Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 March 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.

March 26

Non-cheese meaning of cheese

In researching the Meat in desserts question, I came across two recipes using the word cheese in the title, but involving no milk products. These are Pork cheese (p. 163) and Damson cheese (p. 295). The Cheese article was unhelpful, as was the Jam article. This link[1] suggests it's about firmness, but I'm not sure. Can anyone explain this usage better?--Auric talk 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that "Pork cheese" is head cheese or souse, which, as you'll note, contains no cheese but does contain a lot of pork (mostly bits around the head). Not sure about the other one. --Jayron32 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The more general meaning is "cheese-like", and, in particular, "fatty". StuRat (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the fruit cheese meanings go, there are two related products: fruit butter, and fruit cheese. They are both made in the same way, which is by boiling a fruit with sugar, sieving it to form a puree, and reboiling it. If the resulting preserve is spreadable like butter, then it is called a butter: if it goes solid and can be sliced like cheese, it is called a cheese. My reference for this is not online, it's Marguerite Patten's "Basic basics: jams, preserves and chutneys". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See also "Pindakaas" - literally "peanut cheese" - the Dutch word for peanut butter. There's a brief explanation in peanut butter#Other names. Astronaut (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And also liver cheese. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Marguerite Patten's definition (cited by Tammy) doesn't work for Lemon cheese, though I notice that this traditional term is becoming less common in the UK. Dbfirs 08:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Best car for under 2-3K USD?

I'm looking to buy a cheap, reliable car for under 2000-3000 USD for driving in the NYC area. My priority is reliability, but I would also prefer a model that is fun to drive (of course, within reasons of my financial limitations). The only requirement is that it be manual transmission. Any recommendations or any recommendations for a car forum where I can find more information? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking for that price range, something has to be wrong with it. That could be high age or miles, either of which will mean decreased reliability, or perhaps having been in an accident or flood, which also mean decreased reliability. To get that price without decreased reliability, perhaps a car that's just ugly might work, like one with a different color hood/door or a car in need of a paint job. Would some interior damage be OK, like torn upholstery ? You can always add seat covers. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I got a 2002 Dodge Neon for that price range a couple of years ago. It's a decent car, not ugly, decent torque, not too much maintenance. I got it from a police auction so it came with whiskey plates, but it's certainly a good way to get cheap cars. Ryan Vesey 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would have made it about 9 years old, which is where reliability becomes a concern. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This would just be like a car for driving around during college; I'm not picky about the condition of the interior. What are some general guidelines as to the upper limit of age or mileage that you should not surpass when buying a used car? Acceptable (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no strict limit, as a car just gets steadily less reliable with age and miles. However, a good rule of thumb might be to look at the original warranty offered when the car was sold new. They generally try to set those so they expire just before major problems will start to occur. So, when the factory warranty has expired, you're into the danger zone. Also, "highway miles" are a lot easier on a car than stop-and-go, especially on dirt roads. However, determining what kind of miles a car has on it isn't always easy. But, if the owner lives on a dirt or gravel rod, that probably means the vehicle is more worn out than the age and miles would indicate. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I also recommend buying a car directly from the owner, not from used car lots. You can get ripped off by either, but you're extremely unlikely to get a good deal from a used car lot, between the dealer mark-up and them being "experts" who know exactly what the car is worth. Private owners will often sell a car at below market value just to get rid of it. Do lots of phone work first, to eliminate as many cars as possible, and make sure they will allow a test drive. If possible, don't set a specific time for the test drive, to prevent them from warming it up first, which can disguise problems like a difficult to start vehicle. Then, during the test drive, try out everything you can, like the turn signals, lights, heat, A/C, radio, etc. Aim for potholes, not away, to see how it handles them. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you buy from the owner, ask if you can have the car checked out by a mechanic of your choosing before making the purchase. You will have to pay a few hundred for that service, but that could be a good investment. Any owner with nothing to hide should agree to have the car checked. If you don't want to do this, at least run the car's VIN through an online lemon check such as this one. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Some mediocre advice in this thread. Having a car checked by a mechanic shouldn't cost a few hundred dollars, $75-100 tops, but I'd definitely recommend it. StuRat also offers some dodgy advice about looking for cars with different color hoods or doors. This is a good indication that the vehicle has been improperly repaired following an accident, if the owner didn't bother to get the paint done who knows what mechanical issues they've neglected to repair as well. The same can go for damaged interiors. If the owner isn't careful about maintaining the interior, they probably aren't careful about getting regular maintenance. A car dealer friend of mine once said that the only inspection he did on cars he bought was looking in the trunk. If it was clean then the owner probably took good car of the car (probably being a bit facetious). StuRat's advice on getting a vehicle with a remainder of a manufacturer's warranty (or anything close to that) is not going to work given the price range. Most factory warranties are bumper to bumper (covering the entire car) for 3 yrs/30k miles, some have extended powertrain warranties up to 60k or 100k. At $2-3k you're looking at buying a car closer to 100k and probably around 10 years old.

