March 4

What is the background music in this Nissan Sentra ad? It's been bothering me for a while and I cannot find it using Google. --Blue387 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no such luck either in googling the lyrics. Here are the lyrics I managed to get from watching the ad:

• and I know
• and it's all right
• come on
• know that your mind's made up
• forever
• poison
• never
• hold on tight

The agency that did the ad was TBWA. Here's their websites page on the campaign:

[1]

Here's a splurt on that page about the music:

How did you choose the music for the spot? What were you trying to accomplish?

The goal was to find existing music that we could license from bands that was relevant to the target but largely unknown to mainstream audiences. We looked for music that would give the campaign even greater credibility. Music that the target would have on their iPod.

My advice is that you email the ad agency - or if you can find out the production company you can email them to - or you could even email nissan.

Don't forget to come back here and tell us the answer!

Rfwoolf 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

Got it! According to [2] it says "Featuring the music of: Artist: Oranger Song: Sukiyaki

So I googled those terms to find: [3] - where you can preview the track (at the top)!

Answer: The song is Sukiyaki by Oranger.

Rfwoolf 10:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I'm a bit let down that Marc Horowitz isn't protected from being recreated. Where are all the internet meme geeks that think everything on the net is notable? Dismas|^(talk) 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an invitation? (jokes). I see the article has no deletion log or history - so nobody's tried to create the article. Given that the article ran in October 2006 and the campaign has now long died out, the chances of someone trying, die out as each day passes. Rfwoolf 15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know of specific references that provide information about Otto Rank's views of the influence of death anxiety or death awareness on our psychology, and whethe he had developed any idea of a "life" force or instint24.164.180.8 00:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia page on Otto Rank, but it's not especially illuminating. You might be best referring to his writings, including Beyond Psychology, where he notes All religion springs from the most powerful fear in man-not so much fear of natural death as of final destruction. Yet the actual creative force expressing man's belief in personal immortality as against racial survival appears as a manifestation of his will for eternal survival (1941, p. 208). Clio the Muse 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Eclipses diagram showed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:lunareclipsediagram2.gif#filehistory

Reason for the Question: The diagram shows both the moon and the sun revolving around the earth.

Question: Was not Galileo responsible for proving Copernicus' theory was correct: That the earth revolves around the sun, not the sun revolving around the earth --24.3.49.57 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture merely shows the apparent orbital paths of these two objects from the perspective of a stationary Earth. The emphasis is on the slight differences in the elevation of the orbits which make eclipses only possible at certain times. Deco 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo and Copernicus were both correct - but in modern times, scientists often find it useful to take a leaf from Einsteins book and be prepared to view the universe from any convenient position - moving everything relative to whatever location makes for the simplest explanation. So if it makes for a convenient explanation, we can draw the diagram from the perspective of my house, or from the center of the earth - or from the perspective of the sun - or of the center of the galaxy (about which the sun orbits)...so long as you make it clear which coordinate system you've chosen, everything works out OK. SteveBaker 06:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that they shortened to distance from the Sun to Earth to be about the same as the Earth-Moon distance and made the Sun the same size as the Moon. Back when all the planets were modeled as orbiting the Earth, this did lead to the discrepancy in the "apparent retrograde motion" of some planets, where they sometimes seem to orbit backwards, from Earth's perspective (really caused by Earth overtaking those planets.) StuRat 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to draw useful diagrams of the solar system to scale. If the Sun/Earth distance fills the diagram (90 million miles) then the Earth/Moon distance (250,000 miles) is 1/360th of the width of the diagram. In a large-ish digital image at (say) 800 pixels, the entire earth/moon system would have to fit in two pixels! That's not much of a diagram! So unless you are talking about a huge poster covering an entire wall or something, you can never draw things accurately to scale. SteveBaker 14:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a time limit in which a convicted person has to pay a fine which the court has handed down? If there is, how long is the time limit, and can the convicted person go to jail in that time (if this is part of the sentence as well), or only after, if not being able to pay the fine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoomzoomj (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is an interesting question and I'm afraid I'm not sure of the answer.
But my advice is to phone a local courthouse and maybe speak to one of their clerks - who should be able to tell you.
I do believe that if the court orders you to pay something, they typically have someone talk to you like the sherrif and you discuss how you are going to pay it, and by when. After a certain date if you miss a payment or whatever, the sherrif will get an order to repossess some of your goods in luie of payment. So I'm guessing that they would only put you in jail when they hand down the judgement and offer you either jail or fine. I'm guessing that they won't arrest you outright for non-payment, unless you're paying off a very large fine and have very few assetts and you miss a payment.
Good luck. Rfwoolf 09:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might it perhaps depend on the country you are in? --ColinFine 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's American! :-) Actually, it depends more than anything on local laws and the contents of the court order. Sometimes orders will say that a fine has to be paid within 30 days. Sometimes they say that a payment plan has to be discussed. Sometimes it's more complex. If you have a law-line in your community, Zoomzoom, call them and ask - they'll know whether there are any statute requirements. Also get a copy of your court order. --Charlene 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a hoax, can't find any sources, so my question, hoax article, yes or no? I would have added ((db-hoax)) but it does get a few google hits--VectorPotential^Talk 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all of it is a hoax, just some of it, so maybe deleting that part would help

