May 18

On Japanese bells that they put outside their homes (in traditional homes), they have a strip of paper attached to the clanger to attract the wind and make the bell ring. I was given one by a friend about a year ago and have hung it outside my back door. Unfortunately, the rain has started to erode the paper away. I am not in Japan now, and am not in a position to ask anyone Japanese about it, but does this happen in Japan? I was there for ten years and certainly don't remember ever seeing this. If it doesn't happen, how do they stop it? Or do they just replace the strip of paper periodically?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has bitten yet: Wind chime doesn't say. Maybe you'll get lucky if you ask on that discussion page. (Does the Japanese Wikipedia [1] have a Forum or Refdesk?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried, but I seem to need a new username for it, as it won't accept my current one. What's happening there? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't see if there is a RefDesk or not, and to be honest, I can't even remember how I found this one, it was so long ago. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese RefDesk is here: [2] --Auximines (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do goths typically get super-offended if you call them emo? And if so, why? I know they're two distinctly different subcultures, but they also have a lot of things in common (at least IMO). And why do people associated with emo receive a bigger backlash than goths? Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR warning: For the last question about the backlash, I think it's because emo is seen as just being a bunch of depressed people listening to depressing music whereas goths are more of a hard rock sort of crowd with a macabre spin. Dismas|^(talk) 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you make assumptions about someone, and those assumptions don't really fit in with their self-image, chances are you're coming off as a bit of a jerk. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you see someone dressed in black and wearing some make-up and feel the urge to say "hey, goth dude" or "hey, emo dude," you probably are a bit of a jerk. A well-meaning and non-malicious jerk, maybe, but still. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but if someone goes out of their way to dress according to a certain convention, are they not making an effort to be seen as fitting into the label commonly attached to that convention? If I were to impersonate a policeman, am I not wanting to be seen as a cop? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and if you go to a cop and say "hey, security guard dude", chances are that your faulty assumption doesn't endear you to the cop. The point is, you can probably interact with that individual (especially if the individual is not a police officer) without making the presumptuous assumption. If you feel an urge to label someone, a lot of people find that annoying -- especially if they don't feel the label fits them. I mean, yeah, you can certainly present a reasonable argument as to why getting annoyed isn't very smart, and chances are you would be right... But if the goal is to get along with the person in question, that's probably not going to help things any. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that a person who dresses to type wishes to be the type. Recognising the character they are trying to play is, if anything, a recognition of their efforts. It is a faulty recognition which could produce unpleasantness. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this documentary may answer your questions. Tempshill (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's had first-hand experience to these subcultures, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Goths and Emos are very similar as far as overall appearance; indeed, some persons may be characterized as both Goth and Emo. What little differences there are usually pertain to the extremes of both subcultures. A Goth will be more likely to revel in excessively elaborate fashion styles and have a greater affinity to darker music (or aptly named Gothic metal. Emos are not as elaborate and can be characterized by hair dyes, piercings, and a preference for hardcore, metalcore or Emo music. Still, these stereotypes are not necessarily conclusive; each person has unique behavioral traits and preferences. As a high school senior, I've met a lot of Goths and Emos and I can tell you that they are not all the same, in spite of having similar appearances or musical preferences. Finally, without a doubt, Emos are the most hated group, one of the only ones I have ever seen people make death threats towards, mainly because of their self-loathing and angst-ridden <sic> lifestyles. I'd almost go so far as to say that the prejudice held towards them parallels racism and anti-Semitism. With these in mind, yes, Goths will be offended if you call them Emo, simply because of the derogatory connotation the latter group holds.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a docmentary once, it showed a troop of monkeys who had dognapped puppies, raised them and used them to protect the troop from predators. This was some time ago and i believed the troop to be Baboons although i cannot be sure. Can anybody help me in confirming this- location, troop species and dog species would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161battery (talk • contribs) 10:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever seen a troop of baboons you would know that no dog could stand against them.86.200.135.129 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

The OP is not suggesting that the dogs stood against the baboons.Popcorn II (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! But why should baboons want a dog to protect them when they can eat a dog for breakfast ? (That means a baboon can easily destroy a dog)... and especially so when you note that they operate in troops of 30 to 40 animals. It would take a brave (foolhardy) animal of any size to upset a troop!!86.197.171.22 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Lol as i have said i believe the troop to be Baboons but i am not sure, obviously you do not have the answers i am looking for which means you have nothing constructive to add! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161battery (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to find the documentary referenced by the OP, but I found something that reminds me of an old saying: What matters isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but the the size of the fight in the dog. 152.16.51.122 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you for your ansers I have deleted them now Jwg1994 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hereis a link to what was here. – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anyone find that question odd? anyone?  Buffered Input Output 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one person either thought it a prank, or had enough concern that they gave an answer which - if followed - would have pretty much told everyone where it was. I find the qustion odd, too, but doubt anyone would seriously turn to the Reference Desk for that advice. the time of acquiring the screen name, and from where, would have been very traceable, if time-consuming.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

O.o That was mighty weird.

