Miscellaneous desk
< January 9	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	January 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

I heard from a friend that there is a fish in a river in South America that when a person urinates in that river, the fish flies up and goes up through the genitals. What's this fish called, what river does it live in, and is there a way to get it out of the genitals if it sticks up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the Candiru, it lives in the Amazon river, and I believe a big knife is involved in its removal. DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the page:Because of spines protruding from the fish, it is almost impossible to remove except through surgery.[8]. It doesnt say how big the knife is. I would have thought it might be a scalpel (or maybe a corkscrew). Ouch! anyway--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as the urethra fish. Helpful if you're ever trying to come up with animals for every letter of the alphabet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the willy fish. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond O'Hanlon, in his book In Trouble Again describes adapting a cricket box and a tea strainer to make a protective device against this piscine menace. DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite possibly the most bizzare animal I have ever heard of. What sort of niche does this fill!?TheGreatZorko (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it fills an anatomical niche <rim shot> --WebHamster 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fills the niche of scaring people who might otherwise pee in the pool.

Atlant (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about this in Willard Price's Amazon Adventure many many moons ago. Sandman30s (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the OP's phrasing, I don't believe anyone's claiming that the Candiru "flies up" if someone isn't submerged in the water at the time of micturation; rather, it swims in only if you're in the water. This myth is addressed in the Candiru article. jeffjon (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article also mentions that it's probably not attracted to urine. (Re the discussion above - I expect when your penis is being cut open the size of the knife is the least of your worries...) — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that if the creature is addicted to urine, it would quickly find its way to your bladder, if not your kidneys! OOOO! that hurts!--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s one of the most amazing/bizarre/revolting things I’ve ever heard of! I’ve added it to our Wikipedia:Unusual articles. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For these with a macabre interest in this check out the YouTube video. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'm not even *tempted* to click on that link now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that the candiru is attracted to concentrations of urea which are produced by water flow through fish gills. So the candiru is trying to lodge itself in the gills of fish.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fish features in the novel 'A History of the World in 10 1/2 chapters' by Julian Barnes. Worth reading

What is the saddest, most heart-wrenching movie you've ever seen? I'm looking for some real tear-jerkers here. Thanks for all of the help! --71.98.26.188 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko^{[citation needed]} is a sad movie, though probably not^{[citation needed]} the saddest movie ever. Warning: This movie, like most good documentaries, is biased^{[citation needed]}.Kushal^t 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not literally looking for the absolute saddest movie ever (subjective and impossible to find, anyways), but rather just some real tear-jerkers that'll make you cry. Thanks for the suggestion. That movie, like most movies by Mikey boy, is VERY biased. --71.98.26.188 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not really a place for these kinds of questions. You should just Google "saddest movie ever" and look at what you find. It'll be a lot more helpful, I think. — Kieff | Talk 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? But I already tried googling it and I thought that instead of sifting through the massive piles of worthless forums and junk I'd just go straight to the source -- the fairly reliable, kind, insightful, and movie-watching people who frequent the Ref Desks and have excellent tastes in cinematics. So thank you for your comment, have you seen any good movies lately? --71.98.26.188 (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this question (and others that demand subjective rather than factual answers) is perfectly acceptable here. --Taraborn (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic is very sad. I mean, the whole love story, plus the ship sinking. You'll definetly think its sad, that is, if you have a soul. Grango242 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, it sinks?!? Spoiler! :P FiggyBee (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sister tells of coming out of the movie theater after watching Romeo+Juliet and overhearing a couple of high school girls discussing it. One of them sniffed tearily "I can't believe they died". --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Or did I tell that story to my sister, having heard it from someone else? Can't remember now.[reply]

Haha, ZOFMG! Romeo and Juliet die at the end? I totally wasn't expecting that even though it says it straight out in the first scene of the first act or something like that. But yeah I've seen the Titanic, and Romeo + Juliet (I honestly didn't think it was very sad). Let's see...I think I recall that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was a good, sad movie.

