December 15

I am continuing from my last question.

So, according to the United Nations, 2000-2005 means from the beginning of the year 2000 to the end of the year 2004 and 1950-1970 means from the beginning of the year 1965 to the end of the year 1969? So 2000-2005 means from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2005 and 1965-1970 means from 1 Januray 1965 to 1 January 1970? Is this what they mean?

So, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1901-1910 means from the beginning of the year 1901 to the end of the year 1910 and 1999-2001 means from the beginning of the year 1999 to the end of the year 2001? So 1901-1910 means from 1 January 1901 to 1 January 1911 and 1999-2001 means from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2002? Is this what they mean?

So the United Nations doesn't have any data or records at all for life expectancy, infant mortality rate, or death rate in any one particular year, one year period, part of a year, or less than one year period? So the Australian Bureau of Statistics doesn't have any data or records at all for life expectancy in any one particular year, one year period, part of a year, or less than one year period?

When the United Nations says the 2000 Revision of World Population Prospects for 2000-2005, what does that mean? Does it mean from the beginning of 2005 to a point in time in 2005 before the revision is made that year? And the same is for the 2001 and 2002 revisions for 2000-2005, the 1965, 1966, and 1967 revisions for 1965-1970, and other revisions of World Population Prospects?

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your statement "according to the United Nations" means you've found a statistical definition? If yes, then you don’t need to ask how the UN defines 2000-05. If no, then as someone who deals with UN-type statistics for most of every working day, I would say the data refer to the complete year of 2000 as a starting point – not the first day, but the entire period – to the complete year of 2005 as an ending point.

Governments conduct census surveys every five to ten years, and the UN is almost totally dependent on national surveys for their data. While it certainly is possible to estimate what the life expectancy (etc.) might be in a given year, or even on a given day, the questions of accuracy and certainty overwhelm any use one might wish to put such information.

Some governments might actually conduct a partial survey every year, in which case there might be annual data published in their websites and publications. But, since a full-blown survey takes many weeks or months, it is simply not feasible to have survey data of less than a year’s validity. In most cases.

As the very first sentence of the very first Google hit for “The 2000 Revision of World Population Prospects” indicates, the study “Presents the 2001 Revision of the official estimates and projections of the size and growth of urban and rural populations for the 228 countries or areas of the world for the period 1950-2030.”

I hope that answers your question.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what you want but haven't any clear impression. If life expectancy was calculated on a particular day of the year it could differ markedly from another day because there was a flu going round killing old people on one of the days. You need the smoothing effect of at least a year of figures to get something meaningful. And the figures don't change that rapidly so it makes very little difference if the time period covered starts in July or January. Complete years of one kind or another would be usual though if only to make the maths easier about the smoothing. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then wouldn't the periods of statistics by the United Nations actually overlap? I mean, if 2000-2005 means from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2005 and 2005-2010 means from the beginning of 2005 to the end of 2010, wouldn't the periods overlap? So the periods of statistics used by the United Nations actually overlaps?

Are these periods the only ones the United Nations uses for these statistics? Are these periods here the only one one the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses for life expectancy ? Are they?

