March 19

Excus me, where can I find some condemns?Awesomeguy369 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

public conveniences, and, of course, via mail-order. Historically, barbers used to sell them, but I'm not sure that's still the case. If you let us know what country you're in, we can suggest some specific shops you can use. Tevildo (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You can usually find them in the alley behind a night club, but I wouldn't recommend touching them. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

"Condoms" are generally available at any drug store, at least in the US. If you're looking for "condemns", try asking for them in a nation that prohibits contraception. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could only lead to condemn-nation... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody had to fall for it :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

In many countries they are free at state funded Family_planning clinics. We even have a dispenser in the restrooms at the office. Government issue of course. No popular brand names.196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently helps with arthritis... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/elderly-south-africans-rub-condoms-on-their-knees-to-ease-arthritis-pain-9046709.html 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the uncensored version to decide for myself. Where can I find them ?

Thanks,

StuRat (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what was reported in the Penn State newspaper, and it's bad enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any lyrics there. RomanSpa (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident? The lyrics are in our article. The recent Penn State case seems to be about sexual assault rather than racism. (maybe I'm wrong about that) Staecker (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an incident at Penn State recently also. Why anyone would expect mature behavior from frats is a puzzlement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Delta Rho at Penn State, and you're right, it was mostly about posting salacious photos of drunken women. Here's a summary of various recent incidents.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncensored version of racist song can be found at LiveLeak.com. - Lindert (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Racist songs, smelly drunken louts with hacky sacks and inferiority complexes, and naked women passed out on the couch. Now that's the stuff of life! μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. Where can I find the lyrics ? StuRat (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From CNN: "There will never be a (BLEEP) in SAE, there will be a (BLEEP) in SAE. You can hang from a tree but they'll never sign with me. There will be a (BLEEP) in SAE." with the word nigger being bleeped out. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Safe for Work! May be offensive. This may be what SAE fears if they miscegenate. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose an individual is driving a very powerful rear-wheel drive car - say, something like 700 HP and 600 lb-ft of torque. When accelerating from a standstill, or even if accelerating from a rolling start on a low gear, if the driver floors the gas, often times the rear wheels will break traction. If one were to increase the weight of the car, would the car have better traction and hence break traction less?

In other words, often times we hear that reducing the weight of a car is better for performance. But are there any situations in automotive racing where a heavier car might have some advantages in certain aspects?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated question. If you floor the gas pedal (presumably without traction control) on a high-torque engine - then having more weight over the rear wheels will indeed help you to maintain traction. But it's not that simple. The physics equation F=ma says that for a given amount of force (torque), you'll get more acceleration with less mass. But the problem is that you can't get as much torque applied through the tires if there is insufficient weight over the drive wheels. So there is a balance here. Putting more mass over the drive wheels allows you to apply more torque without spinning the wheels - but adding mass to the car reduces acceleration for whatever torque you actually can apply.

The question becomes whether adding X amount of weight over the wheels increases available torque by more or less than the amount needed to overcome that additional mass. There is no way to guess what amount of weight is best - there are just too many variables. Road surface? Tire tread? 2WD versus 4WD?

Adding weight to the car in general will be much less effective than selectively adding it over the drive wheels. One reason that front wheel drive cars are easier to drive is that the weight of the engine and gearbox sits entirely over the drive wheels.

But that really only tells you about that initial acceleration - once the car is going fast enough that the wheels aren't going to spin, that extra weight becomes less and less beneficial and more and more of a liability.

Adding extra weight on a 2WD car severely impacts braking and cornering (which depend on the properties of all four wheels) and only helps initial acceleration - so having more raw acceleration from a standing start is highly overrated - unless you're only interested in drag-racing.

Traction control (either by software or by having a halfway-competent driver) is a better solution. If your wheels are spinning then you're accelerating less quickly than you would if you were more gentle with the gas pedal. The goal here is to always be just short of wheel spin.

The science behind that advice is that materials like rubber have a higher coefficient of friction when they are rolling at the same speed as the road than when they are slipping relative to it (stiction versus sliding friction)...so any time your wheels are slipping (wheel spin during acceleration, wheel lock-up during braking or skidding in a turn), your car is not performing as well as it would if you were a little more gentle on the controls. Applying less torque at the engine can result in more torque at the road if by doing so you can stay within the higher coefficient of friction of a tire in stiction than one that's slipping.

