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.
In alot of documents on weaponry i read that one of its effects is knockdown of target. I know this sounds silly but does this mean knockdown as in enough force to push them off balance so they fall? or enough force to push them back hard enough so they are pushed off their feet?
thanks
Basically, if the weapon is powerful enough to knock over the target, it will knock over the shooter as well. Consider the Conservation of Momentum. Before the weapon is fired, the combined shooter-projectile system has momentum of zero. The weapon fires, giving the projectile momentum , and the shooter momentum . The total momentum is still zero. The target is initially at rest (momentum of zero), while the projectile has momentum .
The projectile lodges in the target, so the target and projectile combined have the same momentum . Assuming the target and shooter have similar mass, they'll have the same velocity (in an opposite sense). The velocity here represents the recoil felt by each (the real recoil is the force, but we need to consider internal ballistics and terminal ballistics to find those.) The target experiences the same recoil from the projectile as the shooter does, so for small arms, the bullet will not knock the target over. Of course they could be off balance to start with. anonymous6494 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that- rubber bullets could knock you off balance, even if they don't effect the shooter. if you're talking about a "force" weapon like in minority report-- well, that's sci-fi, so there's a way to work around the laws of, you know, science :p --Laugh! 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "if the weapon is powerful enough to knock over the target, it will knock over the shooter as well" is an oversimplification. The weapon imight not be handheld; the shooter knows when he's going to shoot and can brace himself; and finally, he may simply be heavier. However, it is true that a handheld gun delivers at least as much of an impulse (change in momentum) to the shooter as to the victim. I say "at least" because the bullet might pass through the victim; in addition, at long range it will lose some momentum to air friction. --Anonymous, July 15, 08:53 (UTC).
Actually the vortex ring gun can knock down a target without nocking down the shooter as it uses a blank grenade launcher shell to knock down a target, this is because it creates a vortex ring that then hits the target, the impact of the vortex is much more than the recoil of the blank and only the target feels it
Anonymous
A simple kinetic weapon (like a bullet) that has all of the energy given to it in the gun will apply less force to the victim than to the shooter. The reason bullets kill their victims and not the shooter is that the bulled delivers all of that energy over a tiny area - where the stock of the rifle or the butt of the pistol spreads the load out over a much larger area. It is also possible for some of the recoil from the weapon to be directed out and backwards so it doesn't get transmitted into the shooter's body. Consider a Bazooka for example (although this isn't a kinetic weapon). But this does mean that the whole business of the victim being knocked back several feet by the impact of the bullet is pretty ridiculous. HOWEVER, I was talking about kinetic weapons. There are weapons (like the Bazooka) where there is propellant in the missile that continues to give the projectile more energy after it's left the muzzle of the weapon that fires it. In those cases, there is no problem whatever with the victim being hit with greater force than the shooter. SteveBaker 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the shooting of people and other large creatures, a small caliber or low muzzle velocity bullet may penetrate the target, and may even cause a fatal wound, without preventing the target from continuing the attack. A person with a knife might be shot several times with a 22 a 32 caliber pistol and still cover several yards and stab you to death. A game animal may continue its charge and kill you. This reportedly happened too often to US troops in the Phillipine Insurrection leading to the move up to the heavier 45 automatic. "Knockdown" means the creature falls to the ground. It could be expressed otherwise as "blast an exit wound the size of your fist which cause rapid loss of consciousness from severe blood loss." Other ways to achieve this besides heavy/high muzzle velocity bullets would include bullets which tumble as they penetrate the body, and ones which mushroom or which open up like the Manstopper , Hollow point bullet or the Dum-dum. In some movies in the 1960'sand later like The Wild Bunch (iirc) someone would be standing and fire a shotgun, and a person leaping toward them would be thrown backwards, without the person firing the gun being thrown backwards. Very bad movie physics. Similar bad physics is a standing person being hit by a 50 calibre round from a strafing aircraft, and gracefully sinking to the ground. Is this case they would likely be thrown backwards, perhaps with limbs missing. Edison 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It simple means that the target is taken out, or disabled. Hardyplants 10:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read an article approximately 2 years ago in the Times-Picayune newspaper (New Orleans, La.) that there were studies suggesting that mountain climbers, sky-divers and the like (i.e. risk takers) have typically higher I.Q.'s. Since then, however, I have been unable to find ANY article on the subject, let alone that exact article. Any help on finding information on the subject matter would be appreciated.
