Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Reference Desk - All recent questions
WP:RD/ALL redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Redirect or Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This page lists all the recent questions asked on the Wikipedia reference desk by category. To ask a new question, please select one of the categories below. To answer a question, click on the "edit" link beside the question.

For information on any topic, choose a category for your question:

Computing reference deskP computing.svg
Science reference deskP physics.svg
Mathematics reference deskP mathematics.svg
Humanities reference deskP art.png
Computers and IT Science Mathematics Humanities
Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, engineering and technology Mathematics, geometry, probability, and statistics History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society
Language reference deskP literature.svg
Entertainment reference deskP music.svg
Miscellaneous reference deskP question.svg
Reference desk archivesP archive.svg
Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
Spelling, grammar, word etymology, linguistics, language usage, and requesting translations Sports, popular culture, movies, music, video games, and TV shows Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories Old questions are archived daily

For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:
Help deskWikipedia-logo.png
Village pumpWikipedia-logo.png
New contributors' help pageWikipedia-logo.png
Help desk Village pump New contributors' help page
Ask general questions about using Wikipedia Ask about specific policies and operations of Wikipedia A range of services to answer newcomers' questions

For Wikipedia reference information:
Help manual MediaWiki handbook Citing Wikipedia Resolving disputes Virtual classroom
Information and instructions on every aspect of Wikipedia Information about the software that runs Wikipedia How to cite Wikipedia as a reference For resolving issues between users An advanced guide on everything Wikipedia
See also the Wikipedia department directory
The following images are being used under the GNU FDL and/or the CC-BY-SA license:
P computing.svg, P physics.svg, P mathematics.svg, P question.svg, P art.png, P literature.svg, P music.svg, P archive.svg



July 23[edit]

Editing from a Laptop[edit]

Recently I have been sometimes editing Wikipedia Dell laptop (Windows 8) with a mouse. It is frustrating. Sometimes, when I have an editor box open, I have tried to use the mouse and select text or to focus, and discover that a substantial amount of previous text (either my own or that of another editor) has blanked out. The only remedy that I have found if I have blanked another editor's text is that I have to leave the page. Restoring the deleted text would be harder than cancelling and trying again. My main question is: What can I do to prevent this blanking of text? This is one of two problems that I have that seem both to be due to the mouse focus moving. The other is having the focus change so that inserted text does not go where I had been entering it. What causes the mouse cursor to move, and what should I do about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If the laptop has a touch-pad at the bottom of the keyboard - then probably you're inadvertently dragging your hand across it as you type. Both the mouse AND the touchpad are in control of the cursor - so this is an easy mistake to make. I don't know much about Windows 8 - but it ought to be possible to disable the touchpad somehow. SteveBaker (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Can someone else tell me how to disable the touchpad? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My mom bought a Windows 8 Dell like that. The problem was it came with an unhelpful feature that made touching the trackpad click things, too. This might be what's happening when you think you're just selecting, but moving text out of the window instead. I think that was simply solved in the Control Panel, by unchecking a box ("Tap to click" or something). That's probably around where you'll find the option to disable it completely. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
I think that I have managed to disable the touchpad. At least I don't have the cursor moving randomly and eating things. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Every laptop with a touchpad has a simple way of disabling it. On mine it is Fn-F8 (i.e., hold down the Fn key and press F8). Look over your function keys and see if you see a symbol that looks like a touchpad with a slash through it -- if so, that will be it. If it isn't there, look over the rest of your keyboard. Looie496 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I don't recognize any of the symbols as a touchpad with a slash. I disabled it from the Control Panel Mouse dialog. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It might be a touchpad with an X in it Dell Instructions. ---- CS Miller (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbird versions[edit]

Thunderbird just went from version 24.6 or 24.7 to 31.0. Why skip over major version numbers? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Firefox is currently at version 31.0. I suspect it was at version 24.x when Thunderbird was last updated. -- BenRG (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do Firefox and Thunderbird need to have the same version numbers? I can see it with, say, an office suite, where you would want the individual programs to have the same version number. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Because version numbers give a certain expectation to users, so much that even completely unrelated softwares from different companies have jumped version numbers to "catch up" to their competitors, when they've upgraded to the same level of functionality. I can't remember the specific instance, i'm sure someone can chime in, but i think it happened in linux land where, for example, red hat who upgrade their software on a frequent basis made it to version 12 by the time some other linux flavor version only made it to version 6, but, that they were based on the same linux kernel and had essentially the same functionality, it's just that red had had performed their updates twice as frequently, so company B decided to release their "version 6" as version 12, since it was directly competing with red hat 12. Same thing probably happened here, thunderbird probably receives fewer updates as firefox, but it's based on the same technologies and is the same "generation" of software and has comparable security features etc... calling it thunderbird 24 when their flagship software is up to version 31 makes it "sound" like thunderbird is miles behind. Vespine (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thunderbird and Firefox are both based on Gecko. So, whatever version Gecko is, that is the version that both Thunderbird and Firefox will be. (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Gecko must be this: Gecko (software). I didn't know they had so much in common, since their functions are so different. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thunderbird 30 (...and earlier) were developer betas and were not marketed or advertised to the general community of users. From the developer mailing list archives, here is the May/June development plan for Thunderbird 31. If you subscribe to the developer feeds, or build your own Thunderbird from source - or if for some reason, you as an individual or organization have a special working relationship with the Mozilla development team - then you'll commonly have visibility into a lot more versions and forks than the well-advertised, widely-available, mass-announced general releases. But, the Thunderbird and Gecko code is still mostly open-source free software, so you can grab any version at any time. Nimur (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Javascript function[edit]

