April 1

Which time zone has the greatest percentage of the world's population? Which one has the least? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering China has one time zone for its whole country (1.2 billion people), I would guess that's the largest percentage. As for the smallest, Newfoundland (island) has its own time zone with less than 500,000 people. —BradV 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'd say the most populous would be UTC+8 (China), followed by UTC+5:30 (India) and UTC+1 (Western Europe and Central Africa). The least populous would be UTC+14, which is used only in the Line Islands of Kiribati (population 5,115 at last census). FiggyBee (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you win. —BradV 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on though! The Chatham Islands also have a unique time zone (UTC+12:45/+13:45) with a population of 609... FiggyBee (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does daylight saving count as a time zone? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the +12:45 regular and +13:45 summer times are not used anywhere else. FiggyBee (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there any time zones with no people at all in?HS7 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point of a time zone with nobody in it? Accurate to the minute time keeping is a human constraint and not necessary for fish or other wildlife. Dismas|^(talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, UTC-12 has no permanent residents. It is used by some ships and is also assigned to the uninhabited Baker Island and Howland Island. Outside daylight saving, UTC+10:30 is the inhabited time zone with the fewest residents: just 400, on Lord Howe Island. Warofdreams talk 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wondered what time it is at the poles where all lines of longitude (and time zones) meet? [[1]] 125.237.92.102 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of times, but I doubt there's an answer. Maybe look at the clocks in the research base on the south pole, they must have some there. And surely there must be a timezone for every hour, even in strips of uninhabited ocean, just to keep it neat and organised.HS7 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is [2] (from Time zone although it doesn't work well at the poles. Edit: I think 125's question was rheotorical since there's a link which described it brieflyNil Einne (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think UTC+8 is hard to beat. Other then the PRC's 1.3 (latest estimate) billion, it also gains probably at least 150 million more from the other places in it (including Taiwan, the Phillipines, Malaysia and parts of Indonesia). UTC+5:30 only has Sri Lanka and India Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the reaction to the film. [3] A lot of Islamic governments have made formal protests but it seems the streets have been quiet. In Pakistan there was a small demonstration involving hundreds. This is quite a contrast the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. There were dozens of deaths and thousands of protestors. Is Fitna less offensive? Or is there a shift of some sort?

Lotsofissues 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like it to think it's because someone realized that for a film (whether truthful or not) alleging that a certain group of people is intolerantly reactive and violent, to be met with a bunch of reactive, violent protests by that same group of people, would have tended to make rather the opposite point than the putative protesters would have wished. But I don't know. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question you haven't raised is whether the Jyllands-Posten cartoon response was abnormal. I'm inclined to think it was. I don't know all the details but it seemed to me that it came at a very opportune time and got whipped up into a major issue by people with power (and wasn't just an organic, grassroots sort of thing). It is not common for protests of any sort over cultural issues (no matter who is doing it) to have thousands of protesters and dozens of deaths. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partially agree about the Jyllands case (note as well the Jyllands case went quite a while before it blew up). To some extent, it become an ugly mess were people's anger was being whipped up for a variety of reasons, and this then resulted in media in quite a number of countries printing the carton arguing they had to do it because it was of public interest and to exercise their freedom of speech which of course just angered the people protesting more. Also, bear in mind that the cartoons, unlike the documentary is difficult to respond to as they were simply cartoons. To some extent, serious and indepth criticism (whether with merit or not) is probably more acceptable to many people then what may be perceived as just making fun of something important to them. Also while I haven't seen the documentary, I would presume it's a lot harder for uneducated people who probably don't understand English or Dutch to understand or take offense from whereas the cartoons were relatively easy to understand and take offense from. The Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy is arguably another example of what may seem like a minor issue being blown out of proportion due to a variety of factors. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I guess I’ll put this on this desk since it bridges science, humanities, and entertainment.)

