We're sorry, but we can't offer speculation on the possible causes or severity of your condition. Please consult a medical professional for further advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the back of an Italian pasta box the directions to cook the pasta read "cook 20 minutes at N (degree abbreviation) 100.

What does the "N" mean in refernce to temperature. Centigrade is "C", and Faherheit is "F".

Thanks for your help,

MIke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.7.110 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that either it's a typo, or the Centigrade scale has a different name in Italian. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nº is an abbreviation for number or numero. --Bavi H (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely means centigrade. 100 C is boiling, which is how you cook pasta. 100 F wouldn't even qualify as a simmer. — Lomn 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 100 F barely qualifies as a fever. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does qualify as swimming weather. Useight (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They want you to boil them for twenty minutes??? For any shape/size of pasta I'm familiar with, that's far too long; the pasta will be massively overcooked. Representative boiling times should be 5-7 minutes for fettuccine to 10 minutes or so for penne or farfalle (this is assuming dried pasta; fresh pasta would be considerably less). Probably less than 5 for spaghetti or linguine (which I hardly ever cook, so no guarantees there); I could believe maybe 15 tops for lasagne. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some spaghetti that needs to be cooked for 11 minutes, so I don't see 20 minutes as being too outrageous. --Carnildo (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20 minutes is absolutely outrageous for any pasta I know of. The only thing that makes sense is if it's being baked, or is frozen into a brick. 11 minutes for spaghetti is too high... are you using enough water? Any decent spaghetti (store-bought or otherwise) should cook in 5-8 minutes, tops, but you need plenty of water. -- Kesh (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely right. Even if you don't like your pasta al dente (that's very slightly chewy because the outside is more cooked than the inside), but more uniformly cooked, 11 minutes is plenty. Go much longer and you cook the guts out of it, and end up with bland, sticky mush. For Carnildo: 20 minutes is almost twice as long as 11 minutes; it's the equivalent of roasting a chicken for almost 2 hours rather than 1 hour. Why would you cook something twice when once is all you need? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put this?....We know only what we know and can't know anything "beyond" what we're programmed to know. An ant, a penguin, and your next door neighbor only know so much from thier own private perspective. I don't care how you phrase it, I dont care how much effort you take to talk to them at thier level, a baby can never understand what his birth certificate is. They'll have no idea til they're about five or so what is daddy is talking about (???!). And if anything is presented to any conscious being that's so far outside of thier understanding, they wont even recognize what you're trying to show them. An ant doesn't understand physics or gravity, but still uses it like everything else. Even more interesting, if a set of brain cells gets chemically depleted from looking at something too long, you wont see it anymore!

It seems that everything and everyone can only learn what it's meant to know, in a certain order and only to a predetermined limit, and that's it. We all do own thing, because we just feel it's the right thing to do. And if math and logic are the ultimate in understanding reality, it's probably because we can't see beyond it.

Can anyone explain what and why this is , or does Wiki have a page that can explain this phenomena? It's not qualia, but it seems to be related. If you guys point me in the right direction maybe I'll win a Nobel prize for teaching a mosquito quantum mechanics. I'll be sure to mention you in my acceptance speech, lol. :)--Sam Science (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your main question, but "Even more interesting, if a set of brain cells gets chemically depleted from looking at something too long, you wont see it anymore," is certainly false. That's not how vision works. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching a mosquito quantum mechanics? I'd be impressed if you could teach me quantum mechanics. Useight (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always wondered what the level of knowledge throughout the world would be if God had arranged that each offspring was born with the sum total knowledge of it's parents already installed (as it were, and assuming that there is a God of course).--Artjo (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't that mean Galileo would have been born absolutely certain that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and never would have questioned it ? StuRat (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea - wild. Wouldn't that depend on the parents the offspring has? or are you speaking cumulatively. I'd have thought most offspring know what parents think and know and spend some time clearing the decks to realise their own knowledge in their generation. The God of books, information and life experience makes up for that, no? Philip Larkin wrote about nurture from his perspective[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just KNEW that you Julia would be the first to reply! Yes I meant cumulatively. Had that been the case we have probably been colonising the stars by now.--Artjo (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Still has a Sisyphysian something - dang. A feel of having once colonised the stars and then... pouf! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something about frames of reference? Neıl ☎ 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By using the phrase "...programmed to know" you have declared this to be a teleological argument. As an afterthought, you have added the observation that a complex universe can´t be comprehended as a set of qualia / sensations.

