April 26

Suppose a recipe for blueberry pancakes (or waffles) calls for fresh blueberries, but you've only got the frozen variety on hand, will it ruin the recipe? Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Most pancakes are made not with the blueberries as a folded in ingredient but as an add on to the top as you're cooking them so it's not as if you're really changing the recipe. It would be like a recipe for waffles advising you to place a scoop of home made vanilla bean ice cream on them. If you use Breyers it's not going to be quite as good, but ruin it? Not at all. By the way, even if the recipe calls for them to be blended in, it would be good. Flash frozen blueberries stand up very well (now if they've been sitting in the freezer for a year that's a different matter). Of course, the cell walls are ruptured a bit by water crystals, but they really do well.--70.19.69.27 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought using frozen blueberries as opposed to fresh ones might cause them to become watery in taste when they're cooked into the pancakes. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To second the above, it may taste a bit different, but it won't taste bad. Some people may actually prefer to use frozen blueberries, as the freezing process slightly softens and macerates the blueberries, which for incorporation into a batter will tend to spread the flavor throughout the batter. Using fresh blueberries will tend to give distinct unbroken blueberries, kinda like chocolate chips, in the batter. It sort of depends on what effect you are going for, but neither would be bad, just a bit different, and they could be used interchangably if the other is not availible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy of Cooking recommends frozen blueberries for pancakes, if memory serves. Tempshill (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody officialy visted all the capital cities for every country? I mean for 24 hours not flying over or at the airport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe André Brugiroux, though the article only refers to "every country and territory in the world" and doesn't mention capitals. I don't think there are many people who have visited every country, so I'd start my search with that small group. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to "officially", there's nothing official about visiting a place. Basically, you'll have to take their word for it, rather than relying on some authority. Unless you're talking about heads of state and other VIPs making "official visits" to a place, rather than visits in their private capacity. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could understanding "officially entering a country" as meaning going through immigration, rather than just visiting the airport in transit. I'm not sure what officially entering a city would mean, though. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the later sentence is meant to clarify the officially part. He/she means someone who has spent 24 hours+ in each capital city. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which US math professor promises his students that if they crack a famous encrypted message, he will ensure their achievement gets covered on the front page of the New York Times? From my recollection, this was mentioned in a magazine article published online in .pdf form. I can't remember which encrypted message it was, although it was one of the famous ones. I've tried searching on several mentioned here without success. Thanks! D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.177 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds rather unlikely that a mathematics professor would be able to guarantee such a thing. Surely only the editor of the paper can do that? --Tango (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I'm trying to get hold of the article reporting that the guy said that.193.120.116.146 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP is referring to the DESCHALL Project? Phil_burnstein (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no that wasn't it. I can't remember the hook of the article, but it was a magazine piece with some quick bits on various unsolved codes (possibly including DESCHALL, but that wasn't one of the main ones), and which mentioned one specific lecturer who promises his students that if they solve a particular one of them, he'll "ensure" they get on the front page of the NYT. It's the name of the professor that I'm after. I think he may have a profile as a populariser of mathematics or of cryptography in particular. Thanks again, DTantrum7 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you can see with articles like hogging that in some cases that it is. But even still in a more normal context there is talk about guys going for fat girls due to the fact that they're perceived as "easier" or more vulnerable and less demanding, and also liking fat women for their bodies like they do in Mauritania [1]... they say obesity is unfair to women. What's the consensus on all of this? Speaking as a heterosexual mild fat fetishist myself, I'd say fat looks one hell of a lot better on women's bodies than it does on men's bodies; the latter should ideally have minimal body fat. Even just searching Google images for women and obesity and seeing the images and stories gives me a mild erection, and believe me I'm not into the really really huge ones that are just shapeless blobs. But is this misogyny? Or is it no better than a heterosexual male who likes thin women getting turned on by their bodies (which are OK to me but just not nearly as interesting?) Is it rather that male heterosexuality is inherently misogynistic? Or is this just a stupid postmodern, liberal pussy view?--Gyu-gzas (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some kind of confusion that being attracted to women, in whatever form that takes, is somehow misogynist (and that liberals believe such attraction is misogynist). I think you're confusing reactions to negative objectification of women, with attraction to them.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with misogyny. Misogyny is a hatred of women, whilst an attraction to women is not a hatred of them, unless you are attracted in such a way that you deliberately want to harm them.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the querent is asking if being attracted to some "negative" characteristic of women (or men) may not be a subtle, maybe even subconscious, form of misogyny (or misandry) as it is in contrast to some "normal" gender models. Somewhat simplified: Does Lucian Freud in his portrait of Sue Tilley make a misogynyst statement on womenkind as a whole? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cookatoo: I think there might be an answerable question here. If a man is aroused not by the actual woman but by an attribute of hers that he sees as negative, then is he aroused because a woman is, to him, abased? And can that be a result (or source) of hatred? I think it would come down to how broadly you define "hatred". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa said (sang) "The bigger the cushion, the better the pushing." YMMV. Pfly (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Spinal Tap.—Chowbok ☠ 04:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Tap said "the sweeter the pushing". (Is there a way to put the umlaut on the 'n'?) —Tamfang (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See N-diaeresis, although the ones in that article don't render well in my browser. The dots are centered over the gap between "n" and the next letter of the word, instead of being centered over the "n". -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the OP is asking a reasonable question. A reasonable place to start is Sexual fetishism, which defines it as "the sexual arousal brought on by objects, situations or body parts not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature", and that it may or may not be problematic. In other words, if something is common enough within a given society, it no longer counts as a fetish. So the traditional force-feeding of girls (gavage) resulted in many very fat women in Mauritania, where there was a strong cultural preference for fatness as a sign of wealth, but it was common enough that sexual attraction directed solely at fat women was not worthy of remark. In Western cultures until the twentieth century, voluptuous women were the norm as icons of sexuality, and thinness was associated either with hard manual work (and thus a lower class status) or illness such as tuberculosis. (Tellingly, one of the African nicknames for AIDS is "Slim".) For proof that chubby women were considered gorgeous, visit any art gallery with paintings from the Renaissance, and glory in the flesh. Not for nothing are such women known as Rubenesque -- indeed, that link redirects to "Big Beautiful Women". Many painters and artists still prefer fat women: Beryl Cook is a notable example. Fashion designers, on the other hand, tend to design clothes for a boyish figure, because clothes drape better without lumps and bumps to get in the way; many models suffer from anorexia nervosa; many men in the world of haute couture are gay and are not sexually attracted to the body of the mature woman; I leave the reader to draw the connections. And, of course, it is not always clear what someone else envisages by words such as fat and thin and their euphemisms; Marilyn Monroe would be turned down as "too heavy" were she to attempt to enter the worlds of modelling and acting today. It may be more precise to think in terms of the body mass index.

