Miscellaneous desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

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.

June 25[edit]

Ordering portraits of Thai kings[edit]

Can you please help? I am interested in purchasing pictures of all the 9 kings of Thailand, are you able to provide me with a quote? Kings 1 through to king 9 (I need all of them) approx size around 900mm x 900

1. Your quote can be for images so long as the images can be made very big (good Pixels for hanging on wall)

2. or paintings approx size around 900mm x 900

3. or prints

4. or posters

Please get back to me ASAP

Kind Regards

Anthony Cox (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.142.45 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, you could enquire here http://www.oilpaintings2order.com/. This is a Thai business where you can commission any oil painting you like. Or just google something like thai+king+portrait for other sites. 86.143.231.213 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we're an encyclopedia, not an art dealer. Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your email address to eliminate the possibility of spam to you. Feel free to check back here periodically to view updated answers to your question.24.150.18.30 (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably better off asking elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't the best place for this, but you may find some good links. Chevy monte carlo - alt 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pictures in the article List of Thai Monarchs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm rubbish at art, but will happily produce the pictures for you for, say, £430,000. Deal? --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Fructose[edit]

Hi I suffer from Fructose Malabsorbtion (Basically this means that I cannot eat anything where the fructose level is higher than the glucose level) eg most fruits, onions, wheat, honey etc. I just need to know whether the fructose level is higher than the glucose level in Turmeric. Are you able to help?

Thanks Ian

I'm sorry we can't give medical advice.--178.167.218.35 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't answer medical questions but I think you may be misunderstanding your dietary needs...and that means that you REALLY need to talk to a qualified medical professional about your diet.

Surely it is not the case that glucose has to be higher than fructose in every individual ingredient of the food you eat? That makes zero sense - most foods contain a mixture of all sorts of ingredients - some of which are high in fructose and others which are high in glucose - your body isn't going to attempt to digest each ingredient individually! It can only be that averaged over a particular meal the glucose level must exceed the fructose. Otherwise there would be almost no foods that you could tolerate. You certainly shouldn't take dietary advice from me, or anyone else here - but if you think about this logically, if the only requirement were that glucose must exceed fructose then eating a couple of spoonfuls of glucose with a piece of fruit would covers that dietary balance requirement and they wouldn't be telling you to avoid fruit - but instead to take a couple of these handy glucose pills with each meal! Since (I presume) they aren't telling you that - you must therefore have misunderstood the advice you've been given. That's a potentially serious matter - and you really, really need to go back to your doctor and get this clarified.

As to your particular question here, it's probably impossible to know the relative amounts of fructose and glucose in turmeric (I very much doubt anyone has analysed it that carefully) - but since it's a spice and probably constitute way less than 1% of the meal that contains it, unless you're planning on eating a delicious bowl of pure Tumeric for lunch (please don't!), it's unlikely that the answer matters to you. What matters is the average balance in the total meal - of which normal amounts of tumeric is an utterly negligable contributor.

Since you do seem to have a deep misunderstanding of how you need to eat to remain healthy - I strongly recommend you talk to your doctor about this - and possibly to a medically qualified dietician who can prepare diet plans for you and explain to you how 'trace ingredients' like Tumeric will affect you. Above all, don't take health advice from random people on the Internet (like me, for example!).

SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Fructose malabsorption is worth a look. Turmeric (or its primary ingredient, curcumin) does seem to have a relationship to fructose issues (for example, it slows down the conversion of sorbitol to fructose in the body.) But, yeah, talk to your doctor -- it sounds like you've gotten some misinformation or at least are confused baout the information you've gotten. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a Gendarmerie?[edit]