Hi there, in Javascript I have a bunch of numeric variables, say a, b, c, d etc., and a procedure that takes any two variables, and changes both of them in a way that is dependent on both input values (for example, in a very simple case, a could become a + b, and b could become a − b). How do I create a Javascript routine to do this? I have a method at the moment that uses objects and "eval" statements, but it totally sucks, and it pains me to look at it. What is the elegant way to achieve this, given that I apparently cannot pass references to the numeric variables? (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Objects are passed by reference; so you can wrap those ints in objects, pass them, and mutations to their value are evident outside the function:
var add_and_diff = function (x,y) {
    var sum = x.val + y.val;
    var dif = x.val - y.val;
    x.val = sum;
    y.val = dif;
var a = {val:10};
var b = {val:20};
var c = {val:66};
var d = {val:99};
console.log('before:', a.val, b.val, c.val, d.val);
console.log('after: ', a.val, b.val, c.val, d.val);
Still kinda clunky, IMO. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 12:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this is slightly better than what I currently have, but it still means in the main code I have to refer to "a.val", "b.val" etc., rather than just "a", "b", etc., right? I find this a real nuisance. (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You could copy the values out of the struct like this, after which .val cannot be used.
var a = 10;
var b = 20;
a = {val:a};
b = {val:b};
add_and_diff(a, b);
a = a.val;
b = b.val;
console.log('after:', a, b);
Another way to do it, which might be cleaner, is to return an anonymous struct, and then copy the values out of it. CS Miller (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, I know I can copy "a = a.val", "a.val = a" etc. back and forth, but it really sucks. Could you give an example of what you mean by the "anonymous struct" method? (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of C. In Javascript all structs are anonymous, as Javascript isn't strongly typed. I was meaning code like
var add_and_diff =  function (x,y) {
    var _sum = x + y;
    var _dif = x - y;
    return {sum:_sum, dif:_dif};
This allows the function to return two values at the same time. CS Miller (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Burning CD[edit]

What is the problem when one tries to burn an hour music to an audio CD and when they are finished only 25 minutes have been burnt in?-- (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to do with it wanting to burn the CD at a certain rate, and if the PC can't supply the data at that rate it runs out of music to record and just records a blank from that point on. You can lower the speed at which it writes the CD, to try to prevent this. However the CD you already recorded can't be saved, unless it's an erasable CD. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, make sure the source is on a local hard disk, I've seen this happen if you try to burn directly from a USB key or from a network drive, or even another CD drive. Vespine (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
<tldr>What Stu and Vespine said.</tldr>
Earlier HDDs could not reliably provide the data fast enough for the CD-R drive, at least in borderline cases with fragmentation etc. Today, HDDs are faster than CD-R drives, by orders of magnitude. Even at 24x, that'd translate into 3.84MBps, and HDDs provide sustained data rates in the triple or high double digits. So, today, almost any write speed is safe from a data rate POV (but there have been reports that no CD-R can take more than about 25x reliably due to thermal limitations?), as long as the source is on HDD. If the source is somewhere else, like a CD, USB flash drive, network drive, or teh internets. No matter how fast your drive/connection is, most of these media can experience hiccups, during which no data are delivered at all. This can be enough to kill your recording session. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 08:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Proof of concept: the WP database had a minor hiccup several minutes ago. It got better.
Actually, I don't think we can reliably conclude the cause from the information given. It's true buffer underruns use to be a common problem in the very early days of CDRs (I remember dealing with them). However this hasn't been a common problem for a long time. It's not just because of faster HDs, but because of Optical disc recording technologies#Buffer underrun protection which began to become common place in 2001? or so. These mean, unless you disable them or the software doesn't know how to use them (which again hasn't been a problem for a long time), the recording should not outright fail because of a buffer underrun. Because of the small gap such protection results in, it's possible some standalone audio players will have playback problems with the CD. Although because the lead-out etc was written, worst case scenario they should work if you skip the track if that is the cause (of course some have problems with many CDRs). Definitely even with the limited EC, the writer should at worst have a small hiccup when reading that track, and it's the same for many CD-ROM drives (so probably including anything which supports MP3 etc). Note also many software support a secondary computer RAM buffer, and if you have a 4GB RAM computer, the whole 800mb or so of a 70 min CD could easily fit inside the buffer generally without causing issue for anything else if you choose to size the buffer appropriately. (It may work on a 2GB as well but if you're more likely to have problems if running something with high memory usage.)
It could also be your software failed for some reason. Perhaps a key point, if there was a buffer underrun, or some other burning problem, it should have reported this (as a recording failure) and only take the time for the 25 minutes. If it didn't, this indicates the software at least believes it burnt the whole disk or it's such a POS you should never touch it again. (IIRC some software will try and write the leadout even after a failure to try and keep the CD readable, but it should still clearly report the failure.) It's not clear from the OP's comment whether there was actually a reported recording failure or the OP just found the CD wasn't the expected length after burning. If there was a failure, logs should provide some clue of what happened if it did fail. (If there wasn't a failure, logs may still provde some clues.)
There are many other things that could go wrong or cause a player to have problems with the CD if the recording didn't fail. As I already mentioned, standalone players don't always like CDRs. Similarly media compatibility varies quite a lot both between players and writers. Some like the famous gold Taiyo Yuden may be better on average. But still if you're writer does a poor job with them, it may be some other CDRs will be better. (And contrary to what some believe, burning at a slower speed isn't necessarily better. To be fair, I'm not sure 52x ever produces the best results, but many modern CDR and modern drives definitely aren't going to produce good results burnt at 1x either.)
Then there could be a variety of mastering issues (both software and user caused).
At the very least, if the time playback time is very different from the recording time, you should be able to tell by looking at the CD whether roughly the expected size was recorded or not.
Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Lang subcodes case sensitive?[edit]

