Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 24

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.

October 24

tap beer

How long does beer in a tap stay good, before going flat or getting stale? If a bar has a lot of beers on tap or has a slow week or something, that beer is just sitting there for a long time, does it go bad and they have to dump it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.50 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A week, according to [1] FiggyBee (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also with real ales, you may have to throw away the first pint each day, as it goes stale in the line. [2]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, real ales last about a week once tapped (give or take what's in the lines as has been said). Lagers last forever since there's nothing the slightest bit natural about them! (Although that may just be that I think they taste disgusting to start with so can't taste the difference! I'm pretty sure they last longer than real ales, though.) Old barman's trick: If your real ale goes flat, poor half a pint of lemonade into the barrel and it's nice and fizzy again (technically, you're in violation of several laws, but, meh)! --Tango (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That "lemonade" would be a carbonated soft drink like 7-UP and not a fruit drink made of lemon juice and sugar and water, correct? Edison (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Is the traditional still drink still the main use of the word in the US? In the UK, we'd call that "traditional lemonade" or something to distinguish it. It's the same lemonade as is used in shandy, so mixing it with beer isn't that strange. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the exclusive use. In the States if you say lemonade when you mean Sprite, you will simply not be understood. Lemonade is lemon juice, water, and sugar. (An excellent variation is to substitute limes and leave the sugar out; if you have good limes they're just sweet enough by themselves.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So what do you call drinks like Sprite? --Tango (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I call them an abomination. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:) And those in the US that drink them? --Tango (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, "soda" or "pop" or "soda pop" or "soft drinks". There's no special name for the lemon-flavored ones. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/308-the-pop-vs-soda-map/ —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, in German the cognate of "lemonade" is used for all types of soda pop whether lemon-flavored or not. If you go into a bar or whatever in Germany and have a Coca-Cola, you are likely go get a bill that shows it as "Limonade". --Anonymous, 18:16 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Tango's crack about lager reminds me of a bit in Red Dwarf: "The advantage of dog's milk is that when it goes off it tastes just the same as when it's fresh. Plus it lasts forever, because no bugger 'll drink it." —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're pumping air into the beer rather than CO2, this is bad and you don't want it that way for more than a day or two. If you're taking good care of the beer, it won't deteriorate in a tapped keg any quicker than it does in an untapped keg. Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

America and Britain

In what year did America's population grow to be bigger than Britain or England's? How about the GDP? TastyCakes (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Population: US overtook the UK sometime shortly before 1850, overtook England some time shortly before 1840. [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

Did the movement of Irish famine refugees contribute strongly to this? Edison (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The movement of all the European Potato Famine refugees and the refugees from the Revolutions of 1848 as well would have contributed. Rmhermen (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Substantive news channel

I remember vaguely about a local news channel back in 2002 or so, probably in Illinois, which was performing an experiment to provide some less sensationalist news with substance. Did this happen or was this a figment of my imagination? --Blue387 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of news stations bill themselves as being less sensationalist, with more substance - was there something that made this one more believable than normal? ~ mazca ^t|c 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

French curves

Why are the French curves named so?

Because French men admire them so?  :-) --Scray (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - that's a really good question. Our article ("French curve") on these fascinating, beautiful, (but horribly obsolete) artifacts is a bit lacking in detail! I suspect the root of the term comes from the same place as "frenching" - which is technique used to put curves into metalwork. That article says that the term relates to 'French cuffs' on garments like shirt sleeves...but that link lead only to our article on cuffs in general. Googling on 'frenching' produces a bunch of unrelated stuff. I rather suspect that there has always been a tendency to associate France with things that are generally elegant and kinda sexxy - which is odd because the French themselves generally don't. Dictionary.com says that the term dates back to 1880 to 1885 - but doesn't say where it comes from - that's annoying because I was going to guess that the term dates back to the work of the French mathematician Blaise Pascal - who did a lot of work on the 'cycloid' and other mathematical curves...perhaps relating to the shapes in a French curve instrument - but he was around in the 1600's - and dictionary.com says that the term didn't come to be used until the 1880's. Some people call them "Ships curves" - which presumably relates them to ship design going back to sailing ships and the like.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