No, that doesn't answer it. I am just asking if these is what these periods mean. Are they what they mean? Are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just had a look on the web and found UN figures for 2005-2010 so I think it is pretty clear these are estimates rather than based on directly the specific years. But it makes little difference as the figures change only slowly. I still have no idea what you are getting at because you seem very worked up about this and I can't see it mattering much. I feel like someone asked to find the height of the trees in an estate when what the person is really interested in is whether they can fall on the house. Dmcq (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian data clearly overlaps: 1994-1996, then 1995-1997, 1996-1998. So, if you were born in 1996, there are three possible outcomes: 74.5 years, 75.8 and 76.1 (respectively). My guess is that these are averages. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though you should really use the current year and life tables to see how long you now expect to live. If you've just reached 74.5 it doesn't mean your going to fall over in the next week. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on driving to New York City in January with three friends. I'm trying to find the cheapest hotel option for three nights in the New York area. I’m thinking that it would be cheaper to stay in New Jersey and take a bus into the city. Can anyone with some knowledge of the area recommend a good place to stay? Is it cheaper to stay in NJ? I know a hostel or couch surfing would be cheaper but unfortunately my friends are lame and not considering those options. Thanks for any help!--ChesterMarcol (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define "good". I have stayed at a motel near the Newark Airport and it was reasonably priced. Not exactly a scenic area, it was basically smack in the middle of a huge warehouse district, so it was strictly utilitarian. But you may find places to stay in that area if you are willing to drive into the city. --Jayron32 04:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By good I mean as cheap as possible, but not so cheap that the rooms are rented by the hour. I was hoping to find something near a bus stop so we wouldn't have to drive into the city and pay to park and wipe out all the cost savings.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For cheap options both in and out of city, you could try "name your own price" on Priceline - can be very cheap if you book some time ahead - or subletting an apartment, on Craigslist, which I imagine could get you something decently priced when you are four people. Some of the places around Newark can be hard to reach with public transport, though they might have a shuttle to the airport from where you can take the bus or train. I'd start with the route plan for subway and local trains here and look for something close to that (no; I'd pay some more to live in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, or Jersey City, but that's not what you asked...) Jørgen (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend hotels.com. You can look at other people's ratings, as well as sort the choices by price. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born in NYC and living in NJ, I would not recommend Hotels.com. Rather, check out things like Red Roof Inn or Motel 6, which probably offer the lowest rates and would not be considered classy enough for Hotels.com. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to recommend specific hotels? I have a few ideas for hotels in Brooklyn. I also recommend using tripadvisor.com. --Blue387 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that would say you can't recommend specific hotels. Maybe put it on my talk page if someone gets angry, I would appreciate it. The best deal I have found is at the Best Western in Long Island City.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to get someone a digital camera for Christmas. I really want to stay in the $150 ball park. Currently, I am looking at the Olympus Stylus FE 5010 and 5020 (12 MP, 5x optical zoom). What specs should I consider when purchasing? Do you folks have any recomendations? Thank you.Chrisbystereo (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get a handle on desirable features and tradeoffs among makes and models in your price range, I recommend this Digital Camera Buying Guide from Consumers Union, or this one from PCMag. A manufacturer's website will give a lot of details about its models but obviously not much by way of comparison. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site dpreview.com has lots of indepth reviews of cameras (though focusses more on SLR ones). I also use TrustedReviews as they often do quite good reviews too. I would also recommend searching for photos taken by the camera on Flickr and see what sort of quality the camera is capable of. I know that's a very subjective one, but there's nothing like seeing the output of a camera to get a good idea for what it's capable of. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general - you want something with a really good lens, even if it has less megapixels. My son's 4 megapixel SLR (which can take professional three inch lenses) produces VASTLY better photos than my 12 megapixel handi-cam with it's crappy half-inch lens. You also want something with as little shutter lag as possible. There is nothing worse than trying to snatch a photo of some action and finding that there is a half second delay between pushing the button and the photo being snapped. However, a lot depends on what you want. There is a lot of difference between a "Point and shoot" camera where everything is automated and you don't have to think - and a fancy "pro" camera with a gazillion tweakable things. Don't get the kind you don't realistically want! SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just this (from a DSLR owner) - one, every 'pro' camera has an auto mode (I think), and two, once you get past the point-and-shoot phase to the 'tweak it all' phase, it's here that the fun starts. I would never go back to a smallish quasi-camera, even at the cost of having to lug my three-pound monster with me - it's all in the picture quality. And the authentic sound of the shutter ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 17:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget maintenance and repairs. Most of the high street photography shops can't help and they charge an arm and a leg to send the camera back to the manufacturer - at a significant add-on price. I am fortunate to live in Scotland near Glasgow where there is a wonderful camera repair workshop about 5 storeys above the expensive High Street near Central Station. Last time I was there it was to have my broken battery compartment door fixed - with a 6 months guarantee - for a very reasonable price. And when asked which camera gave the best service before needing an inexpensive repair, the engineer announced without hesitation, "Canon - whatever the model". 92.21.229.101 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One piece of advice you probably already know. If it's a choice between one with 3x optical and 10x digital zoon and one with 10x optical and 3x digital zoom, go for the one with the best optical zoom. Digital zoom is great for image through the viewfinder, but is next to useless as far as the final image is concerned. The shutter lag point and several of the others raised are also very good ones. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make money from creating pages/articles on Wikia? Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 12:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The owners of Wikia, Wikia, Inc., would, as they make money through advertising. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not impossible. Wikia is a hosting site for Wiki's of all kinds. You could (for example) use a Wiki as a place to discuss interesting uses for some commercial product that you'd make and sell - and the Wiki would serve (indirectly) as advertising and product support. Perhaps you could even pursuade a company to pay you for creating a Wiki about their product - everyone loves "grass roots support". For example, there is a 'Call of Duty' computer game Wiki on Wikia. Doubtless, that is helping Activision to make money. If you had started that - maybe you could have gotten Activision to pay you for doing it. But if you're expecting there to be some place where you sit down and write an article and someone hands you $10 for doing it - forget it! SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also MyWikiBiz. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, how can you be an expert on chess theory but a mediocre player? I can understand being an expert in baseball theory, for instance, but being no good at the game, because it takes physical ability. But chess is a mental game. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he can't stand the pressure of actually playing, in the one-on-one game situation. It's something that happens to sports players in all sports: performance stress. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the same theme, how many great coaches in a sport were also great players. The things it takes to teach someone are not always the same things it takes to perform them. The same could be true for both physical and intellectual games. --Jayron32 14:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or he could be amazing at chess, but he takes a long time, so he can not do well at timed games. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: an expert musicologist might easily be a mediocre musician, an great art critic might not be able to draw a straight line with a ruler, and a terrific auto mechanic could be a lousy driver.