You appear to state that our mode of abstractly modelling natural phenomena - by using language, logics, mathematics, etc., none of which has an observable reality - may ignore an alternative tool.

You may be thinking about a concept like non-overlapping magisteria / NOMA proposed by Stephen Jay Gould. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this? Complex ideas are constructions, like a building. They usually require scaffolding (ideas that are useful for a time but are eventually discarded), and they require 'building from the ground up'. You cannot attain supreme understanding just by cherry-picking the few best ideas from the best thinkers in history. You must start with the more mundane, simple, and obvious facts and work from there. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said a set of cells get chemically depleted after looking at something too long, I was referring to a Scientific American Mind article that demonstrates this (I cant remember what issue it was, I'll get back to you on that). It showed a set of dots, or lines, that actually do "disappear" when you stare at it too long. Apparantly if you stare too long, the cells responsible for perceiving whatever your looking at get fatigued (i.e. run out of the chemical that relays the message). It was fascinating, and I'll bet it has something to do with the gaps in our knowledge. Without the messenger, you won't get the message.--Sam Science (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question makes an assertion that is not self-evident. Yes there are obvious examples of an infant or an animal being unable to achieve some mental feat that an older human can do, but there are surprises, such as dogs which learn to ride on skateboards, or a cat who taught himself to flush a toilet just to watch the water spin around. Idiot-savants have done amazing things. Very young children have driven cars, however badly. Chimps can open all sorts of locks and latches without being trained to do so, and have been found to make and use tools. Individuals within a species differ in their abilities over their lifespans, and there are huge differences between individuals, as well as huge differences between species. We can fill out income tax forms and bees can't. But bees can navigate by the polarization of light and we can't. Many animals have perceptual and navigational abilities no human has. People from isolated and "primitive" societies catch on really quickly to all the technology and customs of "advanced" societies when explorers land. Things were not all that incomprehensible to them. As for fatigue, there are cases where brain cells do become fatigued, altering perception as by motion aftereffects that seem to be beyond the retina. Edison (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the united states, is it legal to bring alcohol in your checked luggage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.161 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dismas|^(talk) 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: If you bring things into the U.S. like cigars from Cuba or absinthe from the UK, you will most likely run into legal trouble as those things are not legal in the States. Check with a lawyer for any more specificities. Dismas|^(talk) 05:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or an airline, if you don't want a huge bill for a simple inquiry... -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my first suggestion too if I were to throw aside my worries of being banned for supplying legal advice. Dismas|^(talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest referencing TSA for such things.

You may take up to five liters of alcohol with alcohol content between 24% and 70% per person as checked luggage if it’s packaged in a sealable bottle or flask.

Airlines may have additional restrictions, though, so it's not a bad idea to check with them, either. — Lomn 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There is usually an upper limit to the amount of alcohol you can import (whether in checked luggage or carry-on) for "personal use". I don't know what that limit is for importing alcohol into the USA, but here in the UK you can only import 1 litre of tax-free spirits (over 30% alcohol) and 10 litres of EU tax-paid spirits without paying import duty. Sumggling more than these limits in order to avoid the import duty is a serious offence and subject to harsh fines and/or prison. Astronaut (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's common for people in the UK to think of these questions in terms of 'what can I import', but in the US the vast majority of air travel is domestic. I know, it made me feel strange the first time I walked out of an airport and there wasn't a customs desk to clear. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't bring alcohol in your luggage. If we think about it those rich fancy planes where you get meals and drinks are there.(Wish I could take a plane like that) So why the hell not. Though you should check with your airport and stuff. Read laws and regulations. The whole nine yards. Cardinal Raven (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Consider, one person is paying EMI to a bank for his home loan, and for some reason he could no longer pay the EMI. Can he quit paying the EMI by letting the bank to take his home? Will the bank pay the amount paid so far (EMI) to the person back, with some interest? Are there any losses for the bank, if the bank does so? Are there any insurance for this case? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasing to pay a loan (eventually) puts the mortgagor in a state of default, which can lead to foreclosure. The bank or other relevant agency can repossess the home. I would not characterize this as the mortgagor "letting" the bank take such action, and the mortgagor is certainly not entitled to any sort of refund. As for bank losses, yes, this can result in a loss. The current drop in home prices in many parts of the US means that foreclosed properties often will not sell for enough to allow the bank to recoup the loan value. As for insurance, the answer is "yes" -- for banks. Mortgagors who place less than 20% down on a home loan are typically charged an extra insurance fee until at least 20% of the principal is paid off. — Lomn 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, EMIs payed so far is gone for the customers. Why not banks consider homes as assets, and pay back the EMIs. Banks can as well sell those homes at any point in future. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not how a loan/mortgage works. The terms are (in short): I will repay my loan on time as agreed or I will forfeit the property. Additionally, the EMI isn't "gone" -- it's been converted into equity. — Lomn 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is EMI? ... E???? Mortgage Interest? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMI is equated monthly installment, the payment owed each month. — Lomn 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a US term? I'm not familiar with it in the UK. I note that there's not a trace of it on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. It was rather tricky to trace down via Google. Based on reading I did, it seems to be a fairly uncommon practice, as EMI-based loans don't allow for premature payment, which most fixed rate loans do. My loan, for instance, simply lists the base monthly payment as P&I, or principal and interest. — Lomn 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P&I is the term I'm most familiar with here in the colonies. And PMI for private mortgage insurance. I'd never heard EMI until this question. --LarryMac | Talk 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or PITI: Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance. Here in the colonies, the mortgage-holder almost always collects and escrows the money from you that will eventually pay for your real-estate property taxes and hazard insurance; that ensures that they don't lose their claim on your title to the local government (for your tax default) or to a fire.