An alternative idea is it comes from an American engineer called Thomas French. Would explain why they aren't called English curves in France :) Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary places it in a list of things "of actual or attributed French origin", under a seperate heading from "French cuffs". It doesn't mention the Thomas French theory. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the 1950's, I a saw picture of a French curve where a portion of the instrument was shaped like a bathing beauty. Phil Burnstein (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

old postal codes USA

Between what years did the USPS use 1 digit postal codes, as in "Detroit 5, Michigan" ? I can find information on 2 digit codes (from 1948-1964), but not 1 digit codes. I am trying to date an address. 65.32.120.92 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on ZIP code indicates the US system began in 1943 but using 2 digit postal zones. However, this (scroll down to background) which appears to be an older version of Wikipedias ZIP code page seems to indicate that 1 digit codes were in use then as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And here is where the example was removed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am almost old enough to remember the period before zip codes. (They were introduced around the time I was born, and I can remember seeing addresses using the old system.) The old system worked as follows: Most postal addresses were specified merely by the street address and the name of the town and the state (e.g., Provincetown, Massachusetts), without any numerals following the name of the town or state. Larger cities, however, were divided into numbered postal districts. The numbering of these districts typically started with a one-digit numeral such as 1 or 2, though sometimes the lowest numerals (such as 1 and 2) were reserved for post office boxes at the central post office. However, higher one-digit numerals, such as 5 or 8, were in use for street addresses in most cities. "New York 1, N.Y." was used for street addresses on the West Side of Midtown Manhattan. Smaller cities, such as Lowell, Massachusetts, would have fewer than 10 postal districts, so the numerals for their postal districts had no more than a single digit. Only the larger cities had more than 10 postal districts, some of them specified by two-digit numerals. For example, my present location would have had an address of "Boston 16, Massachusetts", before the introduction of zip codes. When zip codes were introduced, the numerals of each city's postal district were appended to the three-digit zip code prefix specifying that city's postal zone. For example, Manhattan's main three-digit zip code prefix is "100", so "New York 1, N.Y." became "New York, NY 10001". Similarly, "Boston 16, Mass." became "Boston, MA 02116". Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Red hair

People with red hair are often the target of ridicule/prejudice from people within their own race (i.e. white people). Even the media is happy to poke fun at those with red hair. But I was wondering if anything similar happened in other races. Do black or Asian people, for example, ridicule groups within their own race based on certain physical features? Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I must note that I am a red haired man in a mostly white nation, and I have never seen this type of ridicule, from the media or elsewhere. Blondes are another story... Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Paper Bag Party? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger section

::See Colorism. Skin color discrimination among US blacks has been on the basis of the "blue vein test" as well. There were nightclubs in the US in the 20th century for African Americans where the skin color had to be light enough or they were not admitted. I have seen programs produced by Brits where people with red hair are called "ginger" or "ginger knob." Ginger I see in the supermarket is brown, not red, so this is puzzling. In the U.S. they might be called "carrot top." Carrots are closer to the color of red hair than ginger is. Edison (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen/experienced, hair texture is a similar feature inside Black American communities. And as Edison said, there is also the skin color issue.--droptone (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gingerism is more of a UK issue than a U.S. one. Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do Brits see red hair as being ginger? Ginger is brown on the outside and greenish on the inside. Is there some red ginger candy or ginger drink which leads to the association? Edison (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about this, too, but I don't think it's just British. Also I suppose it's not really any further from the truth than "red". There was a bit in Stranger in a Strange Land where Michael is making notes to himself about things like the color that is called red when applied to hair, though it's not called red for anything other than hair. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger-haired men (rarely women) in Australia are often nick-named "Blue" or "Bluey", for reasons I've never fathomed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly some association like ginger -> spicy -> hot -> red. No idea where bluey would come into it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bluey" is because blue is the opposite of red. --Carnildo (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Colors have opposites? Plasticup ^T/C 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See complementary colour and irony. jnestorius^(talk) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently had occasion to explain to someone in Slovenia that English-speakers do not consider "red" hair to be intermediate between blond and brown. She had some surprising notions of what's "red", too. —Tamfang (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two snacks in the UK which contain ginger and are a reddish brown. One is Brandy snaps and the other is Ginger Nut Biscuits Nut is slang for head in the UK and we would call red haired kids 'Ginger Nut' at school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.215.48 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In young Japanese culture, there are a number of things you could be ridiculed for. Most of them exist in the west, but for some reason they seem to be a lot more "sensitive" here, perhaps because they are so "fashion concious" here, i.e. self-esteem is a big problem. Rarity is also a big factor, as is with the hair things, since Japanese tend to have relatively less visible facial/body hair. Some of the most common are: curly hair (tempa), exessive hair on your shins (sune-ge), big-face (it's related to the ratio of heads:body-length, so somebody with a shorter body (relative to the size of their head) will be known as a big-face), and of course, small eyes. 124.154.253.49 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Using the term "ginger" for red hair- The term has been around for a long time. It was previously not usually applied to anyone who has dark red hair, that might better be described as "red" or "chestnut". The term "ginger" implied that the colour was a light reddish shade. It is used not only for human hair but for chestnut horses that are a palish colour and for cats as well. See picture at [5]

