Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 December 13

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.

December 13

Living geniuses

I read a quote by J. G. Ballard that goes:

• Since the death of Einstein in 1955, there hasn't been a single living genius. From Michelangelo, through Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven, Darwin, Freud and Einstein, there's always been a living genius. Now, for the first time in 500 years, we are on our own.

I certainly wouldn't agree those are the only geniuses over the past 500 years, but that wasn't the point Ballard was making. Thinking of people alive today, I guess most people who know of him would regard Stephen Hawking as a genius. Who else would qualify? And what about people who've died since the death of Einstein in 1955? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of geniuses in the world today, what you're really asking about is famous geniuses. How famous where the people listed in the quote during their own lifetimes? (Most of them were famous to some extent, I think, but probably not to the extent they are now.) --Tango (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if famous is quite the term for it. I'm not even sure if genius is quite the right word for it. Ballard is at least using it in a way that's slightly different than standard use, I think. Those gentlemen were responsible for paradigm shifts that significantly changed our views of the world. Professor Hawking is certainly a smart guy in his specialized niche, but I don't think he's wrought a real sea-change in the way someone like Darwin did, whose ideas are still very much active in the world. In that limited sense, I think Ballard might be right. Matt Deres (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither Michaelangelo nor Shakespeare nor Beethoven was responsible for any such paradigm shift. Algebraist 03:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's something about the zeitgeist and level of celebrity aura about those names – also the history of Western-centric myth-making. Suggesting here, but they seemed to stand out from the crowd, or conventions of the times. In an era of plurality, diversity and the advanced level of many specialist fields, perhaps the times in a sense have caught up with "genius" so that there's not the easy sterotypical singular genius "hero" and the rest. Less than 100 years ago, having a B.A. was an elite achievement, now it's more like several PhDs and a PR machine. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot Ballard in your post – perhaps the statement is Ballard being true to his dystopian vision. What does "on our own" really mean? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh cry me a river, J. G. Ballard. What he's talking about isn't "genius," but "enduring legacy." If the Sistine Chapel had burned down, and David blown up, would we be talking about Michaelangelo? Maybe, but doubtful. If, in the near future, somebody uses the theories of Stephen Hawking to make some new great leap forward, then yes, Stephen Hawking might be mentioned in the same breath as Einstein. Or maybe, a hundred years from now, people will decide Jimbo Wales singlehandedly changed the way humanity conceptualizes knowledge, and name him the great genius of the twentieth century. There's no way of knowing which of any given generation's contributions will endure. And it's not as though we're living in an era without innovation, incidentally; this whole "internet" business is fairly revolutionary. Does the fact that it evolved as an undeniably collaborative project make it categorically less valuable than, say, the work of Newton, who himself famously said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"? Not really; it just makes it harder to write middle-school book reports about. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If Newton said that, he was quoting Bernard of Chartres (or whoevever Bernard was quoting). Surprise! We even have an article! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always been personally critical of the "historic method" of concentrating and idealizing key people in history. Our history article mentions: "In the 20th century, historians focused less on epic nationalistic narratives, which often tended to glorify the nation or individuals, to more objective analyses." Yet doesn't it seem that this tendency towards the heroic idealism persists? There is no doubt that many of the more noteworthy people in the human history of the last thousand or so years have indeed done remarkable things. But choose one of these figures and re-examine their actions with the hypothesis that they simply reflected a natural social process at the time. And that process would be better described or predicted sociologically or economically (Think of a change in a system of government, social order or technology). Ask yourself "If they didn't do it, wouldn't someone else have?" I'll bet the answer is yes in a good deal more than half of the cases. I certainly do, however, recognize how useful heroic idealism is as a teaching/learning method; It's a lot easier to identify a social change with a person who is thought to exhibit the characteristics leading to that change. But to believe that human history is truly shaped by "special individuals" makes us less able to contribute to and benefit from future human history. It's just not true. NByz (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly much easier to change history by doing stupid or awful things and I wouldn't say they are inevitable in any way. But on the other side can we really say the environmental movement for instance would be quite the way it is without Rachel Carson's Silent Spring? An easier question is did somebody else do it differently? if so then it wasn't inevitable. Every country does things differently, very little is in any way the inevitable march of history. I'd instead argue that where we end up is random to a large extent. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually contend that Stephen Hawkings is responsible for a change in perception, although possibly not in the way you might think: he has shown people that (a)Motor Neurone Disease is not the early death sentence the doctors tell you it is, and (b) it is possible to be physically disabled while retaining your mental expertise and dexterity. He has thus changed the perception of the general public towards disabled people, and that is quite an achievement. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd agree with your point (a). MND or more accurately Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is sadly often a death sentence. According to our article "Although ventilation support can ease problems with breathing and prolong survival, it does not affect the progression of ALS. Most people with ALS die from respiratory failure, usually within 3 to 5 years from the onset of symptoms. However, about 10 percent of those individuals with ALS survive for 10 or more years". In other words, 90% of sufferers die within 10 years and a majority within 3-5 years. This isn't likely because these people are 'told by doctors they are likely to die' nor is it to be because these people accept that these's a good chance they will die in a few year but simply because for reasons we don't fully understand, these people were affected worse then Stephen Hawkin. This doesn't mean you shouldn't live life to the fullest but it's unreasonable to say ALS isn't usually a fatal disease since at the current time, it is. Stephen Hawking is one of the lucky 10% who survive 10 years or more specifically "It is important to remember that some patients with ALS have an arrested course with no progression beyond a certain point despite extensive follow-up. Such a pattern is particularly true for young males with predominant upper limb weakness especially on one side (so-called monomelic or Hirayama type motor neuron disease)." And he should be proud of what he's achieving. In others words if you are diagnosed with ALS while sure you should hope for the best, that you'd be like Stephen Hawking or better but you should also be realistic in accepting there's a good chance you will be dead in 10 years, and it's not going to really be your fault. