Contents

May 2

Spear

How would

I make a spear that looks sort of real that I could hit people with without hurting them. I was thinking I could start with a broomstick.--154.20.89.16 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You should notmore than you think..escpecially if you hit the wrong areas .. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 11:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
A broomstick is a bad choice for basing a sparring weapon on: it doesn't have much give to it, so even with padding, it can cause serious injuries if you swing----

--209.34.196.154 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) hit people with spears, whether fake or not, and whether you hurt them or not. In general, they do not like it, and might call the police, or your parents. If you want to play with friends ''who agree to play with you'', you might use styrofoam tubes. Make sure you do not aim for the eyes, as they are very easily hurt, or wear safety goggles. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :: And broomsticks hurt a lot it hard enough. I'd recommend starting with a flexible material, or a material that breaks easily. If you're interested in safety, you'll have to give up on the idea of making it look like a spear: there's no way to get enough padding on the pointy end without making it look like a boxing glove on a stick. --Serie 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a cardboard tube, like the kind that come inside wrapping paper? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Many "pacifist warfare" type groups use swords, not spears, and make them from old newspapers, rolled up into a tube and taped to hold them firm. They specifically use only the "cutting" action of the sword and avoid "stabbing", as that can still cause injuries. Which would rather rule out most forms of spear... Grutness...wha? 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime,Detection, and Technology

Science and technology has helped detectives investigate and discover the person which a particular crime was committed by.But could it also be possible that criminals could be using science and technology to stop policemen,detectives, and the courts,etc from discovering, or make it more difficult or unlikely for them to discover, that a particular crime(s) was committed by them?

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.
Yes, this is certainly possible. Many investigative techniques in forensics can in theory be counteracted by an intelligent perpetrator by taking appropriate precautions, e.g. by wearing gloves to prevent leaving fingerprints. In general practice, however, most criminals are not distinguished by a particularly high level of scientific education (or indeed intelligence), though, and therefore get caught and sent to jail. See forensics for more information. Sandstein 04:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the things in technology that (if it existed) could make it more difficult for criminals to get caught would be the cloaking device.

Then all you need to do is scan for tachyon emissions! ;-) — QuantumEleven 13:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If one were intelligent enough to outsmart the forensics agents, one would not be stupid emough to commit crime.

Not necessairily. Mayhap they want to prove their smarts? (While I know this is a fictional example, try learning about Paul Millander from CSI.) 64.198.112.210 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Official Wagers

I have a few questions about an article I want to write (and couldn't find anywhere). Most importantly, what to call it.

In North America, during the hockey (NHL), football (NFL/CFL) and baseball (MLB) playoffs, it's common for the mayors of teams that are playing each other to make a friendly wager. They tend to be either for prestige or for food; an example of the former is during the current NHL playoffs, Calgary and Anaheim are playing. The mayors of these two cities have a bet where the mayor of the losing city will hoist the flag of the winning city above their city hall, while wearing the jersey of the winning club and a hat symbolizing the winning city (a Cowboy hat for Calgary, and Mickey Mouse ears for Anaheim). An example of the food wager was the 2001 NFC Championship game between the New York Giants and Minnesota Vikings, when Senator Clinton bet New York cheesecake and maple syrup against Senator Mark Dayton's Minnesota wild rice and cheese. The bets are most commonly made by mayors and governors, and, even though many would technically be illegal gambling, are considered good fun, good PR and good sportsmanship.

My questions are:

  • What would you call this? Political sports wagers? (And do we already have an article; I couldn't find one.)
  • Does this happen for other sports in North America? I could easily google results for hockey, baseball and football, but not for basketball, soccer or lacrosse.
  • Does this happen in other parts of the world? I would think that football rivalries in England are far too strong to permit this sort of thing, for instance, but I could be wrong.
  • Does this commonly happen for minor league sports, or is it a professional sports thing only? While some political figures tend to make more wagers than others, (Gov. Pataki of New York seems to make a lot; Gov. Owens of Colorado "doesn’t enter into bets with other Governors very often", it's pretty common for the major leagues I've identified. Does the same thing happen, say, in double-A baseball, or the East Coast Hockey League? What about college sports?
  • Does anybody know of the history of these bets, where they came from, or any particularly notable bets? (I seem to recall one proposed bet that was refused, because the mayor (?) of one city stated that there was nothing worth betting for in the other city.)

Any help, or even just a suggestion on a name would be greatly appreciated! I've already found a bunch of "typical" bets, and we don't need a full list of all such wagers, just a sampling, plus any particularly notable ones. Thanks! --ByeByeBaby 05:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No help from me, but that's nice material for a new article : try it! Just be bold (and remember we need citation here). Thank you! --DLL 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Movie Maker

This error appears when I try to import a video into the collection: "The file C:\ ... .avi cannot be imported because the codec required to play the file is not installed on your computer. If you have already tried to download and install the codec, close and restart Windows Movie Maker, and then try to import the file again."

Why is this happening?

Well, let me state what I do know. The .avi video is a conversion from a .mov video. I converted from .mov to .avi using MediaEncoder.