I saw this in Craiglist by a car dealership:

"$587 Down & $63 A Week- 100% NOT BASED ON CREDIT! NO Jokes.---This program does work!---Your credit score does not matter here!---Approvals are based on income and time on the job."

How does this work? What is the catch? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a starting point, you can bet that the loan has a high APR and a long term. They'll require proof of employment (income/time on job). If they rip you off enough on the price of the car, the risk that you default while "underwater" on the loan is reasonably low. Any losses on such loans are (presumably) more than offset by the high rates on the performing loans. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give the price of the car, the interest rate or the term of the loan. If that's because the dealer didn't give them, then it is definitely a scam. You need that information to determine if it is a good deal or not. --Tango (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement did not provide price of car nor the interest rate. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the default answer is, "Yes, this is a scam." Tempshill (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After 5 years, you've paid $17,000. After 10 years, over $33,000. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Buddhists meditate together? If you slap a Buddhist on the face, will he offer the other side? Mr.K. (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mu. Tempshill (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mu?

Mr.K. (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is to unask the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.228.5 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one Chan master once famously said (about someone other than the OP, admittedly): "strike him dead with one swing of the stick." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a straight answer for once. Buddhists meditate both alone and together. The advantage of meditating together is partly for the shared experience, but also that one feels more obliged to be disciplined and quiet, rather than restless, so this helps the meditation. As for the slap question, this is not a tradition as it is with Christians (and I have seen a Christian do this), and I would think the slappee would be more likely to try to engage the slapper in conversation, depending very much on the mental state of each person at the time. There is, however, an apocryphal story of a master repeatedly asking his disciple about the sound of one hand clapping. Eventually the disciple got so tired of this question that he slapped his master on the face. The master beamed with delight and said "At last!"--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christians seem to favor the older passage about "An eye for an eye" rather than turning the other cheek, judging by examples of punches thrown in response to a slap. (The police inexplicable fail to record the faith of the participants in brawls.:-) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a punch for a slap is not the same as "an eye for an eye". A slap for a slap would be much closer... Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the trolls. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need a good guide to view magic eye images. I have read the article but I still am unable to. --Drogonov (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this (http://www.vision3d.com/methd02.html) site won't say anything you've not read but worth a read perhaps? ny156uk (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I do it is to put my eyes out of focus so that I'm not focusing on the image itself but on an imaginary point behind it. Just let your eyes go all fuzzy, is the only way I can describe it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have to relax your eyes so that you are looking through the image as if it's made of glass. Try focusing a short distance behind it and try shifting your focus so that you are focusing at different distances beyond it and you should suddenly see the fuzzy mess start to take 3D form. When you first 'get it' the temptation is to snap your focus onto the paper/book image, but this means you lose the 3D image straight away so it takes a bit of practice.Popcorn II (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to master but I'm begining to get it. Thanks. --Drogonov (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that you are one of perhaps 20%5% of the population who simply doesn't see in 3D. It's fairly common for babies to be born a little cross-eyed - and they almost always grow out of it - but if that doesn't happen within a few months, the part of the brain that provides the ability to see in 3D using stereopsis doesn't develop. Those people are unable to understand the 3D effect in magic-eye pictures no matter what. Do you find that the world looks 'flatter' when you close one eye? If not then this is almost certainly the reason. But if that's not the case then the trick is to notice the repetition in the image - and relax your vision so you start seeing double. Then the idea is to have the 'doubled' image of one repeat of the pattern line up exactly with the next repeat of the pattern. When you do that, the 3D effect should suddenly 'jump out' at you. It's vital that the picture is fairly exactly horizontal (so the pattern repetition happens along a line that's parallel to the line running through the center of your two eyes). There are several other techniques offered in our Autostereogram article. In ASCII stereogram there are some examples that work with simple ASCII text such as this one:

                     O              O
 OIWEQPOISDFBKJFOIWEQPOISDFBKJFOIWEQPOISDFBKJFOIWEQPOISDFBKJF
 EDGHOUIEROUIYWEVDGHOXUIEROIYWEVDGHEOXUIEOIYWEVDGHEOXUIEOIYWE
 KJBSVDBOIWERTBAKJBSVEDBOIWRTBAKJBSOVEDBOWRTBAKJBSOVEDBOWRTBA
 SFDHNWECTBYUVRGSFDHNYWECTBUVRGSFDHCNYWECBUVRGSFDHCNYWECBUVRG
 HNOWFHLSFDGWVRGHNOWFGHLSFDWVRGHNOWSFGHLSDWVRGHNLOWSFGLSDWVRG
 YPOWVXTNWFECHRGYPOWVEXTNWFCHRGYPOWNVEXTNFCHRGYPWOWNVETNFCHRG
 SVYUWXRGTWVETUISVYUWVXRGTWVETUISVYUWVXRGWVETUISVYUWVXRGWVETU
 WVERBYOIAWEYUIVWVERBEYOIAWEYUIVWVERBEYOIWEYUIVWLVERBEOIWEYUI
 EUIOETOUINWEBYOEUIOEWTOUINWEBYOEUIOEWTOUNWEBYOETUIOEWOUNWEBY
 WFVEWVETN9PUW4TWFVEWPVETN9UW4TWFVETWPVET9UW4TWFBVETWPET9UW4T
 NOUWQERFECHIBYWNOUWQXERFECIBYWNOUWFQXERFCIBYWNOFUWFQXRFCIBYW
 VEHWETUQECRFVE[VEHWERTUQECFVE[VEHWQERTUQCFVE[VEOHWQERUQCFVE[
 UIWTUIRTWUYWQCRUIWTUYIRTWUWQCRUIWTXUYIRTUWQCRUIBWTXUYRTUWQCR
 IYPOWOXNPWTHIECIYPOWTOXNPWHIECIYPONWTOXNWHIECIYLPONWTXNWHIEC
 R9UHWVETPUNRQYBR9UHWVETPUNRQYBR9UHWVETPUNRQYBR9UHWVETPUNRQYB

In this case, you need to cross your eyes just enough to have the two 'O's at the top double-image so that the rightmost doubled image of the left-hand O lines up with the leftmost doubled image of the right-hand O. When that happens, the repeated patterns of text should also line up - except for in the few places where the text is further or closer in the 'virtual' image. SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books look identical with one eye closed or both open. It seems as though I don't have the ability (sad face). Though I can cross my eyes and get the double image effect fairly easily, I cannot see a 3d image. --Drogonov (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. And I like to get my own back on those that can see the images, by using an Emperor's new clothes metaphor. The suggestion that no-one can really see anything in these images drives people wild until they realise my tongue is firmly in my cheek. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the image.Good stuff. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 10draftsdeep has just cunningly demonstrated that there is indeed a discernable 3D image in that pile of text up there...by recognising that this was cunning, I'm confirming that I too see the "Hidden Image" by posting this arcane acknowledgement. Hence, at least two people here can do it - and those who think it's impossible to see a 3D image there should probably read what I have to say below quite carefully!

It is certainly possible (indeed, likely) that at least one or two people who are following this thread literally lack the ability to see in three dimensions using stereopsis. It is thought that between 2% and 5% of people may have this problem! (I said 20% above - but that was incorrect - I was thinking "One in twenty" - I checked, it's 5%).

Stereoblindness covers this (albeit briefly). Amblyopia is about a more general problem - but actually explains things better...and it even points out that failure to detect 3D effects in autostereograms is a symptom of the problem. It has long been thought that people who fail to develop stereopsis in the first few months of life are forever doomed to seeing only in two dimensions (although they are hardly ever aware of the fact - and there are some other cues that enable some degree of depth perception without the ability to perform stereopsis). People who either 'grew out' of the original 'wandering eye' or 'squint' problem or were treated for it and can technically see correctly - may never have developed the brain circuitry to make use of it. What's interesting and new is that quite recently a few people with this condition have managed to train their brains to see in 3D again!