Btw - I should probably elaborate: I'm looking for sad movies that have been pretty well received by critics. I don't care if they bombed in the box office or if they are an indie film, but I want a nice sad flick that's really good to watch. Thank you for your suggestions so far. --71.98.26.188 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for current/recent releases, Lust, Caution struck me as sad, though not in the manipulative way associated with the term "tearjerker". Fast Times at Ridgemont High, though funny, left me deeply depressed; I don't know whether that was what the filmmakers were going for or not. It was a sadness without catharsis, which may not be what you're looking for.

The other night I saw an episode of The Twilight Zone that might fill the bill -- it was the one where the Mexican boy is about to be hanged and his father buys "magic dust" from the town scumbag to save him. --Trovatore (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Stroszek. Just ask Ian Curtis.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (1970 film). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schindler's List is the saddest movie I've ever seen (at least, it is the only movie where I have ever bawled uncontrollably). Titanic was definitely not sad...for some reason me and a bunch of my 17-year-old friends saw that in the theatre and burst out laughing at a particularly sad part when people are falling off the vertically-tipped sinking boat (one guy hits the propellor! I mean, come on!) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a movie but - Jurassic Bark. I nearly cried. The Snowman when he melted at the end. I cried, but I was about nine years old. Lanfear's Bane | t 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grave of the Fireflies, Ikiru, and Late Spring are my three must-see tearjerkers. It's just coincidence that they're all Japanese. Also La Strada, Bicycle Thieves, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Harold and Maude. -- BenRG (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might do better on the Entertainment reference desk. But since it's here, Charly (the movie made from Flowers for Algernon) is a pretty sad movie.

Atlant (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Mile has to be right up there with the tear-jerkers even though it isn't billed as such. --WebHamster 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want melodramatic tear-jerkers, 3 hours at a time, check out every second movie from Bollywood! Sandman30s (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caseys Gift (the love of a child) is pretty sad, kid dies in neighboures pool, very sad indeed. pretty old though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.151.98 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Yeller stands out in my memory. I was about 8 when I saw it. -- Arwel (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I_am_Sam is pretty sad (but it's the proper cinematic experience where there's the happy ending and you come out feeling "moved"), but I'm sure there are sadder movies. Rfwoolf (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Man gets me every time; a couple of scenes do, anyway. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about... Sidewalks of New York is quite tear-jerking at times. It depends on what 'gets you'. If it is ultimate sadness, or lost-love, or love-found, or someone who misses out on what they want. That sort of thing. I would include in my list of favourite 'emotion producing' movies...The Bicentennial Man, You've Got Mail, When Harry Met Sally, Groundhog Day (in parts), Punch Drunk Love and many others I cannot think of now. Personally i'm not a fan of the really maudlin movies which are over-dramatic. I prefer a bit of balance between happiness, connection with the character, then rooting for them to get what they want (rather than just awful tragedies happening to people). ny156uk (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found Dancer in the Dark depressing to the point that I disliked it. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much for your suggestions! They're much appreciated. And I was considering asking this on the entertainment desk, but nobody goes there =P. Any more ideas? Thanks again. --71.98.13.166 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback Mountain was the last film that had me crying like a girl sniffling. My Own Private Idaho, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon & Hard Core Logo were good for that too. My sister still tears up at the mention of All Dogs Go to Heaven, nearly 20 years after seeing it.--Kateshortforbob 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked nicely...I liked Big Daddy, Goodbye Mr Chips the version with Martin Clunes in. It's very good, it's a made for tv film though. Also Serendipity is great, and I love Lost in Translation probably more than any movie made in the past 20 years - kinda amazed I forgot about it in my original list. ny156uk (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode of Futurama with Fry's dog is infamously the saddest TV episode ever spawned. Watch that, it's only half an hour long. --f f r o t h 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two saddest movies are both black-and-white 1950s films made from Terence Rattigan plays: The Browning Version (1951; the later versions are ok but just not in the same class); and Separate Tables (1958), which won David Niven a Best Actor Oscar. Another real tear-jerker for me - but not a sad film at all, in fact one of abundant hope and joy - is Field of Dreams. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective question or not, you guys are all wrong. The saddest movie is Awakenings. And when you're done bawling at the end of the movie, reflect that it is based on a true story and start crying again... Matt Deres (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any existentialist outcome gets me down so I vote for Lost in Translation as a dipper, but Arwel (talk) might like this from Steven Spielberg who votes for Bambi here[1]. That shot sounds like it echoes through history! Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a couple parts in World Trade Center that had me welling up, Ladder 49 and Click are also very sad movies. 2deuce2 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogville and Dirty Pretty Things were both extremely depressing (and the latter very good, the first not so much). I second Field of Dreams as a more uplifting kind of tearjerker, and would suggest Big Fish and In America as being in that category as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I want to know something. My have friends who live in Toronto and they sons and daughters. My #1 friend has one son and one daughter. Both of them graduated from Crescent Town PS and my #2 friend's son and daughter graduated from Secord PS and they are currently studying at D.A. Morrison Middle School and this their final year (gr.8). After that, #1 friend's son wants to go to Easy York Collegiate Institute and the daughter wants to go to Danforth C & TI. Same thing with #2 friend's children. They are going to these schools because of the TDSB street guide. If the son of #1 friend is going to East York C.I., then which transportation does have to take? What about the daughter? Which transportation does she take when going to Danforth C & TI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which type of transportation does the students of Presteign Heights, Victoria Park, Selwyn and George Webster, elementary school take to go to George A. Brown middle school? and after that, how about East York C.I. and Danforth C & TI?