Ginger kitten

• Explanation- In the 19th century, very few English people would have seen ginger in its natural state. When ginger arrived in England, it came in a porcelain jar and was in a rich syrup. The preservation made the ginger much more of a brownish-orange colour, much closer to the human hair colouring usually described in that way than a carrot, which is bright orange.
• Concerning the Australian nick-name- It was characteristic of Australian nicknames that they were the opposite of reality. So a man with red hair is "Blue", a man with a bald head is "Curly", a very large man is "Tiny", a very tall man is "Shorty", an Aboriginal man is "Snowy" a bloke from Manly is called "Bondi" and the toughest cop in town is called "Baby Face".

I just Googled ginger horses. To my surprise, the notion of "ginger" being a particular colour designation seems remarkably to have been lost to common knowledge, probably because people no longer have jars of preserved ginger and are more likely to see it covered with chocolate, candied with sugar or raw. The horses that I found that were actually described or named "Ginger" were mostly chestnut, but included several Palominos, several duns (buckskins), a splendid bay horse with a dark red coat and black mane that would never have been called Ginger! There was also a shiny dark brown horse! When I was a child in the 50s, I knew a couple of "Ginger"s. They took their name from the mare in Anna Sewell's Black Beauty

Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

International trade

Why in International trades we are using currencies like USD, or Euro? I think US, or Europe benefits from this. Do they really deserve this? Who sets this standards? Isn't possible to use something like gold for this purpose? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In our article, or in real life? People trade with the currency units that are convenient to whoever has the whip hand in the transaction. That being the case, it's more conventional to trade using a currency than gold. You are right about advantage; I'm sure we have an article - petrodollar, perhaps - which notes the advantage the US gets from oil being priced in US dollars rather than, say, Euros. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The price of gold itself fluctuates, so there isn't a lot of point in specifying monetary amounts in it. Doing so would be less understandable to our readers than USD. It's conventional to express them in terms of a widely used currency, with USD being the most widely used and the Euro being a reasonable substitute. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The price of gold doesn't fluctuate any more than the price of any given currency. It's best for us to report values in the currency that was actually used in the trade (with conversions in brackets if appropriate). --Tango (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

less understandable? I don't think so. Check the following usages; Ipod 10 grams of gold, Tata nano 100 grams of gold, ..etc

Tango, that actually turns out not to be the case. Gold prices fluctuate a lot more than currency values do. For example, the price of gold was $692/oz. this morning; it was $918/oz. on 10 October. The value of the dollar has been considerably more constant during those two weeks. To the OP, gold simply isn't what you seem to think it is, not anymore. It's now just a commodity, and using one of the world's reserve currencies to complete (or at least report on) a transaction is more convenient for everyone involved. Darkspots (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Gold has just had its biggest weekly drop in 28 years[6], so that's hardly a fair test! Outside of a major economic crisis, gold is pretty stable. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold is a commodity with prices that fluctuate wildly, as the last week has shown. Currencies (in well-run economies) are managed so that changes in their purchasing power (inflation or deflation) happen slowly. I don't walk into Starbucks in the morning and get told that the dollar lost 13% of its real value in a week, so my coffee costs an extra sixty cents today. Gold from 1979 to 1982 lost well over half its value, expressed in dollars, from over $700 an ounce to less than $300. My point is that the gold standard is well behind us. The deflationary effect of rising gold prices in the Great Depression is the reason the United States abandoned the gold standard—deflation generally creates vast uncertainty in an economy (gold prices were only one of the causes of deflation in the Great Depression). Darkspots (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. If gold is used instead of USD / Euro in international trade, then its price will not fluctuate, because there will always be heavy demand. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between purchasing power and exchange rates. While the local purchasing power of a major currency is pretty stable, the nominal rate of the exchange between major currencies does fluctuate quite significantly. I believe it generally fluctuates on a similar scale to the gold price in dollars. The last week or so has been exceptional - gold has bad weeks just as any currency does. I'm sure the US dollar has had the odd week in the past 28 years where it's lost comparable amounts of value to what gold has lost recently. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