Then I tried importing the .avi file to Movie Maker and that is the error that comes up.

gelo 05:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that the codec for the AVI file is incorrect, or not recognised by Windows Movie Maker. You could try the free program GSpot to work out which codec the AVI file uses, and then google for that codec and download it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is a little late in the coming, but I've gotten alot of questions concerning this lately and thought I would enlighten you all.

I've heard solutions offered, like using system restores and crazy sites and systems to diagnose problems and issues, and I can personally guarantee that they do not work.

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/XP_Codec_Pack.htm

Go there, download the full Windows XP Codec pack. It has no spyware or adware of any kind and is completely free.

And if you're looking for a place to advertize your videos, upload them to youtube and post a link on:

http://www.zemisoft.com

Let me know if this helps anyone. My username on the site is "Liamus"

The Ed Sullivan Show

I have found one reference to a cartoon name onthe show " Jonny" did this little man appear on a TV screen and look like an outline of a man that talked and moved/rolled about? if so what did he do what was is purpose on the show Ed Sullivan had such a nak!

Is this the Jonny that was the ventriloquist's dummy for Señor Wences? It was basically Wences's hand with makeup on it for eyes and lips, with a dummy's body hanging below it. Here's an image of the two of them -- http://www.nnmagic.com/posters_magiccontemporary/images/wences_johnny.jpg User:Zoe|(talk) 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sea and salt

which sea is in our world with higher content of salt?

The article on sea water should help. (And no, it is not the Dead Sea, which despite its name is a lake.) (I'm assuming you mean highest concentration, not highest total tonnage of salt.) Weregerbil 10:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, Dead Sea might also be the answer you are looking for, depending on why you are asking. If this is homework or you are playing Trivial Pursuit, Dead Sea might be what your teacher / the answer card is expecting. Weregerbil 11:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's homework, writing "The Red Sea is the most saline sea in the world. The Dead Sea is more saline than the Red Sea, but is actually a lake, not a sea" will either get you extra marks or a detention for insolence. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why a lake can't also be a sea? Our sea article seems quite certain that the Dead Sea is a sea. HenryFlower 18:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"A sea is...a large, usually saline, lake" - Sea --Deep evil 02:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Did any Australian cinemas refuse to screen Brokeback Mountain?

I'm currently doing a university assignment that involves writing up a piece about "the refusal of some Australian cinemas to screen the movie Brokeback Mountain", but so far I can find no evidence that any cinemas in Australia actually made that decision (American cinemas, yes, but not Australian ones). And I'm terrible at Googling.

Can anyone provide links or urls relating to any Australian cinemas not screening the film?

It isn't necessarily going to be public. I don't know how the Australian cinema system works, but wouldn't it be more a question of "the cinema manager decided not to book..." and as such, impossible to distinguish a commercial from a moral decision, unless the cinema manager decided to make a public stand too. Notinasnaid 12:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point, but unfortunately I have to cite my sources. I suppose it could just leave a bunch of references at the bottom. In fact, that should probably do. Thanks.

While we're on the subject, though... exactly WHY were so many "family" and Christian groups offended by the film?

Because the film portrayed a homosexual relationship, and according to a literal reading of the Bible, homosexuality is condemned as a sin. Conservative Christians were unhappy about sinful behaviour being shown in a film, where it might influence their children. Read all about it at religion and homosexuality, and, more generally, homosexuality. (That was my best shot at a neutral answer). — QuantumEleven 13:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got it down to about 400 hits on Google. But ask yourself this: what made you believe in the first place that there were some cinemas in this category? Was it a reliable source? If so, cite it. If not, suspect it. http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22brokeback+mountain%22+homosexuality+site%3Aau+ Notinasnaid 13:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It specifically said so in my assignment question, so it's a little difficult for me to get around. Thanks for your help.
You could start by reading our article on Brokeback Mountain, but the basic reason was that it featured homosexual men in love with each other (and having sex, but I think that was a side issue, quite frankly). According to many Christian denominations, homosexuality is a sin (see Christian views of homosexuality). Furthermore, exposure to depictions, particularly positive depictions, of homosexuality will turn people gay. For one variation on this theme, see this article, complete with Bible citations.
I heard nothing in the Australian media about cinemas refusing to show Brokeback Mountain. The closest I could find was the following article on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) website [1] that cites some Australian religious groups wanting it banned from the cinema. A further search of the ABC site reveals nothing, and the ABC would be just about the one media outlet in Australia I would trust to cover an issue like this. --Roisterer 13:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
As to Australian film bans, it was certainly shown in cinemas around Australia, and didn't fall foul of the government classification/censorship scheme. As to private cinema owners not screening the film for moral reasons, I checked Factiva, which has archives of all the major Australian newspapers. I didn't find any reports of Australian cinemas refusing to show the film; it was actually very popular here, and there weren't initially enough prints of the film to meet demand. To give some idea of country Australia's reaction to the film, this article from the local paper where I grew up indicates that while the local lads may have been a bit hesitant to go, there wasn't any protests (though the local God-botherers probably weren't terribly impressed with it). --Robert Merkel 13:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The towns which intended to "ban" Brokeback Mountain in Australia were Townsville and Rockhampton in North Queensland. You should be able to find plenty of references by Google searching for "brokeback mountain townsville rockhampton". --Canley 14:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Divorce

