October 31

roughly how many Senior Master Sergeants are there in the US army, and how long would you have to spend in the forces in order to attain this rank, and how much responsibility does it hold. Thanks, the article didnt help btw, so dont just point me there. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is the Air Force, not the army. Second, the time spent with the Air Force before this promotion will be more dependant on one's skills than anything else. However, it should be noted that the rank of Senior Master Sergeant is very difficult to attain. Of the 352,000 odd people in the [Air Force], at most 2.00%, or 7040 people can have the rank of Senior Master Sergeant. The rest is in the article (less than 10% that qualify are given the promotion, etc., etc., etc.)--AstoVidatu 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, a mistunderstanding has caused me to list the wrong rank, I meant First Sergeant, which is the US army equivalent of Senior Master Sargeant I think (they're both E8) does roughly the same criteria apply for this job as Senior Master Sergeant? Philc _T^E_C^I 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also First Sergeants in the Air Force, but in their case, it's a position, not a rank. An Air Force First Sergeant is the chief administrative enlisted person in an Air Force unit, and they could have any rank from about E-7 up. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Army has two positions at the rank of E8 - First Sergeant (1SG) and Master Sergeant (MSG). Master Sergeant is typically an administrative rank, First Sergeant is a command rank (leadership). Rarelibra 15:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing, my brother was a Senior Master Sergeant in charge of a large maintenance facility for years but could not seem to make Chief Master Sergeant. I believe he was given one last chance to make Chief and then urged to take his retirement. Anyway, this is good for the difference [1]; see quote below: --Justanother 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.2.1. Master Sergeant (MSgt). MSgts are transitioning from being technical experts and first line

supervisors to operational leaders who merge their personnel's talents, skills, and resources with other teams’ functions to most effectively accomplish the mission. They are continuing to develop their leadership and management skills. This rank carries significantly increased responsibilities and 12 AFI36-2618 1 DECEMBER 2004 requires a broad technical and managerial perspective. MSgt selects should immediately enroll and complete Course 12, SNCO PME Distance Learning Course, in preparation for their new roles. MSgts normally operate at the operational level of leadership. The official term of address is Master Sergeant or Sergeant.
5.2.2. Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt). SMSgts are key, experienced, operational leaders, skilled at merging their personnel's talents, skills, and resources with other teams' functions to most effectively accomplish the mission. SMSgts continue to develop their leadership and management skills in preparation for expanded responsibilities and higher leadership positions. SMSgts normally operate at the

operational level of leadership. The official term of address is Senior Master Sergeant or Sergeant.

Hi, I'm making a poster to raise awareness against smoking. On my poster I will depict all the harmful ingredients of cigarettes and say what they are used for. I need a title and I'm thinking of modifying Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet quotes:"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet." I'm going to change it to "What's in a cigarette? That which we call (blank 1), by any other word would (blank 2)" Could someone help me fill in the blanks with a word or words? This is to be anti-tobacco and grammatically correct please. Thanks =) --Jamesino 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original is about how the nature of a thing is not determined by nor contained in its name. Not sure how you would carry the analogy. The chemicals in a thing are not limited by their inclusion is a cigarette? That which we call tar, . . . would caulk a ship?? Sorry if I am getting too deep here. --Justanother 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the idea of saying "by any other name" locks it to the original. You might say "by any other use" i.e. "What's in a cigarette? There where we put tar, in any other place would caulk a ship." That makes a better analogy, I think but perhaps it strays too far afield for you. --Justanother 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What's in a cigarette? That which we call a carcinogen, by any other word would also be an air pollutant." bibliomaniac15 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What's in a cigarette? That which we call 'flavor', by any other word would be a carcinogen." -- Chris 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of all that's poetic please don't do this. Try Sonnet 34 instead. MeltBanana 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHGH, SHAKESPEARE MANGLING! IT BURNS! The velociraptor 06:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spin, Billy, Spin. --Justanother 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this marvelous piece is from the right era: A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco. It's from 1604, which is concurrent with Shakespeare's most famous tragedies. If you don't know it, it's a good read. "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." Maybe you can mine this for something good; it's by King James I. Antandrus (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.235.107.167 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC) where can i find travelers insurance building in 388 greenwich village[reply]

Greenwich Village is a neighborhood in Manhattan, not a street. What kind of address is "388?" There should be a street. Edison 04:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