←One more time: Gold is a commodity, which is to say that it really exists and there is a finite quantity of it, unlike money. The reason that every nation abandoned the gold standard is that it was unacceptable to them to have their currency be subject to fluctuations in the price of gold and the gold supply. They found that they needed the ability to regulate their money supply, not leave it up to however much gold got mined that year. See Great Depression#Gold standard. Every major currency abandoned the gold standard in the Great Depression; there was a direct correlation between when a nation abandoned the gold standard and when it recovered from the Depression. See also Causes of the Great Depression#Gold Standard. Basically, tying currencies to the price of gold caused deflation. This belief that gold has a fixed purchasing power and just fluctuates like any other currency has some intuitive appeal but historically proved to be untrue and also a Very Bad Idea. When the value of currency in people's pockets declines with the price of gold, they stop borrowing money, and the economy goes off the rails. This crisis seems bad? Darkspots (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross country

What is the medical criteria for selecting a good long distance runner? I understand that one needs to have a low pulse rate. Apart from that, what else should be considered, height, build, etc sumal (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The low pulse rate comes from being very fit rather than being a pre-disposition to being a good runner, I believe. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mostly from being fit, but surely there is variance at one's resting heart rate apart from fitness level. Also important for any sort of physical activity is lung capacity, which also surely varies both by predisposition and as a result of training.--droptone (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine there is an genetic factor on resting heart rate, but does it make you a better runner? --Tango (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stamina is also important. This can be built with training, but there is need for a long-term energy supply rather than the explosive release needed for the shorter distances. Some are more suited to the one or the other.86.219.39.92 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)DT

Llanelli v New Zealand 1972

Hi does anyone out there have a programme for this match which llanelli won 9 - 3? I need to find out the Llanelli team from this famous match! Thanks. Smartfreddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartfreddy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Which actual sport are you talking about? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Day the pubs ran dry" from BBC has the lineups. It's rugby union, Jack. Oz used to be good at it...so did Wales. jnestorius^(talk) 00:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd musical instrument

Need information on eggplant shaped object, with handle which appears to have a slot to blow in. Painted red with flower petals painted on each end. There are 10 numbered holes for air to come out of. There are 2 round seals on the bottom, one superimposed over the other. I can't read what they say. There is also an oval shaped seal that says in part Made in Austria (in English). Unknown material, not cast iron but too heavy to be ceramic.18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanjen (talk • contribs)

Ocarina? FiggyBee (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree - that's an ocarina alright. SteveBaker (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that ocarinas were used for the sound of the Seven Dwarves pipe organ in the Snow White Disney cartoon: [7]. Edison (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

about Frankie Valli and the 4 Seasons

I have a video of FV and the 4S in concert in Chicago 1982. There is a Guy he calls GUIDO, who seems to be really funny and good. I have not see him before or after (the next Concert video I have is from 1992 in Atlantic City) Who is Guido, and what has become of him? I'm really interested to find out. Thank you very much Kary Silva Palm Desert, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveFValli (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you're talking about Father Guido Sarducci? He used to appear on SNL, too. --Scray (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking to a person via a translator etiquette

Okay, here's an etiquette question for you Mr./Ms. Manners types out there ...

Say you're speaking to someone via an interpreter. Assume also that we're in the U.S. or U.K. where it's considered polite to make eye contact with the person you're speaking to edit: or in any other county or culture where this rule of etiquette applies, I guess. When you're speaking to the person, I'd think it would be considered polite to make eye contact with that person. When the person responds, is it then polite to continue eye contact with the person being interpreted, or with the person doing the interpreting? I've always felt a little funny about this situation, because it would seem to me that you should make eye contact with the person being interpreted basically at all times (since s/he's the person you're communicating with), btut that leaves the interpreter out of all eye contact, which seems kind of rude to me on some level. Any thoughts? Dgcopter (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question. A related question I've never been sure about is whether you should refer to the person you are communicating with in the 2nd or 3rd person. --Tango (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

