Curiosity answered 24/7.
How much would a woodchuck chuck, if it could chuck wood?
Lots. Seriously.
Anyone know what the German Army was called in the period 1870-1918? I need it for a (sort of) historical work.
Constanze, Electron?
The Army as a whole is das Heer as in Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH, the First World War German Army High Command).
Not sure if this helps I found it on a website detailing historical flags. www.hampshireflag.co.uk/world-flags/allflags/de^871rk.html
Problem is that the "deutsches Kaiserreich", the german empire, didn't have one german army. It did have a strong prussian Army ="Armee", also "Heer", and several smaller ones of the other countries, like Sachsen/sächsisches ... (saxonia), Bayern/ bayrisches ... (bavaria) and so on.
There was the "Kaiserliche Marine", the empirial navy, but no army equivalent.
The OKH R cited was only the High Command during WWI.
Afterwards, when the Versaille treaty demanded a restructuring, the army was called "Reichswehr".
A german article about the history of the german army can be found here (with a critical view of tradition and history and which should be continued)
I thought Reichswehr was most probably, yes. So up until 1918 there were several regional German armies, much like the Americans' up to the 1900s (Army of the Potomac, [Confederate] Army of Northern Virginia, etc.)? Right.
Oh ok. Sorry about that. WWI isnt my strong war Like I said I found that on a historical flags website and was trying to help.
Thande,
yes, the name most people would think of naturally for the previous german army is "Reichswehr", since there are only three names to pick from (Reichswehr during the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933, Wehrmacht during the 3rd Reich, and Bundeswehr since 1955, when a new german army was formed.)
As to why there were different regional armies - that has to do with the way the german empire (Deutsches Kaiserreich) began: shall I start a short history review?
There were many, small states (in the middle ages, over 600. Then Napoleon came along, unifying several small ones into middle-to-large ones - today bavaria got its shape this way. This was right at the beginning of the 19th century). Each state had different laws, taxes, and a lot of regulation to go through to pass borders, so several confederacies were formed in the 19th century. The latest one was the "Norddeutscher Bund" consisting of several north german states, most notably prussia, of course.
Bismarck (Eiserne Kanzler= Iron chancellor) planned ahead for a german empire, and in 1866 there was a german-german war, (more correctly between prussia and austria) over who should have the say in the german federation. The prussians won, and so the austrians had to be quiet. Then the french-prussian/german war was fought in 1870-71. At the end of that, Wilhelm I, king of prussia declared himself Kaiser (emperor) in the throne room of Versailles (there's a famous painting of it - and the french didn't like that at all, it hurt their pride).
Along the sidelines, Bismarck had convinced, in case of the bavarian king, bribed (special privileges and a lot of money to build new castles), all the other german kings to go along and cast their vote for Wilhelm to become Kaiser.
Because Bismarck (and other smart people) wanted to avoid hard feelings among the soldiers and appease the local pride, the regiments, divisions etc. of the single states were kept (even the numbering). Even the uniforms were different between the prussians, saxonians, bavarians etc. Shortly before WWI, the uniform of grey for all soldiers was introduced.
I don't know about the regional American armies you mentioned, sorry.
Ah, right. So where does the Deutscher Zollverein come into this? Or was that just a purely economic union?
The Deutsche Zollverein (=German Tariff union) was mainly economic union, but was also one of the forerunners of the Kaiserreich. For details, I would have to look up, as I'm not sure about the time and which union followed/ coexisted with which federation. (I guess a bit like the NAFTA today, as far as two different epochs can be compared.)
Right. The reason why I need all this background information is that I'm working on an alternate-history project which, among other things, has Britain and Germany on the same (winning) side in World War I, so the Kaiserreich continues after 1918. However, in 1964 there are two separate rebellions in Bavaria and Westphalia, quietly supported by various foreign nations, against authoritarian Prussian rule. Also Bohemia takes advantage of the confusion to invade the Sudentenland...this is supposed to be historical irony.
Sounds interesting. Reminds me of one SF-book, I think it was "deep south", where one strategic hill taken during one battle of the civil war, led to the South winning the civil war, a different society not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world, as well as a different pace of technology. (the main character travels back with a time machine to observe, but ends up changing history inadvertly).
There is another book, which I've only read the review, about what would've happened if the 3rd Reich hadn't lost, but won, WWII. It supposes that after the Jews have killed or exiled, the new enemy are the christians.
How do you plan to have Britain and germany on the same side in WWI? After all, Britain has long followed the rule of "balance of power" at that point, and I've always heard how much Wilhelm II angered the british with his stup!d policy of trying to build up a strong german navy. Probably you would need a different kaiser than wilhelm II, one who wouldn't kick Bismarck out and dismantle his careful tapestry of allies and treaties, as well as be more diplomatic with other countries. But what is then the underlying reason for WWI?