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballard is being rather unreflective about the construction of the idea of the "genius". There are many people who think Freud was just a sham—the idea that Freud is a "genius" who uncovered all sorts of wonderful things is a particular historical construction born in no small part by the efforts of his cult-like initial circle of followers. (Whether one thinks Freud is wrong/right whatever is immaterial to the fact that the idea that one is a "genius" is something that has to be developed and maintained.) That Ballard would not include someone like John Von Neumann in his list shows this quite clearly—he was regarded by his ("genius-level") peers as being in a totally different league of intelligence than them, but he has had nothing of the sainthood of Einstein or Darwin, even though his insights actually touch most of us more on a daily level than do many in that list. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the definition of genius, talk about meaningless. You could if you wanted use that to quite easily include Vince McMahon and Perez Hilton. They certainly mastered and personalised a known technique and have "...remarkable abilities in a specific subject...". Or they are just good at self-promotion. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of these particular geniuses being geniuses is heavily managed, as well. That Darwin was a genius was actively promoted first by those (like Huxley) who wanted to use Darwinism as a way to reinforce the autonomy of scientists in 19th century England. Then Darwin himself went out of favor for many years as evolution by natural selection was not considered to be the most likely candidate theory for driving evolutionary change. But by the 1930s and 1940s, with the modern synthesis, an explicit hailing of Darwin was being right all along, and being a genius far beyond the statements that he actually made, became part of this later group of scientists' rhetorical strategy and situation of their work. (A similar case can be found in the way that Mendel's work was "rediscovered", and reappropriated, for a very different scientific context, one that has been argued interpreted things into Mendel's work that wasn't actually there to begin with). Science in particular loves its heroes, but it loves them dead, not living. A living hero is a liability (see, for example, James Watson). Even Einstein was a liability towards the end of his life, when he shifted his public efforts from physics to radical politics. But within a decade or so, that aspect of his life and personality was almost totally written out of the standard account of his life. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As for Von Neumann I'm very willing to acknowledge him as a great genius. However the things he did seem more the product of very high intelligence and hard work rather than stunning new things like in the various fields he worked in I could mention for instance Fischer in statistics, Heisenberg in Quantum mechanics, or Godel in logic, and even in game theory people are much more likely to think of Nash or Conway. Very few people produce so much outstanding work in so many diverse areas but nowadays a genius has to make one gasp and stretch one's eyes with their insights to stand out amongst the general advances. They had it much easier in the past. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, any model of genius requires postulating what "genius" activity is. And I think it's pretty silly to assume that it was easier to stand out in the past than it is now. The work that was done in the past seems passe to us today but that's because we've managed to rewrite the teleology of things so it becomes damned near inevitable that someone would say, "gosh, matrix mechanics would be a useful way of thinking about quantum behavior!" In reality it was no easier then than it is now to do something truly original. The true difficulty is not in answering questions but in thinking of the right questions to begin with. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading Darwin, my opinion of his intellect dropped greatly. Whenever he came to something really difficult to work out, he said he would cover it in a later book, which he usually omitted to do. Also he was not much of a scholar in school. Many people later regarded as geniuses were so because they had a promoter in a later generation. In their own time, they sometimes went to an unmarked grave with few in attendance. Artists or musicians might be regarded as hacks, or as journeyman workers but not the earth shaking geniuses some later generation determined them to be. To ge regarded as geniuses during their own lifetime, it helped to live to a ripe old age and have students or followers who had power and or money, like Henry Ford honoring Thomas Edison with the Greenfield Village museum. . Edison (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd defend Darwin against that. In fact I think his genius really lay in showing people how to study nature and how to think about what they saw. His books built upon each other,you might not notice the genius part of them so much because he succeeded so well. Before him people just collected curiosities and tried to prove their own preconceptions. Dmcq (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, you've been suckered in by the Darwin mythology yourself. "Before him people just collected curiosities"—this isn't true at all. All of scientific heroism is based on the idea that "before X, people were totally stupid and in the dark." This is just absolutely not true. Read the people who Darwin thought were heroes—take a look at the books he brought with him on the Beagle. Darwin's approach to the world was paved before him by a long tradition of biological observation, with names like Humboldt and Lyell and Buffon and even, gasp!, Lamarck serving to give him examples and ideas. He did some original stuff, and put some things together that some people had not, but let's not pretend he was the first biologist nor the first theorist of biological order. And let's not pretend it was just a spark of intellect that did it—he worked very, very hard, compiling a mind-numbing amount of evidence and observation (from others, primarily) that led him in his various directions (some we now consider "mostly true" and some we now consider "incorrect", but that's how science goes, and grows). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, any stabs at a name that might, in 100 years' time, be considered to have been one of the archetypal 21st century geniuses? The only name I've seen so far is Jimmy Wales. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No? OK, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Trouble is, some of us aren't going to be around by then. C'est la vie. Thanks for the interesting commentary. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