It works the other way around, too. Capablanca was non-existant as a theoretician. The first chess book he read was one he wrote. He kept up with the latest chess theory by having innovations played against him in the early rounds of tournaments, and presenting improvements in the later rounds. Of course folk such as Morphy, Steinitz, and Lasker were both cutting edge theoreticians and great practical players.

László's strength is as a coach, not as a player (although he's not all that bad); as a theoretician he's okay, but he's certainly not in Tarrasch, Nimzovich, or Botvinnik's league. (Nice enough guy, though ... I know him slightly. Very slightly.) B00P (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My brother and I are taking a road trip from Mass. to West Palm Beach, FL on an extremely limited budget. We rented the cheapest economy car and with unlimited mileage. We plan to spend xmas with relatives but on our way down, does anyone suggest any sites to see? What should we bring with us? I think we would be mostly on I95. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of places near I-95 that would be of interest, depending on what you want to see. You could start with our article on Interstate 95 to narrow some candidates and then further investigate on tourism-oriented sites. I recommend you grab a good atlas and quarters for a laundromat, and make sure you know how to fix a flat tire with the car's emergency jack. — Lomn 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on how long you want to take. There's tons of stuff to see between Massachusetts and Washington D.C. Most of everything south of Washington D.C. on I-95 is pretty boring (except South of the Border, a must stop, if you ask me). If you have an extra day to spend anywhere, I would definately recommend spending a day at the Smithsonian Institution. There are a few must-see's at the Smithsonian:

• The Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (aka the Air and Space Annex) located at Dulles Airport. Its a HUGE museum with lots of really big planes and spacecraft and missles and stuff that wouldn't fit in the main Air and Space museum. Really cool stuff. Since its so far away from the rest of the Smithsonian, it would probably be all you do for the day. But the upside is that you could spend like half a day here, and still get some driving in, since its right off of Virginia State Route 267, which is a short trip off of the Beltway and easy access.
• The National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History. Parking is rough in the city, so your best bet is to find a metro station in the Suburbs and take the train in. I'm usually coming from the south, so I use Pentagon City Station, because of the ample parking and ease of access. If you are coming from the North, you may find a decent stop on that side of the city. Take the metro and get off at the Federal Triangle stop, which is the closest to these museums. They are right next to each other, and if you go here, be sure to check out the Old Post Office Pavilion which has a pretty good food court for lunch, and is also an easy walk.