Actually my project is a pretty complex one with several historical divergence points, the main ones being:
1. Muslims, Jews and Christians unite against Mongol invasion and turn back the Hordes.
2. Puritan Republican regime remains in power in England after Oliver Cromwell's death.
3. The Spanish do not lose their New World empire.
4. The French Revolution fails. Instead of the Napoleonic Wars, we have the Reactionary Wars - royalist France, Spain and Italy, plus central German puppet states, versus Britain, Russia and Prussia.
5. South wins American Civil War with help from Spanish empire.
6. The First World War, or "Hellwar" as it is termed in this universe, is fought between the Allied Powers (Britain, Germany, United States) and the Entente Catholique (France, Spain, Italy and the Confederate States). Essentially Britain (remember, it still has a Puritan religiously motivated leadership) sides with Germany because it is Protestant and also because of the 1800s alliances - which do not experience the same reversal as they did in the real world.
The Russian Revolution fails - Lenin and Trotsky and publicly executed - but Stalin and a few others go into hiding as a terrorist group in the Caucasus.
7. Germany switches sides for World War 2 after Britain and the US institute a socialist monetary union, but the Germans are only peripherally involved: the main conflict is between France, Spain, the CS and Russia on one side and Britain and the US on the other. Britain invades France, the French use a nuclear bomb in a last-ditch attempt to defend Paris, and is labelled a pariah by the international community (bearing in mind that because of point (1) the most advanced country in this world is a Muslim Caliphate which is neutral in most wars but can cast an ultimate veto). France is carved up like Germany after WW2 in our universe.
Also, I tend to use alternative names for most countries - names which were actually used or considered at some point. E.g. Britain is Albion, America is Freedonia, France is Gaul, China is Cathaia, Germany is Germania etc.
Wow! Complex indeed!
Sounds like a very difficult project to bring it off, though, because AFAIK most of these divergence trends would run counter to existing trends in (our) history. E.g. I find a union between Muslims, Jews and Christians against the Monogols unbelievable in this time period (after the history of the crusades and anti-semitism). I can accept more easily a battle being won or lost through a chance occurence (e.g. not raining at waterloo, or napoleon being quicker) than a whole new trend arising contrary to existing ones.
I mean, there are people like napoleon who shape the world around themselves - if sth. happens to them early on, history will run different, since its their genius and strong personality which changes history.
And then there are people like mussolini and hitler, which are there at the "right" time, to take advantage of the public emotion, and grasp power. If hitler and mussolini are taken away, probably sb. else would have taken their place, since the public emotion at that time was right-wing (not only germany - look at italy and spain).
(they are only the festering pus on top of the boil).
Or 3., for example: spain would have lost the empire sooner or late, since a large empire is always impossible to rule (remember Star Wars: "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers"?) Like the roman empire, it wasn't a single battle, but general decrecipt, together with the communication and logistic problem and the various rebellions in the overseas domain.
Napoleon had a great influence on europe not only because of his wars, but because of the "Code Napoleon" and the secularisation (left over from the french revolution). If you remove napoleon, its awfully hard to predict how europe would have turned out.
I hope I haven't discouraged you - it just sounds so very big (and starting with the mongols, you can practically rewrite all of european history and throw all existing out of the window. Events and trends build on each other. Without the 30years war, germanys population wouldn't have been so strongly diminished, and that would have large influences on how the eastern countries were colonized etc. Probably there wouldn't be any Slavs around. This, in turn, would have changed the relationship with france... and so on.)
Thande, you might find this site interesting or helpful:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/
Snick - thanks.
Constanze - I know what you mean and in terms of traditional alternate history (for want of a nail the shoe was lost, everything turning on a chance, etc.) that is accurate, but in my project the whole thing is being deliberately orchestrated by an immortal being taking on various guises throughout history (like Flint in Star Trek): the Caliph of the Muslims at that critical time, etc.
Anyway, I think we'd better leave this board for people with more burning questions now. I'm sure if more people are interested in this sort of thing we can start up another board somewhere.
Hey, if you guys want to start off an alt-history speculation board, I'm all for it...
Yeah, and if things get out of control there, the Mod can just rewrite history (edit posts), and it would fit the theme of the board!
That's supposed to be 
, but now that I've typed it, I guess it's more 
.
Not anymore!
Seriously, how about an alt-history board on "2004 Topics", f'rinstance? I'd like to sound some of my concepts for particular regions past people who know more about them (e.g. unlike most non-Americans I am not arrogant enough to think that going to Disneyworld and drinking Coke gives me the right to act as though I know everything about the USA, so I would like to run some of my ideas for alternate history of North America past some of the Americans and Canadians posting here). Also, I'd be interested to hear what ideas other people have.