In some of my websites I use the language code <html lang="en-gb"> which normally seems to pass the various validation checks. However I have now come across Powermapper which objects to this coding. After some puzzlement, I worked out that it would accept en-GB, with the subcode in upper case. Is this actually required by the standards, or is Powermapper being excessively pedantic? --rossb (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

For HTML4, the spec says "Names of character encodings are case-insensitive". HTML5's spec points us to IETF's BCP47 recommendation, which says "At all times, language tags and their subtags, including private use and extensions, are to be treated as case insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning". W3C's advice on language internationalisation says "Although the codes are case insensitive, they are commonly written lowercased, but this is merely a convention". The only place I see a requirement about case is where a document has both xml:lang and html lang= tags (where it's a transition from XHTML to HTML5) where the case is required to be the same in both formats. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

hacking via php[edit]

I am a php beginner and on my first day my tutor hacked my gmail password using a small php script(approx 5 to 6 lines) and then he deleted it. i requested him to tell me for knowledge purpose but he didn't. i am wondering is hacking passwords so easy with php scripts?.i browsed on web but couldn't find anything reasonable. will anyone please clear that if something so easy exists in php or it was just a trick(may be he had some software installed on his laptop). (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reply Finlay Mcwalter, but i think i should have been more precise with the question the first time.actually, he wrote the code and saved in "htdocs" folder like normal procedure is and executed it in "localhost" then a page displayed with my username and password and he told that he had sent a request to "server".he also had a connection established to google and (through this) he tried to tell us that security depends upon coder's logic and not just this language is more secure and other not(between java and php here). (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Things probably went something like this:
  1. he copied the gmail login page (e.g. by downloading it with wget or curl)
  2. he wrote a little PHP program that showed that page and waited for you to type your password
  3. then he tricked you into accessing that site (maybe he just typed it in for you, maybe he messed around with the machine you were using to alter its DNS or proxy-server settings)
  4. you didn't properly check that the connection was secure and signed by google
  5. you typed your password in, and inadvertently sent it to his fake site
So he didn't hack Gmail with PHP, he hacked you with social engineering. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, Phishing to be exact. KonveyorBelt 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule, one should never enter any kind of password into a machine that you don't trust (and for things that are really important - like banking - that you don't have total personal control over). He could have easily installed a keylogger, or could have altered the browser's settings (or its code) so that even if the site appeared to be an https connection properly signed by Google's certificate, it wasn't. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC), you should reply at the bottom of conversations, rather than at the top. It sounds like your teacher may have made a simple proxy server which does what I described above. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Finlay Mcwalter thanks and i will take care of it from now onwards. (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

text 'Chapter # ' missing before chapter in latex[edit]

I do not know much about Latex. I have written a thesis with the help of a sample thesis. But i have some problems. For example, the name my thesis first chapter is 'Preliminaries', But in table of contents only 'Preliminaries' is written rather than '1 Preliminaries' and first chapter starts with 'Preliminaries' rather than 'Chapter 1 'in next line 'Preliminaries'. base class of my thesis is 'book', I m using class file with no preamble file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We may need more information about how you've set up your work. How are you adding the chapters? I presume you're doing something simular to me and not writting one big long document in one file. In my thesis to get the behaviour you are describing I used
which gives the Abstract and no number in the table of contents, but for the main section I used
which give 1 Introduction in the table of contents (As I named the chapter the same as the file but you can have different chapter headings). Dja1979 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume that inside Introduction.tex you used \chapter{Introduction}? OP, just an off-chance, but did you use \chapter*{Introduction} (notice the star) in your thesis? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That'll teach me for not looking at my code properly, I had the \chapter*{Abstract} in my Abstract.text. Apologies for not being more carful befor given advise.Dja1979 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Right or Left alignment of filenames in Windows7 folder?[edit]