I commend Gyu-gzas for taking an analytic eye to straight male sexuality. It seems to me there are at least two questions. One is identified by ZE, and I'll reformulate it: if a man is aroused by something he considers to be negative (harmful, unhealthy, wrong), is that disrespectful to the woman involved? The other is broader, as stated by the querent: "Is it rather that male heterosexuality is inherently misogynistic?" (It would be great if a sexologist or clinical psychologist could step in here with sources and references!) For the first, it is clear that what is seen as desirable varies as much between individuals as between cultures. If a man goes after fat women because he thinks they are desperate or needy, and he is therefore more likely to get lucky, what does that say about him and his confidence? If on the other hand he goes after fat women because he truly loves their bodies, then he will convey that, and is more likely to find someone to connect with. For the second, no it does not have to be; having a penis doesn't make you an automatic oppressor. For proof of this, to confirm the existence of mutually respectful and sexually fulfilling relationships, look for the happiest couples among your acquaintances, and, if you feel able, start a conversation about it. Or, if you are too shy to talk face to face, look online for relationship support. There are plenty of "postmodern, liberal" straight men out there who are secure in their sexuality and happy in their relationships. Some of the ones I know do outreach into high schools, as mentors and advisors to teenage boys, showing them that respecting girls can actually -- who would've thought it? -- help them get girlfriends. And as for a "pussy view", well, if you play your cards right, that is exactly what you will get. (Hint: don't use terms for women and their genitalia in a pejorative way.) Good luck in figuring this stuff out! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone who "guys going for fat girls due to the fact that they're perceived as "easier" or more vulnerable and less demanding" counts as having fat fetishm Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of articles on american football players, and a current DYK entry, talk about the players being "all-state selection". This google search shows the extent of the issue.