Yes, an alt-history board would be pretty cool.
Hey an alt-history board does sound cool. Being an RPG player I've dabbled in that genre and find the whole what-if coulda shoulda woulda thing real interesting.
Grammar question. An expression I have heard on occasion is 'such and such is the epidamy of (whatever)' , however I looked up the word epidamy and it appears to refer to an epidemic!
(the way I'd pronounce it would be a-pid-ah-me)
What is the proper spelling/use of this word?
epitome
Epitome: the absolute best, can't get any better, could be used as an example.
Fred Astaire was the epitome of an American gentleman.
What the heck is a metrosexual? Frankly it sounds like someone who has sex with cities.
I think that is a man that isn't gay, but acts gay. (In other words, He likes girls and girly hair products.)
David Beckham with painted fingernails.
As defined in Wikipedia, a metrosexual is "an urban heterosexual male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle. He is the fashion-conscious target audience of men's magazines.
. . .
...outside Britain, in its soundbite diffusion through the popular media, metrosexual has congealed into something more digestible: a heterosexual male who color coordinates, listens to Kylie Minogue, goes to independent movies, cares deeply about exfoliation, and has perhaps even resorted to manscaping. A straight guy who acts gay."
Thanks. I've been hearing that stup¡d term more & more recently & it's been driving me crazy.
A straight guy who acts gay.
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode dealing with that? (Something to the effect of "If you're neat, clean & single, people assume you're gay.")
Apparently the phrase is even more stup¡d than I thought it was.
I'm in the process of converting my CD's to mp3's. I'm using 128 kbps which seems to be good enough. (I did a "blind" test between that and 320 kbps, no detectable difference.) I was wondering how it compares to FM radio broadcasting. I know that FM signals are compressed somehow. What would be the equivalent kbps of a classical music broadcast?
Hard to say, since the broadcast is analog.
128kbps should be fine; all my MP3s are in that format and they sound fine. As for your question, I've seen some programs (both MP3 rippers and sound editors) that have a "radio" quality setting. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 128kbps. Of course, as Scott points out, that may just be something they came up with out of the blue.
Just as a side note: "CD Quality" would be 705.6Kbps.
CD's are recorded with 16 bit samples at 44.1KHz, giving a bit rate of 705,000 bits per second.
Is there a word for the name you use on the internet? It seems like there should be a different nomenclature for an email name, a login name, a chat room name, etc. Each application is slightly different. Is it "handle"? I don't hear that being used much.
Like, if I told someone to look for my posts here, I'd say "My xxxxxx is 'Influx'."
"Nick"
I would've used "handle," but "Nick" seems to fit nicely, so there you go.
It's an IRC-ism, Sparrow, but it's short, sweet, and to the point.
This may seem dumb, but ...
Where is the thread that popped up awhile ago about people describing good things that were happening to them, as opposed to all the bad things happening to them? I assumed it was in the Kitchen Sink but I can't find it. I'm sure it's right in front of my nose. Sorry to waste time and space, but it's driving me crazy.
Just as a side note: "CD Quality" would be 705.6Kbps.
CD's are recorded with 16 bit samples at 44.1KHz, giving a bit rate of 705,000 bits per second
Not quite. They are also stereo, so you've gotta include a times two in there someplace.
Daroga, would that Good Things That Happened Recently under Topic Vault (2002 - 2003)?
Oops! You're right. It would be 1.441Mbps.
Thanks, KAM.
Darn. I should never try to do math early in the morning.
That's 1.401Mbps.
About the names: I usually say 'username' or 'alias.'
What does the expression 'Rose Coloured glasses' mean? I hear it every so often but have never really known what it means.
As I understand it, the phrase refers to a person with an unrealistically optomistic outlook. That person is said to be wearing "rose-colored glasses".
What does the expression 'Rose Coloured glasses' mean?
Scott Summers.
Sorry, that's Ruby-Quartz-colored-glasses.
Potato, po-tah-to.
Thanks guys, that explanation makes sense given the context in which I've seen the term used.
Ok, here's one for the americans to answer.
In the UK, coins of a lower value are generally smaller than the higher value of that form (1p is smaller than the 2p - both bronze, 5p smaller than the 10p - both silver, 20p smaller than 50p - also silver but polygonal rather than circular).
Just recently I was in the US, and started wondering why the 5c coin is larger than the 10c coin. Any ideas?
I think it was originally because nickel (the metal Nickels were made of) was cheaper than silver (the metals that Dimes were made of). Course that wouldn't explain why quarters, half-dollars & silver dollars were bigger.