If you have this condition - I STRONGLY advise you to seek medical advice because with practice and determination, you could find yourself exposed to a whole new way of seeing the world...which you've got to admit would be kinda exciting! There was a radio interview with the lady who first managed to do this - and she is extremely excited about her new-found ability. There are some very specific exercises to try - but it takes time.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think i'll bring this up with an optician. Do I just say I can't see magic eye images? Or do I mention one of the conditions you've mentioned? Thanks for the assistance. --Drogonov (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might raise a chuckle and a "Well, lots of people can't do that - don't worry about it". I think you'd be better off saying that you suspect that you have "stereo blindness" - let the optician determine whether that's true and if so, whether the condition that caused it has subsequently 'gone away'. Whether basic opticians of the kind you find doing routine eye tests and selling overpriced sunglasses have the equipment that tests for that - I have no clue. Whether a normal optician would be able to suggest the necessary exercises is also something of an unknown. The place I learned about this phenomenon was in relation to a lady who is often called "Stereo Sue" in the literature. It was on NPR here, and also here - and subsequently here. SteveBaker (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to be unable to see magic eyes without having stereoblindness - I offer myself as case in point. I can sometimes see that there is something there in a magic eye but I can never get it to come into focus. However, I can see in 3D - I can see a distinct flatness when I look at certain things with only one eye open compared to both open. --Tango (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it takes a bit of practice and time. Once I get the proper focus, I can generally see any of the images right away, but not before at least a minute or two of adjusting my eyes for the first "image of the day". Even though I saw it yesterday, it took me once again a solid minute of staring and adjusting my gaze to see it today. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was first shown such images (many years ago when their quality was poorer), I doubted the veracity of the (then few) people who said they could see an image, and it was not until someone explained how they were printed that I worked out how to unfocus my eyes to see the image. I practised until I could see the images almost immediately, but I have now lost the skill. The image above doesn't seem to work in some screen resolutions? Dbfirs 20:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed I've seen the same symbol on many SLR cameras. It's a circle with a line bisecting it, looking like the Greek letter phi. It doesn't seem to mark any sort of control or display, it just is there. What is this symbol and what purpose does it serve on the camera? JIP | Talk 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the camera do you see it? Near the shutter release, the aperture adjustment, the shutter speed, the distance indicator, or where? If on the top or bottom it might indicate the film plane. Edison (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually on the top of the camera, somewhere near the prism. The only camera I can check at the moment is my own Olympus E-520, and there it's just next to the back left corner of the prism, between the prism and the flash pop-up button. The film plane explanation sounds plausible but it also appears on digital cameras. Is it there for historical reasons? JIP | Talk 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the location of the Film plane - i.e., the location where the film or sensor is positioned, and where the light from the lens will converge to be in sharp focus. --Zerozal (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer! I knew it had to have a reason for being there, but I couldn't figure out what it was. JIP | Talk 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in photography, focus distances are normally measured from the film/sensor plane. For example, the distance markings on your lens, and the "minimum focus distance" in its specifications, will be measured from there. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once civilization collapses, what would be the best way to get gasoline out of service station pumps which no longer work electrically? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious answer... Hand operated pump sounds like a good way, unless your gas station is on a tall hill. Then you can siphon. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humor...If I misinterpreted and you don't actually need to move the fuel into another tank, you just need it out of the gas station tank, I think a road flare would be of use, though the tank would probably not be in the best shape when you are done. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a hand fuel pump. Be aware that gasoline goes stale, usually in under a year. (Faster if it's got a alcohol in it.)

So be prepared to live in a post-gasoline world shortly after the Apocalypse. (On the plus side : No boring attempts to conserve it!)