388 Greenwich St is on the west side between North Moor St and Beach. The 1989 building by Kohn Pedersen Fox was once the headquarters of the Travelers Group insurance company. Travelers was bought by Citigroup, but it retains the enormous and garish light-up Travelers umbrella . The address is: 388 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10013. Rockpocket 05:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ! StuRat 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that umbrella! -THB 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bumpershoot, for you Brits. StuRat 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at racing bicycle and I noticed that the more extra money you pay, the less extra negative grams you get. So my question is at what price does paying an extra dollar only buys you one extra negative gram. Ohanian 07:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the sign I used to see in the auto speed shops: "Speed costs money - how fast do YOU want to go?" --Justanother 13:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this an expression for the Marginal cost of negative grams? (note: I did poorly in economics) -sthomson 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to the actual question, but it does occur to me that the diminishing returns are pretty clearly inevitable — after all, if the weight reduction per dollar did not asymptotically approach zero, there would have to be some price for which you could buy a bicycle with negative mass, which is obviously physically impossible. So a number answering the original question must, in theory, exist, though its actual value may well depend strongly on market fluctuations and sampling effects. (How's that for a typical mathematician's answer?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taking this drug for several years. (Marketed as Dilantin® in the USA and as Epanutin in the UK) Now I am moving to France where only Phenytoin (Di-Hydan) is available through my GP. She and my UK doctor do not agree if it is OK to switch - advice will be welcome, please.----meredith

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Please consult a doctor. JIP | Talk 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the the former of that reply is the case, you could atleast do her the dignity of not mocking her situation with the latter. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to mock her. I was very serious about Wikipedia not giving medical advice. None, or at least very few, of us are qualified to give any medical advice. At least I'm not. Therefore I wanted to avoid the trouble of a potential mistreatment. However I did not consider any implications of the latter part of my reply. It was only meant as a standard disclaimer and not as any sort of insult or mockery. Maybe she could ask a different doctor from both of her UK doctor and her GP? JIP | Talk 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if it was unintentional, im sure all is forgiven. Sorry If I came off a bit harsh. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not Wikipedia. You may say that you don't want to give an aswer, but then, well, don't! And to tell someone to go see a doctor when they just told you they already have really takes the cake. If I come off a bit harsh, rest assured that that was completely intentional. :) DirkvdM 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must jump to JIP's defence here. Our instructions say "If requesting medical or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor or lawyer instead". Surely any one of us who responds to this sort of question is perfectly justified in saying we don't give that kind of advice and the questioner should seek answers from the relevant professional. That doesn't mean this is the only valid answer, but it is still a valid answer. For the life of me I can't see how what he said was offensive, either in tone or substance. I certainly don't blame Meredith for asking the question, given that she's had conflicting advice already, but equally I have no problem with JIP saying what he said. JackofOz 07:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, notice the smiley. That last sentence was a inspired by Philc. But my complaint stands. The medical disclaimer is already at the top of the page and Meredith said she had already consulted two doctors, no less. Now I don't mind people saying "I'm no doctor but ...", but JIP didn't give an answer, so he had no useful point to make, so why did he bother (and bother us and her)? DirkvdM 08:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your seizures are controllable with Dilantin, they will probably be controllable with French phenytoin. Check with a neurologist

for assistance with the dose conversion and monitoring. alteripse 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. Point understood. I was hoping not to have to locate a specialist.... ho hum.---meredith

This is not really a medical question, it is a question regarding the equivalence of two different brands of phenytoin. The answer is that they are NOT necessarily equivalent in effectiveness. Google search Now, the medical question is whether or not she can safely switch brands, and that is a question she and her physicians must answer. -THB 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it is also the question of what does one do when doctors disagree. The answer to that part has already been presented; get another opinion, preferably from a specialist. --Justanother 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a specialist, and/or go with the most conservative opinion least likely to cause harm. -THB 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've asked this question in the Science section but have not received a reply yet - so I thought I'd go to the real brains behind Wikipedia.... the Misc desk.

I'm short-sighted (I believe the correct term is myopic). without my glasses, objects far away are out of focus. when I look at a mirror - close enough for it's frame to be in focus, why are reflected distant objects out of focus?

thanks Spiggy.

Because the mirror does not change the distance that the light travels from the object to your eye and the blurriness is a function of that distance. A mirror is not a picture. In a picture you see "distant" objects clearly when you get close because they are not really distant, they are in the picture in front of you. In a mirror they are still distant, only the direction has changed. --Justanother 13:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. that sound you just heard was my brain melting. spiggy

You are very welcome; stick your head in the freezer for 10 minutes and call us in the morning. --Justanother 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, think of a mirror as a window which changes light direction. Assuming it's a flat mirror, it doesn't focus the light, but uniformly changes the direction. StuRat 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember I was once taking an eye test at a doctor's office, and they used a mirror. The sheet with all the letters was behind me, and I had to read them through a mirror on the opposite wall. My mom was really worried because she was standing by that wall, and couldn't believe that I couldn't read all of the letters. Of course, because she was looking at them directly and I was looking at them in the mirror, I was looking at them from twice the distance. --Maxamegalon2000 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiggy, melted brains are so unsanitary. Let's see if we can sop them up.

You are standing with your back to a mirror looking at a painting on the opposite wall. The light bouncing off the painting travels 10 feet to reach your eye.

Turning around, you look at the painting in the mirror. The light bouncing off the painting travels 10 feet to reach the mirror, and then reflects and travels a few more inches to reach your eye.