Basically the coins (when the silver and gold coins were made of real silver and gold) were made of the weight of that metal that was worth its value. They were self-backed rather than government backed. Within each metal, the coins grew larger in proportion to the value:
Copper: 5 cent coins (nickels) were 5 times heavier than 1 cent coins (pennies). Nickels are and were mostly copper. with just enough nickel to bleach out the color)
Silver: 1 dollar coins were twice as heavy as 50 cent coins (half-dollars), four times as heavy as 25 cent (quarters) coins, and ten times as heavy as 10 cent coins (dimes).
Gold: 20 dollar coins (double eagles) were twice as heavy as 10 dollar coins (eagles).
When the US discontinued the gold coins and switched to zinc for the "silver" coins, the mint continued to strike the coins the same size. The first zinc "silver dollars" were the same size as "real" silver dollars. The later Susan B Anthony and Sacagawea dollars were smaller.
Ah, so that's why. Thanks guys.
Anyone know why Barnes & Noble puts books about linguistics on the "philosophy" shelves? I wouldn't have thought to look there if an employee hadn't specifically told me to look there. Yesterday I got this book The Story of English and it was on the same shelf with books about Voltaire and Sartre. Does anyone else think this doesn't make sense?
It might not be that they are in the "wrong" section. It might just be that the store doesn't stock enough of either category to justify using a whole section for each. The more popular (and therefore more profitable) categories need the room to spread out and attract the customers.
Whenever I find two categories of books sharing the same section of shelves, there is enough of a distinction made so that, to use your examples, a linguistics book is not hidden in a pile of philosophybooks. Either the top half is the first category and the bottom half the other, ot if it is at all feasible, the left-hand and right-hand areas of the shelves are used.
Of course, traditionally, "philosphy" is "everything no natural science", so linguistic would be grouped under it (Though I don't think bok stores organize their shelves according to the way the universities categorize their disciplines; number of book per subject makes much more sense).
I used to go to B&N quite a bit, and it seemed like every month they would move entire book sections around just for the heck of it. "OK, where are the sci-fi books now???"
ALL the bookshops I go to are fond of doing that, Influx.
I'm new to buying CDs and I have a question: I got a fingerprint on the playing surface and wiped it off with a towel. Now it has started skipping. Are they that sensitive (to fingerprints or towels) or is it just a coincidence? What else could cause them to skip? And if I do need to clean it, what's the best way? Any help would be appreciated.
If you are going to clean a CD, you should always wipe it in a radial motion (center to outer edge), never a circular one (like you would towel-dry a dish). The pits that the laser reads are so small that any aberration in the plastic coating can deflect it from reading properly if there is a long scratch in it.
Cleaning circularly puts long scratches directly along the path that the laser reads. Cleaning radially makes the scratches more like spokes so that if the laser can't read one spot, it is already past the "bad" point and hopefully the redundancy used in creating CD's will error-correct itself.
If you have some plastic polish that might help. Use very little, wipe center to edge, and make sure it is thoroughly cleaned. This has worked even for some bad DVD's I've rented.
To be safe, though, always handle discs by the edges or center hole.
Thanks, Influx. I think my computer may be the culprit, actually. I'll have to try it in my car CD player. But could wiping with a cloth or towel (lightly) create scratches?
Nove, any kind of polishing causes miniscule scratches. I'm a former Marine, and am fairly conversant with the polishing of brass... The trick is to make the scratches to small as to be negligible. (and under a Drill Instructor's eye, they better be •••• small!).
Most cloths or towels are very abrasive, from a CD standpoint. I know 3M makes a special towel for that sort of thing. -- it will not abrade the surface, but the detritus that collects on it might.
One of the best thigns to do with a cd would be to blow the dust off either by a gentle mouth action (that did not sound right) or a can of air. And of course try not to get fingerprints on them in the first place. Smetimes I have been able to use a special silicone glass wax we have at work to "fix" minor scratches on a cd. It usually doesnt make them sound perfect again but does take a loud pop and reduce it to a minor snap.
Also folks might want to watch out for their car cds as those visor mounted holders can be slightly abrasive and of course high temps and repeated sun exposure isnt too good on the plastic coatings. Working in a detail shop at the dealership I have seen quite a few abuses of car cds.
Thanks for the information. However, it turns out that my computer apparently is not very good at playing CDs. In my car player, it sounded perfect. So I guess I'll have to buy a portable CD player.
R, I thought most people with car CD players kept the CDs in the car all the time. (Of course, they may have bad CDs as a result, I guess). I tried to be careful by not leaving them in the car, though.
Yeah a lot of people do. I have a travel set of burned copies of the originals i keep at home. I know and see a lot of other people who do so as well. Although some people take their originals in the car. I guess it depends if they can burn or not.
But yeah most of the cds I have seen in cars are rather scratched or in sad shape from being in the car all the time. Sliding in and out of the pockets of the holders, under seats, in seats, covered in pop, etc... also leaving them in the sun all the time can cause the coatings to cloud, especially on the cheap burnables.
