Miscellaneous desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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

October 25[edit]

Necklaces[edit]

Does the pendant in this necklace look like a leaf or a upside down tear drop? http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130810132550/hercxena/images/6/6d/YAT_watching.jpg http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130806142904/hercxena/images/f/fa/SITC_setup.jpg And how would you describe this necklace in these 2 photos? http://hercxena.wikia.com/wiki/Gabrielle?file=Gabhammeramphip.jpg http://hercxena.wikia.com/wiki/Gabrielle?file=Gabrielle_mq_2060n.jpg I'm only asking because I'm making necklaces with my mental health worker. Venustar84 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pendant in the first photo (unclear even on enlarging) appears to be the same as the second. As the pendant is similar to a bead, I referred to this online Glossary of Bead Shapes. The shape in the second photo clearly resembles an upside-down teardrop or pear shape, characterized as puffed and smooth-surfaced. I haven't found the significance of an upside-down drop, which possibly might appear in a general lexicon of tribal adornment or fan site for Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess). The third photo appears to be the same necklace without the pendant, which might be part of a story line relating to the necklace and pendant, or perhaps the wardrobe or continuity staff missed this detail. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say it is a leaf. I found other pics of replicas. Here and here. The other one I found here. I would call the second necklace two oval beads and one round in middle all metal with relief designs. Image search with "metal bead" comes up with a lot of similar stuff. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate answer[edit]

what is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything 89.204.139.158 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life? Procreation.

The Universe? Immortality.

Everything? Truth /or 42 ;)

- #HalSiduri...

42. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just 42, though the question might need reformulating ... Dbfirs 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probable that to do so would take eons. I'm not sure OP is willing to wait that long. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, we have all the time in the universe and the Infinite Improbability Drive. Dbfirs 17:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the question of life, the universe, and everything? The OP has asked a question about the answer to an unspecified question. What question? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, like the OP said.Sjö (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've all assumed that the question was a joke (so we should have smalled our replies) but perhaps the OP wants an answer in the real universe rather than Douglas Adams's fictional universe. If so, then the question should be split between the Science desk (for scientific answers such as Quantum gravity) and the Humanities desk (for religious answers such as Jesus). Other answers are possible, of course. Dbfirs 13:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there an actual question within "the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be or not to be? Where is the question? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By itself it's a bit amgibuous. But ~~Piglet~~ Hamlet goes on to elaborate. Nowadays he might say "To be a stand-up guy? Or not?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew why he had to be such a drama queen about it. Talking to himself in early modern English and talking about suffering 'slings and arrows', etc., which even in those days were essentially obsolete weaponry. Why didn't he just go to the medicine cabinet, eat all the paracetomol and drink a bottle of whiskey and end it all, thereby saving every teenager from the agony of having to read this weak-minded man's soliloquy? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 15:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why didn't the whale just eat all of Captain Ahab prior to the events in Moby-Dick, thereby saving etc. etc. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's different. That book had a whole bunch of hidden messages in it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 23:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which could just as well have stayed hidden. But no matter what, as the book progressed I was more and more rooting for the whale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. Fluffy little cuddly toy whales are lovely when you get them from the souvenir shop, but they can be vicious when you are up close to a real one. Anyway, they make good sashimi. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 03:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Warrior generally had no idea what the question was, but it never stopped him from answering emphatically. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the question as an actual question rather than something from a work of fiction, we're actually faced with the same issue that Deep thought got into in the fictional universe. We aren't told what the actual question is. We can guess at some likely questions, like "Why is there life in the universe?" or "What is the purpose of life?" or "What is the purpose of the universe?" - but there are a very large number of possible questions that this request might refer to...and we simply don't know which question we're supposed to be answering. Douglas Adams simply points out that if you don't know what the question is, then any answer is as good as any other - so why not '42'. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that there is life in the universe, or that there is a significant distinction between life and non-life. This may be one more example of us thinking of ourselves as special. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least we have selves. Without them, acting selflessly wouldn't make us look cool to others. Life is the stuff that cares about other life. Stones are stones, that much is certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, everyone! It was in the protons of a frog on a log in latest (for me) episode of Futurama, a work of fiction. It looked like the period at the end of a sentence. But if you look closer, it's all fairly clear. There are no more questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly always thought that more likely mathematical answers to "the question"" would be (in order of decreasing likelihood) 0, 1, i, e, or π. Not that I have any particular reason for thinking so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euler's identity is a particular reason for thinking so. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Whatever the question is, it's something that a computer will have to figure out, because we're dumb. Once we have that answer, we'll want to know how the computer figured it out. At the root, there will either be a one or a zero, because binary is dumb. Absolutely true or absolutely false. No question, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But because all of existence is interconnected, every entity, whether 'living' or 'non-living' equates to every other entity, so that would mean that 0 = 1, and vice-versa. There is no duality, only reality. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronistically, today I heard an hour-long radio interview with DNA that was first broadcast in 2000. That was 14 years ago, and 14 is one-third of 42. How spooky is that! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather more spooked by the fact that the DNA had learned in some way to speak English..... KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that's what we're for. We make machines to perform calculations, DNA makes people to speak. MChesterMC (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I share your suspicions (and some of your DNA). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting a little beyond the scope of the question. There is supposedly a question and it supposedly has an answer. Can we please try to stay on topic? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might help you to know that Douglas Adams' middle name is Noel. SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's "Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations." --Jayron32 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that path has been tried and so it may seem like the way to go. Me, I'd rather be found trying something new. Whoa yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Be excellent to each other... And party on!" --Jayron32 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies and dickheads. They'll all adore you and think you're a righteous dude. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]