According to our own article, it is in the list of Jocular and fictional phobias. There is absolutely no need for an article on this - it's never going to be more than one line. I'll put it up for AfD. SteveBaker 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a one sentence hoax so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to nominate it for speedy deletion--VectorPotential^Talk 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? Spider-butter? Isn't there a Greek word for butter, preferable over a Latin? 惑乱 分からん 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fear of rubber spiders, but see here. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, it's gooone now... --JDitto 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misspelling of Arachibutyrophobia[4] and is a very real and dangerous health issue. V-Man737 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both Christianity, Judaism and Islam, how many people are actually commonly believed to have met, or spoken to, God instead of one of his assistants? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.101.68 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just to get things started, in Judaism and Christianity (and possibly Islam; not sure how much of the OT they believe) we have a bunch of people in the Old Testament: Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and I have no idea how many more. In Christianity (barring some moderately obscure branches) we have a whole bunch of people who happened to be living in Israel around 30AD (though this is complicated by the doctrine that Christ was the same being as God the Father but a separate person - see Trinity). Doubtless there are more, but I hope this helps. Algebraist 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I can't resist pedantry, very large numbers of people indeed have spoken to God, though not all get direct replies. Algebraist 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about what you're asking here? What would constitute speaking to an 'assistant' of God? For example Jesus was not God himself, but the son - would that be counted as God or an assistant?
You also ask how many people are actually commonly believed to have met or spoken to God -- in which case you may be disappointed if it turns out that there's no official answer to your question.
Perhaps you can also explain the nature of your question. If you're serious about finding out the answer to your question, and normal avenues fail, you may have to contact some theologians and perhaps get them to do some original research -- which may involve 3 separate religions! Rfwoolf 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind be asking, "commonly believed" by whom? Muslims don't believe the Christian Literature. Christians don't believe the Muslim Literature. And Jews don't believe both Christian and Muslim Literature. 202.168.50.40 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Algebraist, Judaism believes that only one Jew ever "spoke with God face to face", and that was Moses. All other prophets have had lesser experience, with God-appearing-in-a-dream being one of the lowest and most common forms of prophecy. However, there's also a curious tradition that other non-Jewish prophets may have had prophecy that exceeds that of Moses, notably Balaam. --Dweller

