January 31

I live in Bogor, Indonesia, recently, I found a green snake in my garden: about 1,5m long, end tail about 15cm is light pink, when it opens its mouth, its colour is purple, and it has light blue tong with a black tip at the end of the tongue. Is it a poisonous green snake, and how do you call this snake?125.165.83.162 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but it doesn't seem to fit the most poisonous varieties of snake in Indonesia. it's possible it's an Ahaetulla nasuta - green whip snake - which is mildly venomous (it will give you some pain and swellling, but won't be life threatening). most likely, though, it's the red-tailed green ratsnake - Gonyosoma oxycephalum - a rodent hunter of absolutely no danger to humans.--Ludwigs2 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better picture of the red-tailed green rat snake [1]. Richard Avery (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that is one beautiful snake. I'm not even a snake fan (generally speaking), but still... --Ludwigs2 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when i a serious conversation with the higher management (one on one) for the concern i have, pertaining to no salary or position hike, how do i begin with to be able to strike a convincing note and help myself with a promotion..please suggest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have found has always worked for me is to simply say very straightforwardly that you think that your skills are such that you would be able to handle a more demanding role and would like to be considered for promotion. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I would amend that slightly. Maybe it's better to say, "I would like to take on a more demanding role", rather than "I would like to be able to handle a more demanding role," because there is a difference between what you CAN do and what you WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO do. I'd like to be able to fly, but there's no way I can at the moment. I hope this helps, and good luck. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, there are no end of (normally rubbish) pictures of anything you like, on the internet. But the only three I've been able to find of the blobfish are these three. Is there some reason there are so few pictures of these lovely blobfish? Vimescarrot (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "Due to the inaccessibility of its habitat, it is rarely seen by humans", which would seem to be one good reason. Googling "Psychrolutes marcidus" gave me a few more images.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, purdy. Thanks. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Store-bought bacon seems to go bad fairly quickly after being opened. At least, about as quickly as any other uncooked meat kept in the refrigerator. Yet I was under the impression that the entire point of bacon (other than being tasty) was that it could be kept for long amounts of time without refrigeration. What explains this apparent contradiction? (Or, put another way, where have I gone wrong in my understanding?) --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but with the advent of refridgeration and airtight storage, many old methods of preservation are unnecessary. It may be that it's simply cheaper to do something else which doesn't preserve it, but tastes the same. I'm pretty certain this has happened, in at least some cases - I don't know if bacon is one of them. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reference desks need references...One reply on this question states that it's because it's all sliced, so the "smoked shell" is penetrated, allowing bacteria in. Back in the day, they would most likely have sliced each slice as and when they needed it, elminating that surface layer of bacteria. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, actually. When you see pancetta or prosciutto in the deli counter, it is as a huge block of it, with only a small bit sliced off from one end. Of course, once you slice it up, it goes bad pretty quick (a week or so), but I imagine the block itself is probably good for a lot longer. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can freeze unused portions of bacon then only thaw out what you need. Woogee (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew that much. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I open a package of bacon, I fry it up (or broil it) and put it in a plastic bag in the freezer. It has a very long shelf life there after cooking, and is amazingly delicious frozen, or thaws quickly in the microwave. Edison (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it is in the US, but most bacon sold in shops in the UK is not dried. I think dry cured bacon keeps for longer. Looking up 'wet cure bacon' I noticed this site which says how long it'll keep depends on how long it spends curing, as well as whether the meat is smoked. It may be (this is speculation related to Vimescarrot's comment earlier) that modern bacon isn't cured as much because it doesn't need to be, resulting in less salty, shorter lasting bacon. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some countries over 100%?