Hmm, I don't seem to be having much luck with my school databases. I did learn some interesting sutff though (e.g. homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely to take risks; the EPA puts the value of a single IQ point at $8,346). Do you know for sure the word "IQ" was in the article? Can you remember any uniquely identifying words? --YbborTalk 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$8,346 for an IQ point seems extremely low, in my opinion. If I had one million dollars, and people sold those for $100,000 each, I'd spend half my money buying five IQ points. A.Z. 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the price of things doesn't really depend on how much people are willing to pay. I guess IQ points would be cheap if there were a lot of them to sell. A.Z. 04:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they're talking about the average amount of money people with certain IQs make in their lifetimes. Obviously you can't buy intelligence --Laugh! 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but, You can lose IQ points, and you can spend money to try and stop that from happening. 69.95.50.15 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, learning costs money, either in the form of books or in courses or whatever. Since Equatorial Guinea has an average IQ of 56, and I seriously doubt that African country is populated exclusively by Down's Syndrome sufferers, I'm pretty sure IQ is highly dependent on education. --Taraborn 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recall, "IQ" was used. Because, as risk takers were concerned, they were not neccesarily more intellectual than non-risktakers. The article simply suggested that their IQ's were typically higher and it may have something with the parts of their brains they use when they are, for instance, sky-diving, scuba diving, mountain climbing etc. I'm beginning to feel, though, that the article is some figment of my imagination. However, I recall that there were scientists involved in the study so there was some validity to it. Help!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.223.255.201 (talk • contribs)
Scientists make something as valid as gold does cheap. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if MRIs showed risk-takers as having more active brains, since they think on their feet, but I doubt that, on average, they would have higher IQs. People who are intelligent tend to be less likely to do things like jumping off a bridge, and more likely to be calculating what would be the best length of bungee cord for it --Laugh! 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me like an instance of Selection Bias. Smart Risk takers will tend to be more wealthy than stupid risk takers. Smart risktakes will do the things like Mountain Climbing, Sky diving, and starting busineses. Stupid Risk takers will tend to do other things, like back yard wrestling, petty crimes, etc. I think a more accurate conclusion would be that smart people make more money, and are more likely to do things that are expensive. Like taking Skydiving lessons, or traveling to the mountains. -Czmtzc 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely to vary depending on local trading laws - most Woolworth's in Britain are open on Sundays DuncanHill 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As are the Woolworths in the U.S. Dismas|(talk) 09:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in Australia (they're known as Safeway in Victoria but Woolworths in other states; it's the same company). -- JackofOz 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in Canada. Bielle 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, everyone lives where the poster does, and the rules are the same everywhere in the world! --Charlene 23:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found that fact tag next to our anonymous contributor response highly humorous. --Taraborn 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Woolworth's go out of buissiness? 68.39.174.238 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Woolworth's, the company has fragmented into a bunch of different bits...one part renamed itself Foot Locker - and those stores are still in business. There are other Woolworths that aren't descended from the original company. In short...it's a mess. SteveBaker 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work for Woolies (in the UK) and most of their stores do indeed open on Sundays, some of the smaller ones in my area are closed simply because they dont get enough customers on a Sunday. Opening times vary somewhat, based I believe on the shops floor area. My store is open from 11.00 til 17.00, plus half an hours browsing time before the tills open. Since the break up the Kingfisher group a few years ago it has indeed become something of a shambles but on the whole the company is surviving. Victory Is Mine 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Falcon SCOTT, (Scott of the antarctic), FAMILY TREE ???[edit]
Can some one please help?????
15 years ago I was left many many letters dated from 1800 onwards to around 1919. I was told they were all related to the SCOTT family in some way. Can anyone help me with a SCOTT family tree prior to his birth and after. Can anyone help me re SCOTTS family members. Can someone tell me where to look next. Any help would be much appreciated. 81.154.84.51 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His son, the late Peter Scott, was a famous conservationist and artist. one of Peter Scott's daughters, Dafila Scott, is an artist - see [1]DuncanHill 16:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Falcon Scott was from the Plymouth area, so the city library there may be able to help you with your research. Here is a link to the Plymouth City Libraries website [2]DuncanHill 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The letters may be worth a lot of money - just in case you havnt guessed already. Go to an international fine-art auction firm if you want to sell. When I was a schoolboy I remember buying a pencil covered in pictures of birds from Peter Scott, when he was running a small stall in a tent about bird conservation at an agricultural show. Although looking at an article about him, it seems a very humble activity for an upper-class man in his fifthies to do. Perhaps it was someone else.