Atlant (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the property can be sold for substantially more than the amount outstanding on the outstanding loan, then the original property owner will receive the balance, less any fees and other costs involved in the sale. However, if this were the case, then the original property owner would probably have sold the property themselves and paid off the loan with part of the proceeds. Even if the bank could possibly get a better price for the property in the future, it won't delay the sale because it is a bank, not a landlord - it doesn't want to be owning houses, paying maintenance costs, finding tenants etc. etc. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual advice in thse cases is "talk to your mortgage lender". Usually, some renegotiation is possible (for a future penalty) or you might be given a chance to sell. If you just stop paying, they will reposess/forclose, you will thrown out, flagged as a bad debtor and will still owe the money. Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In India, for the amount x home loan, one has to pay 3.5x (2.5x as interest + 1x loan amount) back in a typical 25 years tenure and at a interest rate 10%. I think, one will pay this back 3.5x / (25 * 12) monthly as EMI. Home loan interest rate is 11% now, and it was around 6% couple of years back.

For INR 5,000,000 (around 125,000 USD) EMI will be around INR 60000 (58333 to be exact). Let's say banks make profit with this money at a compund rate of interest 10% (after detecting depreciation, etc.), then at the end of 25th year, it would be around INR 80,000,000 (79610004.17 to be exact, as per [[2]]). That is 16 times what the bank initially given as home loan. Doesn't this mean even if sixteenth of money comes back banks are at no loss?

Now tell me, still banks can not pay EMIs back? Am I wrong anywhere here? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are wrong. You have misunderstood the economics of loans and mortgages. If a bank repaid mortgage payments to every borrower who defaulted then everyone who took out a mortgage would default towards the end of the mortgage term, and would then receive the whole capital amount of the loan plus interest - in effect the "mortgage" has become a monthly savings plan for them. Plus they have been living in a property rent-free for 25 years. Any bank that offered such a deal would be commiting commercial suicide. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living in a property rent-free for 25 years, eh?! I didn't think of that. In this case, I am ready to pay money-back rent, with EMI. At the end, I want my home + my rent, or all of my money back? Is that ok? :) Is it really impossible for banks? :( --V4vijayakumar (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above question got me thinking on another, related topic - buying one's own home vs. renting a property. My question is not about the pros & cons of buying and renting, but about which prevails in different countries and why. In the UK, everyone is property-crazy. You can't switch on the TV without watching some property show, it's a perennial dinner-party topic, and of course the media are full of speculation on when the next property crash will happen. Basically, once you've completed your education and set up on your own or with a family, the default position seems to be that you buy your own place. In parts of continental Europe, anecdotal evidence suggests to me that this mania hasn't taken hold to anywhere like the same extent. Many more people rent rather than buy, and they often keep renting for the rest of their lives. Any experiences? Which option is more popular in the North America, for example, and how do we account for this disparity in choices? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major disparity, of course, is one of equity. A buyer, even with a mortgage, owns some portion of the property and can potentially realize a profit on it. A renter doesn't. Property values have long been seen (in the States, at least, and certainly in many other places too) as a good low-risk investment, as they've historically risen in near-monotonic fashion. The last ten years (or so) in particular have been a real estate bubble in which values have risen dramatically -- people have realized returns of 50% annually or higher. Throw in the fascination with property in the media that you noted (I'll skip the chicken-and-egg bit here) and the common perception has become that any sort of property endeavor is a guaranteed ticket to riches. Of course, the collapse of the aforementioned bubble should hopefully make it clear that it's not a guarantee.