My son is going thru a divorse and was left with all the bills. His house pmt. and credit card bills are more than what he makes he can never pay them off paying $5 and $10 dollars a month on each one.She wants him to sell the house and give her half the equity he has been paying the house pmt.and wants to keep the house the divorse is finial in June of this year.If the house does not sell and he keeps making the pmts. after the divorse(what happens)or what can he do? Thanks, a concern mother, Love you show and here you every day......

Dear concerned mother, this is the Wikipedia, a volunteer-run web encyclopedia. We are not affiliated with any radio or television show.
While we have some very general information on divorce, we don't and can't provide legal advice specific to his situation or jurisdiction, which is what your son sounds like he needs. I assume that you're an American; maybe some American readers can suggest how best to obtain that advice cheaply. On a personal note, I hope that your son resolves his difficult situation. --Robert Merkel 13:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
sounds like he's living beyond his means ... either trim lifestyle or increase income.

BigFatDave 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation: Dominic O'Brien

How the f*** do you pronounce Dominic O'Brien in Shakespeare's language?

If you mean William Shakespeare, I'm pretty sure his "language" was English. So I imagine it would be pronounced the same way you would f***ing pronounce it. --Canley 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Good one! 1 buck for discovering that Shakespeare's language was English. Now, I'll be more explicit for morons like you to understand my question. English is not my first language, and since your language is has the most absurd spelling in the world there's no way to know how a word is pronounced just by seeing it written. Now, how do you English speakers (or at least, those people who try to speak English as their native language) pronounce that person's name?
Calm down...! Being rude won't get your question answered, remember that we're volunteers who dedicate our free time to helping you out, so please be polite. And using gratuitous swear words won't win you any friends either.
I'll nevertheless try to answer your question. I'm afraid I'm not very good with IPA, so please bear with me. "Dominic" is pronounced Doh-mee-nik, with stress on the first syllable. For "O'Brien", the "O'" part is pronounced halfway between an "a" and an "o" sound (a bit like the o in "not"). There is a very short pause between the O and the B to indicate the apostrophe. As for "Brien", it's pronounced "Bry-en", with stress on the first syllable. Hope this helps. — QuantumEleven 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much fella. User:Canley's comment wasn't very polite and/or productive either.
Anyway, I've found this: [[2]]; I hope this can help somebody :).
Brien is pronounced differnetly to Brian, it is pronounced Bree - en (the ee is like the ee in cheese, the last e is like the e hen) Philc T+C 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I would pronounce it Dom-in-ic, not Do-min-ic and with a different vowel for the o sounds than the one mentioned in the first answer. Is that a British English pronounciation? Rmhermen 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the IPA for how I pronounce it (I live in the States). [ˈdɑ.mə.nɪk ˌoʊˈbɹaɪ.n̩]--Andrew c 21:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)PS. All that said, if the name is Irish or Scottish (most likely), a native speaker would not use the Alveolar approximant /ɹ/ but a flap instead /ɾ/. The vowel sounds would be slightly different as well. International Phonetic Alphabet for English explains some of the differences in the vowel sounds for a couple English dialects.--Andrew c 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, question asker, I did not mean to offend... merely entering into the spirit in which the question was asked (with swearing and no context). How was I to know English was not your first language? And why didn't you just ask how to pronounce "Dominic O'Brien", why the Shakespeare reference? Anyway, I'm glad you found out what you were after. --Canley 09:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, mr.Canley for, by wanting to be slightly humourous, making it rather incomprehensible.
I've noticed that Spanish-speakers often refer to their language as "the language of Cervantes", but I don't think I've ever heard what would undoubtedly be the English equivalent. --Maxamegalon2000 04:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Car maintenence - Am I being ripped off?

Hey folks. I wonder if someone who knows their stuff about cars could advise me here.. I own a Volkswagen Polo which has recently gone in for its MOT (test). I have been advised by the garage that it needs to have the power steering hoses replaced (apparently they're leaking) and two sets of wheel bearings replaced. I have been quoted £530 (approx US $964) to have this done.

Now, I don't really know the first thing about cars, but as best as I can figure out from google, the power steering hoses should be about £25 each at the most, and the wheel bearings about £10. That's a total of £70 in parts, plus £45 for the MOT itself leaves £420 for labour.

So the question is, does that sound like a rip-off? How much work is involved in replacing two power steering hoses, and two sets of wheel bearings? Surely it can't take 10 hours to do that - and even 10 hours would be £42 ($76) per hour, which is pretty steep

Any input welcome, thanks! --Noodhoog 14:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

£42 per hour steep? A recent survey found the lowest rate at a franchised dealer was £49, ranging up to £140. Replacing a £4 light bulb can cost £66.