And so, given we are an encyclopedia, what is an "all-state selection" and where on wikipedia is it explained?

Frankly, I'm a bit narked about the DYK, which says "was named All-State in high school as a senior" ... completely incomprehensible to those not familiar with the USian education system. DYK? No. I'm none the wiser. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All-state" would be a high school equivalent of an all-star selection at the professional level. We note this in the all-star article, albeit poorly. — Lomn 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right. "All-state" means "among the best in all the schools in the state." "All-star" could be from anywhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of how, in my mind, DYK has outlived its usefulness. The point of a "Did you know?" section should be to provide surprising facts about something people already know of. For example, "Did you know that the "S" in Harry S. Truman doesn't stand for anything?" But by now, most entries new to the encyclopedia are going to be so obscure that people aren't going to be aware of them at all. Like, "Did you know that Joe Shlabotnik, assistant attorney general of Alaska from 1962-64, attended high school in the Yukon?" Well, no, I didn't know that, and don't see how I could have. _{I thought I made up the name "Joe Shlabotnik," but it looks like Charles Schultz beat me to it.}-- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All-<blank> in any sport generally means the best at the <blank> level. Thus, a high-school player named to an All-State team is among the best of "All of the players in the state" just like a college player may be named "All-Conference" for being the best player in his Conference(league) and a professional player may be named "All-Pro" or "All-Star". All-America is another usage, such as the McDonald's All-American Game or the College Football All-America Team. I have also seen such terms as "All-City" or "All-County" or the like. For non-US natives its apparently a fairly unknown usage, but any American sports fan will recognize the usage instantly. The best equivalent for the UK-types would be perhaps Caps. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a fan of DYK myself, it still IMHO get's some decent stuff. e.g. "that the 1915 Avezzano earthquake killed over 30,000 people and flattened the town of Avezzano, Italy?" "that wake lows and their associated heat bursts can cause high winds as well as large temperature spikes, even overnight?" "that DNA analysis techniques are used to prevent fraudulent marketing of the false scad fish as a horse mackerel?" "that "Flip Decision", a 1952 Donald Duck comic book story, introduced the term flipism?" "that wildfires have occurred on the Earth for over 420 million years?" "that the Beiyue Temple (pictured) has China's largest surviving wooden building from the Yuan Dynasty?". "that the Battle of Big Dry Wash was the last battle fought between the Apache and the US Army and four Medals of Honor resulted from the battle?" Some of these may be about things people have heard about but weren't necessarily aware of. All are significant enough they should spark some interest in many readers regardless for some reason of whether they've heard of any of them (and actually many of them more so then Harry S. Truman). And there is a lot of stuff, particular re: the developing world even more the non English speaking developing world that we still lack articles on. Sadly though for a variety of reasons we're more likely to get an article on some all-city player few people are going to care about then someone (or thing) of significance to 500 million people Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any scopes for women to be working from home and gettting paid for a living, something like the assignments done in the internet, maybe..please suggest as the lower feet paralysis diagnosed renders me homebound,but few young and old ones are dependent on me. Any guidance is a blessing..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, plenty of people work from home. Freelancing can be an entirely viable career choice, although in the current economic climate, it can get pretty challenging, especially if you don't already have an established reputation with clients. At best of times, it can be kind of nerve-wracking, since you often don't know when your next payment arrives, let alone who's going to be paying you a couple of months from now. Generally speaking, freelancing tends to be pretty skilled work and especially in the beginning you need a fairly proactive outlook, as you really need to put yourself out there in order to get the gigs. You need to make contacts and go after those assignments. The good thing is that you don't necessarily have to have face-to-face meetings with your clients, though: what they really care about is the quality of the work and your dependability, and if you can deliver on those two fronts, you can get by -- though a webcam and a program like Skype probably help there.