Could anyone please advise me on the most number of steps that go up to a building?Whilst recently visiting Villefranch in southern france i went up 825 steps to visit the castle above the town, and i couldnt recall any larger staircase than this (Excluding sky scrapers)
Hmm, Spanish Steps says its mere 138 steps are the longest in Europe! The CN Tower has 2,579 steps but I suppose that fits your definition of skyscraper. Adam Bishop 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Guinness Book of World Records says "The service staircase for the Niesenbahn funicular rises to 2365 metres near Spiez, Switzerland. It has 11,674 steps and a bannister." Presumably it does go "up to a building" viz the terminal station, but I can't be sure until I've looked for this place on Wikipedia.--Shantavira|feed me 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in our stairway article. (Strangely, the elevation is completely different from my book.) But does it meet your criteria?--Shantavira|feed me 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now finally know how to make an AMV. I'm just wondering...in some AMVs I've seen, there was a clip in it where it was colored red. And I saw another one where there was a clip where it was black & white. Is there a way where I can make a clip to be any color or any color combination like black & white and red & blue?
According to AMV, the acronym AMV could stand for a bunch of things - including:
You want to give us a clue which of these you're talking about? SteveBaker 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean "Anime music video", although it doesn't matter for the purposes of the video. It does however depend what software you use; the Windows Movie Maker doesn't appear to have this option (but then I don't like WMM; it's crashed on me too many times), but the Apple MaciMovie does, and you can find it under "Video FX", where it is called "Adjust colour". I'm sure most third-party apps will have this feature, though. Laïka 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legal to live with multiple women as though married without being legally married to all of them. If not, what if youre muslim.
I am thinking of developing a macro for this type of question: Wikipedia is not a place to request a legal opinion. (See top of this page.)You should consult a qualified person in the jurisdiction in which you reside to answer the first question and your religious authority for the second. In some places, that could be one person. Bielle 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up. This is obviously speculation, not a Request for Legal advice. Get used to FAQs. Don't bite questioners.Czmtzc 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out our bigamy article. In particular the 'legal situation' section. It may help. ny156uk 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this section of polyamory. Redirect, what do you mean, specifically, by 'as though married without being legally married to all of them'? Thanks! 24.250.33.41 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the legal status of a Muslim legally married to several wives in his own country who, let's say, moves to the US on a work visa? Are his significant others recognized under the law as wives or just the first one? Clarityfiend 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the State Department, applicants for visas are ineligible if they have more than one spouse. Only the first spouse counts and legal papers showing that other marriages have been legally terminated in his country of origin must be produced. For a more practical view, see a recent New York Times article. - BanyanTree 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the U.S. government only recognizes one wife and I believe that spouses must be identified at the time of immigration. Not only would the others not be identified as spouses, they may not be allowed in on an immigration visa. I believe this was an issue with Hmong refugees. Practices of other cultures (i.e. female circumcision) are often illegal in the U.S. and immigrants must adapt their culture to be within the law or change the law. In other countries the law varies. For example, in India, they have the concept of personal laws. It is legal for a Muslim to have 4 wives, but it is illegal for a Hindu to have more than 1 wife. Canada allows multiple wives to enter with immigrants though I don't know if they are allowed to marry while in Canada. --Tbeatty 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everone is missing the point of the original question. I think another way to ask it may be: What would happen if a man were living with multiple women, without marring them? They may all have children, but the man would not claim to be married to any (or more thatn one) of the women.
If you are not trying to make a religious point of actually Marring multiple women, what is to stop you from having multiple permanent live in girlfriends? -Czmtzc 14:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other girlfriends :)
Your own sanity. SteveBaker 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not against the law to have multiple live in girlfriends, marrying them is. --58.170.212.62 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
England has been ruled by kings and counts and such people for a long time. Those people being rich should have had many more children whose lineages survive to today, on average than peasants and nonroyals. So why isn't maybe 50% of England descended from royalty. Or are they.
Peasants had more children than nobles in the Middle Ages. They needed them to work the farms. Bart133(t)(c) 19:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the theory of branching processes correctly, then any native English person is almost certain to be descended from royalty. But so what? A single royal ancestor ten generations back (especially on the wrong side of the blanket) doesn't count for anything. For the record, England does not have and never has had counts. Bart133: do you have a source for that claim? Algebraist 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of great personal pride to a few British people to be able to show that some dusty branch of their family tree proves that they are Henry VIII's seventh cousin 14 times removed or whatever, although most people probably don't care. But then, there are one heck of a lot people vaguely related to the British Crown; just take a look at the 1500+ names listed in line of succession to the British Throne (although all of them are called "Lord Phlegmbridge, Earl of Grimsby" or the like, and a fair few aren't British)! But remember that royals were very fond of marrying their cousins, merging the families upper-class relatives and just generally "keeping it in the family"; if royals had freely had children with peasants, perhaps there would even more royal relations...
