December 20

On page 38 of the most recent edition of The New Yorker, "World Changers," there's one of those myTouch3g ads. Who's the guy with Phil Jackson and Whoopi Goldberg? The ad says his first name is Jesse. I'm sure I ought to know who this guy is, but I have no clue and he appears in a lot of ads. I wish I knew how to provide a link. Thanks. InspectorSands (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this ad then it is Jesse G. James. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same guy. Thanks. Is that show so famous? Never heard of the guy. Feeling old all of a sudden. InspectorSands (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purely WP:OR here but I know that I can't go for more than a week or two without seeing an WCC shirt or hat. And not just on teenage kids but adults as well. So, yeah, it's popular. Dismas|^(talk) 07:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That show is kind of popular, but the only reason that guy is famous is because he's married to Sandra Bullock. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One could easily claim he got to marry Sandra Bullock because he had the famous show first. The show was on the air from June 2002, and Sandra married him on July 16, 2005. He was already somewhat famous even before Monster Garage as he had done numerous motorcycles for many famous people. I probably could have identified him before 2000 on appearance alone. Monster Garage was created with him on is specifically because he was already well known. Now, the Teutul family probably did become famous because of their show, but Jesse James has been well known for quite a while. --Jayron32 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then "famous to some people", because it did not even occur to me that there were two motorcycle shows... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Garage was a car show. Jesse James was already well-known for his motorcycle work well before he was ever on that show. Well, as you say, well-known among some people. But both Monster Garage and the Bullock marriage were products of his fame, not causes of it. His primary source of fame is making custom motorcycles for rich people. At least its a craft. Some people are famous for much less. --Jayron32 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less? More? I guess it depends what you measure! SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our brand new car was recently involved in a front end collision. The damage is relatively minor on the whole but I am wondering whether the damage bill is likely to be greater due to the car being turbocharged. The front mount intercooler has sustained significant damage and as a result, I am left wondering whether there is likely to have been any damage to the relevant pipes to the turbo (likely) and, most significantly, if the engine would be affected. (Possibly turbo as well?)

Also, is there any other damage I should look for in such accidents?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added on 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a car mechanic, but my first car had a front-end accident where it skidded on black ice into the back of a car which had a towbar fitted. Despite the only visible damage being a towbar-shaped dent in the bumper, the car was a write-off because the impact had "cracked the sub-frame", which I believe is a part of the chassis. Should be worth getting it checked over professionally. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have insurance, it's best to just let them sort it out. Dismas|^(talk) 11:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@TammyMoet, a subframe is part of what monocoque cars have in place of a chassis the length of the vehicle. --203.202.43.53 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now I know! Thanks for telling me - it's been 30 years since that accident and I never knew until now! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Questioner, you had two options here: a) go and ask a professional car mechanic b) ask random strangers on the internet. What made you go with option b? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option (c) was to take it to Car Talk, where the Magliozzi brothers would have given him a good ribbing for considering option (b). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was seeking a completely unbiased opinion - asking a mechanic in this situation, he may underquote initial damage cost estimation to gain your business (via insurer), then seek more later for more extensive damage that 'became apparent during repair'. You get?

The intercooler probably needs replaced, then, so sure, it's one more part to fix. Might be more expensive due to this. I doubt you'd get significant engine damage from a minor collision, but the way to know for sure is to get it looked at. Friday (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really tough to know - the intercooler might have acted as protection/crumple-zone for some more expensive engine part right behind it - and thereby saved a lot of damage/expense - or it might be that the intercooler got smashed and if it were not there, then no damage would have been sustained.

Is nestle milk Pak Pakistan a monopolistic or perfect competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.43.52 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which teacher gave you this question? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking monopoly and perfect competition might give you some clues. Grutness...wha? 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am at a bit of a lose end searching for australian town/cities,postcodes,regions and states as I want to down load the complete excell spread sheet as per below example;but for the whole of Australia

EXAMPLE

Town/city, postcode, region, state

Sussex Inlet,2540, Southcoast, NSW

I notice that you have the information but I cannot find it all together at one point.

