Miscellaneous desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 19[edit]

"Pushing up daisies"[edit]

Where did the saying "Pushing up daisies" originate from and what is its background story? I think it means dying. Acceptable 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means "dead and buried," as when a body decays into fertilizer and feeds the flowers. No idea where it came from, though. --Masamage ♫ 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pushing up daisies" may have come into the language during the Great War. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a poem by Wilfred Owen as the first use in print - see A Terre (being the philosophy of many soldiers) (1917/18). The OED also says that "under the daisies" was being used as a euphemism for 'dead' from the middle of the 19th century. Xn4 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, "pushing up daisies" was first heard around the start of the American Civil War according to Wright, John D. (2001) The Language of the Civil War.—eric 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an expression in French, but I'm not sure from what year it dates. · AndonicO ^Talk 02:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper cars, the subways, Ozone?[edit]

Please note the following scenes: =sitting in bumper cars, bumping around =traveling the NYC or other subway system

I've noticed an odor, quite pronounced in each of these situations, and not the kind caused by poor hygiene, bad cleaning, etc. Its a musty kind of smell. My question: Is that odor Ozone? i.e does the arcing of D.C. somehow cause Ozone production in those environments as noted. Thanks for your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.36.50 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that the electrical arcing in the two situations would produce ozone enough for you to smell it. You might also smell the electric motor windings and lubricants which get warm in operation and may give off fumes. Edison 03:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, electrical arcing is one of the more popular ways to manufacture ozone. You run oxygen between two plates, and send electrical arcs between them. This apparently fuses the some O2 molecules into O3 molecules. --Mdwyer 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stock exchange[edit]

why are bulls & bears terms used in stock market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.79.3 (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Market trends#Etymology. Confusing Manifestation 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

live check[edit]

I have a live check worth a good bit, and I want to deposit it in my bank which doesn't have a branch anywhere near me. Can I mail it to them to deposit in my account? Is this risky, what if it gets lost?

To deposit it, you must sign the back of the check. If it gets lost with your signature, there isn't nothing preventing someone else from cashing it. If there is no way to get to your regular bank, I'd switch banks. Barring that, I'd probably go to a supermarket, have them cash the check, while there I'd then buy a money order and then send that to the bank. Although, I'd probably contact my bank before proceeding with any of this as they may have a simpler solution. Dismas|^(talk) 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have an ATM card, I wonder if you could use a deposit-taking ATM? I've only deposited at the ATM in front of my bank, so I'm not sure of the details of depositing at an ATM elsewhere.

A quick Google search found some generic instructions on how to make deposits by mail, with advice to write "For Deposit Only" along with the endorsement, and mail it with a filled-out deposit slip from the back of your checkbook. --Bavi H 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say "check" I assume you are in the US. In the UK I regularly mail cheques to my bank (with a paying in slip) and never had any problems. However, it's a good idea to make a note of the cheque number and account number etc in case it gets lost. I have never heard of having to sign the back (though I recall Bart Simpson expecting to get Krusty's autograph by sending him a check); presumably this is a US thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., we have to sign the back of the check in order to deposit or cash the check. On most checks there is even a small line drawn across the end of the check above which we are to sign. The signature goes across one short end of the check. Specifically, if you were to take the check, while looking at it's face, in your right hand and flip it over so that the end that was in your left hand is now the top, that is the end that gets signed. The end that was in your left hand. Also, if I get a check from person A and I want to use it to pay person C, I can turn the check over in the aforementioned manner, sign it, and then write "Pay to the order of:" and then person C's name. Person C can now sign below their name and cash the check. This is a two party check and many places will not accept two party checks. Dismas|^(talk) 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly deposit cheques (or checks) in ATM's that belong to your bank - but which are not outside your branch. SteveBaker 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the security steps others have suggested, I would recommend not sending the check through the ordinary mail. Instead, I would choose a delivery service that allows tracking of the envelope, a signature by the bank employee receiving the envelope, and possibly insurance of the contents. Most national postal services offer such a service, or you could send your envelope through a private courier that does. 192.251.134.5 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you could always open a local bank account to cater for this eventuality. If you then still wanted to money to go into your main account you could probably do the transfer on line.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above your signature write "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY at Bank Name; ABA No. 1234567890; Acct. No. 987654321". —Nricardo 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilliputian breasts and the bras that bind them[edit]