List of countries by number of mobile phones in use

Mobokopo (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have more than one mobile phone in use. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But 150%? Mobokopo (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to do, someone has a personal phone, a phone issued by work, a mobile internet dongle etc. I have 2 mobiles myself on 2 different networks and at least 5 spare sim cards kicking around since they keep giving them away for free. Nanonic (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People often buy a cheap prepaid mobile phone, use it for a while, then discard it. The old phone is kept in service for some time after its most recent use before the number is recycled. jnestorius^(talk) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input for birthday gift/s ideas. Its moms and its going to be in a couple of wks from now. Shes hitting another milestone birthday and in the baby boomer generation as well. At the same time shes an register nurse and cancer survivor as well. Have to say shes somewhat into the alternative/natural, but at the same time shes in mainstream one as well. Anyway, I'm thinking of getting her a subscription to a magazine. Prefer the subscription to be a alternative/natural magazine then mainstream one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic Magazine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utne Reader. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Marnanel (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always enjoyed National Geographic magazine. Astronaut (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for all of your wonderful suggestions to me. Got her gift already and which is a gift set of bath and body stuff.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there are other sites that offer places where people can ask questions which are answered by a community of people, such as Yahoo Answers and other such sites, but these sites appear to be very bad at producing right answers or useful information even though most of the questions are easy and simple enough for most people to answer, where as the Wikipedia reference desk seems to be full of really hard questions, that I suspect most people would have difficulty answering and yet they are almost always answered very well. Why is this? is it a result of the different set up the two question-ask-thingys have, or does WP:RD Just attract a different kind of question asker, and question answerer? If so, why? XM (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: A community-driven project whereby volunteers add their own time and effort to a collection of knowledge, for free, for the benefit of others, to help them learn. So generally, you'll be attracting people who want to help, and by absorbing all the knowledge of what they read, are more able to help. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who's surfed from link to link to link, reading interesting things on this website.) I know nothing about the community of Yahoo Answers...but I imagine it's...different. Simply put, the purpose of this encyclopedia means the community it attracts is better at answering questions. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few possible reasons:

1. Demographic. RDers are generally Wikipedia contributors, and that rules out quite a bit of your Yahoo! Answers demographic. My guess is that almost everyone on here has at least some college, and I know that some people have extremely advanced degrees (masters, Ph.D.s).

2. Reinforcement. If you give downright dumb or misleading or incorrect answers on here, people will make it quite clear that such is the case. If you give nothing but bad answers, we'll drum you out. On the other hand, good contributors are treated with respect and engagement. Yahoo! Answers does neither of these things—there is one "chosen" answer (chosen by the asker, who may not even be qualified to determine who was most correct), and other than that, there is no engagement, no reinforcement, no corrections.

3. Format. Similar to the above possibility, but slightly more specific. Yahoo! Answers seems to cater to the YouTube comment crowd—drive-by "answers", often quick, dirty, and useless. Answerers don't generally have an opportunity to engage with other answerers, or even the questioner.

4. Luck. I know, "luck" isn't very scientific sounding, but consider that the number of RD contributors is quite low. We all found our way here for one reason or another, we all like to stay here one reason or another. We waste a lot of time here, for one reason or another. It's a very small sample size, and the Ref Desk would be noticeably poorer if, I don't know, maybe six or seven of the regulars on here somehow got better things to do with their time. With such a small sample size, I don't know what else to call it other than "luck" that a few of them are actually quite talented individuals. It could easily be a total wasteland. (Viz., the Entertainment Desk... I kid, because I love!)

These are just a few possible reasons that come to mind, none of which I find totally compelling. Some are tautological, I know (we have a better demographic because we have a better demographic, go figure). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"waste a lot of time"!! Waste!! Objection Mr.98 Sir!! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Partly the community (which is Wikipedia's greatest asset), and partly the structure of how things are answered and how answers are assessed. On Yahoo Answers, you get most points if the person who asked the question picks your answer as the one best answer: there is no 'these three answers together were best' option, and it is weighted towards giving the person the answer they want, even if it is ridiculously wrong. On Wikipedia, there are consequences if someone appears to be soapboxing or persists in adding nonsense: on Yahoo Answers, these actions are likely to result in more points, if added to the right questions.