Oh and one last thing. Having worked in the dealership for the past two years I have found a great many cds people have left behind in their changer or dash unit when they traded their vehicle in. Not to mention all kinds of other "stuff" of various sorts.
I have a travel set of burned copies of the originals i keep at home.
Ditto, and RIAA be d@mned.
WE ALREADY ARE, AND WE LOVE COMPANY. WE WILL BE AT YOUR HOUSE SHORTLY.
PLease drop on by RIAA Me and Mr Colt will be ready for you. :-)
When did 'Emo' stop referring to a quirky comedian from the 80s and why didn't anyone tell me?
Ummm. I have a bit of a technological question here. Is a self cleaning oven supposed to have a fire inside of it? I ask this becuase mine (my wife's) did tonight.
You see I cant sleep right now so I thought I'd be a dear and kick the self-clean feature on in her oven, since we hadnt used it yet). We had gotten the range out of the tax return when her old one quite litterally fell to pieces (it was an old coil range that had seen better days) and became unsafe (short circuits and held together with as many jury rigs as i could make until we could afford a new or newer at least one) for use. Since the previous one was not self-cleaning we used a lemon/vinegar cleanign solution.
The manual didnt say anythign about actual flames being present in the oven during the cleaning phase and the thick acrid black smoke coming out the top kinda startled me as well. Is it normal for that to happen or am I goign to be living on my couch for a bit? I did manage to get the oven to stop the clean process and even though it took forever for the cool down cycle to unlock the door the fire did manage to go out on its own. (and better yet I didnt wake either the wife or the kids. So I do get to live at least until morning when she comes out.)
Sorry if this sounds like something out of a sitcom but I'm not exactly a master chef as survival rations and camp cookign are more my area.
I think there are several different types of self-cleaning ovens, so without knowing your model, I can't say if it's normal. Also, if flames come from an electric oven, I would think that's a really bad sign, but if it's a gas oven, I think some use a lot of heat to burn the dirt to ash.
Thick black smoke could depend on what kind of residue was inside the oven when you started the process - oil and fat, or burned bread?
Have you tried looking on the homepage of the manufacturer at the FAQ?
As Constanze said, most self-cleaning ovens with a cleaning cycle (as opposed to a "continuous-clean feature) work by burning any residue to a fine ash, which is easier to wipe up than a baked-on mess. The flames and smoke may be due to the nature and quantity of the residue, rather than anything else.
...until we could afford a new or newer at least one...
Does this mean that you bought a used range? Do you know if the previous owner ever used the self-cleaning cycle? The pyrotechnics may be the result of years of build-up, and once you get it all cleaned out, it may behave better.
Or did they ever use a caustic oven cleaning product? Those can ruin the special surface of the self-cleaning oven to the point where the self-cleaning cycle is not advised.
Sorry for the confusion. Yes it was a brand new Electric one we got at Lowes on sale. So flames and smoke and all that was a bit unexpected. (It is a discontinued model though)
But depending on how the budget went we would have gotten a used one which I would have treated like a potential bomb until I was sure it was safe. Sad to say I am quite used to dealing with rebuilt wrecks and other people's castoffs. Fortunately I am able to repair, rebuild or otherwise rework most gizmos and gadgets. Cooking on the other hand....
Well before i started it I read the manual and they didnt mention how hot or much about the self clean that would be helpful (Just warning that the door will lock and not to leave any pots and pans inside).And nothign was really mentioned in the FAQ about it either other than to say that serious injury could occur if you forced the door open.
As for what was in there before hand I guess it was just oil and fat from the general baking as I didnt see anythign major but I might have missed something as I didnt do a full CSI on it. Maybe I should have. I definately think I will before I do that again.
Oh well no harm done this time around other than to my wits briefly. Thanks for the info and all that. This is why I stay out of the kitchen unless its to fix something.
Why do they call potatoes spuds?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spud
"Etymology
"Spud" is a common nickname for the potato in English-speaking countries. The term spud has been falsely traced to a 19th century activist group dedicated to keeping the potato out of Britain, calling itself The Society for the Prevention of an Unwholesome Diet. However, the correct etymology of "spud" is that this word for potato comes from the digging of soil/hole prior to planting the potatoes. The word is of unknown origin and was originally (c. 1440) used as a term for a short knife or dagger. It subsequently transferred over to a variety of digging tools. Around 1845 it transferred over to the tuber itself.
It was Mario Pei's 1949 The Story of Language that can be blamed for the false origin of the word. Pei writes, "the potato, for its part, was in disrepute some centuries ago. Some Englishmen who did not fancy potatoes formed a Society for the Prevention of Unwholesome Diet. The initials of the main words in this title gave rise to spud." Like many other pre-20th century acronymic origins, this one is false.