Please advise if you can be of help.

Many thanks

Geofmac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofmac (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could download the entire Postcode database from Australia Post here. It's available in CSV. Nanonic (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what porcelain company used a gold bell as its trade mark?Beanyxxx (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site (http://www.oldandsold.com/pottery/usa3.shtml) has pages and pages of marks, a bell appears reasonably common so you'd need to look and try find one that matches. On the page I linked there is 'Bellmark Pottery Co, Trenton, N.J" so it could be them. ny156uk (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an average flight did anyone actually pay the full $10,000 for a ticket or is everybody an upgrade? Blueframe (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the airlines keep this information confidential for competitive reasons (and to not anger all their full-fare-paying First Class passengers), but this chatroom thread has some allegedly knowledgeable people talking about this question. One guy claimed it was an average of 1 full-fare First Class revenue seat per international flight (he probably means transoceanic), and the others have some sort of corporate discount. It's all OR, so take it with a grain of salt; I haven't found any real statistics. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good long time ago I remember a newspaper (Sunday Times I think) showed a seating plan for a particular flight. There was a huge range of fares paid for the same class of seat. It really does pay to shop around.Froggie34 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

without paying or being a long member of a rewards program? Blueframe (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of some tips on trying to get upgrades. Mostly you have to pay or use your miles. Not listed in that article: Be an airline employee. They get to fly for close to free, and are seated in First Class if the space is available. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if there isn't space in First they may have to make do with a jump seat, which is probably worse than economy/coach. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enter a relationship with a member of the cabin crew. Fly on his/her flights. Take holidays together, pay Econ, get on-board upgrade from friendly crew.Froggie34 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rich dumb blonde boards an aeroplane to Las Vegas and the stewardess directs her to her seat at the back of First Class. The blonde protests "I wanna sit in the front row!". "Sorry Miss, your ticket says your seat is not for that row". The blonde exsplodes "Don't you know who I am? I am B___ S____ and I can sit anywhere I want, and if I don't get what I want I'll buy this airline and start by firing your ass...". The stewardess calls the pilot on the intercom: "Sir, we have a problem here. One passenger won't take her seat and regulations say we can't take off until everyone is seated. She seems upset." The pilot replies "Send her to the cockpit and I'll have a word with her". So the blonde, still protesting goes to the cockput. A minute later she emerges and quietly goes to her proper seat. The stewardess calls the pilot again "Sir what did you say to her, she seemed so determined to get her way?". The pilot replied "I told her the front seats go to Chicago." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When traffic's heavy and more people want seats than a flight has seats available, an airline will sometimes seek volunteers to be "bumped" off that flight and take another, often with a first-class upgrade and a free ticket coupon thrown in. That happened to me when I was transferring between America West planes in their hub at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas at the same time that the city was hosting a huge COMDEX (computer expo) in October 1991. The downside is that you should be prepared to hang around the airport until the next open flight. (Being Las Vegas, the airport had no pinball machines, only one-armed bandits which held no interest for me.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a doctor helps. My brother-in-law always registers for his flights as "Dr So-and-so" rather than "Mr So-and-so", and frequently gets a free upgrade. (Of course the "price" is that you're obliged to help out in a medical emergency if needed.