I've scanned through the relevant articles on bras and bra size measurements and such but haven't been able to find what I'm looking for. I've tried looking at the Playtex web site but it's flash based and therefore I can't access it from here at work. (I'm also partially asking here at the ref desk since I don't know what I'll stumble across while on a computer at work and don't want to have someone catch the wrong image over my shoulder) So, on to the question... Do small breasted women wear bras? According to our articles here, sizes exist for A cups but I'm not sure if they are everyday use sorts or part of a lingerie set. I don't really see the use of wearing one on a day to day basis since there isn't really anything to support. So, what reason is there for a small breasted woman to wear a bra if they indeed wear them? And since it's on my mind... Is the term "flat chested" pejorative? Dismas|^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the woman has very small breasts, wearing a bra can avoid nipples being visible through their shirt. --124.254.77.148 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very young girls wear training bras, which are designed for the flat-chested. Presumably there's something similar for adults. --Masamage ♫ 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bras don't necessarily hide nipples. Depends on the type. I've never really worn a small bra - my breasts were at least b-cup before I ever wore them - but now at D-cup size, I still get embarrassing nippleage even with my bra. Speaking of my breasts.. *goes to ask a question* Kuronue | Talk 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flat chested" is a little pejorative: "small breasted" is nicer and not euphemistic either. There are also bras that have no cup at all, such as this one by Calvin Klein. As pointed out above, a bra can hide the nipples, and it can also stop them chafing against a shirt. SaundersW 08:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even small breasts need support after gravity has done its work. Furthermore a lot of women get smaller breasts after breast-feeding and even though the breasts are small, they are not firm, which can be quite uncomfortable, especially when running or dancing. Furthermore, a lot of small-breasted women wear bras because it makes their breasts look slightly bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lova Falk (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the phrase, "On the A-Team". --Sean 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience small breasted women usually wear bras. It's possibly as much psychological as physical, i.e., it's a form of underwear so it makes them feel fully dressed, and given that our society says that women wear bras, psychologically they want to wear one to feel like a woman. --203.164.131.137 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many women don't feel feminine without a bra, and conversely, fat men who could really use a bra would feel humiliated if they actually wore one. StuRat 04:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wy would women want to suppress their nipples? They are a salient feature of the female breast and should be flaunted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.4.191 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that they wear any clothes at all. Plasticup ^T/C 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIRLS[edit]

Why do girls like tall guys?218.248.2.51 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid[reply]

Well, remember, not all girls do! For those who do, it's largely cultural; we're told that tall men are desirable, so we believe it. For some, though, it's just a matter of personal preference; for instance, I like being able to hide warmly in my husband's arms and under his chin, although I didn't seek that out deliberately. Anyway, it would be more awkward for a guy to hug a woman whose chest was at his face-level. --Masamage ♫ 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm sure the guy wouldn't mind ;) --124.254.77.148 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing an interview with Julie Strain which she ended with "Come up and see me sometime, it's worth the climb" Gzuckier 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as someone who's 6'5" and remained single until he was 28(!) I can categorically say that girls don't always like a guy just because he's tall. There's a lot more to it than that. 09:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.131.135 (talk)

IIrc, a few studies have been done which correlate height with success in business, etc. So it's not just girls. i figure some deep rooted primate psychology thing.Gzuckier 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing that somewhere. Also, a study correlating salary to height; the taller you are the more you make...Go figure. 38.112.225.84 14:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most straight women I know don't really care about the guy's actual height, only that he's taller than she is. It makes them feel less feminine (or that he's less masculine) to be bigger than her guy. Not all women feel that way, I'm sure, but everyone I've discussed it with does. --Sean 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean has it right- most of my girl friends say that they prefer guys that are taller than them, but not necessarily "tall". I myself prefer guys who are just taller than me. It makes us girls feel more feminine and we fit great under their arms :) But, I do have a friend who likes shorter guys. it's all in preference. --PolarWolf ( sign ) 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3D Tutorials[edit]

I have been registered as a new user in the tutorials3D.com (I have received the mail) but I am still not understanding how to carry it on.I doubt wether it is really free or a marketing gimmick because they are advertising their software and asking me to buy their CD's in their mails to me.218.248.2.51 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid[reply]

I don't understand. Yes, they are certainly trying to sell you stuff. What are you trying to achieve by registering? Carry what on where? Do you have a question?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! $110 for a CD-based modeling tutorial! Most 3D packages come with enough tutorials to get you going. If you just want to learn the general techniques (as opposed to a specific 3D package) then grab a copy of blender (software) (which is a free/OpenSource 3D modeling and rendering package) - there are a bazillion tutorials out there for it - and they are all free. SteveBaker 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital camera: AUTO vs. P[edit]