In the 17th century, Scottish clergymen banned their flocks from planting potatoes, saying that the tubers were unworthy of human consumption because they were not mentioned in the Bible. The first edition of the Encyclopędia Britannica (1768-71), originally published in Edinburgh in the 18th century, referred to the potato as a "demoralizing esculent.""
...assuming wikipedia is accuate in this case, but then, who'd want to manipulate potatos for political gain... well who'd want to manipulate them now. 
Thanks for clearing that up 
.
In the TNG episode called the Naked Now, Data corrects Riker on the use of a word when describing the vacuum of space and the ship. I don't remember the exact phrase as I've only seen that episode once maybe when it first came on. My question is what was the point of Data's correction?
Unfortunately, we live in an age when slang and poor vocabulary exist so it's hard to identify the correct usage for this. Is saying "sucked out" incorrect as something can only $uck in something? Just like one shouldn't say "blown in?"
To ask it simply, is $uck only to be used with in, and blown only to be used with out?
That's what I'm reasoning, but I'd like some clarification...
(I'm writing something and want to make sure I'm using the correct term the correct way)
IIRC, Riker said something like 'So and so was sucked into space.' That would seem to inply that there was a force/mechanism of some sort outside the ship, lowering the external pressure. That wasn't the case. It was the pressure of the atmosphere inside the ship rushing out into the normal vacuum of space, that carried the crewman away. It was like having a strong wind directed at the breach in the hull, therefore the crewman was blown out, not sucked.
Thanks
How much older do you think you need to be then someone for society to consider you their elder? I've heard 10 ten years but I'm not sure. Some might say old enough to be in a diffrent generation (which the 10 years would probably qualify).
Personally, I think at least old enough to be the parent of said person is more realistic.
Agreed.
It depends on the person making the call and on the age of the people in question. For example if one is 14 and the other is 24, most would see a big difference there, the 24 year old is probably done with college while the 14 year old just started high school, and they certainly shouldn't be dating. By the time you're 30 and 40, you're still a bit appart but most wouldn't think too much if you got married. Of course by the time you are 60 & 70 a lot of people might even have a hard time realizing that you were not the same age.
Yeah, I see what you mean. It seems that the stage someone is at in their life seems to factor into it. It makes sence that as we get older, the diffrence between ages will be less extreme then when we're younger. Thanks for responding.
Here's another one. There's a saying to do with casting stones in glass houses. Unfortunatly, I cannot remember the exact saying. For anyone that does. What exactly does the saying refer to?
The saying is "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
The "throwing stones" parts refers to the Biblical story of Jesus and the adultress. Stoning was the preferred Old Testament form of execution. Jesus said to the angry "lynch mob" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (In other words, he was reminding them "You're no better. Next time it could be you who is caught commiting a sin.")
The glass house part comes from the practice of throwing stones at the windows of abandoned buildings, trying to break them.
Altogether the saying means that "casting stones" at someone else's "windows" (faults and weaknesses) is an open invitation for others to do sthe same for yours.
Thanks for clearing that up .
I thought the glass house bit was because everybody can see into your house to see the naughty things you're doing?
I read about celebrities filing restraining orders for people to stay 200 feet away, or whatever, and it's not just celebrities.
But I wonder how it works?
How do they measure the 200 feet? Wouldn't they have to keep track of each other's whereabouts so they don't accidently cross paths? What if they end up in the same store and in order to leave, one would have to come within 200 feet of the other? Or has this not ever been a problem?
I imagine that its like patrolling the speed limit. There's a set speed which people are to follow. There's the actual speed people do. But you generally don't get pulled over unless you're driving in such a way that separates you from the way others are driving. That is, going much faster or much slower than the speed of traffic. If the people don't draw attention to themselves, I'd think it's not a problem.
I thought the glass house bit was because everybody can see into your house to see the naughty things you're doing? -- brent
No, that's the other old saying "People who live in glass houses need to buy a lot of drapes."
Do glass houses have glass ceilings? You sure its not a gender equality issue?
don't know where to put this, but Sandra Bullock was in Mz Congineality and Speed on 2 diffrent cable stations followed by another Sandra Bullock..movie (annyone know its her birthday or something).
-----------------------------------
unshot City on Edge of forever
Edith: There is a Sandra Bullock movie on tonight,Jim
Jim: Ah, with William Shatner, my favorite actor.
What does IDK stand for?
IDK what it means...
I don't know...
I know, I was just being silly ;).
well, I couldn't assume that... You know, that whole thing about respect others that this board encourages...
Now can someone tell me what World Peace means?
This looks like the best place to post this...
Does anyone know why Microsoft released Office 2003 so soon after Office 2002?
I'm $ure it has $omething to do with Dollar$ and Cent$....
Probably. I thought it might be a technical bug, but I've been running Office 2002 for several years without any problems.