Many films (Bergman’s Autumn Sonata comes to mind) include scenes where a character stares meditatively at their reflection in a mirror (or whatever). I imagine this can now be accomplished by digitally removing the camera from the reflected image? How were these shots done before digital effects though? Were shots directly over the characters shoulder impossible? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By physically moving the lens horizontally (see View camera#Shift). --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many films it is very noticeable that the person must be looking at the reflection of the camera in the mirror and not at themselves, especially when they are holding a compact: we can see their eyes in the mirror which means that they can see only the camera. For larger mirror shots the camera is often hidden or poking through a hole. There are many films in which you can actually see the camera if you know where to look.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there is no mirror and the person seen from behind, over whose shoulder the "reflected image" is filmed, is a double. DAVID ŠENEK 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually don't need very much of an angle to remove cameras from shot. This is seen in almost every TV drama programme made in the UK, where a gratuitous mirror shot in every episode seems to be compulsory (the last gasp of union power, perhaps?). Incidentally, probably the best mirror shot I ever saw was in the non-notable Patsy Palmer vehicle McCready and Daughter, which in one episode had a 360-degree turn around a room mirrored on three sides, just using the position of the actors to hide the reflection of the camera. Completely unnecessary and you wouldn't even notice it unless you were actively looking for that sort of thing, a virtuoso piece of blocking (just think about how you would have to mic that up - you couldn't use a boom) thrown away on an otherwise unremarkable series that hardly anybody watched. -88.110.166.0 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the wildlife conservation efforts in South Asia and the success met? I need it for my Geography project.59.93.193.23 (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've got some links you might try, related to wildlife and conservation in South and Southeast Asia. This, this and then this. Hope that helps. FusionMix 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 1970's I used to meet up with friends in an old Victorian pub in Picadilly Circus, which no longer seems to exist. It might have been called The Old Bull'n'Bush, but I'm not sure. I would like to know the name and history of the pub, and when it stopped trading as a Public House. Can you help?

Thanks, patti1946 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patti1946 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<this moved from entertainment desk to keep thread together – please don't crosspost>

In the early 1970's I used to meet up with friends in a pub in Picadilly Circus. It might have been called The Old Bull'n'Bush, but I'm not sure. It seems to be there no longer. I'd like to find out the correct name, it's history, and when it ceased trading as a public house. Thank you.

Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.217.33 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat, I found this related to your still-trading pub at Picadilly Circus: The Old Bull & Bush, North End Road, Hampstead, Near to Golders Green here[4], and "opposite Golders Hill Park". Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia has an article on The Old Bull and Bush.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampstead really isn't anywhere near Piccadilly Circus. Beer in the Evening have a list of current pubs and bars near Piccadilly Circus, but it doesn't show anywhere with a name at all similar to The Old Bull 'n' Bush. There appears to have been a pub named "The White Bear" at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly, possibly later known as "The Bear" [5], but I can't find any reference to this after 1905, so it may not be the one. Could the pub possibly have been the Bear and Staff on Leicester Square, not Piccadilly Circus? Warofdreams talk 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1963 a gay crew member I sailed with repeatedly mentioned a place called The White Bear on Piccadilly where he used to meet his friends. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two neutered dogs attack third dog repeatedly in the presence of a person (a different person). Third dog is a newly acquired puppy. One solution might be to muzzle the two dogs. Any other ideas please? 91.106.16.174 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the poor little puppy away from the other two? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they attacking or just rough-housing? You can usually tell if they are just playing because they will do a "play bow" (head low, butt in the air, tail wagging, even if they are barking). Play fighting is important among dogs, but if they are doing injury, you should probably consult a dog trainer in your area who can work with the dogs. Note that dogs generally are not trying to hurt each other seriously when attacking and wrestling with one another; they are vying for dominance in the pack, showing who is boss, looking for the signal from the other dog that they are submitting. That doesn't mean that harm can't occur, but they usually aren't actually trying to kill one another (humans are somewhat unique in their belief that intraspecies fighting must be fatal). But again, these are general comments: you probably want to get someone really trained in dog behavior to observe this, they will be able to tell you a lot more that is specific to your situation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, get the advice of a local trainer. Two of my dogs playfight on a daily (often twice a day) basis and only once has one of the dogs been hurt. She basically slipped and had a slight limp for a couple days. If there is actual harm being caused, you may want to try to separate the puppy from the others by putting up a baby gate. That way the dogs can all see and sniff one another but not fight. Then as the puppy gets older, and bigger (depending on the breeds involved), start letting all the dogs together in the same room while being supervised. Dismas|^(talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're aware of our article Dog society on patterns of dominance behaviour in establishing a hierarchy? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my big biger biggest question is why our indian govt is not taking action aganist black money holders,white color criminals,no income tax ride aganist politician,no harsh punishment for corruption.i think these are the bigest problem in our country which leads to down in every thing like economically,socially.and what not,plz clarify my request — rajesh javaji, hyderabad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.148.99 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A government is usually taking a certain amount of action, not all of it is successful, and in law, bribery and corruption has to be proven. There are plenty of people working for a solution and many working against it. You might like to join a discussion group on the net about the awfulness of it all, but talking doesn't always get you anywhere. Perhaps you could hope to study law and try to make a difference, or just live the difference at a personal level. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you meant "white collar criminals". White color criminals are something entirely different. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Black marketeers", too, I'll bet. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that what today are considered insulting terms, such as "idiot," "cretin," "imbecile," and "moron" were once scientific terms used to classify the mentally retarded. After these terms became unfashionable, they were replaced by "retarded," then later "handicapped," and now in the ever-changing terminology of retardation, the term "developmentally disabled" is in vogue. I just wonder how costly all this name-morphing has to have been for institutions serving the mentally retarded over the decades. With each shift in labels, ostensibly to lessen the stigma of the "old" terms, the hospitals and nursing homes that cared for disabled people would have to change their names, all their stationery, business cards, decorations, and a multitude of other things, probably 3 or 4 times in the last 50 years. Just imagine having to chip off and re-carve "Home for Idiots" into "Home for Retards," "Home for the Handicapped," "Home for Disabled," etc. over and over on the stone façades of these buildings due to the sea changes of political correctness. Does anyone what this has meant in economic terms? Any help would be appreciated. I'm kicking around some ideas for a future M.A. thesis. JeanLatore (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the point of this question is. Were I not assuming good faith, I'd take it to be a rather poor example of puerile trolling. If, Jean, you are a candidate MS student, I would presume that a) you'd be intelligent enough to know that the costs of any such renamings as you allege have been necessary, will not have been collected together, and b) you'll know that in economic terms, it means very little. Occasional financial hits to change the letterhead or in contemporary times, rebrand. You'll appreciate that there will be 101 other reasons why letterhead might change or rebranding undertaken, meaning that the driver you're allegedly interested in pales into insignificance. And what is the implication of your question? That such renamings should not have been made, and that we should still use what is now a pejorative or abusive term? That you in some way disagree that there is such a thing as a Euphemism Treadmill, or like Don Quixote wish to rail against it? As I say, just not sure what the point was, Jean. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a codicil, as a neutral would-be academic, you'd also appreciate that a renaming can be an opportunity brining positive returns as, for instance, and from memory, was the Spastic Society change to Scope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by a psychologist that people who are mentally retarded now use the pejorative "low grade" to insult other people with mental retardations. "Low grade" the neutral diagnostic term which was recently adopted to differentiate those with mild mental retardation and those with severe mental retardation. So the Euphemism Treadmill keeps on going.--droptone (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the quirky tune that played in the episode The Bracket of How I met your mother when Barney was writing his blog at the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy joke (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that the music that used to play on Doogie Howser at the end while he was writing in his diary? --Joelmills (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to support that assumption, but that was my thinking, too, or at least music that was meant to sound just like that music. Corvus cornix_talk 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never even heard of the show before, but according to the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460649/ the theme song of the show is called "Hey Beautiful" by the Solids. Maybe that song is by the Solids too. However, I think your question would probably have better luck being answered on that sites message board.--Wonderley (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt no more. Almost every aspect of that scene was a reference to Doogie's diary. The music. The extreme close-up on the computer screen showing only a couple of words at a time, following the cursor as he types. The white on bright blue color scheme! (The font was too modern, it should have been a VGA 8x16 but I guess fixed-width fonts would frighten the masses these days. There are people who never watched Doogie, and they're old enough to use Wikipedia!) The introspective pause near the end of the diary entry, when he stares into space for a few seconds before grinning slightly and adding the final note. ALL DOOGIE! --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]