In both cases, the image source is the actual painting, so you measure the distance from there. B00P 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like someone said, a mirror is just like a window, only the light is coming from a different direction. It still travels the same distance. Now, if someone were to take a life-size photograph of the scenery, and put that in front of you, then you would be seeing everything in focus, even the things at a distance. JIP | Talk 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiggy: Now come on, you have asked on the Science Desk today. You should have at least one or two days patience to get an answer. And by now (after less than a day), I've even made you a drawing (though with my ugly handwriting). But it's over, at the Science desk. Simon A. 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And although flattery will grease a lot of wheels, come on now... --AstoVidatu 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can some one please give me a link to a place where i can buy a type o negative t shirt online, preferablly from thier world coming down album. thank you

eBay has plenty of shirts but none from World Coming Down. [2] --Justanother 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try sites such as the official site, fan sites, metal message boards etc... 惑乱 分からん 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the official site first but the store was "coming soon". --Justanother 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few different sites on google just typing "Type O Negative" + "Shirts". A few different types of tees came up. Best of luck. WiiAlbanyGirl 01:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading Le Mort De Arthur, and there is a reference to a bratchet chasing a white hart and I was wondering what exactly is a brachet?

Is that an English or French word? 惑乱 分からん 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brachet is a kind of hunting dog (and a hart is a deer). --Canley 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, usually spelled bratchet, and the likely source of "brat" for a child? [3] --Justanother 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could translate it as "hound". -THB 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that it IS an English word. Somewhat archaic, perhaps? --Justanother 17:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English by way of French. And apparently it can mean "bitch-hound". -THB 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing but it looks like it would have to be where the term "brat" for a child came from, especially as bratchet was applied to children derogatorily, but here they say brat possibly came from elsewhere. I would have to look at the OED to figure this one out and I don't have one to hand anymore. --Justanother 17:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both dictionaries I have agree with this as the possible source of brat. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a good etymology to me. -THB 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In King Lear Act III Scene iv, Lear, Edgar and the Fool conduct a mock trial of Lear's elder daughters, Goneril and Regan. Kent, disguised as Caius, is also present, but keeps his counsel, only looking toward Lear's comfort. Edgar, disguised as 'Tom o' Bedlam, free-associates about what is being said. At one point Lear imagines dogs barking at him. Edgar says,

Avaunt, you curs!

Be thy mouth or black or white,

Tooth that poisons if it bite;

Mastiff, greyhound, mongrel grim,

Hound or spaniel, brach or lym; (bold mine)

Or bobtail tike or trundle-tail;

Tom will make them weep and wail: III iv 47-53.

I'm guessing 'bratchet' is a diminutive of whatever kinda dog a 'brach' is. Nb: Malory's C15 Middle English "ch" would needed a 't' in front of it to be pronounced as /tʃ/, the "ch" of Shakespeare's Early Modern English. --Shirt58 12:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OED says for "bratchet": "apparently the same word as BRACHET: cf. the application of whelp, cub, etc. to a child; but perhaps associated with BRAT n.2 as if a diminutive of that." If it comes from "brachet," that comes from "brach," a French word for a hound hunting by scent; if it comes as a diminutive of "brat," then it may come from the "coarse garment" etymology; OED says "Of uncertain origin: Wedgwood, E. Müller, and Skeat think it the same word as the prec. [that is, brat meaning a type of coarse cloth], but evidence of the transition of sense has not been found." zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an intriguing pair of words. But I'm not buying the coarse garment/bad child connection. -THB 09:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the braying hound/annoying child combo better myself. But OED will look at the dates that words first appear and it appears from what Zafiro says that brat predates bratchet? --Justanother 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's interesting, because the first use of "bratchet"/"brachet" is medieval (1340), while "brat" to refer to a child only first appears in 1505. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it would seem brach (dog) -> brachet (pup) then bratchet? But when was the "t" added. Perhaps OED is saying the addition of the "t" was influenced by brat? But if bratchet clearly appeared before brat then I vote for brach (dog) -> brachet (pup) -> bratchet -> brat (kid) and to Cambridge with Wedgwood, E. Müller, and Skeat. --Justanother 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think t before ch is a natural sound evolution in English. (Cf. which, such etc.) I don't think it proves anything... 惑乱 分からん 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help out in the article on Kollam. According to the State government's site , Marco Polo visited Kollam in 1275. But most online sources mention only about his visits to India in 1288 and 1292. 1275 also seems implausible because he reached Kublai Khan's capital only in mid-1275 after a four year journey, and travelling all the way to the Southern tip of India by the end of the year isn't an easy task.

Can someone who know the subject please confirm whether he did travel to India in 1275. Tintin (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist answering this one. Most sources agree that Marco Polo traveled overland across Central Asia during the early 1270s and was at the Mongol court in 1275. It would have been extremely difficult, given the modes of transportation of that time, to be in South India in the same year, and his published records of his journeys do not record such a side trip, which surely would have merited mention. Marco Polo did not leave the Mongol court until 1290 or 1292. When he left, he traveled by sea, by way of southern and western India, to Persia, from where he returned to Italy by both land and sea. The date of a visit to Kollam is not known for certain, but it was probably in the early to mid 1290s. He would not have visited it twice. Marco polo 16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering this personally :-) Tintin (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]