Anyone seen Tom Vane?
Some people suggest Backed Potato over French Fries. However, is the Baked Potato really any better for you? I assume it's the way you cook them, but if you use oil that's not bad for you and don't salt them, are the fries really that bad for you? (or at least any worse then the potato?)
\i {well, I couldn't assume that... You know, that whole thing about respect others that this board encourages...}
I know it's late but I apologize if I caused any offense with my question.
Now can someone tell me what World Peace means?
I remember in Chrono Trigger, an NPC asks if you'd rather have World Peace or a Piece of the World.
Re: baked potato vs fries
There are a few more carbs in a potatoes than most Americans need, but otherwise they are very nutricious. It's the added salt and oils from deep frying (in the one case) or the mounds of butter and sour cream topping (in the other) that gives them their bad reputation.
How come it's OK to put ketchup on french fries but not on a baked potato?
I always put ketchup on mashed potatoes, but that's considered odd for some reason.
I often do it too, Nove. Quite tasty.
I think my sister puts ketchup on the skin of her baked potato after she eats it.
Well, it is quite good on potato chips, but some people think that is odd for some reason. I don't know why? They are just very thin french fries!
Because unless you're very VERY careful, the chips (that's crisps for you Brits -- what you call chips, we call fries) get soggy.
Why not just get Ketchup flavoured chips?
Because unless you're very VERY careful, the chips (that's crisps for you Brits -- what you call chips, we call fries) get soggy.
Never had that happen. Unless you are talking about putting ketchup on all of them at once (which I've seen people do with fries), like the way they put cheese on nachos. Of course they will get soggy that way.
My sister-in-law can't fathom my dunking hot fries in ketchup that's straight out of the refrigerator. For one, I like the contrast, and two, the ketchup keeps longer (especially since I make my own).
Influx, I usually prefer my ketchup cold as well.
Never made my own, though.
Hmmm, perhaps I'll have to post that recipe. Heinz-style, if you like that. Very simple. I haven't figured out if it's any cheaper than the store-bought brand, but I like to adjust some of the ingredients a bit more to my taste.
Burger King has ketchup flavored potato chips. I saw them in a vending machine
What is it about the sound of crunching that makes it so annoying? By crunching, I mean the sound of people (or animals) eating crunchy food like potato chips or animals eating hard food like kibble that makes really obnoxious crunching sounds as they chew it.
Maybe it's an instinctive trait from when our ancestors were potential prey for bone-crunching predators?
Yea, you're probably right. There are similar reasons for our dislike of other sounds as well.
When someone asks "Suggestions?" is it normal to have an urge to say "Decompress the Main Shuttle, the explosive reaction might push us out of the way."?
wasn't there a Tom N jerry chasing each other on Mars? and two dumb astronauts were there in space helmets?
People often use the expression "I grew with up..." what age do you think that expression applies to?
The way a lot use it, it seems to apply to ones childhood or up to about 12 years of age or so.
However, since we're still growing to around early adulthood, wouldn't your "grew up" years also apply to your teens?
As an example, people often refer to TV Shows they grew up with and how growing up with said show had a significant influence on them.
If you had such a show that started when you were 13, could you apply the same statement to it?
Why do they call it a double u when in reality, it looks a lot more like a double v?
Because U's used to be drawn like V's, I believe. If you look at some really old documents the U's have pointy bottoms instead of the rounded ones we use today.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
It's actually called double-v in other languages too.
In French, the word for W sounds like Double-V.
Thanks for the link. One learns something every day it seems .
What would you say is the difference between a fantasy character and a farcical character? There is an agony booth recap for one of the James Bond movies (pretty sure it was Moonraker) that mentioned how Bond was always a fantasy character but in that movie, he became a farcical character.
When do fantasy characters cross the line and end up becoming farcical?
While a fantasy character is make-believe, a farcical character is one who has become ridiculous, a joke. So I guess what's being said, is that in Moonraker, the James Bond wasn't as believable as a person as in the previous Bond films and came across as a joke for the reviewer.
"Shaken, not stirred."
Moore's Bond always tended towards that. Honestly, I thought Dalton had the characterization closes to the novels, though Connery was, of course, the definition of the role.
Moore got a few chances (such as in "For Your Eyes Only") to show that he could play the serious Bond when the screenwriters gave him the chance.
I think Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel (Siskel, I think) agreed with you that Dalton was closest to the source material, Benn.
I've only seen two Moore Bond movies, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, and I don't recall that sense that he was farcial. True, I was a kid when I originally saw them, but I don't know if there's anything in them that I'd see as farcical if I were to go back and review them now. He certainly had a more flamboyant edge to his delivery than Dalton or Craig, though.
I think that Moore hit the low point with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker.