Just to be nit-picky, in Genesis 18:1-8, God shows up at Abraham's tent (perhaps in triplicate, but certainly in body); Abraham washes his feet and offers him food, so although technically their relationship in this moment is "face to foot", it seems like this would probably fit the "face to face" standard for Jews as well. Jfarber 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picking back, the feetwashing is of the three angels, not God ("behold, there were three men..." etc. --Dweller 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but every translation I've found refers to the three men as God, not angels, and further uses third person singular (he) or "The Lord" to refer to those three men. I'd not have remembered, but I always thought it was interesting that God would appear as three men, and only have two feet. Jfarber 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew is clear and specific - "Anashim" means men. This is the Jewish perspective, so if you must use a translation, check out a Jewish one! [5] one, for example. I suspect there's some confusion here. Abraham had a vision of God immediately before he sees the three men. He then refers to his visitors as "Adonay", which can be translated as God, but in biblical sources usually means "My master" or "My lord"; for example, Judah repeatedly refers to Joseph as "Adonay". Now, Judah at that time doesn't know who the "Egyptian" he's speaking to really is, but he's quite aware that he's not speaking with God! --Dweller 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An abashed Jew who consulted a Catholic translation to get to the above, I stand corrected...and will ever wonder why my college theology prof -- a world renowned authority on sacrifice in the old testament -- allowed me an A on a paper which suggested that Abraham's visit with God established the prototype for all subsequent human ritual encounters with God. Jfarber 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a digital thermometer I can hook up to my PC to track the temperature almost real time (if the temp changes at t=0 I want my thermometer to pick up on it by t=30 seconds). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.249.184.156 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is wrong with thermometers built into the motherboard? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can check your system temp (and possibly configure alarms for overheating) by going to BIOS setup when your computer boots. Your motherboard may come with software to monitor system temp on Windows. On Linux, GKrellM - and probably other programs - can display system temp. --h2g2bob 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - but you guys are talking about measuring the CPU core temperature and such. Perhaps our questioner wishes to monitor the temperature of some external thing using a digital thermometer hooked up to the PC. http://www.electronics-lab.com/projects/pc/014/ perhaps? I did a Google search on 'PC software digital thermometer' and came up with quite a few hits. I would expect most digital thermometers to be able to react in well under 30 seconds. SteveBaker 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a light bulb stuck in a lamp socket. I can't get it to come out. I'm afraid to turn it too hard, for fear that the bulb will break in my hand. Any ideas on how to get it out? I've heard about using a potato to pull out a broken bulb, but this bulb isn't broken. Yet. Corvus cornix 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I'm no physics major, but I'm thinking the implosive nature of lightbulbs demands that you break it off at the base (preferrably after you wrap it completely in tape of some sort, so the pieces stay together), turn off the breaker, and use the potato / take the socket apart. You could TRY just the tape thing first, to protect your hand, and then try turning just a WEE bit harder than you had before...but the usual screw-too-tight solution of creating a temperature differential between bulb and socket doesn't seem advisable or plausible, here. Jfarber 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What type of light bulb fitting are we talking about here anyway? Algebraist 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a typical incandescent bulb, screw-in. Corvus cornix 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had this happen to me recently when I was removing a bulb. What I did was use a towel to grab the bulb, and hold it near the base so there's less torque on the glass. Then I applied a constant force with my wrist to untwist it. Luckily, it worked without breaking the bulb, but it's not really a guaranteed way to get it out without it beaking. You might want to try it if no one else has an answer. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very dangerous to twist a bulb out of the socket if there is any chance it is still getting power, because besides the bulb shattering and spraying glass shards, the bulb may become detached from the base so that the internal leads twist around and short, causing a small explosion which might burn you, blow the fuse or breaker, or startle you causing a fall. Having killed the power, make sure you're not looking up at it to avoid blindness from bits of glass if it breaks or from a short circuit and explosion if you were wrong about the power being off. Tape the bulb up to keep shards from flying and twist it out while wearing gloves to protect your hands. In the past, when the bulb has shattered and only the base with jagged glass in it is left, with the power off, I have used wire pliers stuck into the base and opened (extended) to grasp the interion of the base and twist it out. Bulb bases are a technology which hasn't improved in about 120 years. The present aluminum bases seem to get stuck more than the former brass bases. Edison 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always do the same thing. To avoid future problems, always use nose grease before screwing in a new bulb! --Zeizmic 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A TV DIY programme here in the UK once advised when dealing with screws that are stuck to try tightening them slightly before trying to remove. Could apply same here? --Dweller 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion, that's just what I was about to suggest. Definitely try variations on wiggling and jiggling, in both directions. I wouldn't want to just apply more and more force -- that's quite likely to break something. (I doubt you could break the glass this way, but it's easy to break the bulb away from its base, or to break the threaded part of the light socket away from the rest of the light fixture.)