I have a Canon PowerShot S3 IS digital camera, which I have taken over 8800 pictures with in a little more than a year. What confuses me is its photographing modes. We have, in principle, AUTO, P, Av, Tv, and M. AUTO and P means that the camera automatically chooses the aperture and exposure. Av means that I choose the aperture but the camera chooses the exposure. Tv is is the other way around. M means that I choose everything. What puzzles me is why there are separate AUTO and P modes. Their difference is, get this: AUTO disables exposures over 1/8 seconds, manual focus, and macro photography. What does it enable instead? Get this: nothing whatsoever. Why in the blue blazes is this separate from the P mode? It only adds further restrictions without helping the photographer at all. Automatically choosing something when the photographer doesn't know how to select it is understandable, but refusing the photographer something that is optional to begin with is not. JIP | Talk 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto is for when you don't want to think about anything. P, according to this site, "sets both the aperture and the shutter speed; however other camera settings such as sensitivity, compensation, and white balance can be adjusted by the user." To my mind, not allowing, for example, macro, in Auto mode is a good thing, because on more than one occasion I've forgotten to reset my Sony MVC-500 to normal. --LarryMac | Talk 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree. Auto will also do auto flash, whereas in P you should be able to control it, force it on, turn it off, or set it auto. The reason it would disable exposures over 1/8 seconds would be that it would assume that would be the slowest possible shutter speed you could use without being guaranteed of bad blurring (and even with IS, that's probably overgenerous, i.e., most photographers would blur at 1/8s). But you're saying it's not helpful to a point-and-shoot photographer to try to stop them inadvertently blurring their photos? We could go through the other things too. Does someone just grabbing up the camera for a quick snapshot want to worry with manual focus or macros? Do they even know what they are? So I'd say Auto is a very useful option for the very reason that it does disable options to try to prevent mistakes for people just wanting to take snapshots. --jjron 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, even with P mode, manual focus and macro photography are off by default. You have to manually turn them on (which requires knowing they exist in the first place) for them to make any difference. If you just switch from AUTO to P, it's still a point-and-shoot camera. Why does the camera have a mode that forbids enabling something that is disabled by default? It's not like it compensates for this by making other choices automatic, like it does with P versus Tv, Av or M. The flash is normally physically depressed into the camera, which means it won't automatically fire even in AUTO mode unless you physically lift it up. So I don't think that's a reason either. And yes, pictures at 1/8 seconds do blur a lot. But they're also nearly always hopelessly underexposed, making them look drab and boring. I'd rather have the photographs have proper lighting than have them razor-sharp. As an analogy, consider a restaurant where the waiter offers to select the wine for you if you don't know squat about wines, but adds that this means you can't add condiments to your food. Having the right wine is important, and a wine novice would possibly order something that tastes bad with the food. But adding condiments is completely optional. Most restaurant foods don't need them. But if you find that it does, then you should be able to decide for yourself whether to add them or not. JIP | Talk 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on with your digital camera, but any I've used (and that's lots) automatically fire the flash in Auto mode if it decides it needs it, at least if you give it time to focus. Even my DSLR does this in Auto. Also disagree with your first point; yes you have to turn on macro or whatever, but as cameras have got more user friendly this is ridiculously easy to do - in other words, someone grabs the camera to take a quick snap, in doing so accidentally hits the macro button, and voila, you're in macro mode when you don't want it (so you don't have to know these things exist, and in fact may not even know what they are). Believe me, I deal with photos taken by schoolkids all the time, and unless they have a fair bit of nous about this I tell them 'just use auto' for the very reasons that they can't accidentally do things you don't want, and so that the camera takes control. Invariably when they use other modes, the pictures come out a mess unless they've been instructed in what to do. And hey, if you don't like Auto mode, then don't use it. --jjron 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried out the flash, and it is just like I said, it is normally physically pressed into the camera. When pressed down, it won't fire, no matter what. When you lift it up, it can fire, depending on the mode. In AUTO mode, it can only fire automatically. In P mode, it can fire either automatically or always. If the flash is pressed down but the camera decides it should still fire, it informs me. I gather from your posts that the point of forbidding me to use advanced features in AUTO mode is to protect myself from stupid accidental mistakes. This may be right, I previously had a Minolta Dimage 7i camera, which is an older model but more advanced for its time. When using it, I kept accidentally pressing the AF/MF button, which works even in AUTO mode, and it ruined a couple of pictures, because I am not very good at manual focusing. JIP | Talk 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camera Equipment[edit]