I have an open folder in Windows7 with "View Mode" set to "details"-view.
Can I somehow get the filenames aligned to the right side instead of the standard left side of the column? Or toggle between Left and Right alignment of the filenames?
-- (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. You'd need another application to do that type of thing for you. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
But, Both Hebrew and Arabic script is written from the right to the left, and surely those language versions of Windows7 must have right alignment as a default. So there must be some kind of environment variable, somewhere, which governs the current right or left alignment — and which could easily be toggled — don't you think so?
-- (OP) (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Steelseries Apex keyboard media keys[edit]

I am interested in the Steelseries Apex keyboard, but I am concerned about the media keys to the right. According to some images on the Internet, there are previous/next track keys (|<<, >>|), while other images show rewind/fast forward keys (<<, >>) instead. I often use the previous/next track keys, but never the rewind/fast forward keys, so I am very interested to know what is actually the case. If the keys are the rewind/fast forward ones, can they be reprogrammed to act as previous/next track keys? -- (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The multimedia keys are standardized (at least de facto by Windows) and don't include rewind and fast forward, so I think that << >> is a variant labeling for the previous and next track keys. -- BenRG (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you for your answer. -- (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Search engine question. Ignore vs. exclude[edit]

Are there search engines which can do both, ignore and exclude?

I mean by "ignore", a search like (shades AND of AND grey) but ignore "50 Shades of Grey" should return most files containing the words "shades", "of", "grey" but only if they are not part of the wording, "50 Shades of Grey".

By "exclude", even a file containing both the wording "50 Shades of Grey" and the individual words outside the context would be excluded.

For example, the article would stay in the "ignore" results, because of the sentence "Not to be confused with Shades of Grey." but get excluded from the "exclude" search results, due to the redirect remark, "(Redirected from 50 Shades of Grey)". - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 08:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And again, the signature gained a second meaning.
I'm not sure of your distinction, but in Google, using -"some phrase", will ignore results containing exactly that phrase, for example searching for -"fifty shades of grey" -"50 shades of grey" shades of grey will ignore references to a certain BDSM-lite book and film. Note that both representations of 50 have to be separately ignored. CS Miller (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually, I'm mostly interested in the "ignore" search which does not exclude the files with both.
Many results have ads and I don't want to get the pages with the only reference to my search term in the ads, but get all the pages with the search term in both the ads and in the page proper. The very existence of adbots makes the latter case much more likely than pure coincidence.
I picked "shades of grey" as example because it went well with my signature. As a search term, it's quite nonsensical, both because of the internet memes about 50SoG, and because "of" is a word which would appear in very few good search queries. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 05:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

pdf format[edit]

I cannot use all the functions in some pdf files (e.g. in Wikipedia article footnotes) on my new laptop, e.g. Search and Go To page number. Do I need to update some software in my laptop, and if so, how, please? I have Windows 7, IE11 and Firefox. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you access the PDF using a browser, the browser may display the file with any of several different PDF viewers, depending on your browser settings. I find Firefox picking different ways to display the PDF for reasons I can't fathom.
Once the PDF is displayed, see if there is a menu bar across the top with the choices "File Edit View Window Help". Click "Help"; see if there is a choice "About Adobe Reader XI". If there is, click it and make note of the version. Mine is 11.0.07. Let us know what you find. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h:There is no menu bar with "File Edit" at all, just "Print Save Share Create pdf using Acrobat". When I go to "Create using Acrobat", it calls up a screen asking you to buy Acrobat which will convert files to pdf, at £65 a year! I see I already have Adobe 9.5 in the laptop, but when I save the pdf file (from a Wikipedia footnote) to Adobe 9.5 and then use this new file, only the Go To page function works, not the Search function. I did this using IE11 and then Firefox, with the same result. Could you look at the Wikipedia file, please, and see if you can make the functions work? It is at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, footnote #142, "Senate Committee on Intelligence ...", which is a US government document. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just tried some other pdf files from Wikipedia footnotes, and all the functions work perfectly, without any conversion to Adobe 9.5. It would be interesting to know if you have the same difficulty I had with the file I referred you to. I suppose it could be something to do with it being a very sensitive US government document (on terrorism) - there is a lot blacked out - but it is in the public domain, so I don't see why. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
When I click on the footnote in Firefox, on a Windows 8.1 laptop, it downloads the document into my Downloads folder. When I click on the Firefox download arrow and then click on the document, the document opens in Adobe Reader XI, as usual. So I think your problem has nothing to do with the footnote, it has to do with the way your computer and browser are set up. By the way, "Adobe 9.5" isn't a useful software designation, since Adobe sells so many different programs. You might be referring to Adobe Reader 9.5 or Adobe Acrobat 9.5. I think they also have some on-line versions of Acrobat, although I don't remember if they had an on-line version back in the 9.5 era. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I meant Adobe Reader 9.5, and I have Windows 7. I have downloaded it the way you said you did with Firefox and it opens in Adobe Reader 9.5, but I still get the same problem, only the GoTo works, not the Search function - and as I said before, this only happen with this particular document, not other pdfs I have opened with IE11 and Firefox. They have all been in Adobe Acrobat, and only this one doesn't work. Very strange. P123ct1 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean 'search' doesn't work. Do you mean search doesn't find anything? Or you can even get it to open? If the PDF is an image rather than text and it isn't OCRed in the background, then searching won't find anything. For that matter, if it is text but they did one of those copy protection things where they used a custom font with custom mappings you'll have to know what to actually search for.
While there are numerous restrictions that can be placed on a PDF (look at the document properties in Reader to see what ones apply to your PDF) including disabling copying the content, printing etc; disabling searching isn't one of them. (If the PDF can be opened, these restrictions are more annoying than real restrictions. There are many ways around them although that may or may not fall afoul of the DMCA in the US.) And AFAIK, even if the PDF has absolutely no text, you should still be able to try to search, although I can't speak for Reader 9.5 in particular.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I has a quick look and the PDF is indeed an image one without any apparent text. However attempting to search still works fine on Reader XI. It doesn't find anything, as you would expect. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: The file opens in Adobe Reader 9.5 and the search box is there, but when I type in a word and press "Find next", it says it has searched but cannot find, so it does perform a search. I didn't know about the image thing, which explains it. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