Actually, a lot of them don't have titles. You've only got to go down to 10th and 11th in line to find Peter and Zara Phillips, children of Princess Anne. They have no titles whatsoever. But they are still members of the British Royal Family, of course, being grandchildren of the Queen. -- JackofOz 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English title earl has always, at least since 1066, been translated in Latin as comes and in French as comte, i.e. count. Even in English the wife of an earl, or a woman who inherits an earldom (rare in England but frequent in Scotland), is a countess. (Pre-Conquest earls were more analogous to dukes, but since the new king was also duke of Normandy he didn't want any other dukes cluttering up the realm.) —Tamfang 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being descended from royalty doesn't make you royal and doesn't give you a chance at the throne. To have a chance at the British throne you have to be a Protestant and descended from the Electress Sophia of Hanover, plus you can't be married to a Roman Catholic. To be royal you also must be allowed to use the style His (or Her) Royal Highness (or Her Majesty, but if you have that you probably already know). --Charlene 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the British royal family as currently defined dates only to the 17th century, not to King Alfred. -- Mwalcoff 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or to 1917, when "Highness" was explicitly restricted to the children of monarchs and of their sons. —Tamfang 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if all it takes to be the King of England is being Protestant and a descendant of Electress Sophia of Hanover, then I don't miss the mark by much because her maternal grandfather, James I was my 14th cousin, 14 times removed. And I'm American! So, does being a 17th great-grandson of Edward I count?
69.136.181.22 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Is it unusual for a single sunflower plant to have more than one head?69.136.181.22 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might have been better posted on the Science Ref Desk. However, as I don't know how to move it leaving the appropriate trail, I will say that, according to the FAQ on this site [3], the wild sunflower may have up to 20 heads on a single stem. The domesticated variety, however, has only one. Bielle 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a Siamese twin sunflower could have two heads, but attached... --Charlene 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The house across the street from ours has a sunflower with three heads. Corvus cornix 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AP article states that an off-Broadway play called "My First Time" offered free tickets to anyone who could prove they were a virgin by getting a hypnotist to ask them a series of mundane questions, with "when was your first time?" thrown in. No comments are made about the effectiveness of this system, of course... Laïka 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the hymen's also a notoriously flawed test, especially when one considers that a) there is more than one type of virginity and b) hymens can be ruptured by activities / accidents other than sexual intercourse. --Dweller 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and since ancient times bribing the doctor has always been a way out for those who had lost their virginity but didn't want anyone to know. (Since only one person is really "checking" it, and the chance of being found out a fraud are almost nil, it opens the door to such subversion.) --24.147.86.187 13:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the bears on the flags of Teverga and California so similar? I.e., foot/leg position, eye position, ear position, contour of the back, etc. Try it in photoshop and see.—Wasabe3543 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teverga coat of arms Sadly, a Spanish language Google search failed to come up with anything much useful either, although it has turned up these nuggets:(unfortunatly, all the light-blue links in this answer are in Spanish) to some extent, the laws of heraldry dicate it so; the bear in the flag of Teverga is taken from the Terverga Coat of Arms, where it follows the normal heraldic rules of heraldry; the bear is passant, which is why the legs are in the same, and, following tradition, faces the mast. The flag was however adopted as late as 1996, as was designed by Eduardo Panizo Gómez, a renowned vexillologist, which may explain some similarities (there are very few if any other flags with passant bear charges, and none with all four feet flat (although note this version, the only image of the bear which isn't identical the Californian one), so copying the Californian flag would be easier than designing one of one's own). Laïka 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bet is "copied the California flag." Which itself has changed a few times — the original version of the modern flag used a totally different bear. My bet is that the current bear is a lot easier to reproduce on a flag. --24.147.86.187 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but wonder whether the on-line images were made by directly copying the bear from the California flag and editing it. I wasn't able to find any non-digital images of the flag or coat of arms when I looked. Donald Hosek 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bears are so similar in outline that I can only conclude that the more recent one is a ripoff (or paying homage to) the older one, or that both ripped off an earlier one still. Edison 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that the hind legs are positions in that manner because they're supposed to be male bears (Obvious don't know for sure one way or the other). 68.39.174.238 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In researching this, I found that according to Snopes.com, the Californian flag was originally intended to have a Pear on it - the Bear is there as a result of a terrible misunderstanding! SteveBaker 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that something went bear-shaped. —Tamfang 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a definite answer why, but India can support a much greater population because it produces much more food. It has a much larger land area, an immensely larger arable land area, and a larger shoreline (for fishing). Syria has also suffered in the ancient past from numerous earthquakes that have killed thousands and driven off even more. --Charlene 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! Charlene.fic thanks for the info i needed it. could you answer this question? Why is North America eat more pizza than Italy? I mean wasn't Italy the pizza capitol i'am not sure but has this changed?