For those who may be mystified, this would be in Toronto. As to the question, I can't say. --Anonymous, 05:43 UTC, January 10.

For both questions, if you contact the school board, the individual schools, or the TTC, you will probably have an easier time finding answers. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many websites out there that offer information regarding stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and NYSE. For example Google Finance, Yahoo Finance etc.

I was wondering in regards with getting all the information of the stocks offline including p/e etc. I have MS Office and XP.

What would be the best way for me to go around doing that?

Thanks.

No response at the computer desk inclined me to post the question here

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how you mean by getting the information offline? Surely once the stock information is offline it can no longer be updated and is thus useless? Or do you mean offline as in not using a web browser? EDIT: Does your version of Office come with Microsoft Money? It seems this would most likely do what you want, although having never used it I cannot tell you how

EDIT EDIT: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HA010346091033.aspx may be helpful in doing what you want.TheGreatZorko (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah! It's not letting me download the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quotes excel add-in software. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=485FCCD8-9305-4535-B939-3BF0A740A9B1

Now I need to go hunting for more product keys for Office XP! :) --Obsolete.fax (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.iii.co.uk is a uk site that gets you the information you require in a copy/pasteable format for excel. Having the data off-line is extremely useful as it allows you to developed advanced filters, to track information that you want to return to, to build your own charts/things like that. Rather than relying on the more 'industry standard' filters/charts that the websites tend to produce. What you're looking for is something with a CSV style output. It shouldn't be too hard to find one of the many online stock-brokers that will provide info on the constituents of the above stock exchanges. ny156uk (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the www.iii.co.uk website can I get the information in copy/pastable format? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whom is more famious, Elvis or G W Bush? Weasly (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. George W. Bush is probably more infamous, especially to modern-day persons, but Elvis will always be known as the King. So, I suppose it depends on your definition of famous, as well as what field of fame are you speaking of; political or general. EWHS (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Elvis" gets 65,100,100 Google hits, while "G W Bush" only gets 1,840,000. Edison (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And "George Bush" gets 17,000,000 while "George W Bush" gets 11,000,000. My money is on Elvis. People with little access to education are more likely to have heard of him.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with that, Shantavira, is that in the current situation, people in wartorn areas in the middle east (e.g. small, impoverished, and uneducated families in Iraq) might be more likely to know about George W. Bush, the "hated American President," rather than Elvis. And when searching "George Bush" rather than "George W. Bush," I'm am willing to guess that the majority of those articles are about George W. Bush. EWHS (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if George W. Bush is more discussed at the moment, and I'm not sure that he is, in 20 or 30 years, he will be largely (fortunately) forgotten outside of history books, while Elvis will probably retain popular appeal, only somewhat diminished by the passing of a generation. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any singers from earlier than the 1940s, but I know plenty of presidents.. --f f r o t h 02:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know Enrico Caruso? --Trovatore (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current leader of the strongest nation in the world vs one of the biggest name singers in history...I would say entertainment will trump politician every day of the week. As for G W Bush, his presidency has had some major events so his name is likely to be one of the more famous presidents of modern times. History will be kinder to him than the current day (it almost always is), but I would be amazed if he was more famous than Elvis, who, lets face it, was an icon of an era - and not only any era, the era of tv-for-the-masses and the first real