He was quite good in For Your Eyes Only -- if only it weren't for that stupid ice skating chick, and with A View to a Kill, it was clear he was done with the part.
Though this should probably go on the Bond boards.
I thought that Moore's low point came mostly in "The Man With the Golden Gun", although he did have a great dinner conversation scene with Christopher Lee's Scaramanga. When he looked bad was when he was forced to play with some of the series' more ridiculous characters, including Jaws and that redneck sherrif played by Clifton James.
I liked Moonraker.
Uh, Luigi, it was Scott who said Timothy Dalton's portrayal of James Bond was closet to Ian Fleming's original vision (or words to those effects). I've only read one or two Bond novels and seen four or five films, so I'm not enough a fan to say who's the best James Bond.
"Shaken, not stirred."
I suspect this whole discussion should be moved to "In Her Majesty's Kitchen Sink".
Thanks for the responses.
I think that the line between fantasy and farcical seems to be around the time that the viewers start saying "Oh come on!".
As Benn said, While a fantasy character is make-believe, a farcical character is one who has become ridiculous, a joke.
To add to the question, with some other examples from fiction, child geniuses are common in fiction. When does one cross the line from being fantasy to farcical? (And I know this is often as much opinion as anything).
I would gather that a fantasy child genius is the type that people give an impressed nod and say stuff like 'smart kid' or 'I wish I was that smart back then!'.
A farcical one however, tends to get responses like "no way, there's just no way." or where you just laugh it because it's so crazy that you know (or at least hope) the writers mean the character to be a joke.
"When does one cross the line from being fantasy to farcical? "
A good example, the difference between Indy 3 and Indy 4.
Benn: Uh, Luigi, it was Scott who said Timothy Dalton's portrayal of James Bond was closet to Ian Fleming's original vision...
Um...........yeah, I knew that.
I was, uh, just testing you. Yeah! That's it. Testing ya.
With my wife.....eh.....Morgan Fairchild.....
Those of you who know "Moonraker" only from the 1979 movie shoudl go back and check out Ian Fleming's original novel. It's completely different, but it is also one of the most thrilling Bond novels.
And if you are a Bond movie fan who has NEVER read a Fleming original novel, for shame. Rectify that immediately.
"Sir Hugo Drax cheats at cards."
Here's one that just hit me the other day.
I have two DVD players. Both of them have an LED that glows... TO TELL ME THE BLOODY THING IS OFF!!!!
Why is it that people so often tend to pick on Star Trek for the so called Redshirt syndrome? In reality, other movies, TV shows, comics and games are just as bad, if not much worse! Was TOS the first show that people knew for that sort of thing? Or is it just that TOS (and Trek in general) being famous is why people think of it as the epitome of the Redshirt syndrome?
Probably because the bright red shirt stood out more than the normal clothes/uniforms of the cannon fodder of all those other shows & movies (I don't think games apply as most of the possible examples didn't come along until after Trek aired & had been in syndication for some time).
I like this site but there are so many other places to go on the internet, I haven't been here much lately.
I know you've had problems with spam. How do I register?
Are there any threads I can post on
without registering?
Thanks.
Go to the main forum page here.
On the left hand side near the bottom under 'Utilities' is a registration link. Just click on that and follow the instructions.
Nearly all the boards require you to be a registered user. As you mention, we've been having problems with Spambots and that's one of the things that seems to mostly foil them.
How is it that the material a glass or mug is made of can effect the taste of a beverage?
I know people will swear this isn't true but I've found that depending on the beverage and material of the glass or mug that there are times that it does seem to effect the taste.
This is especially true of containers made of metal and certain plastics. Acidity of the contents can interact chemically with the substance of the container,
Plus, in the case of metals, if the metal of the container is more active than the metals in some of the salts in the food, it can replace them. The process is identical to electroplating, but a little slower.
The dull coating that develops on aluminum pans is iron that leeched out of the food. Cooking a high-acid food, such as stewed tomatoes can eat away the iron exposing the aluminum again.
Here's a dumb question...
When did they stop letting fans come onto the field to celebrate a championship?
After 9/11
Great. Dumbs--t terrorists messing the rest of us up.
Yeah... that's kinda what they DO. :-)
In the past year or two, I've been seeing a type of insect that I've never seen before and I was wondering if anyone knows what they may be. I unfortunately don't have a picture but I'll describe it as best as I can.
It looks like a centipede but it has far longer legs. From what I've seen watching them, they can move pretty fast as well. I know the ones in warmer climates are huge at times, so size probably isn't a good indicator. However, they do seem to be bigger then centipedes I've seen, about the same length but their width is longer, the long legs likely make them look longer.
Has any ever seen this species before? I've only seen them in the past year or two.
Something like this?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/pdc/Factsheets/Other/HouseCentipede.htm
Yep, I think that's it. Thanks.