Designing cars for incompetent drivers is probably a bad idea - so, in general, light is good.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Friction is calculated by the
  coefficient of friction times the force normal to the surface (the car's weight) times the area of contact. So yes, the easy answer is the heavier the car, the greater the friction. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Of course, if you provide a downwards force by other means (e.g. aerodynamics), you get the traction advantages of a heavier car without actually increasing the weight (see downforce). However, an aerodynamic approach will only help you once you're moving, not when you're starting from a standstill (since there's little to no air moving over the wings, there's no downforce). MChesterMC (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides potentially a short drag race, being lighter is better in automotive racing. Though even in a short drag race the solution to tire spin is wider tires, not more weight. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was half listening to the radio on the way home the other day and someone mentioned a measure of economic productivity of a country that was based on the surplus or deficit ignoring interest payments. I missed the name for this term, I think it was something like "base" or "basic" deficit. What is the term?

Also I think it said that based on this measure Greece was performing better than the USA or most European countries. Is this true?

Thirdly there was an implication that if Greece were paying interest at the rate of A* countries it wouldn't have the repayment problems that mean that it is charged a high rate - a sort of catch 22 of debt. Is this also true? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true - but the reason Greece has to pay higher interest rates is that they are a much riskier bet for investors. Every time they try to renegotiate the loan - or even think about threatening to default on it - the bet gets riskier and the interest rate goes up. It's all a balance between risk and return. The riskier the loan, the more the potential return has to be. I agree that there is a chicken-and-egg problem here. This is why responsible governments are so concerned about NEVER defaulting on a loan - NEVER even hinting that they might. The sad problem for Greece is that the threat is out there - loudly and publicly - and it's hard to convince investors that this is a safe bet. This is one of those ikky problems where the answer is "You shouldn't have done that" - and fixing it after the fact isn't easy. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is

primary surplus / primary deficit. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks -- Q Chris (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the percentages of homosexual men and homosexual women roughly equal? My Little Question Can't be This Interesting (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Homosexuality#Demographics. The "Polling" subsection contains the statement, overall, women were slightly more likely than men to identify as LGBT, 3.6% to men's 3.3%, +/-1%, a result consistent with other polls. More detailed information at the linked "main article". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a significant difference (it's well within the margin of error). The claim that it's "consistent with other polls" comes from this press release, which cites this document, which does not seem to support the claim. In fact it says 3.6% of men in the US identify as gay/bi versus 3.4% of women (Figure 5), but with no error bars so who knows what it means. I'll remove that claim from the article. -- BenRG (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No sexuality is uniform among individuals, let alone XX's and XY's, and every statistic I have ever heard is belied by the facts. Plus, I kissed a girl and I liked it. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues that make your question impossible to answer definitively. First, there is a difference between identification and behavior. The percentages of people who reported predominantly homosexual behavior in the Kinsey Reports are higher than the percentages of people who identify as lesbian or gay. Speaking anecdotally as a man who identifies as gay, I have had, and just about every other gay man I know has had sexual encounters with enthusiastic male partners who identified as straight. The problem is that many of these "straight" men will not admit to people administering a survey that they engage in homosexual behavior. So how can they be counted? I have no doubt that a similar issue affects numbers of lesbian/homosexual women. Second, as the Kinsey Reports and other studies have shown, large numbers of people do not fall clearly into "homosexual" or "heterosexual" categories. Instead, some portion of their sexual interest and behavior focuses on members of the opposite sex, some focuses on members of the same sex, and some may focus on people of ambiguous sex. Also, for each individual, these proportions may change over time. Again, anecdotally, I know of many instances of people who spent years of their lives identifying and behaving heterosexually and then later in life shifted to homosexual identification and behavior. I know of a couple of instances of people making the opposite shift. So, where do you draw the line? What if 70% of a person's sexual encounters are heterosexual but 70% of that person's attractions and fantasies are homosexual. To which category do we assign that person? What about a person whose sexual activity is almost exclusively homosexual but who reports on a survey that he or she is heterosexual? These issues mean that it is impossible to come up with an accurate statistic on the percentage of the population (male or female) that is "homosexual". Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the decision to marry is obviously related to many things other than sexuality, statistics on the rates of same-sex marriage by men and by women may still be relevant, in jurisdictions where it's been legal long enough for a pattern to stabilize. I have never come across such statistics, but they ought to be out there for some countries. --65.94.50.15 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those statistics would allow a comparison between the numbers of women in same-sex marriages and men in same-sex marriages, but those numbers wouldn't allow generalizations about relative numbers of men or women who are homosexually active. The numbers could just reflect a greater propensity among homosexually active people of one sex or the other to marry. Marco polo (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I largely agree with the relevance of Marco Polo's answers. This is anecdotal, but back when I was young and pretty and coming out to people in the 80's (since I am not stereotypically unlike my heterosexual comrades) I found that about 2/3 of people said they had had, or were possibly interested in trying homosexuality, and about 1/3, of either sex, said they wanted to sleep with me. (I responded that was against my policy (if they hadn't already expressed interest).) Humans are a lot more like Bonobos than many modern humans are willing to admit. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]