C Compiler on Windows 7 Desktop[edit]

I would like to run C programs on my Windows 7 desktop computer. What is anyone's advice for a compiler? In the 1990's the compiler of choice was Borland Turbo C for about $300. However, now it has been made into freeware. That would be fine if I could figure out how to complete its installation, but I can't. Some of the web sites that come up on a Google search for it then try aggressively to get you to download other software that I don't want and don't trust. The site that I think really is Borland downloads a ZIP file to me, which I can unpack, but it doesn't include instructions for what to do next. Is there a .exe program that will install the unpacked elements? Is there a set of instructions? I assume, with freeware, that there is no technical support. There are C compilers out there for $700, but that is a lot. Is there a reasonable commercial C compiler for $400 or less, or is there a web site that provides detailed instructions on how to install Borland? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual Studio Express is free, if you want to use it. If you want to use the Borland compiler, then WinZip or 7-Zip will extract the files for you, they are both free, but WinZip is nagware. CS Miller (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking how to unzip the files. I did download the ZIP file and I did extract the files for Borland C. What do I do to install the compiler? All that the unzipping does it to create a folder of files. It doesn't install the compiler. Also, what does Visual Studio Express do? Will it compile K&R C, or does it do something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What's inside the ZIP file? Is there an .exe? MS VS Express is a full C and C++ compiler, IDE, and Debugger, but the profiling and installer builder won't work (you need the paid-for versions for those). It appears to support K&R code, over ANSI. Why are you using K&R anyway, ANSI C gives you warning about incorrect parameters, and automatic casting. CS Miller (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I will answer later whether there is a .exe in the files that were unzipped. (I am not in front of the desktop but of the laptop.) What does the installer builder do? Does it install the compiler, or does it create the install wizard that installs the compiled C program on someone else's computer? I don't need that feature. My real question was whether it would compile source code that had all of the power of K&R C (so that I can use the K&R blue book as my language bible). It is my understanding that the differences between ANSI C and K&R C are not significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It does the later, allows your program to be installed else where. VS express is installed by a wizard. Unless you have good reason to use K&R, you'd be better using ANSI, as it will catch some common mistakes. CS Miller (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless you have some ancient programs to compile that will only work on Borland C (16 bit segmented programs, TurboVision, OWL, .COM creation) you should not need, and shouldn't use, Borland C. The obvious choice for C development on Windows is Visual C/C++, as CS Miller has noted. Apart from that, there is GCC (you'd probably install the MinGW environment to get it and its toolchain) or you'd use an IDE like Code::Blocks, Eclipse, Netbeans, Bloodshed, or Qt Creator, which all use GCC too. C as described in the 2nd (latest, still very old) edition of K&R is (essentially) ANSI C (the older form, found in the even more ancient 1st edition, is very rarely seen these days). -- Finlay McWalterTalk 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So is Visual C/C++ consistent with ANSI C? Visual Basic is not the same as other Basic implementations (as if Basic ever were a standard language). I don't have ancient code; I want to write new code. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Much more so than 16-bit Borland C, where you'll run into limitations of the memory model (segmented memory, FAR pointers) which correspond to nothing in K&R. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I correct that segmentation was needed to work around the limitations of the 16-bit architecture on the 8086 and 80286? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Segmentation (in real mode) was needed to make the 8086 and 8088 look and feel more like their 8-bit predecessors to the software. It obviated the need to make program images relocatable (COM files supplied no relocation information and had a fixed load address (0x100) but the system was still able to load them at any physical address divisible by 16) and it facilitated the translation of legacy software Asmrulz (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Visual C++ is Microsoft C/C++ rebranded by marketing after the release of Visual Basic. There's nothing Visual about it. -- BenRG (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If I Google on Microsoft Visual C, I see, among other things, options to install Microsoft C++ Redistributive. Am I correct that that isn't what I want, because only permits me to run C programs compiled on someone else's machine if I don't have my own compiler? In that case, is Visual Studio Express what I want? It is described as a tool page, but a compiler seems like something that stands on its own and is not merely a tool package or part of a tool package. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the redistributable is useless to you. You want either "Visual Studio Express 2013 for Windows Desktop" or "Visual C++ 2010 Express". The latter may be a smaller download and use less disk space. It also supports C, despite the name. -- BenRG (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Since C++ is a proper superset of C, any compiler that supports C++ supports C. The compiler won't return an error just because there are no objects. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Mostly true. There are a few weird contrived C constructs that won't compile in C++. You can come up with some by mixing C-style comments with C++-style ones, for example.
a = b//*This is a C comment*/ 2;
In C, this just sets a to b/2, but in C++, it sets a to b but is missing a semicolon. --Trovatore (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There are much bigger differences than that. For example char *p = malloc(1234); is legal C but not legal C++ (C++ requires an explicit cast to char *). In C it's legal to use printf without including stdio.h, in C++ it's not. Also, C99 and C11 added many features to C that are not in C++ and probably never will be. Visual C++ 2013 appears to support compound literals and designated initializers (both C99 features) in C mode but not C++ mode. (C99 also added // line comments, so your comment-syntax example is no longer valid.) -- BenRG (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The relationship between C and C++ is beside the point. The compiler operates in a different mode when compiling C or C++ (indeed, there are different modes for each of the C standards and the different C++ standards). You tell the compiler which mode to operate in (either explicitly at the command line, or it infers it from the source file extension). -- Finlay McWalterTalk 13:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"Fixed" it:
a = b//*This is a C comment*/ 2;
This compiles on both, but C's which don't recognize the "//" atom (programming) (i.e. don't treat the rest of the line as a comment) see the -c++; part as a separate instruction to compute the negative of c, increment c, and will probably issue a warning that there are no side effects.
C's which include "//" comments will subtract c; depending on the values of b and c, the compiled program can check if its compiler recognized "//" comments.
The "++" part was included for punnery purposes only. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning Off Scheduled Update on Laptop[edit]