People have sort of said this above, but it seems to me that the quote is correct in one way: it seems to have become much harder today for an individual scientist (or thinker) to make revolutionary breakthroughs. Perhaps the low hanging fruit really is all gone and human advancement from here on in will be made in relatively tiny, incremental steps on the backs of large teams of researchers, rather than the eureka moments that seem to define the accomplishments of so many of history's so-called geniuses (geniae?). TastyCakes (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cards

What is the least popular playing card? 58.165.14.208 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That has so many answers... Pretty much anything you see that's not Pokemon, YuGiOh (it's fading...), or a baseball card. flaminglawyer^cneverforget 04:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm... my first thought was, "The six of clubs really rubs me the wrong way." Are you asking about games like Pokemon or Magic: The Gathering, or are you asking about standard playing cards? If it's the latter, then it depends entirely upon what game you're playing. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about standard playing cards. 58.165.14.208 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking, exactly? Are you wondering about probability, or what card people are most apt to play, or what cards are least likely to be dealt? You might be interested in Gaming mathematics, Event (probability theory), Game theory, Poker probability, Blackjack#Blackjack_strategy, etc. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No! It has nothing to do with probability! It's to do with popularity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.14.208 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Popularity in what sense? The card people least like being dealt? In what game? The card that people just plain don't like? The card that people find offensive? ~ mazca ^t|c 13:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's going to depend on the game, and even then it will probably depend on the exact circumstances. --Tango (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I' have thought overall the Jokers were the least popular. Often they can be lost and nobody would care less. ...sorry, I know one even less popular. The card stuck to he box the playing cards came in. What a life ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In hearts, you don't wanna get caught with the queen of spades, or you wanna know how to get rid of it!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I find shooting the moon a pretty easy strategy, so I quite like Queen of Spades. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any studies on the most popular card? And what does "popular" even mean? Do people stand around at a party saying "What's your favourite playing card? I really like the 4 of clubs, and the 7 of diamonds is quite nice too"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay! By "popular", I mean the one least talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.14.208 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't hear people talking about "Clubs" much. Hearts, Spades, Diamonds, but not Clubs. Though they would be in demand for a suit say, in rummy or bridge. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But which particular one? I know it's not a 2, 9, ace, or any of the face ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.14.208 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't hear about fours very often... 2's and 3's serve special purposes in some games, but 4's never really do anything and are too small for people to be concerned with. So why don't we go with the 4 of clubs? --Tango (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The club deuce plays no really special role in serious Hearts. This ridiculous "club deuce leads" thing is the one rule I may refuse to play. I can deal with different passes or with the −10 score for the diamond Jack, but the lead goes to eldest hand. Always. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nine of Diamonds isn't too popular in Scotlandhotclaws 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You could search for each card with the google search engine, and note down how many hits you get. For instance searching "Ace of Hearts" (with quotes) gets 329,000 hits, but searching for "Six of Clubs" (with quotes) gets only 23,800. APL (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"four of clubs" gets only 22,100, so maybe I was onto something. Or not - "five of clubs" gets only 19,000. "two of clubs" gets only 16,700 - that surprises me since it holds a special role in Hearts. "eight of clubs" is 15,900. That seems to be the least popular club by this measure (I haven't checked other suits). It may be biased by the use of words for numbers, the use of numerals, or of "deuce" and "trey" for 2 and 3 will yield extra results. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done that. I knew already that the ace of spades was the most popular card (given its varied designs and its superstition), and I've found out that the second most popular card is the queen of hearts. As for least popular (which I asked), it seems that the eight of diamonds is the least popular card, with the eight of clubs being a close second. (And all of the eights are the least popular cards in their suits! HA! I wonder why that would be?) 58.165.14.208 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many people listening to Motörhead, not enough people playing Crazy Eights? I would guess it's because the 8 is kind of an annoying card in most games; it's neither a high card nor a low card, and it doesn't carry the connotation of luck that a 7 does, but it's not troublesome enough for people to look up strategies for getting rid of it. As for the suit, I can't think of any popular game where clubs or diamonds are of special significance, unlike hearts and spades. Plus there's that whole love and death motif, which people go for. Another interesting question would be "Which playing cards are mentioned in song titles?" Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts, Queen of Hearts, and Jack of Diamonds spring to mind. Just out of curiosity, what led you to ask this question? --Fullobeans (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's the complete table in order of Google hit counts when I do the 52 searches right now. Note that I'm only searching on the specific forms shown below; this will not pick up abbreviated styles like SJ or ♠J for the jack of spades, although serious writing about card games usually uses these. It also won't pick up passages in languages other than English. Finally, note also that Google counts have a bit of randomness to them. In fact, when I had an afterthought and I tried adding OR "deuce of clubs" to the two options for the 2 of clubs, the count went down from what's shown in the table.

    1.  2,140,000  "ace of spades"
    2.  1,480,000  "queen of hearts"
    3.    481,000  "king of hearts"
    4.    405,000  "queen of spades"
    5.    361,000  "ace of hearts"
    6.    339,000  "king of clubs"
    7.    275,000  "ace of clubs"
    8.    239,000  "jack of hearts"
    9.    182,000  "queen of diamonds"
   10.    160,000  "ace of diamonds"
   11.    153,000  "jack of diamonds"
   12.    139,000  "two of clubs" OR "2 of clubs"
   13.    121,000  "two of hearts" OR "2 of hearts"
   14.    117,000  "king of diamonds"
   15.    114,000  "three of clubs" OR "3 of clubs"
  16/17.  111,000  "king of spades"
  16/17.  111,000  "jack of spades"
   18.     95,100  "queen of clubs"
   19.     81,700  "jack of clubs"
   20.     73,300  "three of hearts" OR "3 of hearts"
   21.     70,100  "two of spades" OR "2 of spades"
   22.     61,400  "ten of hearts" OR "10 of hearts"
   23.     56,800  "ten of diamonds" OR "10 of diamonds"
   24.     56,600  "five of hearts" OR "5 of hearts"
   25.     53,800  "ten of clubs" OR "10 of clubs"
   26.     53,200  "eight of diamonds" OR "8 of diamonds"
   27.     51,300  "four of hearts" OR "4 of hearts"
   28.     49,500  "seven of spades" OR "7 of spades"
   29.     47,600  "five of clubs" OR "5 of clubs"
   30.     46,100  "seven of clubs" OR "7 of clubs"
   31.     44,000  "three of diamonds" OR "3 of diamonds"
   32.     43,600  "three of spades" OR "3 of spades"
   33.     42,500  "five of diamonds" OR "5 of diamonds"
   34.     42,400  "eight of spades" OR "8 of spades"
   35.     41,200  "ten of spades" OR "10 of spades"
   36.     40,300  "four of clubs" OR "4 of clubs"
   37.     36,900  "five of spades" OR "5 of spades"
  38/39.   36,300  "seven of hearts" OR "7 of hearts"
  38/39.   36,300  "four of spades" OR "4 of spades"
   40.     35,500  "four of diamonds" OR "4 of diamonds"
   41.     33,700  "eight of clubs" OR "8 of clubs"
   42.     32,800  "eight of hearts" OR "8 of hearts"
   43.     31,800  "six of hearts" OR "6 of hearts"
   44.     30,400  "nine of hearts" OR "9 of hearts"
   45.     30,300  "six of clubs" OR "6 of clubs"
   46.     30,000  "nine of clubs" OR "9 of clubs"
   47.     28,600  "six of diamonds" OR "6 of diamonds"
   48.     26,400  "seven of diamonds" OR "7 of diamonds"
   49.     26,200  "six of spades" OR "6 of spades"
   50.     25,600  "two of diamonds" OR "2 of diamonds"
   51.     21,000  "nine of diamonds" OR "9 of diamonds"
   52.     19,300  "nine of spades" OR "9 of spades"
  