Cars in this price range will need regular work as various parts fail (you are not buying a new car) so you must be able to budget a few hundred a year for repairs. What you want to avoid are big ticket expenses like transmission replacements and everyday reliability problems that will leave you stranded. It's for this reason that I'd recommend a manual transmission; while clutches need replacement, they cost no where near what a automatic transmission replacement will run. Look for a car that has been well maintained, a complete set of service records is gold. Regular fluid changes are extremely important and you'd be surprised how many owners skip stuff like like this. Finally, make sure that you are not buying a salvage title vehicle, avoid them like the plague as they are almost guaranteed to have poorly repaired accident damage.

The choice between private party and dealer is not an easy one. Private party purchases can be a huge hassle if you don't have a lot of free time. People will jerk you around and try to rip you off left and right. You'll be driving all over your area looking at cars you wont be buying. (StuRat is right about doing lots of phone work to save yourself time.) And if you do get ripped off by buying something with serious, but unseen issues, you have little recourse. Dealers do charge more, some will try to rip you off as well and their selection at this price range is limited. On the other hand, you wont have to drive all over to look at multiple vehicles and if they do seriously misrepresent the condition of the vehicle they can be taken to small claims court much more easily. Unless you know of a good small dealer who you can trust, I'd stick with large brand name dealers. Most new car dealers have used car lots with vehicles of many brands. Customer satisfaction is important to places like this, I've worked at one before and you'd be surprised how far we went to make customers happy if problems arose shortly after purchase.

As for make and model, it's harder to say. Japanese brands like Toyota and Honda have reputations for reliability, but unfortunately it's not a secret and their used vehicles command high prices. While old examples luxury brands like BMW or Audi can be tempting, avoid them as repairs can be outrageously expensive. Here's an example of what I'd look for [2], Foresters are surprisingly fun to drive, but you should be flexible and make prior maintenance history a priority. Good luck! --Daniel(talk) 17:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