Anyway, with all that said, I expect that the disparity in owning versus renting depends highly on whether the relevant market exhibits properties like those I've just described. I'd bet on a short-term trend in the States towards renting while people wait to see what happens to house prices (though that's not going to stop me closing on a house next week), and I'd guess that continental Europe similarly doesn't have the lure of ownership being a good risk-vs-reward proposition. — Lomn 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Europe, but in the U.S. there are many tax advantages to owning vs. renting. In particular, the deductibility of mortgage interest and local property taxes, and the capital gains exclusion. "Owner-occupier" lists home ownership rates for several countries. U.S. & U.K. rate at 69%, significantly more than most continental European countries. Of course renting has its own advantages, such as increased mobility and not having to maintain your property. --D. Monack | talk 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK mortgage interest tax relief was abolished in 2000. Local taxes don't differentiate between renters and owner-occupiers, so tax advantages are limited although you do have a capital gains exemption on your main home. The current British obsession with owning rather than renting is due in part to social policy over previous decades, with the Conservative governments in particular actively promoting home ownership (see the party's 1987 manifesto here and its 1992 one here for examples). Much social housing was sold off to tenants on favourable terms, reducing the available rental stock and the state's financial obligations as a landlord. Houses were at that point cheap enough for most working people to purchase (my first one, in 1988, cost me less than 3x my very modest salary in my first post-college job). Buying was affordable, and cost around the same as renting, with the advantage of an asset at the end of your mortgage period.

More recently, pensions have driven the dash for ownership. Changes in the tax system which make pension schemes more costly for employers, plus high-profile scandals where funds have collapsed or been misused (see Robert Maxwell, for example), have led to a mistrust of traditional pension saving in favour of property. Official policy made it easier to buy and let out property (the intention was for the private rented sector to fill the gap left by the sell-off of public social housing) but it has led to a development boom, with speculators competing for properties. As prices rose, buyers struggled to "get a foot on the property ladder" but felt compelled to do so in order not to be "left behind". -- Karenjc 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that a UK bank will charge £23 for transfering money from a bank account at one bank to one in another if it's handled electronically, but charge nothing if you just take the money out, walk to the other bank and deposit it there? What is involved in the transfer that costs £23 more than two people physically handling the money and filling in forms? And why does no charge apply if you set up a direct debit between the same two accounts? Surely it's just a money transfer, repeatedly?

Of course, I may be stupidly assuming the world to be more logical than it is; there may be no reason. But I'd like to know, either way. 130.88.140.123 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they charge the money? Simply put... because they can. Banks are about profits, not helping you out.  ;) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly send money from bank accounts to others in the UK and it's free. Or isn't it? 200.127.59.151 (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the bank... but usually if you're doing an external bank transfer there is a charge... if it is an internal bank transfer, it might be free. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec -twice!!) If more people said "No" to such outrageous charges, banks might lower their charges. However, the only danger with the alternative is being mugged walking down the street with thousands of pounds in your pocket. Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Euro zone the banks charge when one pays by cheque or credit card across an old national border. No exchange rate percentages, so this artificial charge has been forced through.86.197.175.62 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Apart from the reasons given you are paying for convenience and you are paying for 2 banks to maintain systems that can interoperate together. When you are paying in cash the bank does not need to know 'where' the money came from, only where it is going to. The electronic transaction needs to know who is sending it, from where, and who to. Whilst that's not going to justify the major increase in cost you must also consider a more generic answer too: Banks can take advantage of the relative lack of movement that occurs from bank customers to banks. Unlike say the insurance industry where motor-insurance customers often switch and change provider every year with relatively little hassle, the banks benefit from the hassle-factor of changing accounts. You maybe have to inform your employer, 5 bill providers, get new cards, remember new pin codes, etc. etc. etc. That hassle is maybe worth encountering if you are moving money and being charged regularly, but if it happens once or twice a year then while it might be annoying it's maybe not worth the hassle of moving to a bank where this charge doesn't occur. The bank charges because people. It's not 'outrageous' just like it isn't 'outrageous' that the bank allows you to pay in money for free, or withdraw case from 1000s of ATMs for free - they all cost the bank money - staff, refilling the machine, updating the machines, maintaining the machines, etc. etc. - but they don't cost you money at that instance. Why? Probably because the competition in that area is high and the hassle-factor is low. Who'd use a pay cash-machine if there is a free-withdrawl one 10 yards down the road? (Well actually millions based on the growing market of in-pub/in-restaurant charging cash machines - again convenience plays a role) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my estimation £23 is 'outrageous' to simply move money through the already existing electronic transfer facilities. The charges don't reflect the true cost of the transaction and instead banks are ripping off customers to add ever more money to the vast profits they make every year from playing on the stock markets with your money. Astronaut (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is free to transfer money if your bank allows you to do it online, just a bit of a performance to set up the facility. SaundersW (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're onto it. The situation described by OP sounds much like what in the States is called a "Wire Transfer", which is just one more way to move money around the banking system. Technically, I don't know what makes it expensive, but in my industry, when one wishes to set up a periodic transfer between accounts, a phase of the process called "PreNote Validation" takes a week or ten days; during this time the two institutions validate the account registrations, run test transactions both ways, etc.