--Anonymous, 06:14 UTC, December 14, 2008.

How fascinating. The queen of spades should be demoted somewhat because it will include hits for The Queen of Spades (opera), The Queen of Spades (story) and 4 films. Probably some others would have non-card-related hits too. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The card is relevant to the story, so why shouldn't it count? —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, because when people talk about the Queen of Spades in the sense the OP's asking about, they're rarely talking about Pushkin's story or the operas (at least 2) or films that have been based on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding "knave" results to the "jack" results increases them quite a bit. Deor (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The 4 of clubs, or "Devil's four-poster" is believed to be a very unlucky card. Snopes has a little info on unlucky cards. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Golf

1. Has anyone ever hit an off-the-green shot into the hole without the ball ever touching the ground?

2. Are there any par 3's whose greens have never been reached in one shot?

3. Are there any par 4's whose greens have never been reached in two shots?

4. Are there any par 5's whose greens have never been reached in three shots?

5. Why, in tournament play, do people not give up a hole after reaching 3 times as many strokes as that hole's par? That's what they're supposed to do.

58.165.14.208 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering #1, if you mean from the tee to the hole, there's Hole in one and the official hole-in-one registry for the U.S.[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also with #1, if you're talking about from the rough or a bunker, Bob Tway hit a classic shot to win a major tournament in this way - and someone beat Greg Norman in the same way in the Masters one year, too, IIRC. One or both may well have gone into the hole without touching the ground.

I'm mostly familar with watching pro tournaments when young (hence the names above), so I don't know much about amateur ones, but I would guess sheer competitiveness is the answer for #5.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never played golf except for the miniature kind, so I don't know what's inside a real golf hole. But I'd guess that if a shot from the tee made it went directly into the hole without touching the ground, it'd be moving fast enough that it would tend to bounce back out, and therefore would not score a hole in one. Comments? --Anonymous, 06:18 UTC, December 14, 2008.

Agreed. Also, there's likely to be a flag in the hole at that point, making it even more difficult. StuRat (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2, 3 and 4. The answer is "no". Pars are more or less assigned based on distance, therefore a par 3 is assigned a par of 3 because its reachable in a single shot by a scratch golfer. Likewise par 4s in two shots, and par 5s in three shots. Even the longest hole in US Open history [2] was easily reachable in three by pros (though not in two, which is unusual for most par 5s). Of course, every hole was never reached by a given number of shots as one point. Most of them lose that distinction after the first pro or decent amateur plays the hole. Rockpocket 07:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re question 1. It has been known on very rare occasions for a player to hit the ball directly into the hole without a single bounce. It's not easy, and it's almost certainly more down to luck then judgement, but it happens. Have a look at this clip - it's not great quality, but the ball does fly directly into the hole without bouncing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6S4ap0I33s&feature=related 87.112.67.132 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But how is the energy dissipated to allow that ? Was the hole full of moist chewing gum ? StuRat (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The average difference between the time in a invitation and the time of arrival

Has there been any study into how people react to the time in an invitation for a group event and whether their punctuality is affected by the size if the group? So people might on average turn up 20 mins early for something involving 7 or 8 people but arrive at a big party say an hour or two after the time. I basically just want to know if whether the patterns I see in my friends are likely to be typical or whether this stuff varies wildly. Anything would be great, thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