Perhaps you should start thinking about converting a vehicle to Wood gas APL (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my intention was trying to get it into some sort of vehicle. Motorcycle for quick getaways from dangerous cannibals, trucks for hauling stuff liberated from empty stores.  :) I figured that the gas would probably not be viable after a while. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where would one living post-apocalypse be able to find a hand fuel pump? A sporting goods store? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're often used to fuel (or defuel) small yachts, so if you're in a coastal region, I recommend heading down to the nearest marina to try to pillage one. Probably other useful stuff there as well.APL (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camping equipment might also have some, though those would be designed for water most likely. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When people talk about gas going stale or getting gummy they're talking about running an engine on it, but after the apocalypse you'll probably be engaged in much humbler pursuits where the gasoline's flammability alone will be useful. In The Road, the protagonist just lowers a jar on a string to get gas out of an underground tank. --Sean 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Straight Dope article mentioned above doesn't actually answer the question of how long the gasoline in a sealed (well, "nominally sealed" as in normal, pre-apocalypse circumstances) underground gas station tank will last in sufficient state to allow a car or truck engine to run on it. It might actually be that an electric vehicle might be worth its weight in spam, if you live next to a working unattended nuclear reactor that has been left in the "on" position, or perhaps next to a wood-burning electric generator. Tempshill (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harder to find spare parts for, though. I wonder if diesel lasts longer? I mentioned Wood gas because I've heard of gas vehicles converted to run by cooking sawdust over a wood stove and piping the fumes directly into the engine. This is probably a major hassle, but after the gas runs out it might remain usable for some time. APL (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stale gas doesn't stop your car from running - it just makes it a little harder to start and run a little rough. You can always raid some abandoned car parts stores for octane booster. I think you'd still be able to run an older car with adjustable (non-computerized) carburettor for many years on the old gas lying around in gas stations. A hand pump would be OK - but a bucket on the end of a chain would be easier. You could probably cobble together a pump from old car parts - a fuel pump, some thin plastic tubing and a car battery would do just fine. SteveBaker (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget gasoline go hunting for Diesel engine cars and trucks. If you run out of diesel fuel from the gas stations, you can convert the motor to run on canola oil (other vegetable and food oils reportedly take more of an conversion effort). Flush out the engine and change all the filters before you fill it in. Find a good manual on Diesel engine adjustment. If your civilization collapse didn't kill off your local auto mechanic they should be able to do it. This can be done without too much effort and if you want to, you can then take your time developing the wood gas car. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, remember to keep a recent Wikipedia database dump / backup on DVD in a safe, together with a small electric generator and a laptop, for postapocalyptic use. Jørgen (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An electric generator will take fossil fuels. Perhaps you would consider a more environmentally friendly solar panel? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to worry about the environment if most of the human race has been wiped out. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Along with most of the infrastructure used to create petroleum based fuels. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it remains usable, you could run a computer for a very long time on the gas sitting around in filling stations, and have plenty to drive around with besides.

Neither the solar panel or the gasoline is a long-term solution you can reliably pass onto your children, however. Eventually the panel will fail and the fuel will run out, and there would be no way to replace either. APL (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out though that computers rapidly become pretty useless in such a world. The best use of them in such a situation that I can imagine is as a giant book, but even then, there are far less difficult ways to do that. Computers are a wonderful technology that really only do their thing in a world that is built to accommodate them. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted a computer - one of those OLPC gizmo's would be your best bet. You get a hand-cranked charger - no moving parts - very rugged case and ad-hoc networking with other such boxes (so no Internet infrastructure required). If you could find a warehouse full of them so you'd have plenty of spares, you could find uses for them. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hand-crank was dropped from the design fairly early on. There are some other power generation options though. More information at OLPC XO-1. --LarryMac | Talk 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned a computer because someone mentioned an offline Wikipedia copy. Which would be handy. Wikipedia can be a great resource for people suddenly in unfamiliar situations. APL (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if they still have pokemon cards in the postapocalyptic future. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of work on the connections, you could run a formerly electric pump from a car engine. One gas station would have enough to supply you for several years (depending on how many others survived nearby), giving you time to raid nearby stores for other supplies you will need in the long term. Liberate a fuel tanker and bring in supplies from other gas stations as yours runs low. While you still have fuel to generate electricity, print out WP and some science encyclopedias as the foundation knowledge base of your new civilsation.KoolerStill (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the message is to work like mad to avoid the collapse of civilization. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hosepipe. Get a section of hosepipe, block one end off, tie the other end to a long piece of string. Drop the hosepipe down the pipe hole, pull it back up with the string. Repeat. 78.146.162.232 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of occupation would make the most sense if one likes to read anything and everything voraciously? The only thing said person has tried and failed to finish due to lack of interest is the dictionary. Thank you, The Reader who Writes (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to finish the dictionary???? I read dictionaries before I go to bed - it's a wonderful way to switch my mind off for the night!--TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but not anymore. I finished the thick Oxford companion in about 3 months. It was an addiction. - DSachan (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All just to find out in the end that the zebra did it? To be honest, I saw it coming, but aardvark was an early suspect. Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you turned two pages at once - there was a final twist in the tale - Zygmunt Żuławski did it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "bathroom books" over the years have included several dictionary-like things, such as George R. Stewart's American Place-names and Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. One needn't remember anything between sessions. —Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a security guard/night watchman usually allows plenty of time to sit around reading.Popcorn II (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could work in the Press office for a major firm - lots of companies have staff whose job it is to look for references of the business in media (positive and negative) though the type of reading is not for fun so much as scanning. More obvious (but presumably harder to attain) they could be a book-critic, an editor for a publisher or a proof-reader (for novels/texts). There are many many jobs which are heavy on reading but rarely do you 'choose' what you read (to my knowledge). ny156uk (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be cut out to be a writer. I have heard it said that the best way to learn to write -- is to read. So, paradoxically, your occupation may be in writing, with reading only serving an ancillary function. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've heard plenty of writers say that reading a lot is very important. Particularly for writing fiction, I think. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a writer, I kind of agree. They say that you need to write a million bad words out of your system to get to the good ones, and there's truth to that -- it takes a lot of practice to become a good writer. But I think you can probably cut down on the amount of "bad words" in you by learning some good ones, and while writing stupid crap and then realizing that it was stupid, and then later on realizing precisely why it was stupid played an important role in my own learning process, I've probably learned more from reading something I thought was awesome and then figuring out why it's awesome. That's a kind of a semi-active process, though: you need to pay attention to what you're reading and analyze it as you go, and if you've never done that before, it can be difficult to figure out just what it is the writer is doing on any given page, and why -- how the writer is manipulating the reader, essentially. Once you get it down, it becomes second nature, and it's really, really useful when you're writing things yourself, because there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Another important point is that if you don't know what's good and what's bad, you're not going to write very well -- and the only way to tell the difference is to read enough to refine your taste. And, of course, the more you know, the more you have to work with when you're actually writing regardless of what it is you actually write -- journalism, fiction, literary criticism (in which case reading a lot would be an obvious prerequisite), or whatever. So, yeah, reading is really, really important for a writer.