To get a car for that price range, off a dealer lot, with nothing visible wrong with it, it will have to be very old/high mileage and/or have hidden faults. It's far better to have acceptable, visible faults. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In a certain sense you are right Stu, you wont find a two or three year old car with 30k on the clock for three grand unless it's been mangled in an accident, but you'd be fool to buy it unless you owned a shop. Under normal circumstances dealers would never sell a car with a mismatched panel or other major cosmetic fault to a private party. Resprays are just too cheap (we used to have dings pulled on our cars for 40 bucks and panel resprays where 100 admittedly that was almost a decade ago). A car with visible cosmetic damage, usually only for sale from a private party, means it has been in an accident. It is very difficult to know to what extent the vehicle was repaired and the fact that they didn't bother with a $200 panel spray is a good indicator that they didn't do a complete job. Leaving you open to all kinds of nasty problems from a incomplete repair. My advice is to walk away from any vehicle that has been in a major accident. My main point is that the cosmetic condition of a car is an indicator of how well it was maintained; sure looking past some failed paint or scratches here and there is a good idea, but buying a crashed car in the hopes of saving money is dumb. --Daniel(talk) 00:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm not sure where you live, but in the Boston area, having a car's systems (thoroughly) checked for flaws by a mechanic will cost $200 or more. I know that auto mechanics' rates vary widely by geography, since I once had the same job done on a car in northern Maine that had been done for me in the Boston area, and the price in northern Maine was 50% of the Boston price. The questioner lives in New York City, where prices are comparable to or slightly higher than in Boston. Marco polo (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My experience is a bit out of date as I've been out of the service industry for a decade. Although I did just have a car inspected in LA for $90 (a great call, the car looked great on the outside and even under the hood, but it turned out to be seriously messed up). Shop around, you should be charged for around an hour of labor which runs between $90 and $120. Another piece of advice is to always pick the place that does the inspection, rather than letting the seller recommend it. Doubly so if you're buying from a dealer who is likely to have connections in the service industry. --Daniel(talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A replaced door doesn't necessarily mean a major accident. The original might have been defective in some way, perhaps causing it to rust out, or a jealous girlfriend might have carved something obscene on it with a screwdriver. A 3-year-old car with only 30K on the odometer is too much to ask for $2-3K, but perhaps a 6-year-old car with 60K and some cosmetic issues like this might go for that price range. As far as a respray being cheap, they cost hundreds of dollars, especially to do them right, and somebody trying to sell their car my not have that to spare or want to go through all the trouble. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can get model-specific issues. 1960's era Ford Falcons were well known for their doors rusting to the degree that they got large visible holes, while the rest of the car was ok. However, in practice, and because factory rust protection and paint is much better in recent decades than it used to be, these sorts of issues are rare. While a girlfriend might deliberately damage your car, the rate that this occurs would have to be very very low. By far the most likely reason for a mismatched door colour is that the vehicle had been in an accident, and was home repaired. And that means any other thing requiring repair was done at home and short cuts were taken. And why was it home repaired after an accident? Because the owner had no insurance, which marks him as a low income slob on the look out for the easy mark. Wickwack 60.230.200.148 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Best bet would be to find a foreign graduate student with a family who is trying to sell their Civic or Corolla or similar. I.e., a fairly bland car with a chance of being long-lived and reliable, coupled with a seller who is likely to not have beaten the car to death, and has a good reason not to trade it in on another car and to sell it, other than it being beaten to death. Also, if you stick with a relatively popular car, there will be plenty of used parts in the junkyards.Gzuckier (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Superpowers that could require nudity to be useable

I'm writing a very tasteful and refined masterpiece of literature involving a collection of teenage girls who each develop a superpower, but those superpowers inherently involve nudity due to their functions. For example, the power to turn invisible, or to pass through solid objects/walls (Clothes can't turn invisible, or they'll fall off when she turns intangible.)

Can anyone think of other superpowers I can grant that are in that vein? 169.231.42.222 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a writer of masterpieces, you can certainly think of them yourself. How about: any. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(Before this gets hatted)

• Flight / Ability to run at high speed (aerodynamics)
• Super-swimming (hydrodynamics)
• Ability to resist fire (clothes will burn)
• Ability to resist cold (see Logan's Run (film))
• Shapeshifting / Ability to change size
• Ability to photosynthesize (not much of a superpower, admittedly, but see Swamp Thing)

Tevildo (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

...oh yeah, and

• Ability to procreate...