What kind of light fixture is it, anyway? This might just be a good time to replace it with something newer. Often sockets stick when they've gotten too hot, indicating that (a) they're likely to keep sticking and (b) they may be inadequate for the temperatures encountered (or just plain too old). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend against any kind of grease including nose grease because of the extremely high temperature of an incandescent light fixture. The grease is going to oxidize and cause a high resistance connection leading to even higher temperatures, possible failure of the insulation on the wires going to the socket, and consequential problems. Westinghouse says not to use any lubricant on ligh bulb bases [6]. See This Old House for their take favoring potatos or soap bars. [7] has another view favoring pliers. Edison 17:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are worse places to get a light bulb stuck: [8]. StuRat 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is upper class, middle class, and lower class, but what is working class and where does that go. Is it part of the other classes or is it another name for one of the classes or is it seperate from those other three classes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.134.173.128 (talk • contribs).

The entry on Working class addresses your questions in the first few paragraphs. It's a controversial term, but I think you'll see that, while there is a complex relationship and often much overlap between lower and working class, the latter is much more about specialized work and workers in industrial cultures, and the economic and social status associated with those workers and their families, and as such the terms are not often treated as synonymous. Jfarber 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)(after ec)[reply]

You should also refer to the page on Social class. This is a fairly complex issue and has been subject to a wide variety of interpretations, depending if the issue is approached in political or sociological terms. The term 'working class' only really begins to emerge in the nineteenth century, taking the place of the earlier and much looser 'labouring classes'. In the classic Marxist model one's position in the social hierarchy was defined in accordance with the relationship to the means of production. The working class-or the proletariat-are those who produce commodities, and the bourgeois-or the capitalists-are those who control the means by which these commodities are produced, and cream off all of the 'surplus value.' It is a simple, indeed simplistic, model which was meant to explain the tensions that build up between the producers and the consumers, and how these tensions allegedly become the motor of social revolution. But the Marxist model hardly serves to understand the complexities of post-industrial societies, and would unite the brain surgeon on the one hand with the street cleaner, on the other, as members of a homogenized 'proletariat'. Post Marxist theories focused more on the divisions between 'blue collar' and 'white collar', industrial and managerial, as the main line of division. Contemporary sociology and government statisticians more commonly use the concept of stratification as an explanatory model, defining relative position in terms of income and patterns of consumption. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Registrar General, the main government department concerned with gathering and collating official data, bases the notion of social class exclusively on occuption. In other words the whole of the population might in a sense be said to be 'workers', from the managing director to the unskilled labourer. This, of course, leaves out the 'sub-classes', like the unemployed and the unemployable. Clio the Muse 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words the whole of the population might in a sense be said to be 'workers'" apart from Landed Gentry etc :-) Skittle 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada everyone thinks they're middle-class. Even billionaires claim to be middle-class. Well, other than Conrad Black, but he left. But then again, nobody really thinks about what class they are unless a Briton or American asks him. --Charlene 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Canadians and Americans differ in the colour of their first place show ribbons? I had thought that the award of red might have been something that had started in some olde shewes somewheres in Late Medieval England, and the rebellious Americans, disdainful of all kinds of frivolity and monarchism, chose the more democratic blue in the establishment of their new Republic. Whatever my prejudices are, the Wiki doesn't seem able to give evidence either way. The EB, for what it's worth, was even less helpful, stating that "ribbons" are provided at fairs but never deigning to specify a colour.

Thanks in advance for your help! 207.35.41.4 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what do you mean by "show ribbons"? --JDitto 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This.--droptone 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]