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad gets the same treatment - he has a PhD in botany! --Tango (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His services could come in handy if a passenger was toting a jet-lagged philodendron. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it now - in a 2010 re-make of "Day of the Triffids"..."OMG! Is there a botanist on the plane? Is anybody here a botanist?? Oh thank-you Doctor Tango - it's at the back of coach-class. If it would help, we have a small plastic hoe and a single-serving bag of weed-killer in the emergency supplies." SteveBaker (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on a NYC A train in September when it ran over a person on the tracks. Because I was wearing scrubs, another passenger told me to go see if he's alright. When I informed him that I was a periodontist, he smiled and told me to go make sure his teeth are OK. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Reebok produce an Irish edition for its shoes? I mean, one without the Union Flag?--Quest09 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could phone Lifestyle Sports at Dun Laoghaire Shopping Centre, Co. Dublin Tel. 01 2301762 and ask. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literature and stories that I have read (especially European literature) seem to have a heavy emphasis on the consumption of human faeces. Sometimes there is a fetishistic/sexual motive for it, a la the drinking of urine and golden showers, but simply the eating of the faeces is often either metaphor or a plot device. For instance, in the 1975 film Salo, eating of feces was meant to be a indictment of the modern food processing regime, so I read. In any case, none of the people who eat faeces in these stories seem to be any worse for the wear. Having not known anyone that has eaten human faeces (I do, however, know a few people that have swallowed urine), I do not know from firsthand experience what the effects of faecal consumption are. What are the risks of eating human faeces? Will it be harmful to just eat some once in a while? Any insights or experience into this matter you may have would be highly appreciated. Torkmann (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try coprophagy (if it's blue). DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try it? I think I'll pass, personally... ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did strike me after I wrote it that advising someone to try coprophagy (whatever colour it may be) is something I never expected to have to do. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Wikipedians 1 Cup anyone?--Jayron32 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily catch diseases for one thing. Another risk is bacterial infection. It's also hard on the liver. It's safer if you eat your own, but I wouldn't recommend it either way...... -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in a survival guide, but can't give a source, that if you are dying of thirst you should definitely drink your urine if you can, as it will help you survive longer, but even if you are dying of starvation you should definitely not eat your faeces as it will do more harm then good. Vespine (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you claim is true, then why is "EAT SHIT AND DIE!" a standard curse? Edison (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bible, the prophet Ezekiel was told by God to bake cakes with man's dung in the sight of Israel, and eat them. God's intention was to show that the sins of Israel were as distasteful as if they were doing so themselves. As it is written : Ezek.4 [1] Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: [2] And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. [3] Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. [4] Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. [5] For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. [6] And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. [7] Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. [8] And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege. [9] Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. [10] And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. [11] Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. [12] And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. [13] And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. [14] Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. [15] Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. [16] Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: [17] That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