That said, though, being a voracious reader doesn't automatically mean writing is the thing for you. I mean, I'm not at all sure there's a correlation between the two; the processes involved are pretty different, and so are the pleasures. My point is that just reading a lot doesn't by itself indicate that you would do well as a writer, or perhaps more importantly, that you would particularly enjoy being one. It's certainly worth a shot if the idea seems appealing, but it's a little like saying that maybe you'd like to be a movie director because you like watching movies a lot or maybe you'd like to be a cook because you really like to eat well. Sure, you might, but it's not really the same thing.

And yes, careerwise it can absolutely be a hard slog. My years of freelance journalism and other gigs are starting to be behind me, and I now find myself doing pretty cool work where I can actually sit down and write and really satisfy that creative urge, but it certainly took me a pretty long time -- about a decade, really -- to get to a point where my writing is actually providing me with a steady income and I don't have to supplement that with other work. But it's worth noting that all the weird little gigs I did before, all the stupid pop culture crap I crammed into my brain over the years did a pretty wonderful job of preparing me precisely for this kind of work. Still, if I had children to support, it would've been hard to reach this point. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checker and copy editor for Wikipedia, though those positions currently offer no pay, health benefits, or accolades. You didn't mention how good this person's memory is — that makes a difference. Tempshill (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your help is much appreciated. I do write some fiction, but it does not seem to be a very secure job to have. My memory is fine, although I can be absentminded at times. Thanks again, The Reader who Writes (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreader for translators would be a good one. You would get things from practically every field under the sun, that way. There are websites where you can register for free, and documents then get sent to you by email. You read them at home, correct any grammatical errors, and send them back. Easy job and very interesting sometimes. Being a professional translator it's also another aspect of the work I do. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are becoming rather rare. It's hard enough to pay translators with what companies are budgeting these days. Many agencies have cut proofreading. (Judging from the many typos and mistakes I find in books, magazines and newspapers, so have many other former employers for this service.) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But my main agent still asks me to proofread other translators' works, even though they never proofread mine. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there are jobs with publishers - going through the proofs of a gazillion amateur books looking for one worth publishing? If nothing else, that might finally be the thing that blunts your reading voracity! SteveBaker (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, a publisher's reader. Depending on the size and nature of the publisher, the same person may also work as a book editor, but typically the job goes to an editor's assistant who separates the wheat from the chaff so the editor doesn't have to. Going through the slush pile can be a hell of a job, since the crap/gold ratio is pretty terrible (but at least you don't need to read through the entire manuscript to realize it's crap)... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians have to do a lot of reading. They get to read more summaries than full books, though. You could start a book club (like this guy [3] and suggest books you read to your subscribers. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the place where this was asked, I'm surprised reference librarian wasn't mentioned sooner. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say lawyer. But the fact that you couldn't finish the dictionary is worrying - many/most^{[citation needed]} legal papers make the dictionary read like a thriller. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the judgments of Lord Denning, then. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary agent?

If OP goes for that last one and actually reads the manuscripts he might be the first and only one IMHO. They usually skim or ask for a summary and then do the promoting (don't get your hopes up too high on that either) and negotiating. Not that someone who did a thorough job wouldn't be most welcome. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]