi) make a roaring sound as they fly by in outer space? Sound does not travel through space, but on a TV show the effect provides a sense of Great Power. The niche for ultra-realistic "hard sci-fi" is small and not very lucrative. Star Trek is more akin to what I'd call "Space Opera" -- fans accept the blatant silliness in exchange for (hopefully) compelling stories and characters, with a bit of photon torpedos on the side. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Star Date 1,000,001 - Captain's Log - noticed again how empty interstellar space is. Running engines at full power, but speed still 99.99% of the speed of light. Had sausages for tea. Watched Groundhog Day for the 793rd time." Gandalf61 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ah, ah - the Enterprise warps space around it, allowing it to traverse distances at what appear to be faster than light speeds, though without pissing off Einstein. It's still mostly empty, though. Matt Deres (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that for a ship as fast as the Enterprise stars can be flown past. I have never gotten the impression that they're like ping-pong balls floating in close proximity to the Enterprise. They're still extremely distant specks of light. Whether the speed the ship is traveling visually matches up exactly with the speed its traveling in the story is another issue. In other words they (presumably) do it like that to show that even though the stars are really far away and far apart, our heroes travel in a ship fast enough to move among them. APL (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once this guy that said that he was eighty or so asked a question on here about hotmail.com. He wrote that he had gone to hotmales.com and i would like to find this question in the archives. I think it was early last year. Does anybody remember this question?--Dlo2012 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 February 20#Request for assistance. Though I strongly suspect it was a joke. Rockpocket 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a troll at least it was an amusing and creative troll. Better than we usually see. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you so much, i know it must have been a joke, but its one of the best i have ever seen in wikipedia--Dlo2012 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]