I have a Dell laptop with Windows 8. Three days ago, it started telling me that it would restart in 2 days in order to apply updates. Yesterday, it restarted itself (without giving me a choice to delay it), but then the installation of the updates failed, and the process of the restart and the backing out of the updates took about 90 minutes. I have now used the Control Panel so that it now checks for updates but prompts me as to whether to apply them. However, it is again saying that it will restart in two days. I used the troubleshooter to correct one problem with the updates. My question is whether I can remove the cached updates so as not to risk another update failure, or whether is anything else that I can to do to avoid having another failed update. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it's smart enough not to reuse a cached update that failed. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. Why is it telling me that it will restart in two days? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That would mean it will try to re-download the update(s), not use the (possibly corrupted) cached version(s). StuRat (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

When it comes down to information processing (and not storing), what are the most basic units?[edit]

What are the 0s and 1s of information processing? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

0s and 1s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Information processing is not quantified in that manner. --  Gadget850 talk 23:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if the original poster is thinking of Logic in computer science or Boolean algebra? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I would still call a unit of data (that can contain only a 1 or 0) a bit, in any case. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: I was thinking what are the operations that cannot be broken down further. OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
One is theoretically enough. Asmrulz (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
See RISC. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Depending on exactly what you mean by an operation, you might be interested in the Turing machine article. If you mean what are the simplest operations needed to implement an arbitrary operation on two bit strings to yield a third bit string, it suffices to be able to perform these operations:
  • COPY a bit from input to output
  • INVERT a bit
  • output a 0 regardless of input
  • output a 1 regardless of input
  • AND (two inputs)
  • OR (two inputs)
Strictly speaking, it isn't necessary to have both the operations AND and OR; only one of the two is really necessary. A book on combinational logic will confirm this. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe NOR logic or CMOS is what you're looking for? -- BenRG (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Android app for photographing paintings and other rectangular items[edit]

I like to take photos of paintings at art museums with my Android smart phone, when that is allowed. Currently, I use the HTC One (M8). If the photos are good, I like to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and add them to Wikipedia articles. Often, though, the image of a painting is not a true rectangle, but rather a quadrilateral with sides that are not exactly parallel. I am looking for an Android app that would allow me to click on the four corners of the image, and stretch or skew it into an exact rectangle. Any suggestions? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have to use Android, I recommend Hugin. If you do have to use Android, there are photo editing apps that do this. is a popular one, but it's adware, and I suspect it will do lower-quality resampling than Hugin, and won't correct barrel/pincushion distortion. -- BenRG (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

How much battery does enabling C-States save?[edit]

I'm using a Dell Latitude E7240 ultrabook with an 1.7 Ghz i3-4010U, 4 GB RAM, 128 SSD, Windows 8.1

The laptop has C-States enabled in the BIOS by default. However, when my computer is not in "High Performance" battery mode, or if it is not connected to Wifi, I hear a really annoying, sporadic whining sound somewhere from the laptop. Looking online, I have nailed the sound to what I believe is something known as "coil whine." It is a high-pitched pizoelectric buzzing sound.

I went into the BIOS and disabled "C-States" and the sound has appeared to have gone away.

