February 10

I’ve heard Christians claim that there are proofs and evidences for Christianity to be the “one true religion”. Those evidences include evidences that what the Bible says is true and evidences that Jesus Christ is God and the son of God. See the articles Proof Of Christ And The Bible, Fulfilled Prophecy As Proof Of The Bible, Science as Proof Of The Bible, Proofs Of The Existence Of God, Reasons For the Bible, Heaven, Deity, Resurrection, Creation, Baptism, Evolution: Evidence Of Creation In 6 Days and Judaism: 10 Proofs That Jesus Christ is the Messiah. But what about other religions? Do they also have, or at least claim to have, proof or evidences for their religion to be the one true religion? If so, then what are they?

Don’t tell me if those proofs and evidences of other religions are, or if you think or have an opinion that they are, true or false, right or wrong, really proofs or evidences of them or not. I'm not here to debate or discuss that. Just tell me if other religion also have or claim so, and tell me about them.

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to ask almost nearly the same question (and spam the same links) once or twice a week. I'm not sure what your goal is here but if it is to try and drive traffic, you should know that Google does not follow external links on Wikipedia namespace pages (it uses the nofollow tag), so adding links here will not improve its Google ranking. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I did some research in good faith before I learned that this guy is a link spammer. For what it's worth, a quick Google search on "proof islam" turns up about a million hits, for example:[1][2][3][4][5]. A search on "proof judaism" similarly turned up lots of hits, including, e.g.: [6][7][8][9]. I think it's pretty easy to find supposed "proof" for any religion you want to. MrRedact (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through my employer, I get a discount at Staples office supply stores. Sometimes the discount is only a dollar or two but quite often it's much larger. For instance, yesterday I bought some blank CDs. The pre-discount total was $21 and some change. After applying the discount... the new total was $4 and some change. I saved more than $15! It's something in the neighborhood of a 75% discount. How is this possible? Does Staples still make a profit in this case? Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your discount varies based on the product suggests that it is based on their cost, not their sell price. Obviously your employer Staples makes a fair bit of margin on products like blank CDs. —BradV 03:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that the discounts on some of the products make them loss leaders - if it gets more employees from your company into the store, hopefully to buy other products as well as the CDs, it might be worth it to Staples to lose a little money on sales of the CDs to get the increased business overall from your company, especially if it's fairly large. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a large company. International, with ~5000 employees just in this state alone. But it's not the maker of the CDs as BradV seems to be thinking. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the question and thought you were working at Staples. Your company's discount is probably a cost-plus system rather than a list-less system, leading to higher discounts on high-margin items (e.g. CD's). I corrected my statement above. —BradV 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could have just been clearance items.86.197.46.100 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Why does drought affect prices of stuff like wheat? Is it because that stuff will taste worse? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it dies and can't be harvested. Then there's less of it for sale and the laws of supply and demand mean it becomes expensive. But you're probably also right in thinking that what does survive will be of lower quality. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To try and clarify: what I mean is the farmers affected by drought will have less wheat and lower quality, so probably have to sell for less. The global market will have less wheat, and higher prices for a certain quality. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is drought believed to be the "worst natural disaster"? It doesn't do stuff that other disasters do, like destroy buildings. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for your claim of drought being "worst"? As one possibility, though, drought adversely affects food and water supplies over a large area. Destroyed buildings are generally less detrimental to basic human survival, as it's easy to fashion alternate shelter. — Lomn 04:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a storm knocks down your house, you rebuild. If a drought wipes out every farm within 200 miles, you starve to death. Which do you think is worse? --Carnildo (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides getting hit by flying debris, how exactly does it kill you? bibliomaniac15 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is mostly the debris. Getting thrown around by the shockwave would also do it. The radioactive fallout comes later. I welcome more detailed information. X) --Masamage ♫ 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the blast and thermal radiation. Read about it at Effects of nuclear explosions. —RR (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See Effects of nuclear explosions. The heat will kill you way out beyond where the blast would. The heat is inconceivable. The shockwave will kill you, too, if you're close enough, just like with any bomb, and if you've somehow survived the heat, like having been behind something. Same goes for hard radiation from the blast itself, if you've somehow avoided being fried to a crisp in the first millisecond. You can die later from radiation sickness from being where the fallout comes down. --Milkbreath (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how close you are. Very close, blast. Further out blast, damage from falling buildings, etc. Way out, radiation sickness. Further, cancer over a long period. Best bet. Don't be there.86.197.46.100 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