With me (and I expect others) it depends on the event. For a meal in a restaurant, you need to arrive at close to the stated time as possible. For a meal at someone's house, you don't want to be too early because they may not be ready, and you don't want to be too late or they may be waiting for you to arrive in order to eat, so anywhere between 10 mins early and 20 mins late is probably fine. For a party without a sit down meal, you would probably only arrive early if you had offered to help set up, otherwise could arrive anywhere from on time to an hour or two late, depending on personal preference. It also depends on the other people - if you know they're almost certain to be running late you may as well be a little late yourself. If you know they are offended by people being late, you would make an effort to be on time. --Tango (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I once worked for an organisation that made an art form out of large meetings (say, 20 people) starting up to 15 minutes later than the scheduled time. There might be 20% of the invitees there by starting time (time X) if you were lucky. By X+5, maybe 40%. By X+10, probably 85%. The ethos most people adopted (I know, because I asked them) was that since it wasn't going to start on time (because invariably there wouldn't be enough people there at time X for it to be a viable meeting), there was no point coming on time. And so the latecomers, and not the chair, always determined the actual starting time. Those who bothered to come on time would sit around chatting, waiting, or being bored. Some would even turn up, see that it was going to be at least another 5 or 10 minutes before it got under way, and go back to their offices and get some work done before returning at a more likely time. No chair in my experience ever made any remarks to a group about punctuality. It was just generally accepted as part of the culture of the organisation. People for whom punctuality is a high value found this practice eternally frustrating and wasteful, but they were rather in the minority. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this varies a lot culturally. When I lived in Germany, I found that punctuality (arriving within a few minutes of the stated time) was highly valued. Here in the United States, one should probably not arrive until 20–30 minutes after the time given in a party invitation. (That too will vary depending on the nature of the party and the subculture within the United States.) Marco polo (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes definitely it varies a lot culturally. For example it's quite common in Malaysia people will arrive 30 minutes or more late to a function, so much so that people will usually set the schedule accordingly. It even has a name 'Malaysian time' [3] [4] [5]. This includes things like weddings which can often be expected to start 1+ hours late. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I often find myself with a conundrum. I personally value punctuality and will feel guilty if I'm running late for something. Furthermore, I often find myself early for things and will take a walk around the block to make myself "appropriately late". On the other hand, I know Australians' propensity towards culturally acceptable lateness and know that if I'm invited for a party starting at 7, I should get there at 7.30 or so. Despite this, if I arrive at 7.30 I feel like I should apologise for being late and give an excuse. I tend not to organise things myself, because I'll feel bad if I invite people for 7 and at 7.15 there's no one there, or just one person looking awkward. Steewi (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the levels of rigour with these times implicitly vary. No host would be upset if the majority of their guests had not turned up to their party by 7:30 sharp, unless it were a surprise party and it was important they all be there before the "victim" turned up, who was coming at about 7:45. In such a case, the host would explain that it was really important to be there no later than 7:30, preferably earlier. Turning up a little late for a wedding or funeral can be got away with; but not getting there until the reception would be more dimly viewed. (That happened with 2 guests at my own reception - no sign of them at the wedding, and we were somewhat offended; halfway through the reception they turned up, breathlessly explaining that their dog became very sick at exactly the wrong time and they had to get it to a vet otherwise it might have died. In case you were wondering, this was before mobile/cell phones were around.) Be even 5 minutes late for a job interview (without a good reason like your mother died) and you may as well not bother going through with the the interview because they'll already have formed a first impression of your punctuality or lack thereof, and the interview will just be going through the motions. Funny how punctuality and ability to meet deadlines have such a high value in employment criteria, yet once you get the job, you'll often find relatively few people take it seriously at all, including the people who employed you. (It depends on the organisation, of course). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As a host it's one of my pet peaves when people arrive even as much as 30 minutes too early, because at this time I am probably still getting ready myself, so I will ask them to wait in the atrium, play them some 80's music, sneak up behind them with an axe and slaughter them. Then I'll drag them off into the pantry and cook their liver with some fava beans with a nice Chianti. And in terms of lateness, they should be no more than 30 minutes late without calling to let me know. If they come more than 30 minutes late I ask them to wait in the atrium.... Rfwoolf (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheese making