music-aimed-at-youth. ny156uk (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about the entertainer trumping a politician every time...think about Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden; their very famous/infamous (depending on what part of the world you live in) and on a worldwide scale, are probably better known than Elvis. Maybe in a few decades they will fade into obscurity (more or less), but who knows? --71.98.13.166 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the fuss caused when John Lennon said that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". It all depends on what you mean by famous, popular, big, important, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "who is more famous", not "whom". "Whom" is the adjective form. It's like saying "Me am more famous than you". JIP | Talk 12:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objective, not adjective. Otherwise, yes. :) FiggyBee (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One indication of a person's fame, or pervasive influence, in a society is if there begin to be stories told of people seeing the person after they've died. There are a number of such instances throughout history where this has taken place, including Alexander I of Russia, Saint Francis of Assisi, and perhaps Jesus. Whenever you start hearing multiple stories of people seeing a famous person after he or she has died, it is a good indication that the person has acheived a status of significant cultural value in that society. So, although George W. Bush has not died yet, it is probably safe to assume that not too many people will start seeing him after he's passed on. However, Elvis, on the other hand, has been "seen" by quite a number of people since his death, indicating that he has acheived a significant cultural status. It could be said that Elvis has become a Jungian archetype, or in the mythological sense, a classic "hero" such as the Greek Jason or Odysseus, both of whom may have been actual real people. Because of this, I would say that Elvis is most definitely the one who is the most famous - especially after some time has passed and George W. Bush will be just another US President that school kids will have to memorize. -- Saukkomies 11:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's George Bush?

I can download, install, and open LimeWire, but I'm unable to connect to the network. I'm positive that the school is somehow blocking programs from connecting to outside networks. I used to be able to connect, but then coming back from a break, after considerable work on the proxy, computers, etc., I'm not able to. Even after my countless 1st periods spent trying to figure out how they are doing it using command prompt, I'm still not able to find it. So, I need two things: 1- How do I enable Control Panel, using Command Prompt, on a computer that has it disabled. (I can use administrative powers if necessary) 2- How can I stop whatever is blocking LimeWire from connecting from doing exactly that?

(Note: I've checked the bylaws, and using command prompt to run and alter programs that aren't specifically designated for education purposes (e.g. LimeWire) isn't forbidden, so I'm completely legal.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some 1 help this guy i could do with limewire at work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably go to crooms, lol

Check out this google search and click the second link. When i post the link directly it doesn't work. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=control+panel+command--Dlo2012 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already checked this links (I actually follow Desk advice and research before asking) and I recieved the message that "Control Panel has been disabled on this computer." I need to figure out how to enable Control Panel, rather than run it. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember exactly where it is but if you go to Start -> Run -> Type "Gpedit.msc" you will find the option to enable it in there somewhere, I vaguely remember "Administrative Templates -> Control Panel" --WebHamster 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shareaza connects to the Limewire network. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that none of the settings under Control Panel are configured according to the gpedit.msc command (note: I accessed the gpedit screen by typing in gpedit.msc in the command prompt, rather than the "run" option, for the run command is also taken off the computer). Is there any other way that the school could be blocking LimeWire? That being said, what is the equivalent of the "run" button in Command Prompt? I could actually open Control Panel at that point and try adding LimeWire to the hidden proxy's "accept" list.