An interpreter (for a deaf person using a special telephone) once told me to use second person. I guess that simplifies things a bit for the interpreter, reducing the number of mental conversions required. —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, you maintain eye contact with the person you are communicating with, not the interpreter. The interpreter should be used to not being looked at (although you can glance at him/her occasionally) and you don't want to miss any part of the body language of the speaker. Also speak normally, i.e. address the other party in the 2nd person. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In the UN the interpreters aren't even visible to the speaking parties. The speaker addresses his crowd directly, the crowd looks back at him, and the interpreters do their business out of sight. Plasticup ^T/C 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion: I think one should entirely focus on the other person when speaking to them, but when hearing their words via the interpreter, you should pay attention to both. When someone speaks to you in the same language, you focus on them, obviously, but the fact of the matter is that through an interpreter, you are getting the intent of the language from your opposite but the language itself from the interpreter. Not acknowledging this fact with your body language seems wrong to me, as if you only cared about what the other person looks like as opposed to what they're saying. But I'm not Miss Mannersl maybe there already are set guidelines one would follow. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's easier to hear and understand someone's words if you are looking at them and can see their lips move, so especially if there is a lot of background noise or the interpreter speaks with a strong and unfamiliar accent, you should look at the interpreter when they speak so you don't mishear. --Tango (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. Look at the person who is speaking to you currently (interpreter or the other person), but address the person as you would normally, unless you're addressing something specifically to the interpreter. Steewi (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I'm a white male in Britain. Recently, a girl from India who's about 4 years younger than me asked for my number. She's a nice girl, but I'm not sure about the cultural and social aspects of being with an Indian girl. She is sweet, studious and intelligent, which I appreciate, but I'm not sure if I'm attracted to her (probably would be after a few drinks), and I fear that the cultural aspects are too large. Can you help me?--Holy Roman Empire (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy, since you are not attracted to her, don't give her your number. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

O RLY?--Holy Roman Empire (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Are you sure you are not looking for an excuse? If you need a few drinks inside you to fancy her then the nicest thing you could do is simply tell her straight "I'm not interested". Looking for problems to do with culture and so on is a bit of a cop out really. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

She's probably the best person to help you answer those questions - if you're interested in possibly pursuing a relationship, go on a date with her and talk to her. That's the point of dates. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contributions list, Looks like we're being trolled. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would assume good faith - the contributions may be a little misguided but they don't look like trolling to me. --Tango (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a testimony the the OP's belief in Beer goggles. Edison (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sand hoppers

How do sand hoppers avoid drowning when the tide comes in?

Perhaps they "crawl or hop … landward if doused with sea water"? Deor (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Oil Prices

Following on from the earlier question about oil-production v oil prices; and also following today's announcement from OPEC that oil production is about to be reduced by 1.5 million barrels per day (about 5%) as from 1st November, is it too simplistic a question to ask whether OPEC have considered that most people and businesses in these recessionary times will surely be planning on consuming less oil than before, thus negating OPEC's efforts to shore up its defences against world economics (in fact, making the situation worse for themselves in the long run), viz, Senator Obama's recent speech in which he announced that the USA will aggressively pursue alternative energy solutions, and Mr. Sarkozi making available millions of Euros to the French Auto Research Establishments for the development of an oil-free engine within the foreseeable future. In short, doesn't OPEC envisage a situation soon when their oil will be an unwanted and inedible lake of sludge beneath their arid sand? 92.23.185.136 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, they know that their oil resources are limited and want to bilk them for all they are worth. They don't want to waste their oil by selling it cheaply during a recession - they would rather keep the price high and wait things out. By the time alternative fuels become widely available their fossil fuels will be long gone, so the super-long term planning that you are thinking of never comes into play. Plasticup ^T/C 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course they are aware of that! That's why Saudi Arabia opposes such a cut (its leaders were mostly educated in the US too). However, they are a lot smarter than we are. They correctly calculate that it will take decades just to make a transition, and far more for a change in public will to occur. As usual, talks of alternate energy are cheap.

Think about the past 5 years: how much have OPEC countries benefited from cutting production? (Hint: the answer is a Lot, with a capital "L"). And how much has increasing prices cut demand and changed public will? (Hint: demand has increased - only the increase in increase has abated; and public will is determined a lot more by convenience in first world nations than we will ever admit).

