The QI Quiz Thread

yes richie. i think we should probably take all these "answers" with a pinch of salt. some are true and for some reason myths have over taken them. but others are slightly far-fetched


not that im complaining!

 

Well done, elbertino, there are indeed 46 states, as four of the "states" are actually Commonwealths.

Where would you find most of the world's tigers?

 

in zoos

 

But there are 52 states, so 6 of them are commonwealths surely

 

Zoos? Oh, and you were doing so well. No no, not zoos I'm afraid. Minus 10

 

united states?

 

Where in the US? If Zoos is the wrong answer, and Tigers don't live in the wild, then where in the US?

 

Well, Nepal has most of the World's wild Tigers

 

in captivity

isnt that india? with 80%

 

There is also the world's largest Tiger reserve in Burma

 

I'll give that to you, elbertino, as US is the right answer, but more specifically there are more tigers "belonging" to private hands in the US than there are anywhere else in the world. So I guess they're pets.

And Richie gets 5 points for being interesting

What colour was the poet Burns' kilt?

 

Right I'm going to jump right on in here and probably fall flat on my face but... he didn't have one because he didn't belong to a Highland Clan?

 

*bump*

 

Um, there are only 50 states in America.

 

Actually, smetimes there are 52, but they say 50 for simplicity.

 

So what are the extra 2 then? I know District Of Columbia is joked about sometimes being the 51st state even though it is actually made up of 3 different states. What would the other one be?

 

Wikipedia explains its in simple enough terms:

A state of the United States is any one of the fifty subnational entities referred to as a state (although four officially favor the term commonwealth) which, along with the District of Columbia, under the provisions of the United States Constitution form the United States of America.


Admission of states into the union

The order which the original 13 states ratified the constitution, then the order that the others were admitted to the unionSince the ratification of the Constitution, the number of states has expanded from 13 to 50. The Constitution is rather laconic on the process by which new states can be added, noting only that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union", and forbidding a new state to be created out of the territory of an existing state without the consent of both that state's legislature and of Congress.

In practice, nearly all states admitted to the union after the original thirteen have been formed from U.S. territories (that is, land under the sovereignty of the United States federal government but not part of any state) that were organized (given a measure of self-rule by Congress). Generally speaking, the organized government of a territory would make known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood; Congress would then direct that government to organize a constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Upon acceptance of that Constitution, Congress would then admit that territory as a state. The broad outlines in this process were established by the Northwest Ordinance, which actually predated the ratification of the Constitution.

However, Congress has ultimate authority over the admission of new states, and is not bound to follow this procedure. A few U.S. states outside of the original 13 have been admitted that were never organized territories:

Vermont, an unrecognized but de facto independent republic until its admission in 1791
Kentucky, a part of Virginia until its admission in 1792
Maine, a part of Massachusetts until its admission in 1820 following the Missouri Compromise
Texas, a recognized independent republic until its admission in 1845
California, created as a state out of the unorganized territory of the Mexican Cession in 1850 without ever having been a separate organized territory itself
West Virginia, created from areas of Virginia that rejoined the union in 1863, after the 1861 secession of Virginia to the Confederate States of America
Congress is also under no obligation to admit states even in those areas whose population expresses a desire for statehood. For instance, the Republic of Texas requested annexation to the United States in 1836, but fears about the conflict with Mexico that would result delayed admission for nine years. Utah Territory was denied admission to the union as a state for decades because of discomfort with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' dominance in the territory, and particularly with the Mormon elite's then-current practice of polygamy

Naming issues: Commonwealths, republics, and states
Four of the states bear the formal title of Commonwealth: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In these cases, this is merely a name and has no legal effect. Somewhat confusingly, two U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas -- are also referred to as commonwealths, and do have a legal status different from the states.

The Texas Republic was an independent nation for nine years. The so-called "California Republic" was actually a flag raised by Americans in the town of Sonoma after they expelled the local Mexican official. Ten days later the US Army took over (just before the British could stake a claim).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Under US law there are 50 de facto states of the union - thats is: 50 recognised subnational entities that are treated as and act like with the rights of states, thus being s

 

Returning to the latest question, Loon is incorrect in part, and correct in another

 

wouldnt be a burnt orange would it?lol

 

we need answers!!!

 

Indeed. I'm just waiting for some!

 

I thought it was going to be something on the line that the story goes that Scots didn't actually invent kilts as we know them - colour, etc (though it is based on an ancient celtic clothing)

Supposedly it was an Englishman by the name of Thomas Rawlinson (a Lancashire industrialist), and so Burns didn't have a kilt as we know them today. But Rawlinson did that in the early 18th century and Robert Burns lived January 25, 1759 ? July 21, 1796. So the dates don't match, even if it sounds nice lol. Then again, it took time to establish family clans to certain kilt colours.

And now I'll have an army of "skirts" after my head for saying an Englishman invented their pride and trouser leg-less joy, thanks Mr Fish, I'll see you on Micklegate tower in York, well my head on a spike will ...

I will so have to wear a kilt now in Glasgow 'cos I can see me not getting out of there alive if I don't lol.

Edit: Some background on the history of the kilt here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith1999/lecture3.shtml

 

well, 5 points for being interesting, but not the answer I was looking

 

I realised now I answered wrong because you asked for what colour, and I didn't give you one.

Been searching and searching ...

"Burns family wear the Campbell tartan although in the 19th Century it had its own black and white tartan designed by a frenchman." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_(clan) ]

But then I found this ...

"03/04/2006 Tartan Day News from the USA
ROBERT BURNS TARTAN WORN BY SNP LEADER AT TARTAN DAY CELEBRATIONS


www.RobertBurnsTartan.com

Three business people came together a year ago with an idea for a construction company to build an immortal memory gardens to commemorate their most loved poet, Robert Burns.


It was during discussions regarding this project that the question was raised by one of the directors, Colin Davidson to Rod Jamieson and Angela Naylor: ?Is there a Robert Burns tartan?

On investigation the entrepreneurs discovered that there was no such tartan by that name and immediately set about finding the best weaver and kilt maker."

http://www.jigsawmarketingservices.co.uk/html/newsdesk/news_detail.asp?newsID=127

Getting more and more stumped lol.

 

Well, you can have 2 more points for being slightly interesting, but you lose 10 points for claiming his kilt was of any colour.

After the Battle of Culloden in 1746 ? one of the last major battles of the Jacobite rebellion ? the Government (run from England) imposed the Disarming Act of 1746. It was described as ?an Act for the more effectual disarming of the Highlands in Scotland and for more effectual securing of peace of the said Highlands; and for restraining the Use of the Highland Dress".

Under this new law men and boys were forbidden to ?wear or put on Highland clothes including; the kilt, plaid and no tartan or partly-coloured plaid or stuff was to be used for Great Coats or for Upper Coats?.

Therefore he didn't wear a kilt as they were illegal in Scotland during his lifetime!


Ok, slightly different question now.

Which Disney feature film shows a topless woman?