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I was making a joke about it being a masterpiece, as if anything with the given premise could be any good...trust me, I am not a writer and it will not be very good at all :D 169.231.42.222 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If you're not attempting to write a smut novel, I'd suggest giving the characters uniforms that have the ability to work with their ability (that seems to be common practice in superhero novels/movies). If you are writing a smut novel, then most of the above should be okay; however, the readers would be more disbelieving if you tried to strip down a character for aerodynamics or hydrodynamics than other options. Ryan Vesey 01:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nudity is not smut. And the fact that certain "powers" require nudity has been used efficiently in fiction already; e.g. in Trueblood (the shapeshifters all become nude, which makes it hard to transition into "normal" life again immediately after shifting). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I never stated that nudity is smut. Searching specifically for powers that will require nudity for teenage girls does imply that it is probably going to be a smut novel. Ryan Vesey 03:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How about turning inside out or removing your skin? Maybe light absorption / emission (not the same as photosynthesis). And then there are hair grow / shrink powers...--Auric talk 01:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always found it utterly impossible to practice clairvoyance while even lightly clothed. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. My superpower is to become a better singer while in the shower, which seems to be related, as I seldom shower with clothes on. See bathroom singing. WHAAOE, you know. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In the Adventures of Superman episode called "The Mysterious Cube", Superman is able to pass through a solid wall and his famous circus suit goes right along with him, cape and all. Of course, the suit is not ordinary cloth; it was made in Krypton, so it is as invulnerable as Superman himself. And in "The Phantom Ring", all the villains use a machine (later employed by Superman himself) to turn totally invisible, clothes and all. One case where nudity was required was in The Terminator, where the deadly robot was sent back in time nude. However, Superman never had any trouble going back in time fully clothed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion, if you don't get enough superpowers from us, is to just go through character bios here on Wikipedia and just look at the superpowers listed. That said, adding to the list there are a couple that were already mentioned/alluded to: Being able to change size, either larger or smaller. (The Hulk was somehow always able to keep his pants on even though he was usually wearing rather non-elastic denim) Also, the Human Torch turns into flames. His clothes would burn off of him in the movies at least. I'm not sure about the comics as I was never a FF fan. Being able to run/fly at very fast speeds doesn't just have aerodynamic issues but also the wear and tear on the clothing. I would think that buttons would pop off at speeds greater than a few hundred miles per hour. While not requiring nudity, being bulletproof doesn't necessarily carry to one's clothing. Also, being able to stop time and have everything freeze in place would also work on one's clothes. So, the character would have to be able to manipulate objects while time is stopped. If they can't then their clothes become a straight jacket. Dismas|^(talk) 01:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

13 million American Buffalo (Bison)