It sounds like group policies are set up at a domain level rather than on individual computers. The "run" option is just a cmd without the command prompt box appearing. If I were the systems admin I'd deny access to Limewire via port filtering in the network firewall. Depending on the sophistication of the system and the admin staff packet sniffing could also be an alterenative. A sysamin who disallows access to places via the use of a local HOSTS files shouldn't be in the job. --WebHamster 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice on what to do with a book collection.

My grandfather read during his life a huge amount of books and kept a few of them. After he died almost 40 years ago, my grandmother and after her my mother has kept the book collection together. A collection of over 2000 books on a wide range of topics economics, geography, art and the books by Voltaire, Sartre. And in 4 different languages.

The idea is to keep the collection together, but that requires plenty of space, which I don't have. I've heard you can donate book collections to libraries. Does anyone know anything about this or can point me in the right direction? AlmostCrimes (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you could tell us in which country you live so that locals might feel more confident in offering help. Richard Avery (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you might want to go to your local librarian and ask--Dlo2012 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. First thing I'd do is trot down do my local library and ask whether they want any books. They'd direct me to where I should go. I saw this done a few times. If this particular branch will not be able to use the books you give them, they will distribute them among other branches of the city/province/whatever library. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the library suggestion, or you can see if there are any second-hand bookshops around that might want them (and you could get some credit for more books in return!). You'd probably also want to do just a little research, if any of the books looks like it may be valuable (e.g. a first edition of a popular title), as there would probably be some collectors interested in them. Finally, you could try to become BookCrossing's most prolific contributor. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that most libraries aren't archives. That is, although the library may be happy to accept your donation, they won't necessarily agree to keep the collection together. I know that the modus operandi for my local public library is to sell donated books (with profits going to the library) rather than placing them in the collection -- even if they don't have a copy of the donated book. Even when a book is added to the collection, there is no guarantee it will stay there. They occasionally do purges where infrequently borrowed or worn books are removed from the collection and sold at the booksale (Foreign language books would likely not last very long). If your intention is to keep the collection together, you would be well advised to talk to the library about what they would do with the book. Also be aware that things may change in 5-10 years when new management takes over. A better bet than the public library may be a college or university library. A university library, especially a small, poorly funded one, would likely be happy to receive a collection of scholarly books, and would be less likely to sell poorly-used books, favoring instead to keep them for the rare student who would need them for reference. But again, talk to the librarians to see what they would intend to do with your donation. (As a postscript, note that an additional monitory donation for collection maintainence would likely assist in keeping the collection together longer. If you can get them to name the collection ("The Richard P. Cries Book Collection"), that would further help.) -- 128.104.112.236 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Proofreaders is always looking for new out of copyright books if you wanted to donate them so that they are available for the entire world. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A school may want them,given the shortage of money in education anywhere.They have libraries,the collection would be kept together and maybe they would memorialise your father in some way through them.hotclaws 07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second-hand booksellers are always looking for merchandise, although there is no guarantee that the books you describe will be very saleable. Schools, like libraries, would probably just sell off the books; they have no reason to keep them together, since many will be duplicates or not needed. There is no practical way to keep this collection together as a collection, unless you want to endow a fund to preserve it as a mini-archive; and that ain't cheap. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a librarian, and have over the course of my professional experience, been involved in several cases that precisely duplicate what you are describing here. Someone dies, leaving a very substantial book collection, and the heirs contact a library with the proposal to donate the material. Now, you might believe that such a thing would be viewed as a windfall by a library, however such is not necessarily the case. It takes a LOT of labor. First, professional librarians have to be able to go throught the entire collection and determine whether the books are needed for the collection. As has been mentioned, not all books are going to be needed. If the library accepts a book that is not going to be needed or used by its patrons, it is actually taking away valuable resources from the library by requiring time put in by the staff to process the book and catalog it, as well as it taking up valuable space on the shelves of the library that could be used to hold books that would be more useful to the collection. My advice is don't naturally assume that the librarians are going to jump at the chance to accept this gift - it DOES NOT come with no strings attached because by accepting these books the library basically is going to have to spend time and resources that it may not have. It very well might be that some of the books may be valued, but if you wish to keep the collection intact, don't expect it to stay so if you donate it.