God would protect His prophet from any diseases, but I do not believe He will tell anyone else to do that in this age, since, as with during the childhood of Samuel, and as also predicted in Amos, there is now no open vision, contrary to what a number of charismatics believe. It would not be advisable to dung at all. Why anyone would do so, even if starving, I cannot guess. Although, starving people can be led to desperation, as in the Andes in 1972, and none of us can judge if never in the same position. I understand though that the ancient Romans used to brush their teeth with urine, since it is supposed to be an antiseptic. But if so, why is it also considered grubby ? The Russian.C.B.Lilly 12:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, the above Bible passage is about using human dung for cooking fuel, not about eating it. And even then the prophet actually uses cow dung, not human dung.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is such thing as cannibalism exists, then the smelling or tasting of feces and urine (not eating or drinking) is a lesser degree of abnormality that individual practice for their curiosity and stimulation. At the same time, what people speak in an emotional state or eat and drink in the state of starvation and desperation are exceptions for any conceptual or componential analyses.Couchworthy (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is. Ezekiel clearly says : " . . . neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. ", Which means that God expects him to eat it. This is the impression I have gotten from this all along, to illustrate to Israel how their sin is as abominable to God as it is for a man to eat dung. I guess that depends upon how one interprets the phrase " . . . and thou shalt bake it with dung . . . ". I do not believe human dung would make a good fuel, although God would certainly be aware of the potential of that, and tell man, as shown in Isaiah 28 . I just interpret the Bible as I read it, allowing it to speak for itself, through the Holy Ghost, without the wisdom of man's words, as it is explained in First Corinthians Two . The Russian.C.B.Lilly User:Christopher1968 13:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't believe it, but it is actually true. "thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man" could mean either thing, but a look at the Hebrew, or simply at a more modern translation, explicitly states that the dung is used for cooking. See [1]. My understanding is that the flesh would be "abominable" by association if it were cooked over human dung. There are plenty of cases in the purity rules of Israel where things are considered contaminated because they have been in contact with something 'unclean'. Food actually containing cow dung would not have been 'clean' anyway, as your interpretation would seem to imply. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human dung would not make good fuel - that is Ezekiel's point. He's acting out the desperate situation that the Israelites would soon be reduced to, i.e. using human dung for fuel, because there is nothing else. Other dung is sometimes used for fuel. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a modern equivalent of "abominable flesh" might be roadkill? I eat food baked with coal and wood, but I don't eat either fuel. There is more than one interpretation of the passage. A knowledge of Hebrew traditions would help us to understand the correct meaning. Dbfirs 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel pleads that he's a good boy - he's never eaten a Nevela or Treifah. Dung is not considered unclean ritually in Judaism, just unclean physically. There's a (spirit) world of difference. For example, a person with sparklingly clean hands still needs to wash them before eating. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, it's unwise to drink your own urine. It's virtually free of germs, but It's the body's way of filtering out toxins, so it's essentially poisonous.(I could be wrong, but that's what I heard.) Same for feces. Library Seraph (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't stop Morarji Desai from becoming Prime Minister of India and living to the ripe old age of 99. He drank his own urine every morning. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in a care center (state hospital) for several years and some of our people were severely retarded adults. Several of them were sh*t eaters and it never seemed to harm them - whether their own or from another person. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jimmy Wales contribute personally to editing WP? I would imagine he did to start with but now would do so very rarely. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has an account like anyone else. You can see his contributions, just like you can see yours. Matt Deres (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC, Thanks, I was just about to add this link [2] too. So after finding that, the question is; are these edits actually done by Jimmy, or is it more a sock puppet account? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible to know for sure, but it's assumed it's actually him. And who knows, he himself might have an alternative account he uses for his actual editing, and just uses that "public account" for pr stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think it's a sock puppet account? Woogee (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite legitimate to have one account for editing and another for 'WikiPolitics' - so long as you don't abuse them, we don't regard that as a bad thing. WP:SOCK makes it clear that we don't regard such things as "Sock Puppets" - even though they fall within the broader definition of Sockpuppet (Internet). Someone with the notoriety of Jimmy would almost certainly do that. With his main account, he seems to mostly edit as a WP:WikiGnome - making small tweaks to articles without adding a whole lot of content - almost all of his edits are to his own Talk: page. But his edits to articles are pretty sporadic - just a few edits per month typically. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but unless you're actually Jimbo or another high profile person, checkusers don't give a shit and block you anyway for "abusing multiple accounts" since they rarely bother to actually check the contrubitions of accounts they block if they see it's on the same ip and useragent. They just assume "ho ho multiple accounts he/she must be a mass vandalizing trolling sockpuppet" and block.

I think Aaadddaaammm is referring to a shared account which is indeed largely forbidden per Wikipedia:NOSHARE and is more the reverse of sockpuppetry. While shared accounts are allowed when representing the WMF, the user Jimbo Wales is clearly intended to represent Jimbo Wales the person so if it were a shared account it would likely be construed a violation of policy and his editing pattern also gives no reason to believe it's a shared account. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales already mentioned that his edits would continue as a shared account like other popular user accounts.Couchworthy (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he mention that and what does it mean? What is a "popular user account"? --Tango (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, 'Tango' in that sense is a popular user account because of the nature of contributions in WP. However, whether not it is a shared account or just a patchy nature is difficult to check by just checking the times of its contributions. And to the question, I have to search again the Jimmy Walles’s and his assistants' pages to see where I read that passage. Couchworthy (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an intriguing and somewhat apropos idea that Jimmy Wales might really be just a collaboration of a bunch of people on the Internet who came together to produce a 'personality'. However, he speaks at conferences and is well known to be an 'actual person'. SteveBaker (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a replicantJabberwalkee (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Homer. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]