I was watching a fascinating UK TV Historical Programme tonight about the development of America from the signing by President Lincoln of an authorization to construct a coast to coast railway line to the present day. It covered the construction itself, the subsequent construction of towns, cities, cowboys, prairie wars, Indian wars etc., etc. But who counted the 13 million heads of Bison back around 1865? 77.99.122.161 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife populations aren't measured by counting all of the individual members of the species. The most effective way of measuring wildlife population in an area that I remember from Bio was a capture-recapture method. Members of a species in a certain area would be captured and tagged. Later, a recapture would be done. Through some formula, measuring the percentage of members of the species in the recapture that had not previously been tagged, the population can be extrapolated to give an estimate of the entire region. Ryan Vesey 02:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a wikipedia article on what I roughly described Mark and recapture. Ryan Vesey 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Near as I can find, the seminal work in this area was done by William Temple Hornaday, so you may want to start with him to do your research into historic bison populations. It's worth noting that you don't have to actually count the number of bison directly to get an estimate on their population; wild populations can be estimated by noting the range and density of wild bison: if you know that a wild population of bison are distributed such that X acres of land can support Y bison, it's a simple calculation to estimate the wild populations prior to their widespread decline. No idea if this is what was actually done, but just one possibility for how to make such an estimate. --Jayron32 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then there's the time-tested scientific estimation method of determining total population by "how far can I walk before I step in buffalo poo ?". :-) StuRat (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The slaughter and near extinction of the American Bison is a disgraceful part of American history. Even anecdotal accounts before the 1700s talk about literal miles of buffalo. That they were reduced to near extinction levels (and now are not extinct, but nowhere near what they once were) is a sad fact. How one measures any wildlife is not all that different today than it was then. you take samples you use statistics, and you fill in the blanks as best you can. Shadowjams (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we feel in the UK? We have hardly any wildlife left at all, besides birds, rabbits, squirrels, a few isolated deer here and there, and a snake that isn't poisonous. If a couple of people see a fox or two in the same year, it's all over the TV as some sort of epidemic, and the men in red coats on horses start getting the dogs ready. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We're tripping over foxes here in London - I'll arrange to have some sent north for you. Sadly, our squirrels are American and our deer are Chinese. Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The adder is our venomous snake, Kagetora; we have two other non-venomous ones. Wear proper walking boots when out in the fells. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, here we go again. There are thousands of kids and adults all over Japan who now think that the UK is the safest place on earth because, according to me, we don't have earthquakes, we don't have typhoons, we don't have dangerous animals, and our snakes are not even poisonous. I have been corrected about all of those since returning back here..... I think there is only the tsunami left. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Channel floods, 1607 Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaaah! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only do Brits have the world's only native killer joke, they managed to export it to Germany. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It would not have worked anyway. Hitler wasn't well known for his sense of humour. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference could be that Britain's wildlife wasn't slaughtered for the purpose of conquering an ethnic group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Was slaughtering of buffalo part of a deliberate policy to conquer, or just a byproduct of greed for money by selling meat, skins, etc? Astronaut (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was. Specifically, depriving Native American "plains Indians" of their livelihood was a means to get them to accept living on reservations "on the dole". StuRat (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Although the Indians themselves contributed somewhat, once they got access to firearms, the bulk of the near-extinction came from a deliberate program of wiping out the plains Indians food supply. Although the bison species is OK now, the gene pool is rather narrow, and some sub-species variants did actually go extinct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the large bison population was also a result of human interference, when early Native Americans wiped out large predators, like the saber-toothed cat. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The (excellent and worth reading) 1491 by Charles C. Mann summarises a very good argument that the peak bison population of c. 17-1800 was indeed a byproduct of human interference, albeit unintentional human interference with other human populations. The theory is that the wave of disease which spread rapidly ahead of European settlement and massively decimated the Native American population had the knock-on effect of sending ecosystems haywire; balanced animal populations which had previously been managed by hunting spiralled out of control once the hunters vanished, and by the time Europeans reached the plains they found massive herds of bison and pigeons which simply hadn't been there before 15-1600. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is a God-shocking picture above. I am guessing easily over a million (100 x 100 x 100) skulls. Is there a better estimate? μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• That would be for a cube 100×100×100. It looks more like a pyramid maybe 40 skulls high, to me. The volume of a pyramid is b×h/3, where b is the area of the base and h is the height. If we also assume the base to be a 40×40 square, that gives a total volume of 21,333 skulls. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The formula is helpful. I estimate 60 or more skulls high and a much larger base, more than twice as wide as it is high, maybe 150, by 200. That would give 600,000. Call an amount on that order a shitload and I am satisfied. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We already knew it was a shitload. That has the same degree of precision as π, and it should be elevated to the status of an officially accepted nonspecific number. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pekka Hämäläinen's book The Comanche Empire has an interesting analysis of the decline of bison herds in the mid-1800s. He points out that although non-indigenous bison hunters devastated the herds, indigenous hunting practices had already reached unsustainable levels by the 1840s, at least in Comancheria. He calculates that the herds in Comancheria could sustain the killing of about 280,000 bison a year, and that by the early 19th century the Comanche and their allies were killing about 175,000 a year "for subsistence alone". A combination of factors combined to raise this amount beyond 280,000 in many years during the 1840s. Herds were notably thinning during the 1840s, then a prolonged drought hit the region, lasting from about 1845 to 1865 or so. The herds collapsed. The Civil War and a wet spell in the 1860s brought a bit of relief to the situation, but neither the bison nor the Comanche returned to the high numbers and power they had had in the early 1800s. None of this is meant to excuse the well known slaughter of bison by non-indigenous hunters and a deliberate policy of undermining native ways of life, just to portray the history in a more nuanced way. Native Americans were certainly victims in many way, but too often their history is oversimplified in the vein of the "noble savage" "living lightly on the land". Pfly (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