Well, Pizza isn't a place, so it can't really have a capital. It does originate from Italy though (Naples), and you can get more info about that here. Just because it was "invented" in Italy doesn't mean it has to be super popular there. The US also, of course, has a much larger population, and that is a big factor. Also, there is quite a big difference between the kind of pizza you'll get in the US and the kind of pizza common in Italy, so technically Italian pizza isn't popular at all in the US; American pizza is. 58.156.47.154 06:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cheers mate thank you again how about phobia of women or black people? not being prejucide or racise. --QSYM 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) i just ask a lot of q's? cheers antandrus.[reply]
Fear of women is gynephobia. Fear of black people could be covered by xenophobia, although this covers anyone "foreign". Laïka 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fear of beautiful women is apparently "caligynephobia". Now on the other hand, it stands to reason that "caligynephilia" would be ... :) Antandrus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says "Venustraphobia" for fear of beautiful women apparently [5]... Laïka 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's too uncomfortably close to Venusflytraphobia. No wonder I've always been afraid of women :) -- JackofOz 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realise that these things are just made up from latin or greek roots, they aren't found in the dictionary unless it's in common usage (which hardly any are except the usual suspects, agoraphobia, acrophobia, arachnaphobia. etc.). For an example, there are plenty of widespread silly phobias that supposedly have names. A widespread one is Arachibutyrophobia, the irrational fear of having peanut butter stuck to the roof of your mouth. Capuchin 07:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you people are the bomb! how do you insert a pacemaker? --QSYM 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a change of topic! Artificial pacemaker insertion is usually done under local anaesthesia; a small pocket is made in the muscle around the breastbone, the wires forced into a nearby vein and guided into the heart by x-ray, and the pacemaker then slipped into the pocket, which is sewn up. The whole operation takes 45 minutes or so.[6]Laïka 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the patient doesn't have pseudocardiohorophobia. --TotoBaggins 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much is a typical graduate student stipend in ny state?--172.148.103.51 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough question to answer. Stipends can vary a lot from university to university and discipline to discipline. On top of that, the exact amounts are rarely published — nobody likes to know how much their peers are making, and the departments like to keep things flexible for themselves. But if you find out, I'd be interested in knowing (though I am not in New York state). --24.147.86.187 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you logic may be flawed. Most people would be very interested to know how much their peers are making. It is the employer that want to keep salaries secret, so that underpaid employees will not know it. Czmtzc 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking from experience — most grad students I know don't want to know, and I don't want to know about them either. Why? Because grad stipends are offered to students as part of a "package" that in part reflects how good the department judges the student to be. They are not adjustable once you have accepted them. You are not an employee so much as an apprentice; you generally don't want to know, in cold terms, who is valued higher than you and by exactly how much. It isn't good for self-esteem. And it's bad social relations in general to know exactly how much each other makes — it breeds resentment, pride, etc. I think most grad students know this. Comparing it to typical employer relation situations seems to be to be the flawed logic — the academy is not a typical employer. --24.147.86.187 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In mathematics at least, stipends information is collected and published by the AMS. Most departments also publish the information on their web sites. It will vary a lot depending on field and degree. MA in English they'll probably laugh at your request for a stipend. Start with websites for programs that you're interested in, then check either directly with the departments or with the professional organization for your field. I disagree with the first responder though, exact amounts are VERY often posted, grad stipends are generally pretty standard. Donald Hosek 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it probably depends on the type of program. In the humanities it is often quite variable. --24.147.86.187 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is this? photographs unknown to me but would like to know?[edit]
The first one looks like it may be a church or some such building. But about the second... Are you asking if this outcropping of rock has a specific place name? Or are you asking what such a formation would be called? If you're looking for a specific name, like Bob's Rock or something like that, then why do you think it would have a title at all? It appears to just be yet another outcropping of rock in an otherwise average desert. As far as a general term for it, I would call it an outcropping, possibly a plateau (though that would be slightly misleading since it's peaked), or maybe even a peninsula. Dismas|(talk) 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a peninsula, unless there is some very unlikely water around... one might call it a butte, though it is not really quite isolated enough. FWIW the rock looks a lot like the Chugwater formation in southeastern Wyoming USA. Cheers Geologyguy 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is awfully small to be an inhabitable building. Compare to the house behind it. It looks like some sort of monument to me — it is not very deep. --24.147.86.187 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag of Teverga