If you have a day to spend somewhere else, Charleston, South Carolina is pretty neat. The old historic part of the city will remind you a bit of old Boston. Get the tour of Fort Sumter if you stop here.

As far as driving goes, some good things to keep in mind is that the I-95 auxiliary routes actually usually make better bypasses of their cities than I-95 itself. For example, you'll probably want to take Interstate 895 (Maryland) to get through Baltimore and Interstate 295 (Virginia) around Richmond, Virginia. There's also some tricks I have to get around NYC, but its pretty complicated, so I'll save that for another time. --Jayron32 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will only be traveling for a week. Washington DC sounds good. Is it expensive? We are talking about chips and soda only for lunch and dinner!--Reticuli88 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian museums in DC are all free, so your expenses would be parking, metro fare and food if you want to eat and souvenirs if you are interested in those. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Udvar-Hazy Center is free but the only way in is by paying very expensive parking fees. In my experience, if you show up very late in a day (a few hours before they close) they don't seem to care about charging you for parking, though. (And note that Udvar-Hazy is technically "huge", but there isn't TOO much too look at compared to the other Smithsonians, because the things to look at are pretty huge as well. It is a cool place to see planes up close, though. If it were me, though, and I had to make a choice, I'd choose the downtown air and space museum. If you are not a plane nut, or don't have time to kill before you head into Dulles, Udvar-Hazy is not as interesting, IMO.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's no more than you'd pay for downtown parking and/or suburban parking + metro fair for two into the city. You're not going to pay any more, by the end of the day, to visit the Udvar-Hazy Center, but it may be an easier "in and out" if you are trying to squeeze it in on a day of travel. --Jayron32 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting -- and free -- place to visit is Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, resting place of two U.S. presidents and Jefferson Davis. Kind of freaky as a northerner, though, to see the Confederate flags people still put at the graves of their ancestors. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't any free real time stock market prices available over the net? (at least I think so) Technically, it shouldn't be a big deal to offer them. Many sites are already offering delayed quotes anyway.--Mr.K. (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal technologically, but it's a big deal in terms of market value. A lot of money is spent getting real-time prices ahead of the freely-available delayed quotes. Someone would have to forego that revenue stream to provide real-time prices freely, and no one's business plan provides for that at present. — Lomn 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not entirely true There's plenty of sites you can sign-up to and access real-time prices without ever paying. iii (interactive investor) allow you to sign-up without a cost. Also don't Yahoo-finance do 'real-time' prices? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Yahoo, I find "Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise. Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, NYSE and Amex." prominently displayed. They'll offer you real-time prices at a cost. Interactive Investor prominently displays the same 15 minute delay. — Lomn 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo does offer real-time quotes for free. In the detailed quote page, immediately under the stock name ("BERKSHIRE HATH HLD B (NYSE: BRK-B)") in the center of the page is a real-time quote, prefaced by "Real-Time" and with the current time (9:48 am as I write this). It differs slightly from the delayed quote which is in the top-right part of the page, above the chart (9:33 am). There is also a "Real-Time" link in the navigation panel on the left. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Google Finance's are real time (See here). This is partly because of the technical limitations of such a transfer, and probably more importantly, a desire to not make the exchange itself pointless. Traders like to feel "special" (don't we all?). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about feeling 'special'; it's about the exchange making money. The exchange charges substantial amounts of hard cash for their real-time data, and they see no good reason to cut off that revenue stream. Some websites offer free real-time quotes for a small number of stocks or for a limited number of quotes per user; these are primarily teasers to plug their for-pay offerings. (In principle, I suppose there might also be some websites which cover the costs of a real-time quotes service through other revenue streams like on-site advertising or by selling their subscriber lists. Either way, someone, somewhere, is coughing up cash to the exchange to get those real-time numbers.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investors can have real time prices through online brokers, such as Schwab. Free, except, of course, for commissions if you trade. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "because they can charge a lot for real-time info" note, there is a current business model among some traders that uses computer trading algorithms to make rapid trades. The thought is that by beating your competitors to the bid when a stock starts to swing, you'll be able to eke out a little extra per trade, which adds up. It's gotten to the point where even the millisecond delays involved in sending the trade over the internet is too much - investment companies pay lots of money to co-locate their trading servers in the same building with the ones which process the transactions, so they can respond several milliseconds faster. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by someone who lives there that Wildwood, New Jersey, is on Mud Island. I have been unable to find a good source for this information online. Can someone provide a reliable source that I can use in the articles on Wildwood, North Wildwood, etc.? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Google? Typing the unsurprising phrase "Mud Island New Jersey" into google got me this stuff: [1]. Worth a shot... --Jayron32 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood, New Jersey and three other municipalities on the same island are on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean in Cape May County, New Jersey. Only one of the links on the page from Google is a possible link to Wildwood. The others are on the Delaware River, or way north of Wildwood, or even in other states. The only link possibly for Wildwood shows a photo of a roller coaster on "Mud Island," and does not say Wildwood. Is that to be considered a reliable and informative link for the Wildwood, New Jersey article? Not good enough for me to add to the Wildwood article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Geography questions belong here, or over in Science like Geology? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is as good as anywhere. What's the question? --Jayron32 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was the question. Around here, meta-questions can also be considered questions in their own right. We don't discriminate; we're not questionist. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous, Jack! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the geography joke question it belongs on the geography joke reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If geography questions belong in Humanities, maybe I should change the list under to Humanities to include geography. Oh, and I asked the question about the proper place for geography questions because I just asked a geography question in the above section about Mud Island. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That puts Dthomsen8 firmly between a rock and a hard place. . .DOR (HK) (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe between two places, or even three. My opinion is now that Geography questions should be under Science, not Humanities or Miscellaneous. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know because there are so many different kinds of Geography questions, then in the absence of its own desk, I'd think Miscellaneous would be best. I can answer a few geography questions, but I never visit the Science Desk. There might similarly be geologists, geophysicists and meteorologists who never visit the Humanities Desk.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the fastest (save cost/save time ) way to tell a girl , cut the crab, "lets hump"... am in a hurry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always try "fancy a fuck?" --TammyMoet (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just say, "Cut the crab (?), lets hump", as you suggested? I am sure it is going to be as effective as anything else provided here. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted to save time and money, it would be much faster to slap yourself in the face (and optionally kick yourself in the balls) than try that approach. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of something I read about in a book of unbelievable pick-up lines that have actually been used by real people. The guy says to the girl "How about we get out here, get some pizza, go back to my place and fuck". She slaps his face. He says "What's the matter? Don't you like pizza?" -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the reason you are in a hurry. If it is because you have a dental or doctor appointment at a short point away, it is expected that a potential paramour will include reference to the medical professional's license number. But if the courting stranger is in a rush due to pressing professional work, it is the general procedure to note the concept behind the project you are working on. Many daring Dartfishes use prerecorded messages for these purposes. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman of course made a similar recommendation. "You just ask them". Women are not an alien species and do not need to be addressed in a special language. 213.122.34.45 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely steer clear of all references to the crabs. SteveBaker (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the philosophy student who invited his girl to join him in a conversation about the hereafter whilst on a moonlit drive in the remote countryside. "The hereafter?" she queried. "Yeah" he replied, "if you're not here after the same thing i'm here after, you'll be here after i'm gone". 92.21.229.101 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold a gun to her head. 78.144.207.126 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in such a hurry, I suggest a date with Miss Palm instead. As to the young lady I think she'll be better of declining you, on the basis of your classy performance here. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preface the asking by following the advice of this old proverb, "On Ice-Breaking", by Ogden Nash: "Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on, why are you advising young ladies against casual sex? Are you performing some kind of public service in saying that? Are you sure? Even if 203.122.36.6 isn't very classy, he must have a female counterpart (or feasibly, be female). The meme that says women don't get horny diminishes the quality of life for everybody. 213.122.34.45 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it's the young lady's business whether she's interested in our OP in that way, and that some of the alarming suggestions being made here with a greater or lesser degree of seriousness (firearms, liquor, bribery) don't take that into account. Indeed, they could easily be seen as tending in the opposite direction, and that would be bad. To quote Woody Allen: Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone you love. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned cold, hard cash. Start laying large denomination bills in her hand, and when you have her attention pop the question. Continue laying down the cash until she either agrees or proves that she has at least a bit of taste by [r]ejecting your worthless butt. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"!"! So many people never read the question - the OP wrote "(save cost/save time )" which rules out spending much/any money. 78.144.247.113 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try one of those personals site directed at sex? There seems to be a lot of them although I'm not sure in India. Presuming you're referring to this type crab instead of the SB one, may I suggest you take care? Sure some girls may like a good seafood dinner but if she's allergic I doubt she'll appreciate it. Also I believe it's more common to crush the crab (usually with a hammer), if you try to cut it without crushing (unless it's preshelled) you'll probably be at the restaurant all day leaving little time for 'humping'. Just a thought... Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in some sort of long-term relationship with the girl, it should be fairly simple to tell her this, and you are more likely to get a favourable response. But I honestly can't imagine that is the case here... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he's buying her seafood dinners it may be a fairly established relationship. On the other hand he may just be rich or perhaps he buys crabs for all his 'dates'. Actually do we even know if the OP is male? Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