Ok I've been reading hte wikipedia article but it's not very good and I still don't understand what a Gendarmerie is. Basically, how do they differ in equipment nad role from a normal police force? Thanks!--178.167.218.35 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition in the lede, gendarmerie are a military body charged with police duties, as contrasted with standard civilian police forces. The definition does not concern itself with a distinction in equipment or role from standard police (as noted in the definition, the role is the same). That said, individual countries may draw a distinction, but conceptually none exists. Note that in the US the Posse Comitatus Act effectively prohibits a gendarmerie except for the U.S. Coast Guard. — Lomn 14:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read that but what is the difference between military and civilian? What's the difference then in role and equipment between the French Gendarmerie an d French national police?--178.167.218.35 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between military and civilian control of the police is where the authority rests. The US has decided that civilian authority over the military means that the military shouldn't be enforcing civilian law. There was a recent case, for example, where an Army officer in Alabama was disciplined for providing police services at the request of local law enforcement after a mass shooting left civilian personnel undermanned.[1] It was absolutely a humanitarian gesture, but in the US, The Military Does Not Act As Police (the above linked Posse Comitatus Act explains why). Many other democracies have decided that a balance can be struck, and thus you get (among others) the French Gendarmerie Nationale. In some places, it's a convenient fiction to suggest the rule of law, much as how you see "democratic republic" occasionally affixed to some unlikely countries. As for specifics of how France divides up their policing responsibilities, see National Gendarmerie and National Police (France). — Lomn 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That National Police article was useful, thanks, it had a link to [2] which pretty much explained what I was looking for.--178.167.215.72 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The national police force of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in French is la Gendarmerie Royale du Canada. As the gendarmerie article notes, they are not considered "military." --- OtherDave (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican Guard, which is the part of the Gendarmerie responsible for Paris, provides ceremonial guards, military bands and drill displays in a similar way to the Brigade of Guards in London. They have in the past been sent abroad for combat duty, most recently in the First Indochina War. The Gendarmerie Mobile provide specialised riot squads, although the Police Nationale have a branch with a similar role called the CRS. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy, you have the civilian polizia and the military carabinieri (I think the word means soldiers armed with carbines). They do, as far as I can tell, exactly the same thing. Sometimes wind up stepping on each other's toes; I remember one story of a dispute between two parties, where one called the polizia and the other called the carabinieri.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. I'm all for competition, and not so keen on unified state authority. Maybe this would be a good discordian model to copy. But I doubt that was the original idea. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the name may have different meanings in different countries. In Poland, for example, Żandarmeria Wojskowa (Military Gendarmerie) carries out policing duties only within the Armed Forces, like the Military Police Corps in the U.S., and doesn't interfere with the civilian Policja. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing[edit]

Why do people kiss? What is the evolutionary/reproductive advantage in kissing? What is its origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.149.7 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you've already read Kiss#Nature and history of the kiss and Kiss#Biology and evolution? ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly helps develop and sustain close personal relationships, which may prove profitable. Dogs like to hunt in packs, and humans may often do better in collaboration with one another. Kissing is certainly a token of goodwill and fellowship. It helps build trust, caring, and so on. Vranak (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make a layover in Atlanta or Paris?[edit]

I'm flying from Salt Lake City to Dusseldorf and I have the choice of making a connecting flight in Atlanta or Paris. I'm somewhat familiar with how Hartsfield Airport works but I've never been to Charles de Gaulle, so I'm wondering if any of these two airports has an advantage over the other (especially since I'll be dealing with customs in either Paris or Dusseldorf, depending on where I make my connection). Thanks. 71.213.57.196 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you potentially have to do customs in both Charles de Gaulle and Dusseldorf? If so, Atlanta would be the logical option for me, as the trip from Salt Lake City would not require customs in Atlanta. All else being equal, I'd go for France, just because I'm a curious person and have never been to France. Falconus^{p t c} 22:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flying via Paris would involve a shorter flying time, because a routing from SLC to Germany would be much longer (in miles or km) via ATL. If you fly through Paris, you will pass through immigration in Paris, and you and your carry-on bag will pass through customs, but unless you have something to declare, you will probably not actually be stopped for a check. (The "nothing to declare" walkway operates on an honor system, with occasional spot checks if you look suspicious.) You will not have to go through immigration again in Düsseldorf, but your checked bag will need to pass through customs there. Unlike the United States, the Schengen area countries do not require you to collect your checked bags at point of entry to go through customs before checking them again. So your bag will be checked straight through to Düsseldorf. (Again if you have nothing to declare, you will probably just sail through without a stop.) In my experience, immigration in Paris are no big deal. They may just glance at your passport, hand it back to you, and wave you through. They are much less picky (at least with US passport holders who are white and look more or less professional) than US Immigration and Customs. That said, in my experience, ATL is a more efficient airport than CDG. Even though there is more volume at ATL, it moves more smoothly, and it is easier to move around the airport from one gate to another. My last flight from CDG involved checking in at the main terminal, then a longish walk to a bus station, then a wait for a bus, then a bus ride to another terminal, a wait there, then a second bus from the second terminal to the actual plane, which was parked out on the asphalt with a mobile stairway leading to the cabin. If you are transfering at CDG, you might want to make sure that both flights will be in the same terminal or be sure to have a couple of hours between flights. Marco polo (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Atlanta but have travelled many times in/out of Charles De Gaulle. If your flight from Salt Lake City arrives at CDG Terminal 2 but your flight to Dusseldorf leaves from CDG Terminal 1, the two terminals are about a mile apart. However, the terminals are connected by a shuttle train, the CDGVAL, which takes 8 minutes and is a big improvement on the old shuttle bus. The Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport article lists which airline uses which terminal. The airport's official site should be able to help your further. Astronaut (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta is somewhat simpler to find your way around, but CDG is a much more impressive architecture. It's a wash. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! This is exactly the type of information I was seeking. Kudos to you guys! And yes, I do agree U.S. customs are very thorough (LAX was a nightmare). Looks like I'll be choosing Atlanta just because this is my first time venturing outside the country on my own and I want to make things a little easier. As an added benefit, I have an hour more to make my connection in Atlanta than I would in Paris. Again, many thanks! 71.213.57.196 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other consideration: French Air Traffic Controllers, Airport Staff, etc, etc, not infrequently go on strike, resulting in the cancellation of flights passing through France, and indeed Heikki Kovalainen had this very week to drive 900 miles overnight to get to the European Grand Prix in Valencia in time for Friday morning practice because of such a strike. You would be wise to monitor the news for possible impending events of this nature, and might consider the Atlanta option in the light of this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dog breed identification[edit]