An exception to this is if the collection was of a particular subject, and was had good "depth" to it. For instance, if the collection focused on (say) photography, or mining engineering, or bird biology, etc. Then you may have more success with keeping the collection intact if it was donated to a library. Otherwise, what you'll end up finding is that the librarians will go through the collection, grabbing all the best and most valuable books, and leaving you with the junk, which they'll most likely either sell in one of their book sales, or throw into the recycle bin to be converted into paper pulp (gasp!).

You might ask yourself why you want the collection to remain intact. If it is to honor your departed grandfather's memory, perhaps it would be best to try to keep the collection within the family somehow. Otherwise, I'd say you're going to have a very hard time trying to find some place that would keep it intact.

One suggestion is to find a library in some developing country that really needs to expand its collection. You could offer to pay the shipping costs to send all the books to some library in Africa, Asia, etc. This would probably be the best bet to insure the collection stayed intact, and might even go as far as having the collection named for your grandfather. But if you live in a post-industrial country such as the US, it's going to be hard to find a library that will want to accept the whole collection and keep it intact. -- Saukkomies 11:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any freely available classification schemes that provide standardized subject descriptors for tagging information technology-related documents? --64.236.170.228 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you can get this for free or not, but try looking in the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) site for this. I'm sure that they have a standard for what you're wanting. -- Saukkomies 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just bought a DVD from ENgland and it won't allow me to play it in my DVD player, it says something about region. What kind of a DVD player will read and play this DVD player, is it available in the States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.71.118 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For background, you can read DVD region code, and the links from that article. More specific to your current problem, you would need a "region free" or "multi-region" DVD player. These can be found in the US with some searching, or you may be able to find instructions on the web for a simple way to convert your player to be region-free. Personally, I purchased a Philips brand player at Circuit City and pressed some keys on the remote and now I can play all of my ZTT DVDs. --LarryMac | Talk 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to be aware of is the TV standard. US uses NTSC wheres the UK uses PAL50. You will need a TV that will accept multistandard formats or will accept a raw RGB or component signal. --WebHamster 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "secret remote control codes" that unlock multi-region usually enable PAL/NTSC as well. I am fairly sure that players specifically sold as multi-region also have this capability. --LarryMac | Talk 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can't change the settings for the TV, only if the DVD player will output the relevant standard. This is far easier outside "Fortress America". Most machines in the US can't be converted by using cheat codes. --WebHamster 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the last two DVD players I've purchased have been easily modified to multi-region and play Region 1 / PAL discs on my NTSC TVs with no problem. --LarryMac | Talk 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you researched the purchase first? My experience of the average American is that they have no idea that there is such a thing as region coding much less differing TV standards. These people will go out to Target, WalMart or wherever and buy a generic DVD player this isn't convertable. There are some makes such as Sony who deliberately make theirs non-convertable (or at least they used to). Admittedly the cheaper Chinese made brands do tend to be hackable primarily to make it easier for the manufacturer to make one machine that can be sold all over the world. It's rarely a facility that is there for the consumer's benefit. In the UK and Europe multi-region is freely available everywhere, by all accounts this is not the case in the US. --WebHamster 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I think I covered by saying "These can be found in the US with some searching, or you may be able to find instructions on the web for a simple way to convert your player to be region-free." And frankly, the "generic" players from the discount stores are the ones most likely to be modifiable. --LarryMac | Talk 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that most people in the US don't know, don't care and don't understand the difference. The other thing to beware of is that a lot of DVD players in the US don't have the range of outputs that European and RotW devices have due to their lack of SCART sockets. Most US players I've seen have S-video, composite and if they're really lucky component outputs. It's not called Fortress America for no reason --WebHamster 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like a very weird question...
I'm busy looking at various manufacturers of vacuuming machines. Almost all of them are from China, and although all of the machines have different "manufacturers", the model numbers are strikingly similar:
(Here are the model numbers from 7 different manufacturers):