However, if our client doesn't want to wait that long, doesn't want to set up a recurring transaction, and doesn't want even to wait for a check to be mailed, then Wire Transfer is an option, and yes, it's expensive. But, it happens same day, so paying for service is certainly part of the equation. -- Danh 63.226.145.214 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So it sounds like it's a mix of factors. That it doesn't happen often enough for people to switch because of it wasn't something I'd really considered. Thanks guys for calming, thoughtful responses (so far). 130.88.140.121 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned a little bit more to firm up my own reply, and tripped over conditions in which the fee might be worth it.

Unless you deposit actual cash (banknotes), your bank will have a policy on how long a "hold" there will be on your check or money transfer before it is considered valid; this is frequently 7-10 days, can be 5 or 3 if the banks are in the same district, etc. You can't simply deposit a check from someplace and immediately have the cash; you cannot purchase securities with unsettled funds; etc. With a Wire Transfer, you get two things of value:

• Same day transfer
• Same day availability

Under some circumstances, the latter may be worth paying for.

-- Danh 63.226.145.214 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I officially Hate Microsoft. Vista is crap and doesn't work well. My Xbox can't read game CD anymore. Says they are dirty when I cleaned the Xbox reader and the game CD and it still won't work. My Xbox 360 broke down, but I'm not taking it back for 2 months just to get it half working. So my questions to you folks is: Why does everyone still support Microsoft? Why does everyone love their crap game consoles? Why isn't Microsoft doing anything to check their systems?(To make sure Vista actually will work, to relook the Xbox 360 {How many games new Xbox 360 have they made and still haven't had it right?}) Why does Microsoft still think they hot stuff?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