However, since I plan on using the ultrabook as portable device, I am worried about negative battery life implications this may have. Does anyone have any rough ideas on how much disabling C-States will adversely affect my battery life?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean how long a the maximum charge will last, or are you concerned about degradation of the battery to where it will no longer hold the maximum charge ? StuRat (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned with how long a maximum charge will last. By checking the predicted battery life by moving my mouse over the battery icon, it does seem that enabling C-States does increase the battery life by a few hours. But how accurate is this? Acceptable (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably more accurate than any estimate we could provide. OF course, you can do the full test and see how long it takes to run the battery down with and without C-States enabled, while doing the same thing both times. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Budget desktop PC recommendations[edit]

My HP/Vista is taking about 5 min. to boot and periodically freezes for a minute or two (CPU usage shoots up to 100%), so I'm looking for a replacement for about $500-600 Canadian (no gaming, just the basics). Any ideas? Future Shop is offering a Dell i3847-5387BK PC (Intel Core i5-4460 / 1TB HDD / 8GB RAM / Intel HD Graphics / Windows 8.1) for $570. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be cheaper just to wipe it and start again on the same PC. Do you have the install or restore disk? Does it have Recovery option, which will restore Windows to its initial state from a hidden partition? CS Miller (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This sounds to me like a software problem rather than a hardware problem. The solution probably isn't to buy new hardware, especially when that hardware is low end. The solution is probably to look at what unused programs are starting automatically at boot and which programs are over-utilizing the CPU. Also, I'm more interested in the specifications of the machine you have rather than the computer you would like to buy. Any computer you buy from Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc., will have bloatware installed on it that will slow the computer down. No matter how cheap the hardware in your PC, it should never take five minutes to boot. It doesn't just "wear out" inside and slow down mechanically. That's not normally how PCs work.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
One case where it might take 5 minutes to boot is if it's set to do a disk scan (check all the hard disks for errors) on boot. You can usually skip this by hitting a key on the keyboard, or you can disable it entirely. I normally only let the scan run when I'm not in a hurry or suspect a disk problem. StuRat (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Windows doesn't run chkdsk by default. If it detects file-system corruption, it may run once and then start up normally from then on. If it's always running on bootup, then there's something wrong with the hard drive. This is very rare.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the advice to re-install the operating system and go from there. If there are things on there you want to keep, another option is to get a new hard drive, install the O/S on that, and keep your current hard drive as a non-boot drive. If you're not able to do that yourself, you can have somebody do it for you for a fee.
Something else you might want to try first is some scans for malware. That is junk that they sneak in with downloads that does nothing useful but uses up resources on your PC. Products like Ad-Aware will remove such cruft. StuRat (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. I'll probably end up saving my stuff, reinstalling and seeing what happens. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that after reinstalling Windows, you will have to spend a day reinstalling all the Windows updates. This can be expedited by enabling autologin on Windows, and possibly by downloading the latest service pack for version of windows you use. If you do download the service pack, I'd do it before wiping the PC. CS Miller (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

StringBuffer Object Concatenation in java[edit]

While creating an object of StringBuffer class we get 16 addtional character memory space along with regular data and the modification on the object takes place in the same memory space. so i tried a scenario to clear my doubt, i concatenated a stringbuffer object say("catty") with another stringbuffer "tftwvdhwgdddghdbshgsyg" (more than 16 character long) to see the capacity of the Stringbuffer object but every time i get the capacity as 46(whenever the another one is more than 16 character long). i had thought of getting an error for concatenating a string more than 16 character long.i also want to know the way for printing the address of stringbuffer objects.will someone please explain this(doubt) ?(i am using jdk 1.6). (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The point of StringBuffer is that it is elastic; if you try to add more stuff to it than it will currently accomodate, the buffer is resized. The documentation says "If the internal buffer overflows, it is automatically made larger." Although the internal implementation does eventually use an array, as a user of StringBuffer you can mostly forget that. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks again ,but what about the capacity() always showing 46 and please tell me the method to print the address.with normal objects we just pass them in SOP to get their address.what to do with SOP as same process here prints the value contained in objects. (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Java isn't C - you can't print the address of objects (unless you write some C); the addresses of objects is an implementation detail, which you shouldn't (and essentially can't) rely on. Printing a java.lang.Object prints its hashcode, which in some implementations may be the address - but this is an internal detail. Similarly, the specification for StringBuffer makes no guarantees about how much capacity it uses; it only promises to make sure there is enough. Different implementations will use a different strategy to decide how much to reserve. It's very rare for you to need to know the actual amount of capacity that is used; APIs to set and query this are provided for people who need to perform microoptimisations in this regard - in 99.9% of cases the defaults will be fine for you, and worrying about the capacity is a waste of your time. If you really care, pull the source for OpenJDK and read the source for expandCapacity in -- Finlay McWalterTalk 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

got it.i actually became adventorous in my curiosity.thanks for guidance@ Finlay Mcwalter. (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't let me discourage you from being curious. StringBuffer is an abstract data type, and in an ideal world you could always use it and never have to think about what's inside. Just in the way that you can drive a car without knowing how car engines work. But real software works on real computers, which are always somewhat constrained in space and time, so all abstractions are somewhat leaky. That's why the API has stuff to set and get the capacity - because, in a very few cases, you will have to worry about that. Usually those circumstances are pointed out when you profile the code (to discover why it's slower than you'd hope); worrying about minutiae like this without evidence from the profiler that it's relevant is usually a premature optimization. But you're absolutely right to be adventurous, not least because it's interesting how the insides of things work. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 11:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WYSIWYG editor adding local reference[edit]

I maintain my web pages with the free WYSIWYG editor KomPozer version 0.7.10 (20070831). The files on one site have the structure header + main + footer. The header file includes expressions such as


But when I load a file into KomPozer, after the merge the expressions have had a local reference added,


Obviously, the .gif then does not display correctly on the web site unless I manually remove 7 instances of the added text.