The Reference Desks benefit from a huge crowd of contributors who skim or read the desks, but only contribute when they think they can have a positive impact. It is a collaborative model with no rewards for making the most edits or one-upping another editor: most contributors therefore concentrate on quality, rather than just editing to insert nonsense or 'hilarious' observations. In contrast, Yahoo Answers is full of answers that people write purely for the 2 points they get: sometimes they just say 'thanks for the 2 points'.

Worse, the text editor used in Yahoo Answers doesn't allow proper formatting of maths and science answers, and makes it hard to break a long answer up. It rewards brief, unhelpful answers over detailed, guided answers. And because you can't properly reply to another answer, or create a more complete answer combined with another, inaccuracies go unspotted. 86.178.164.245 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get smart - don't listen to 86! There are nearly-unimaginable rewards for most edits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

WP:*!! Just think of value of even one of them on eBay! Imagine the adulation of the screaming fans! Win Friends and Influence People: What supermodel could resist the power and influence available to a Splendid and Majestic Tutnum. SteveBaker (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say about the askers, but for the most part, the answerers here are more demanding of detail and reference than at Yahoo answers. If someone gives only an anecdotal answer without anything to back it up, they'd best note it, because others will note it as well, and demand a "citation needed". Steewi (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the only answers you can get will be opinion. There are some facts that perhaps point in the right direction: Foremost is that we have guidelines that are intended for the purposes of constructing an encyclopedia - and we try to enforce them. Secondly, because all questions and all answers are posted to the same long scrolling page - everyone who comes here to help sees all of the questions and all of the answers. I suspect (without evidence) that there may also be some kind of feedback effect going on - intelligent discourse brings intelligent people - and vice-versa. But this is all speculative - we don't have a proper way to answer this question. SteveBaker (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should pick a few 'curly' questions from the archives and, just as an experiment exercise (WP:NOR!!), submit them to "Yahoo Answers and other such sites" and see what response we get. Might be very enlightening --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The austerity and seriousness of Wikipedia carries over onto its Reference Desk, what else can I say. Vranak (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak, stop with all this levity!!!! Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Seriousness" are you serious Vranak? See the preceeding 'small' comments, by ClarityFiend and the esteemed SteveBaker. And don't tell 'Bugs'! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but compared to Yahoo answers (and the rest of the internet), Wikipedia is a veritable monastery. Vranak (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Also, we know how to write in this tiny type. If not smaller. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've been trying to figure out how to do that for some time. Nice. Vranak (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oh - well you could have asked how on Yahoo Answers. SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's REALLY odd is that there are those companies who are popping up in adverts on late-night cable TV that promise to answer any question you text to them for $0.99. It's hard to imagine how they cram any kind of serious answer into the length of a text message - or indeed how they manage to answer them on an industrial scale. Has anyone tried one of these? It would be interesting to see what kind of quality they achieve. SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's even MORE insane is that, in the commercials, they answer questions that a 5 second google search could answer. If I have the time to text them and await an answer, I probably have the time to, you know, type the exact same thing I type in the text message into google... --Jayron32 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might appeal to the same demographic that is a sucker for mobile phone services that, for a hefty fee, tell you how many times your partner has been unfaithful to you, based on ... their first name. Duh! Could anyone possibly fall for such rubbish? Do all Joshuas fail their partners the exact same number of times? And all Marys? Well, apparently someone pays to find out, since these services have been around a while. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they appeal to people out of reach of Google, e.g. in pub quizzes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we get people who spend 30 seconds or whatever coming here and typing out a question and then waiting potentially hours for an answer (which may include 'hints' that they should have just searched, or even just a suggestion they search perhaps with a search string without any links) which a 5 second internet search could answer so I don't think that part is particularly surprising. The cost may seem to be but as JackofOz said, there does seem to be someone willing to pay for all of these services. I keep seeing stupid ads asking me to subscribe to some service telling me when I'm going to die or find out if I'm compatible with my partner Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]