What is the best camera equipment (small camera) that can see in underground or dark spaces like a cave, does it need special lighting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.106.144 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a cave, with no light coming in from anywhere - no camera can possibly operate. However, if there is very little light then image intensifiers (aka Night vision device) can boost the brightness to the point where almost any camera could record it. Domestic camcorders will generally operate down to a few lux. A candle within a few feet of the camera and the object will provide enough light for at least a monochrome picture. A still picture camera can do better by leaving the shutter open for longer - so providing the camera is firmly mounted and the thing you are photographing doesn't move - you can use long exposures to compensate for low light levels. SteveBaker 22:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it where you can see what a camera is inputting from another location on a screen or monitor in front of you, kind of like what they use in undercover operations, so while they are not in a room at time they can see what is going on in another location?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.106.144 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a 'closed circuit TV camera' (CCTV for short) - but that doesn't affect the ability of the thing to see in the dark - it just refers to a situation where the TV signal isn't being recorded in the camera for replay later and it isn't being broadcast over a radio link. The camera itself is the same thing either way. SteveBaker 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for a camera to operate in total darkness, but it would require the use of an active infrared system. That basically "illuminates" the area, but using an IR source that is not visible to the unaided human eye. - Eron ^Talk 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Internet Email Private?[edit]

Is email sent over Yahoo,Hotmail, Google, private?
are there people reading them?
are there computers reading them and saving information

Is there a way to encrypt email so above does not happen, if it is happening. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.36.50 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencrypted email is certainly not private. People along the way between you and your destination could certainly read it if they had the resources to devote to doing it. Treat it like a phone conversation in that regard. Are there people reading them? Well, nobody could possibly read all of it - there is just vastly too much of it - but they can (and in some cases do) use computers to scan email for suspicious stuff and route that off for humans to read. If you are emailing from work then there is a very strong likelyhood that your email is being archived - and if you work for a large organisation, it's possible that someone is reading random emails just to keep a rough check on what's going on. There are plenty of ways to encrypt your email - but it very much relies upon the person at the other end knowing how to decrypt it (and actually being bothered to do so). A very popular program is called 'PGP' (Pretty Good Privacy) - which as it's name implies does a pretty good job - although it's possible that the resources of a major government who really wanted to know what a specific email said could do so within a few days to weeks with a major decryption effort. SteveBaker 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the mere existence of an encrypted email can quite easily raise red flags if you're concerned about official (government / corporate / etc) monitoring. Since the addresses can't be encrypted, this may draw unwanted attention to yourself and/or the recipient. — Lomn 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. If you wanted communications to be secret as well as private - that would be a different matter. I'd suggest steganography - hide your encrypted data in the low order bits of the pixels in a photograph where it would simply look like a somewhat noisy image. If you care very much then don't even send the photo to the other person (since, as Lomn points out, addresses can't be encrypted) - but instead post it into some gigantic online photo repository such as Flickr and have the other person download it from there. SteveBaker 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to read the article E-mail privacy. Jon513 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to also read Carnivore (FBI). Corvus cornix 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breasts[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question was removed due to the partial medical nature and I put it back. Without the second sentence, this is not a medical question and I feel it should stay. That's why I'm putting it back. Now back to the question, I don't know of an answer but since your user page says you're a student, maybe ask the theater dept.? Dismas|^(talk) 22:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss that - take it to the 'discussion' page. SteveBaker 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...what? That's a medical question? I meant it as a costuming-related question rather than... well I guess I can see how you'd think that. Ah well. I'll ask someplace else, now that I'm all embarrassed anyway. Thanks. Kuronue | Talk 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't be silly. it wasn't a medical question. hiding it you just waste people's time because they'll go dig for the diff B) --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly cannot rely on any advice here that binding the nellies would be comfortable or safe. But women such as Frances Clayton, Sarah Edmonds Seelye, and "Albert D. J. Cashier" who sought to pass as male soldiers, successfully concealled their gender in the American Civil War, while others were discharged for "sextual incompatibility."[1]. Edison 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever has deleted that interesting question is a eunuch and a hypocrite who must be hiding his sexual promiscuity (phew) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is NOT a medical question and should NOT have been deleted. As for the Q, I suggest, if the part allows it, that you build up the rest of your chest with padding and clothing so your breasts will no longer be prominent. You can either have a "large, muscular chest" or put on a fat-suit with indentations for your breasts and play a fat man. StuRat 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown film[edit]

I was watching a film a while ago and I've forgotten the name of it. If I summarize it, I'd greatly appreciate any guesses on what it was called: There was this family and the dad was really paranoid about nuclear attacks or something, so he made this shelter underground and he made the family live down there. That was in the 60s so they had all this tinned food; however they started running out of food so they sent their son up to get supplies, only he'd never been up before and it was in the future. Any idea? Thanks very much. :D 86.153.37.143 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the Past? - Eron ^Talk 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]