• DZ600/2S
• DZD-400/S
• DZQ-400B
• DZD-500S VA-500s VAQ-400
• DZ-300Z DZ-400Z DZ'-500Z
• HD-DZ-400C
• DZQ400A

What's also odd is if you do a google search for "DZ series" you will get a whole lot of part numbers across various different industries that all start with "DZ"
But what could it mean? Does it denote a standard? A Manufacturer?
Other examples are screw driver sets beginning with "DZ"
Here is the "Might USA Inc." brands of "Bridge Machines": DZ-3240 DZ-4240 DZ-5240 DZ-6240
Hitachi has a whole series of camcorders that start with "DZ"
There's a "DZ" series of breaks.

Any idea what this could mean?
I hope you don't mind me also posting this question in the Language section. I will try remove one posting once I have an answer
Rfwoolf (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm hiring a housecleaner for the first time to tidy up my home since my wife and I work and our children are doing the opposite of cleaning. How picked up does my house need to be prior to a housecleaner's visit? thank you. Beekone (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I would leave yr house the way it is that way the cleaner knows exactly what they are getting.--Harliquin (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, cleaners clean they do not tidy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. During my starving student days, I briefly worked as a housecleaner. My job was basically to vacuum, dust, and scrub kitchens and bathrooms, maybe wash dishes. Most clients were reasonably tidy. I had one who was an absolute slob. In order to vacuum, I had to pick trash and dirty clothes off the floor. Since I was never told and didn't know where the dirty clothes should go, I just put them in a neat pile in the corner of the room. I can imagine that kids leave toys lying around the floor. If you want the housecleaner to pick these up (as well as dirty laundry or trash) you should discuss that with the cleaner and instruct the cleaner where to put these things. It would be unfair to ask the cleaner to estimate the cost of cleaning without clarifying this. Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different levels of etiquette that I've seen. I've known people to sweep the floor so that the cleaner isn't embarrassed to come in, and others to make the cleaner work around whatever happens to be left around. Like Theresa Knott's contribution, the cleaning is the important bit of the role of the cleaner, rather than the tidying. You will probably find that most cleaners will want to discuss their limits before you sign them up (some may do laundry, other may not). Few will agree to general tidying, partly due to the risk of handling personal objects and being accused of damaging/stealing them. If you hire through a cleaning company, they will have their guidelines and limitations set out clearly in their agreement statement. Steewi (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1966 london trustee savings book, does anyone know who deals with these books now--Harliquin (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyds TSB are the bank of which Trustee savings now forms a part. SaundersW (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Thank u so much, i will now take the book into them and see if they will update it.The book dates back to 1966 and has 55pence in it , it will be intresting to see wot intrest will be put on it ,x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harliquin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, tell us when you find out! --Ouro (blah blah) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the book was used for a few years after 1966, since "55 pence" is not the normal way to describe an amount in pre-decimal British money. Still, the book was presumably unused for many years. I think it's true in both Canada and the US that the bank would have closed the account for inactivity, and with only a small balance, they would have retained it. Or else maybe the accountholder reported the book lost and got a new one and went on using the account, in which case there is nothing to update into the old book. Still, it will be interesting to hear what happens, if Harliquin will tell us. Somewhat to my surprise, Wikipedia seems to have no article on dormant or inactive bank accounts. --Anonymous, 21:29 UTC, January 10, 2008.