That said, if they push it too far (e.g., $8/gallon), they really will hurt demand. But by then, they're already making $8/gallon, so maybe it's a net positive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I accept all of that - and thanks for your comments above BUT, as OPEC oil production is withheld, and world prices and inflation inflate - and the USA changes its attitude to drilling in the Gulf and in Alaska where it is well known that VAST oil deposits exist - and as the UK and other oil producing nations seek out hitherto unaffordable fields for exploitation - and as alternative energy sources ARE increasingly developed to the point of consumer viability (wind and wave and coal power per se) - and as general depression-economy reductions in oil consumption progress - SURELY, the OPEC countries must see that their actions NOW are alienating the very countries on which they will in future be relying for food and other non-OPEC-indigenous commodities. Or will the sheiks, princes, and other potentates simply decamp to greener pastures with their oil-zillions intact, leaving their countrymen wandering in the deserts as they did prior to the discovery of oil? 92.23.28.9 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember oil is a 'finite' resource. It's ultimately going to disappear. I've yet to see anyone seriously suggest that oil is going to be worthless in the near to medium term. So ultimately they want to keep the prices as high as the market can sustain. And prices have fallen a lot recently so it makes sense they want to raise prices. And OPEC is hardly a new thing. They've existed for quite a while and have been relatively successful. There is no reason to presume they're going to suddenly totally collapse. And the fact is many OPEC countries are already trying to developed their economies. For example the Burj Dubai and other such developments, while perhaps a sign of extravagance, are also part of an attempt to develop their respective countries into business centres. Of course it's anyone's guess as whether they'd succeed. But it also clearly makes most sense for them to make as most money over as most time from their oil as possible. BTW, even if wind and wave are starting to become viable, most countries are still a long, long way away from getting a large percentage of it's power from wind and water. Remember too that there is a big world out there besides the US. Demand from the developing world is (or was) increasing at a phenomonal rate. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, you appear to be under a serious misimpression about oil resources in Alaska. Take a look at Arctic Refuge drilling controversy. The vast majority are unproven and even with the wildest estimate it is actually only a drop in the ocean. It will take to at least 2018 before anything starts to come out and in 2030 (which is close to the peak production period) it will be between 0.4 - 1.2 % of the world's consumption. In conclusion, it's going to have virtually no effect on the world's prices. This doesn't answer whether or not the US should drill there, but it does mean that Alaskan oil is barely a blip on the radar for OPEC. P.S. Also Oil reserves in the United States Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst oil is a major player in Middle East economies it isn't the only. OPEC is a cartel of sellers working together, it doesn't represent the interests of the economies of the nations of its members, though its activity and action will bolster their economies (some to a larger degree of others). Additionally it is unlikely that nations will be 'petty' in the selling/trade long in the future once the oil has gone. The middle east will have to reshape its economy as the oil age ends (so will every economy), and what services is provides on a global scale are uncertain. Perhaps with its expertise in fuel and power management and its geography/climate it may be well placed to take advantage of future developments in renewable energies? OPEC will seek to control its output to ensure maximum profitability over the maximum time period possible. There are technical limiations to its productions, and there is little benefit in purposefully supplying far more than demand requires (as noted it'll only cheapen its price), so they will constantly alter production to try maintain maximum profitability (and to do so will have to take into account political issues/standing etc.) ny156uk (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's important to mention that we cannot POSSIBLY run out of oil. Sure - it's a finite resource - but the fact is that if we continue to dig it up and burn it - the planet will die from global warming...with us along with it. This will happen LONG before we've gotten the last drop out of the last oil well! Failure to understand the very simple math involved here is skewing all sorts of policies and decisions all around the world. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Steve - point taken, along with those earlier responses - I am certainly learning a lot here - so, following your analogy that the world will end before oil supplies - which country, in your informed opinion, will be the richest in dollar/gold/tradeables/stocks/shares/securities etc., when we all fall off the planet? 92.23.28.9 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

More likely than the world ending due to global warming is that we'll eventually stop using oil (or use it so slowly that there is no real danger of it running out in the foreseeable future). Note the "if" in Steve's reply. In that case, it's impossible to predict the economic situation at the end of the world because we don't know how the world will end or when (if it's in a couple of billion years when the sun starts to die, then chances are good we wouldn't recognise civilisation if it even exists). --Tango (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Right - there are two possible outcomes - we all die before we can burn the last drop - or we stop burning the stuff of our own free will before we've gotten to the last drop. Either way, we won't "run out" of oil. I have no clue which country would be the richest if we killed the planet - I'm not an economist. But you don't have to be an economist to calculate the amount of CO2 produced by burning all of the known oil reserves from around the world - and the answer is clearly "too much". The means by which money would circulate between countries in the fateful final decade is impossible to predict. When humanity would be able to clearly see looming collapse of ecosystems and our inability to produce enough food - even in the US and Europe, money circulation would happen in entirely new ways as some countries would be inundated by rising sea levels - others would perhaps gain better agriculture for a while as formerly ice-covered areas would become rich farmland. I have no clue how you'd figure out which countries would have the most money at the end...but it would hardly matter. SteveBaker (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)