which is the most unique baby name in this world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are quite a lot of contenders for the "name that only one baby has" prize. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not wishing to be pedantic here, but you need to frame your question a little differently. Unique means there is only one example. There must be many made-up names that have only ever been used once, so none of them is more or less "unique" than any other. Are you interested in any names that have been used extremely rarely (if not necessarily uniquely)? Or are you after names that are particularly laugh-worthy? It's completely subjective - but we can at least come up with some examples that might fit that bill. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Wikipedia articles about people with unusual names? Try Wikipedia:Unusual articles#Names. --Jayron32 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of questionably-named celebrity children, and here is our own list of unusual personal names; surely there is only one Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel! --Sean 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there has ever been a baby called that, though. Algebraist 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THere has been a baby called Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 however. Well, until the gubmint put a stop to it. --Jayron32 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the pronunciation for that? What do you know? It is actually given in the article! 65.121.141.34 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tarquin F*l wasn't ever the name of a baby - he changed his name long after his birth! But for sure, there must be hundreds of thousands of made-up names given to babies - all of which qualify as "most unique". You might argue that an even more unique name would be a "baby name" that hasn't yet been given to any baby - but there are an infinite number of them! SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Freakonomics, nearly 30 percent of black girls born in California receive a name that no other baby in the state received in the same year! (More than 100,000 "white" girls are born each year in the state, and with whites making up less than 50% of the population, we can assume at least 200,000 girls are born each year in the state. I'm too lazy to go surfing through the Census's website to get the exact number.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A side point that I'm amazed no-one has pointed out so far - there's no such thing as a "most unique" anything. Either something's unique (only one case) or it's not unique. There are probably quite a few names which only one person has - there may well be quit a lot that only one person ever has had. These names would all be equally unique. Some of them may well be mentioned in this article. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you'd disagree with Elaine about their being big coincidences and small coincidence then? :-) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.225.227 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]