Tonight I'm going to try my hand at making cheese, from a recipe I found at WikiHow (How to Make Cheese at Home). It says in the tips section that it will be very plain, and that I should try adding spices to it. I was wondering what types of spices I should put in it? A quick Internet search turns up nothing. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting kind of desperate, so any ideas at all would help a lot. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The spices in this recipe sound pretty great. I love a good strong cheese! NByz (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article has some other recipes. There doesn't appear to be any really good independent spice recommendations, but a read-over might give you a procedural idea or two. NByz (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK; thanks a lot! Genius101^Guestbook 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some European cheeses with caraway seeds in them, if you like that. You don't have to add spices in making the cheese, you can always add some later, particularly if you are making a soft cheese. (Try rolling that in walnuts, almonds, herbs or crushed pepper for example.) Hard cheeses usually get their "spice" from aging and the starter culture you used. If you add the spices later it also lessens the danger of spoiling the recipe with undesirable elements (biological or chemical) being introduced. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A weekend's diet - to cleanse the system - best choice?

Hello, friends (if I may call you that). I come with a question regarding the human digestive system. Here's the story.

Once in a while (once in a few months) I usually embark on a diet over the weekend, when within those three days from Friday to Sunday I strive to consume nothing but liquids (water, juices, tea, milk, yoghurts), so as to try and cleanse my system of any nasty leftovers and just generally feel better. On the following Monday one gradually returns to eating normally. The basis for this is that I have a few friends who do it in a similar fashion, and a gut feeling that it is good for the body. This is usually helpful.

My girlfriend, who is quite health-conscious, asked me about something called the 'residue-free diet'. I don't know what this is, maybe the scheme is similar. So, my questions would be:

1. Is this liquid diet thing a good thing at all?
2. What is the residue-free diet and how does it compare?

Maybe any of you have experience with this, if so, input will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing for those who might object - this is in no way meant as asking for medical advice. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Low residue diet. Looks like this is quite different from what you do, no idea whether either is good for you (though the article suggests that long-term use may be unhealthy). 81.98.38.48 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you mean it to be a request for medical advice or not, that's very clearly what it is (well (1) is, (2) has been answered), so no comment. Sorry. (Go see a nutritionist.)--Tango (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, dietary advice is not regulated professional advice, as nobody can be arrested for practicing medicine without a license by recommending a diet. StuRat (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And don't overdose on water, too much can be fatal - 4 litres in an evening in the case of a UK lady last week. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The best way to "cleanse the system" is to eat the proper amount of fiber, since it scrapes those intestines clean. StuRat (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The human body has evolved to cope adequately with an omnivorous diet. Cleansing diets are a modern fad designed to attract the scientifically gullible and augment the coffers of unscrupulous snake oil sellers. Try eating a little less in the first place and the need for a weekend cleansing will be unnecessary. Richard Avery (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And as the noted health expert Billy Connolly once said, "If you want to lose a bit of weight, don't eat anything that comes in a bucket." --- OtherDave (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See Detox diet, particularly the criticism section. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

who would win in a fight?

If Gandalf fought Dumbledore, who would win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.227.166 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... the holder of one of the Three Rings verses the holder of one of the three Deathly Hallows, I'd pay to see that! (This isn't really a suitable question for the Ref Desk, I'm afraid, as fun as it is!) --Tango (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My money's on Gandalf, no contest. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that as JRR Tolkien is dead - and JK Rowling is alive - there would be no contest. 92.22.252.31 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that speaking out of universe? because in their cosmology being dead or alive may not be a deciding factor. If the "long arms of Enron reach beyond the grave"[6] what's to stop Tolkien? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Dumbledore is dead while Gandalf is immortal (and indeed divine/angelic) may be more relevant. Algebraist 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf's not immortal. He was made mortal when he was sent to Middle Earth, as evidenced by the fact that he died when fighting the Balrog, he only got to come back because of the direct intervention of Eru. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on their names alone I'd pick Gandalf. The name Dumbledore does not instill fear into the enemy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously never been stung by a bumblebee! --Tango (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But even then the bumblebee would die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's only honey bees that have barbed stings. See Bumblebee#Sting. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, never knew that thanks. Still, bumblebee isn't a scary name IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But that may not be the case in Middle Earth and wherever Dumbledore inhabits. Some rather unexpected phenomena have been known to occur in both places.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But Gandalf left Middle Earth at the end of the book, and is now living it up in Valinor with his angelic buddies. Algebraist 18:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