CIMA STUDY PACK/MODEL QUESTIONS

From where can I find CIMA study pack, Model question papers and past papers either free download or on payment? thank you.111.223.154.199 (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want the hard copy books, they are available here [3]. I don't think they are available for download as electronic versions. --Viennese Waltz 08:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

weird picture to ID

What the heck is going on here? I tried a tineye search, but all the other sites look to be similar style collections of random photos. Was the building constructed around the whatever-it-is? Or is something bursting out? Avant-garde art installation? Matt Deres (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an art installation created from plywood by artist Henrique Oliveira "whose irregular forms devour large spaces".[4]--Melburnian (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This [5] shows a better view.--Auric talk 12:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

homeschooled children in sports

I am curious as to when hoeschooled children were allowed to participate in public school sports program.14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)96.255.105.27 (talk)

It will vary depending on the jurisdiction you live in, but if you type the exact sentence you just typed above into http://www.google.com you will get plenty of answers to your question. --Jayron32 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Do hoeschooled students attend an agricultural college ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Farmers University of Central Kansas is where they commonly attend. Their mascot is the Trojans... --Jayron32 21:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a homeschooled kid who participated in sports in one school, and Knowledge Bowl in my school. I think that was only allowed because Knowledge Bowl isn't MSHSL, but it does show that they can take part in activities. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As Jayron says, it all depends on the jurisdiction in which the children live. Growing up in Ohio, I wasn't eligible to participate in any programs in the local public schools because I was homeschooled, while my homeschooled friends in Indiana often participated in selected events. No clue on the "when" question, if you mean timewise. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

B-24..name.."Michigan"

The wwII bomber had the name on the nose section.."Michigan", along with an attractive lady,plus a painted picture of a building located on the campus of University of Michigan, near the stadium. Info is requested on the wherabouts of this plane, it's history...anything pertaining to the bomber. We are trying to be helpful to the Yankee Air Museum, Bellview, Michigan in obtaining any information. We don't have any info to offer. Bomber may have been lost in combat..if so, any info on that is desired....Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.132.169 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a starting point, this is what the museum already knows about the bomber, particularly its serial(?) no.: 44-40429. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's two photos here; the linked data (click on the photos) identifies it as a B-24J (see Consolidated B-24 Liberator#Variants and conversions. Serial number is 44-40429, and it was used by the 64th Bombardment Squadron, 43rd Bombardment Group, Fifth Air Force; these units operated in the Pacific. You may be able to trace more detailed histories through the squadron. There's also two named contributors (one on each image) who may be able to assist. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This site [6] says it was a B-24J with nose art painted by Sarkis Bartigan. Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

According to our Nose art article, Bartigan (or sometimes Bartigian) was also responsible for "The largest known work of nose art ever depicted on a WW II-era American combat aircraft... on a B-24J Liberator, s/n 44-40973". See also 43rd Bomber Group Association - The 64th Squadron Briefing Room, which shows a list of the bases from which the 64th Squadron operated. They have a message board that might be helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the man himself at USAAF Nose Art Research Project - S/Sgt Sarkis E. BARTIGIAN. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A little more info in B-24 Liberator Units of the Pacific War by Robert Dorr, Osprey Books 1999, ISBN 1-85532-781-3 (p.95) which says; "44-40429 completed its maiden flight on 31 March 1944 and was delivered to the AAF on 4 April". A "colour plate" which I can't see in the Google Books preview, but which I suspect is an artist's impression, depicts the aircraft at Clark Field, Luzon in July 1945. Sorry, that's all Google could find for me. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)