It depends where you are and what type of nuke it is. There are different equations that describe the radii of the various effects (the fireball itself, blast pressure, thermal energy, radiation) which vary quite a bit depending on the yield of the weapon (in very small nukes, say 1kt or so, the radiation reaches further than the blast pressure; in very large nukes, the thermal energy can cover hundreds of square miles, inflicting third degree burns on anyone it comes in contact with). If you are far enough away from the immediate effects, there is still the issue of fallout, which can cover thousands of square miles (depending, again, on the yield of the initial weapon). So there are a few different ways that any given nuke can kill you. Of course, even without a nuclear core, being underneath one that was accidentally dropped can be bad for your health. ;-) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Radiation poisoning too. Oda Mari (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The searing thermal radiation can burn you to death at a distance far enough away that the burst of gamma rays are non-lethal. Hence Duck and cover. Edison (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although fallout has the widest range of any possible killers. The attack scene of Threads is frighteningly realistic in its portrayal of what happens to one house within a couple of miles of ground zero -- first the thermal radiation at the speed of light, which burns to death those exposed to the light and sets flammable objects on fire; then the blast wave at the speed of sound, which turns the home to rubble; then the lingering radiation, which slowly kills many of those who managed to survive above ground. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I have 2g of 99.99% pure Cesium. I'm guessing it would have to be safely stored in a vacuum-like ampule right? Suppose I throw that ampule with 2g of cesium in it and break it. How big of an explosion would the cesium create a) in room temperature air, b) in water and c) in liquid chlorine? 99.240.177.206 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question would better fit the science Reference Desk. I suppose you had already read the article on cesium, including the Precautions section? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: A small one, if any, in all cases. 2g is a tiny amount. While a Cesium atom will gladly get rid of its outer electron, it is also very massive, thus the given 2g contain relatively few atoms, leading to only a small amount of released energy. Disclaimer: I am not a chemist, and you should not try this at home (or anywhere else). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree - in context less than a banger (maybe you call these firecrackers). Also in air I don't think it will explode as such maybe catch fire. In water yes - bang!.87.102.79.203 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cesium/water videos out there eg http://video.aol.com/video-detail/group-1-metals-reaction-with-water-slow-motion/2502091714 - note ignore the braniac ones (a tv program) as they are fake..87.102.79.203 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there counties in uninhabited areas? 124.181.26.71 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer may be different depending on whether you really meant "counties", or countries. And if you did mean counties, can you specify which country you're talking about. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also specify which counties you're talking about? See county. It would seem that by any definition, all counties are inhabited, as they are administrative districts, and there would be no one to administrate no one if they were totally uninhabited. (I changed your question title for administrative purposes.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP meant "Why is land that is (basically) uninhabitable, such as the Sahara Desert or really Northern Canada part of a country's territory?" Well mostly the answer to that is for the land's natural resources. Siberia, for example, has tons of natural resources (even though Siberia is inhabited, just sparsely). The same goes for northern Canada. Also, if it wasn't under the jurisdiction of some country (and its laws), people could do anything there and it might become a bit chaotic. --Emery (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no county consists entirely of uninhabited areas, although Loving County, Texas comes close. Sometimes, an uninhabited area will be divided into sub-areas, such as districts or numbered survey townships, for ease of administration. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Loving County, Texas, the website for its county seat shows that it has a courthouse but no lawyers live in the area. Just how can you have a courthouse with no lawyers? Judges are lawyers too, mind you. What is the deal? I'm confused. Discharging P (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They must not be counting County Judge Don Creager [10]. The article has a funny story -- the only serious crime on the docket at the time was a man who threatened the waitress at the cafe and smashed a window after being asked to stop cursing. The guy was charged with assault on a government official because the waitress is also the county's elected justice of the peace! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A law license is not always required to be a county judge [11]. Rmhermen (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my teacher asked us to find more about symbols of fear, but i can't find anything.. can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you narrow it down a bit?; which books,which genre, which authors or something.hotclaws 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered on the Humanities desk. Dear 218, please stick to one desk to keep the thread together. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question; I know virtually nothing about basketball. I just saw a sportscenter highlight where the visiting team was down by three and fired (and missed) a three-pointer at the buzzer that would have tied the game. The defending team, as I see it, had three options: (1) Wait and hope the shot misses. (2) Block the incoming ball on the descent, which I think is goaltending (but isn't it better to risk that the guy won't make his foul shots? would he even get three foul shots?). (3) Grab the incoming ball and slam it for the "alley-oop", a deliberate own-goal sort of thing, which would have given the opponent two points, still a losing score.