For you personally, I suggest that you stop supporting Microsoft with your wallet. Buy a Wii, install Linux, grab OpenOffice, whatever. Then you're free of their scourge. Beyond that, most of your questions have flawed premises. Not everyone supports Microsoft or the Xbox (not everybody demonizes them, either), and Microsoft absolutely does check their systems -- though there comes a point at which they stop checking in favor of profitability (or other concerns). — Lomn 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm might be getting a Playstation 3. I'm not a big Nintendo fan. I like killing and destroying people and Nintendo doesn't give that to me...much. Though Nintendo gives me real good RPGs. I was thinking of Fedora or maybe Linux. I have Openoffice cause my Microsoft word program doesn't work anymore even after I reinstalled it. But Microsoft word was getting annoying with it spellcheck. It wasn't even spell checking correctly. Well Microsoft isn't checking them right then. Cause I swear to you Vista still doesn't work and neither does my Xbox or my Xbox 360. I was still half way in Halo 3 with my Xbox 360 and it broke down on me, just like I was halfway with Morrowind Elder Scrolls Oblivion expansion pack Shiver Isles. The people that I talk to about Microsoft are always like How come you don't like Microsoft? They are such a good company. Yeah tell that to my Xbox 360. Cardinal Raven (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Dunno about Microsoft being a "good company", the Xbox might be crap but I've got no complaints with Vista and Office 2007 works fine. It makes me wonder what one has to do to make Word not work. So Cardinal, what happens in Word to make you believe it doesn't work? Is your PC free of viruses and spyware? Are you someone who installs untested beta software and expects it to work without error? Astronaut (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for diatribes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time Word opens up it is not responding. Even after reinstalling it, it just won't respond. I can't do anything with it. Yes, my PC is free of viruses and spyware. I don't even use spyware. I make my own computers. I go to tigerdirect and stuff. Right now I'm making another computer for myself with more memory and more power cause the new video games coming out was making my old one crash and lag. So I've been using my laptop for a while. I do not install untested beta software. I make sure the product is out for at least 3-5 years before I go and buy it. I also read about the programs and stuff. I waited for 3 years to get my first Xbox. That Xbox just doesn't work.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the reference desk guidelines. I won't do it again next time.71.142.208.226 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Do you get the same problems with Word on every PC? I'm curious because whilst Word is not perfect, many of the problems experienced are either attributable to virus/spyware problems, or due to the unexpected effects of some of the automation that Word provides an therefore irritating inexperienced users (eg. automatic lists creation on entering "1. " drives my brother-in-law to consider reaching for his hammer). However, a very slow response from a heavyweight program like Word, does make me think of memory problems. Astronaut (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my house I have two other computers. Those computers don't use Word anymore they use Openoffice. But no they didn't have the problems with Word. Its my laptop that doesn't work with Word. I also had given my laptop a upgrade with memory and reinstalled Word once more. But it still doesn't work.71.142.208.226 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Hi Cardinal. Maybe the computing ref desk can help you further with your Word problem. Astronaut (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an owner of both the PS3 and Xbox 360, my PS3 is basicly a Blue-ray player, I never touch my games for it. Whereas xbox 360 games tend to be a major strain on my productivity and relationships. Maybe its personal preference but I just like Xbox games better, despite the hardware problems. Mad031683 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is my Playstation 2. Its still working even after having it for a long time. Great games are still coming out for it and its still not a piece of junk that you want to chuck out the window like my Xbox. I have always found a large variety of games for the Playstation 2. If I wanted an RPG they had one if I wanted a one on one fighter they had it. The only good games for the Xbox, in my eyes are:

Voodoo Vince Physknauts Halo Fable Morrowind

Those were the only good games,IMO. All the other games were lame or were some sports game. I hate sports games.71.142.208.226 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Hi Cardinal Raven, try the computer desk here [3] without the (understandable) rant. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a more general question buried here: "Why do people continue to do business with a company that once had a good reputation, but has recently made inferior products ?". A lot of it is just "inertia". That is, people continue to think of a company the way it once was, not as it is now. To overcome this "nostalgia", people can either be quickly jolted to the realization that their product is inferior, as with Polaroid Corporation continuing to offer film cameras only, which means you have to take your film in to be developed (so they get to look at those naked pics of your wife and you get arrested if there are any pics of the kids in the tub), or the realization can take decades if the product is almost as good as the competition. American car companies might be in the later category. Their cars are pretty good, but not quite as good as Japanese cars. Over the decades, this has led to more and more people defecting. Microsoft is somewhere between those two extremes, so it may take a decade for people to dump them. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buy a Mac.--Artjo (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use windows because I want to play games which only work on windows, and because it's the OS that most stuff works on generally. It's like that saying, if computers were cars, Macs would be 1000x more efficient, run on sunlight, but only work on 5% of roads. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hoe can I teach myself to pee when I'm asleep so that I don't have to get up out of being asleep? I'm a femalePercy1957 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a question like this on the reference desk before. I don't know how to give you the link you'll just have to wait for someone else to tend to it.

May I say something though...disgusting. Why would the heck do you want to pee your bed just to sleep more? That is gross.71.142.208.226 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

You have already asked this once, a few days ago. Please do not ask this question again. You have exhausted our knowledge of this obscure subject in the set of answers given here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play waterfall sounds as you sleep in a pool of warm water. Pretty soon you'll be doing more tinkling than a pianist. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this question asks for medical advice. You should consider seeing a doctor. Depending on your preferences, it may be an urologist or a neurologist.

If you possess sophisticated cultural roots Down Under, consider "pointing Percy at the porcelain" during REM periods. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoo, ladies don't point Percy because... well, I will let you work that one out. Anyway, if the OP is asking how to manage making the trip to the loo without disturbing her sleep, then maybe some kind of hypnotic suggestion might help. I doubt that it would work in REM sleep, though as during that phase of sleep the muscles are more deeply relaxed. Another possibility might be to investigate making it through the night without the need to get up and pee. SaundersW (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]