Typically, you are going to need some skills, though. You don't mention anything about what you can do, so I'll go with the basics: a certain basic understanding of computers is a given in this day and age, as you'll probably be using one to deliver your work, and you're probably going to have to have some expertise beyond being able to type. Creative work is particularly well-suited for freelancing, as the classic "9 to 5" work ethic isn't held in as high a regard in those fields. Writing, graphic design, translation work are often areas that freelancers work in, but I've seen freelancers handle things like project management from their home as well -- typically in situations where someone needs to coordinate a real herd of freelancers. Of course, in order to be given any real responsibility, you're going to need to prove that you're reliable first. Communication skills are pretty important: you really need to approach a lot of people, because you're probably going to get at least ten rejections for every job you do get, especially when you have yet to establish yourself. If you do a good job and keep at it, though, you'll reach a point when they're the ones who call you.

Personally, I've done a lot of freelancing myself, mostly in the areas of video game journalism, translation, game design and game writing. These are things that are well-suited for working from home, although the last two tend to require regular contact with the rest of the team, so I don't work nearly as much from home as I used to... Still, It has a lot of upsides, but also a lot of downsides: you're never off work, really; you don't have days off so much as you have days you don't work in, which really are not the same thing at all. You need a certain degree of discipline, because generally there isn't anyone there to kick you so you meet that deadline. Still, it's nice to be your own boss and be able to decide that today is a no pants day, and if the pizza guy doesn't like that, he can damn well stare straight ahead. Good times.

Oh, and a word of warning: on the internet, you may see ads or websites that tell you that you can make very good money working from home, typically for what seems like very little effort. Almost without exception, these are scams. Freelancing ain't no free lunch. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first question is to ask what skills and experience you have. Things like language translation, computer programming, creative writing, technical authoring - those are things you can do with little more than a PC, a phone and a network connection - but only if you have skills and experience in those areas. As Captain Disdain says - the adverts who claim you can earn a fortune working from home are all scams. They generally fall into a few categories:

1. Typing things like phone books into the computer - paid by the number you do - with deductions for any errors you make - paid at such a low rate - with such a high deductions for actual (or alleged) errors - that you'll be working far, FAR below minimum wage.
2. Pyramid schemes where you're paid for the number of people you 'recruit' and from whom you'll get payback...these are illegal - or at best borderline.
3. Schemes where you have to pay up-front for training to do the job...followed by no job.
4. Schemes where you're selling stuff - where you have to pay up-front for your initial stock - which you'll never succeed in selling.

There may be others - but these are the kinds of thing to watch out for.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah watch out for the pyramid schemes. Also, it shouldn't make a difference in terms of your ability to work from home if you're a man or a woman, but your personal commitments will matter.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you. God bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a username, and I need some help coming up with one. I'd like it to sorta be related to me as a person. About me, well I'm cute, pink I like cats, I like computers too, I'm a bit of a loner but I have some friends, I like watching tv and having fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can'thinkoolame (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pretty and pink? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kittypink? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:I pink, therefore I am (cute)? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "Kittypink" among the suggestions. Short, memorable,and appealing. Edison (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Pink Emo Girl (I'm assuming girl?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about digitalpinkpussyfun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.11 (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pink Panther? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:How about seekingvalidation ? Gazhiley (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what advertisers generally pay freelance photographers for photos used in print advertisements. I realize that there's probably a lot of variance depending on circumstance, so a range would be a fine answer. I just have no idea, and I'd like to get a vague sense.—Chowbok ☠ 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the dawn of things like iStockphoto.com and GettyImages which have enabled amateur-photographers to sell their photos prices have dropped for this type of photo significantly. Some firms will willingly pay a premium to have photographs that are exclusive to their brand though. This site (http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_CM02000016.html) has some 'average' salary parts. Hopefully someone will add more detail for you about what to expect. ny156uk (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]