I've never seen or heard of anyone trying either (2) or (3). Are there rules to prevent these situations? Does anyone ever try them and I just don't see enough basketball to know about it? Thanks, Deltopia (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that what you describe in scenario (2) would be goaltending--you may not realize that (3) would qualify as goaltending as well. Any interference with the ball once it has begun its descent toward the rim--regardless of what the defender does with the ball after s/he touched it--is illegal. When someone is called for goaltending, the penalty is more severe than foul shots; the shooter is automatically awarded 2 or 3 points, depending on where the shot was taken. This is why no one would ever, ever, ever risk goaltending a three-point shot. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the ball had to have broken the cylinder above the rim for it to be goaltending. If you can stick your hand up and block the shot before it gets to the cylinder, I think that's a clean block, even if the ball is on the way down. I admit I'm not too sure though. --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope—goaltending includes shots on their way down, too [12]:

Section I-A Player Shall Not:

...g. Touch any live ball from within the playing area that is on its downward flight with an opportunity to touch the basket ring.

You're right that you're also not allowed to mess with a ball while it's in the cylinder, going up or down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well it seems to me then that a lot of offensive goaltending goes uncalled -- a lot of tip-ins and alley-oops seem to be at least on the borderline.

Brings up another thing I've wondered about. When there's an own goal in basketball, it's usually because of a scuffle for the ball near the rim, and if I understand correctly the official statistician usually gives it to the last offensive player to touch the ball. But what would they do if a player just got turned around, took an actual shot at his own goal, and made it? There isn't even a place to put that in the box score, is there? --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that a foul would give three foul shots in this situation, and there's a debate to be had as to whether that improves the defending team's odds of victory. Another occasionally-seen strategy, though, is to foul the trailing team before they can attempt a shot. This gives them only two free throws, and with a three-point lead and very little time remaining, can be a good way to prevent a three-point opportunity. — Lomn 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, depending on the location of the defenders, the player taking the shot may be at a difficult position to guard against. Like what was said above, if the defender acted too vigilantly, he risks fouling the shooter. If he does that and the ball does not go in, the shooter receives 3 foul shots (assuming he shot from past the 3-point line). If it does go in, the shooter is rewarded 3 points and 1 foul shot, making for the possibility of a 4 point play. As well, the defender may have just seen the shot as a desperation attempt and calculated that the potential consequences was not worth trying to stop the shot. Acceptable (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's it mean? [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you gave some context (rather than a link which is totally pointless, because it is just to somewhere else that you have asked the question) answerers might have a chance of being able to help you. Are you sure it is not 'claim to fame', meaning 'reason for which [the person or institution] is or might be known'? --ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried for years, but I just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.48.192 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym = USA (Capital letters of United States of America) - Abbreviation = Ky (short form of writing Kentucky). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.121 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this page and our article on Acronym and initialism. --Emery (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym for me have always created a new word eg. RADAR, CABAL Sandman30s (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Many (perhaps most) acronyms are not recognisable words. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going on holiday to Nice on the Cote d'Azur in Southern France and whilst looking it up on Wikipedia, I noticed that Nice is twinned with several other cities, among them Edinburgh in Scotland, where I live. Can I expect any benefits when I get there like a glass of wine or a free lunch with the mayor, or perhaps free entry to any art galleries or museums, or perhaps a free bus ticket etc. If not, what is the purpose of cities twinning with each other except perhaps to provide excuses for a free jolly for the town councillors and officials of the respective cities?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.121 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Town twinning: "In practice, the twinning arrangements often lead to student exchange programs, as well as economic and cultural collaborations." So I suspect there is no such thing as a free lunch. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the Wikipedia page for a game called Tumbling tower. Either we don't have one or that name is less known than the common name for it, which I don't know what is. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenga? Foxhill (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get from Helsinki, Finland to Seeboden, Austria and back without ever travelling by aeroplane? I have formulated a sort-of plan involving travelling throughout half of Sweden, the whole of Germany, and over half of Austria. Even with an InterRail Global Pass card, it will cost me over 480 €. This will take me a bit over a week (I plan to stay in Seeboden for three days), from Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday morning the next week. Is there any way to make this faster, or cheaper? JIP | Talk 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are you planning on travelling? In the summer there are ferries from Helsinki to Rostock, Germany. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google[14] it's 2,386 km by car. —BradV 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to travel in July. I don't have a car. The route shown above is very much like the one I have calculated above, which would cost me 480 €, not including hotel costs or food. JIP | Talk 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this, though they don't seem to have July fares up yet, but you might be able to extrapolate based on current fares (I would imagine summer fares would be more expensive). Corvus cornix_talk 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the cheaper, hitchhike it. This is very simple - just have a sign saying "Austria" and you'll be fine. --Montchav (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do people still hitch across Europe? I did it in 1983, but it was not quick. I would allow at least a week, possibly more, from Finland to Austria, and you would still need to pay for ferries, unless you went through Russia. Speaking of traveling through Russia, that might be a cheaper option by train, but it would add about 12 hours to your travel time each way. You can travel by train to St. Petersburg Finland Station, then take the metro six stops to St. Petersburg Warsaw station. From there you would travel via Brest, Warsaw, Katowice, Ostrava, Brno, Bratislava, Vienna, and either Salzburg or Villach to Spittal-Millstättersee, the closest station to Seeboden. Your cheapest option, if you are willing to consider it, would actually be to fly. I have found return airfares from Helsinki to Klagenfurt (the nearest airport to Seeboden) for around €375 on this site. Flying would take about 5 hours each way, including a change of plane. Marco polo (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure people hitch-hike across Europe. Last year I did a total of 9300 km, going from Poland to Croatia and back, and then from Poland to Spain via Switzerland, and back. It's very, very popular, very convenient and a fun way to spend time. One of my favourites. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tallink ferry from Helsinki to Rostock is out of the question. It arrives so late that any trains to Austria the same day would mean I would have to spend hours at some German railway station alone in the middle of the night. And coming back, it leaves so early that I would practically have to arrive the previous night and again spend the night at the station. However, I did find a nice ferry connection from TT Line from Trelleborg to Rostock, which would leave me several hours of spare time both when going there and coming back. Going via Russia is also out of the question. It is much too far away, I still don't trust Russia in general, and I understand no Russian or Polish, and only a little Estonian. I realise it would be much faster, easier, and perhaps also cheaper to fly, but this is an experiment. I have never travelled to continental Europe and back without flying at some point. My father told me flying is the least ecological way of travel there is, so I took it upon myself to plan a journey to Seeboden and back without flying. JIP | Talk 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find trains and ships much more comfortable than aeroplanes, even if they are slower. And I simply hate the long queues and strict security measurements at airports. When travelling by land or sea, I get to skip all of those. JIP | Talk 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good page here, or a good site on the web, about the differences in players' wagse in different sports? Ranging from the $50m a year soccer players to the world champions in really low-level sports, say, tiddlywinks, but with everything in between? Web searches haven't been so productive on that front. Thanks in advance. --Montchav (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do any entire large companies have a reputation for micromanagement, because only micromanagemers are hired or promoted to the positions, or because company training encourages it, or because the senior executives' own micromanagement requires it of the managers? NeonMerlin 23:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought experiment: What is the difference between "management" and "micromanagement"? One is where a person spends his/her productive efforts planning, training, and supervising others who directly do useful work, so that the labor force can concentrate on their labor with good chance of being productive. The other is when such a manager is too zealous, and his/her efforts are seen as interfering, instead of helping. This is a subjective analysis by the workers, the MM's equal-level managers, or by the MM's own supervisors. The MM would not, of course, consider what he/she does as micromanagement; he/she would believe his/her efforts to be useful and good.

Thus, if someone IS a MM, his/her efforts hinder the company. Any company that promoted such destructive behavior would quickly become less competitive than another company that promoted good management skills, right? Such a company would be less profitable, and grow smaller with time until it either went bankrupt, or fixed it's problem. In the long run, it's a self-correcting problem. Not that that makes anyone working with such a person any happier.

Anyone with experience in the workforce can give personal examples of micromanagement. It gets stomped on, though, by the MM's supervisor, as soon as productivity starts to fall and the MM's excuses are recognized as self-serving, blame-shifting BS. Sometimes that takes a while. -SandyJax (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]