Hmm, by an odd coincidence, here's a similar case in the news, but involving rather a larger amount of money! Credit goes to Snopes for calling attention to it. --Anonymous, 00:27 UTC, January 12.

Here is a link to information about how to reclaim funds held in a dormant account in Britain. [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the only city in the united states thats not in a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onstedmccarter (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, DC. --Anonymous, 21:30 UTC, January 10, 2008.

Ah, a flawed question! Let's not forget San Juan, Puerto Rico or Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands (or far too many others to mention). All in the US! None in states! — Lomn 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the article United States seems to conflict with that assertion. William Avery (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the closing sentence of the lede confirms it. Don't read too much into a first sentence good-enough-for-most-answers simplification. Alternatively, what sovereign state (geopolitical sense, not Maryland sense) are those cities part of if not the US? — Lomn 15:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated territories of the United States may be under the jurisdiction of the US government, but are not necessarily part of the US, or as that article says, they are "not part of the United States proper". Though the article Insular area, says that their goods can be labelled "Made in the USA". Was the Philippine Islands from 1902 to 1935 part of the US? Cuba? No more, I think, than Hong Kong was ever part of the UK, or a sovereign state of its own. From that example it's clear your premise that all cities must be located in a sovereign state is incorrect. William Avery (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how people in the past would deal with their wisdom teeth. I know that most people now can just have surgery and take out the teeth if it doesn't fit in their mouths, but what did people do back then to solve this problem?--Dlo2012 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe until fairly recently (the past couple of decades), people just let them stay in. Having great teeth wasn't a big concern (think of stereotypical early 20th century British people) and malocclusion wasn't a big deal. Tooth aches are another story though... --71.98.13.166 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they probably died before their wisdom teeth came through--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dentists often take wisdom teeth out because they may push the other teeth crooked so it's aesthetic.It can be painful or ache somewhat occasionally while this happens but it's not bad really.(I speak from personal experience as mine were not removed and occasionally were a bit sore or achey but no real problem.)If you have teeth missing,the wisdom teeth have gaps to push into.In the "olden days" laudenum and other opiates were freely available and are great for toothache.hotclaws 07:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient surgeries aren't uncommon at all. In fact, as early as 14 AD (if not earlier), ancient Romans were performing cataract surgery, successfully. I'll research a bit more to see if anything about wisdom teeth pops up. (To help, is there a specific name for the wisdom teeth procedure?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWHS (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they treated them at all, it'd've probably been a simple tooth pulling (hmm, that should at least be a redirect to Dentistry), either under laudanum or simple alcohol, and probably performed by a butcher. I'd concur with the above that they'd've in all likelyhood be left untreated, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be performed by a barber? Rmhermen (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yep. Not sure why I said butcher there :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For both personal interest and the purpose to expand the italian entry it:Operatore socio-sanitario, i'm looking for this profession in other European Countries. I'm almost sure that the English equivalent is Certified Nursing Assistant, but I'd like to receive a confirmation. What about Spain, France, etc.? Can you address me to the right wiki entries? thanks Giorgian (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the personnel who provide basic healthcare under the supervision of a Registered Nurse may have achieved a level on the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) scheme. Although this is not obligatory. I am not aware of any of these type of workers being called a "Certified Care Assistant" They usually have a title reflecting their role but this will vary slightly depending on their employer. Their title will be something similar to 'Care Assistant', 'Nursing Assistant' or Nursing Auxiliary'. Sometimes the word 'Senior' is added to the title to indicate that they may have a qualification or significant experience. The entry in Wikipedia for Certified Nursing Assistant is not entirely applicable to the UK National Health Service or private healthcare provision in the UK. Richard Avery (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]