True, if we assume the fight is taking place after both books have finished, then Gandalf does have something of an advantage, as you say, on the grounds that immortal vs dead is a rather unfair contest. What about if the fight took place during the books, though? --Tango (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But then Dumbledore lives on Earth and Gandalf doesn't (well, not the current Earth anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, an element of time travel would be required to bring them together. --Tango (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this reminds me of those Death Star vs Borg Cube (or whatever) debates that are common among some sci-fi fans. I guess it's the fantasy version. At least we don't have a Comparison of Middle Earth and Harry Potter universe version of Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars yet. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than use his sword and shine a bright light, what did Gandalf ever do other than say "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"? (And even that didn't seem to be what stopped the Balrog—wasn't it the Balrog's weight on the bridge, if I recall?) The Harry Potter universe seemed to have more violent spells and whatnot than the LOTR one. So I'd probably go with Dumbledore. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He also did sword fights. The bridge collapsed because he weakened it with his staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf's fight against the Balrog on the peak of whichever mountain it was (see Battle of the Peak) was pretty impressive - yes, it ended in a draw, but I'm not sure Dumbledore would have done much better. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about Gandalf the Grey (who fought the Balrog) or Gandalf the White (who was significantly more powerful)? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Another excellent question. I think either would beat Dumbledore... --Tango (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just have to jump in here a second and say that Willow would whip both of these sorry old dudes' asses. I mean, she held her own against Glorificus, and that's a hell-god! And she wasn't even at her full power! Oh, how foolish those pansy-ass weak old white dudes are, think that they have a chance against Willow! 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken, but then — Willow or Jean Gray? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen them in a room at the same time? --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which Gandalf, 'cause everyone knows that Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White and Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight, and Benito Mussolini and The Blue Meanie, and Cowboy Curtis and Jambi the Genie...

Oh, and one more thing, on a tangential topic. There's a fun article on HowStuffWorks about who can beat Superman. I mean, we all know Batman would kick his ass, but would a Jedi beat him? Interesting stuff... 83.250.202.208 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that both are peace-loving protectors, devoted to shielding those weaker than themselves from evil forces, who sacrifice themselves for their companions and are fond of small simple pleasures (pipeweed/candies), what on earth would induce them to fight each other. In fact from the list I just wrote I'm beginning to think they are the same person transported across universes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumbledore wishes to wield the one ring to defeat Voldemort, not being aware of the dangers as he does not come from Middle Earth. Gandalf believes he is another wizard seduced by the power much like Saruman. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the scenario: they both enter a beard-competition for magicians, and the trash-talk gets out of hand. Gandalf calls Dumbledore a fatty. Dumbledore calls Gandalf a girly-man on account of the white dress. Let the wand/staff-fighting ensue! Belisarius (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf turns out to be homophobic, Dumbledore takes offense? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This thread has reached the pinnacle of nerdy fandom - please stop before the universe implodes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who would win in a fight, Albus Percival Wulfric Tiberius Kirk or Jean-Luc Gandalf? --Tango (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - which one is using Linux? Is the other one using Windows XP or Vista? (Actually - it doesn't matter). SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about anger management and video games

Why do people always talk about breaking controllers whenever they get angry during a video game? Why would they even do that? I wouldn't do that. 58.165.14.208 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When folk get angry they tend to apply excessive force to whatever they are holding. Eg if angered whilst on the phone to snap the pencil you were fiddling with. In a video game you are holding the controller. Maybe you move the joystick "further than it can go". When a PC frustrates you, folk often threaten to throw it out the window (I've never known anyone actually do this though). -- SGBailey (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But I've been tempted enough several times to do this with my computer. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Never seen the Angry German kid? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with the release of adrenalin and other chemicals, designed to give us strength when we need it. They enabled feats of strength, but sometimes also force such acts upon us. In a video game our anger might be triggered by someone trying to kill us, and, while in real life fighting to stay alive would be vital, physical violence is pointless and counter-productive when there is no real enemy in front of you. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm, let's look at history: writers are depicted as throwing typewriters out of windows, artists and cowboys overturn tables, boyfriends and rock stars throw furniture, smash guitars or each other, and apparently Elvis famously shot a tv set. All examples of acting out anger or frustration. Maybe you keep your feet on the ground, 58.165. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh...i've dented my computer case before while playing Halo. I've also thrown my PS2 across a room (it still works)  Buffered Input Output 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I once broke my PS2 but that was only because it cheated. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's learned it's lesson now. StuRat (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)