I saw someone with a dog on a leash here in Vienna, and it kinda looked like a big ~~bad~~ wolf. It was a large dog, with a long coat and a color like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MountainCur.jpg. Its paws where white and really large, and he had light-colored eyes and a mean look on its face. Now that I'm reading what I wrote it kinda sounds like trolling, but it really isn't, I was just trying to be funny. Thanks in advance! Rimush (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How big? How long? How much like that one? I think that coat color is called brindle, but it's less distinct on long-haired dogs (the article has an example). I suggest it might have been a lurcher, see the third image on that page (the dog called "Bubbles"). Or (perhaps too obvious) a husky? The first image in Alaskan Husky seems like the dog you describe, unless the parameters (size, paw size, coat length) are not extreme enough. 213.122.5.82 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a malamute; they can get pretty big and both look and sound pretty wolf-ish. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lurcher and the Alaskan Husky look skinny, this dog was rather heavy-set. And I don't think it was a malamute or a Siberian Husky, I know what those look like. It had a bigger head, and it was also taller and longer than a Siberian Husky - it also had a longer coat, but not too long. It didn't look like a wolf in the husky sense, it looked like a wolf in that it looked like a wild animal, not like a normal dog. Rimush (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To rule out the obvious enormous dog, Irish Wolfhound? 213.122.5.82 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too skinny, and "my" dog might not be that tall, but close. It was a really unusual dog, I haven't seen one like it before. Rimush (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the snout like - long, short, droopy? A huge stocky dog is the english mastiff, which can be long-haired and scary-looking. 213.122.5.82 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mastif_angielski_pregowany_768.jpg - comes close, but I think it was some sort of cross between a mastiff and something else, because it didn't have the typical snout/face. Rimush (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out other kinds of mastiff, I found Anatolian Shepherd Dog, which has a more wolfish snout. The one in the second picture has an ominous glint in its eye, and "might not yet be full size". Getting towards skinnier dogs again, though. I think I'll stop guessing now in case a dog expert comes along and tells you exactly what it was... 213.122.5.82 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked at that one too, also looks similar (except the color is off). Anyway, thanks for your efforts :D Rimush (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although only you know exactly what the animal you saw looked like, have you considered the possibility that it was actually a wolf? Although in most (all?) jurisdictions it is illegal to own and keep pure-bred wolves as if they were pet dogs (which are, of course, domesticated wolves), in some it is legal to keep wolf-dog crosses if one has the necessary paperwork declaring the animal's (mixed) descent, and these papers are sometimes, shall we say, mis-issued.

An acquaintance who runs a zoo in the UK and is a carnivore expert has related how he met a visitor from Canada in, I think, Plymouth (Devon, UK) walking on a lead what he immediately recognised as a wolf. In conversation, the owner admitted to him that the animal was indeed a pure wolf for which he had obtained "wolf dog" papers in some way. Although an individual wolf can be tamed (my acquaintance said), it will be comfortable only with its owner (who must function as its pack leader), uncomfortable though controllable (by its owner) amongst other people, and will ignore "other" dogs.

NB: our article on Domestication is, in my opinion, misleading in suggesting that the words 'domesticating' and 'taming' are synonyms: I would contend that the former implies physical and mental modification of a population through captive breeding and artificial selection, and the latter only the training of an individual, normally wild, animal to associate with humans. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that it might be a wolf, although it looked a bit stocky for a wolf (maybe they overfed it), even if only because it looked like a wild animal that just now came out of the woods. Rimush (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Shepherd Dog? See the image here too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was indeed a Dutch Shepherd, and a big fat one at that :P Rimush (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could refer your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs.—Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]