What is happening? Is there any way I can prevent this from happening? Is there a better free WYSIWYG editor? (On another computer KomPozer did the same thing, and so I used Microsoft Front Page, which I can’t install on my present computer.) --Halcatalyst (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you need to fully qualify where it should find the "images" directory, if not on your PC. I'm not quite sure how you would do that in KompoZer, but I suspect the URL or IP address of the server would be part of it. If, on the other hand, the "images" directory should exist on each user's PC, then it should probably have something like "$HOME" at the start of the string. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The images directory is a subdirectory of the directory where the main HTML file resides, as it is on the web server. I don't know what $HOME is or what it is used for. Is it part of HTML? --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a variable which contains the user's home directory. In your case, perhaps a variable which contains the user's present work directory might work. That might be something like $PWD, or better yet you could just use ".", as in:
StuRat (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I used Kompozer a long time ago and don't remember that problem. However, web composition software will often do this if you haven't saved the HTML page before adding the relative references. FWIW, that tag looks a bit odd for an image. Why not <img src="filename">?--Phil Holmes (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning the scroll bar on permanently[edit]

I have no idea why but on one mac I use, as opposed to others (and it appears regardless of which browser I am using, or at least in both Firefox and Chrome), the scroll bar on the right side of the page only appears when I place my cursor there, winking off when not "in use", rather than being a permanent feature when visiting any webpage that goes below the bottom of the screen. I dislike this; I want to make it permanent, like it is on the other macs I use. This mac runs OSX 10.8.3 and the Firefox browser I mostly use is the latest version and has been updated many times so this scroll bar feature seems unrelated to the browser version. Any help with how I can set this to off, or whatever is needed to stop this behavior? (By the way, one of the reasons I dislike is that it often doesn't even work, I have to fiddle with my cursor on the side and clicking there before the scrollbar even appears.) Thanks-- (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to your System Preferences > General > Show Scroll Bars > Always That should take care of it. Dismas|(talk) 20:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much Dismas. One of those things you either know where it is or you don't. No idea how it got turned off.-- (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably when you upgraded the Mac OS. it's a feature of the newer OS's, but i'm not sure when implemented. first time i noticed it was on ipad. El duderino (abides) 09:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Is there any good old school chat websites?[edit]

Where you don't have to download anything to chat on it? Venustar84 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Good" is a matter of preference. There are a number of chat sites though. Just do a search with your favorite search engine for chat site and you should be able to find many. One of the top results for me was Omegle. Dismas|(talk) 03:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of online IRC clients available. One that I found after a minute of googling was Kiwi IRC, though there are many more out there that might work better for you. Gbear605 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What happens in these comic strip URLs? (Firefox only)[edit]

This relates to this question and this question that I asked earlier. I can go to the June 20 comic strip, for example; watch what happens to the URL at the top of the screen. But if I substitute "04/14" after 2014 without changing any of the other information after "06/20", I still arrive at my intended destination. If I go to April 14 the normal way, watch what happens to the URL.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not happening to me at home. I normally look at these strips where the Internet is faster, and most days that is on a Firefox computer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 24[edit]

Question about Hawking's imaginary time[edit]

Please don't hesitate to use advanced math in answering this question:

As I understand it, Stephen Hawking thinks the universe is spherically curved in imaginary time.

Would that mean that imaginary time is the radial dimension of the universe's expansion? Why or why not?

If so, would that mean that the universe is expanding slower than light speed? Why or why not?

If the universe is expanding faster than light speed, then why doesn't that make the FRW metric positive-definite? (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Collin237

Hi there. You're asking about the Hartle-Hawking state. Unfortunately, our article about this subject isn't great, and the technical details are rather inaccessible. (I won't claim to be an expert in this area of cosmology.) Given those caveats, there are a few basic points that can provide the answers to your questions:
  1. The Hartle-Hawking state is a hypothesis about how to write down a quantum state in quantum gravity around and before the Planck time. It does include a signature change in the metric. However, it doesn't describe the subsequent Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker expansion history of the universe and isn't needed to answer questions about the present-day expansion of the universe.
  2. Saying that the universe is expanding faster than (or slower than) the speed of light is a vague statement that can mean one of several things when describing cosmology in everyday language. It doesn't have any precise technical meaning. It refers to the recession speed of objects at some distance, so it is not a local property of spacetime.
  3. The metric tensor is a local property of spacetime.
So my answer to your first two questions is no, because the Hartle-Hawking hypothesis doesn't describe the modern universe (or anything much after the Planck time); and my answer to your last question is no, because the metric is a local property of spacetime, while "expanding faster than light" (whatever it may mean in some context) is not a local statement. --Amble (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
So if there was no time and no space before the big bang, what was around then and where? And in what 'space' did the big bang occur? Also where did all the mass and energy in the present universe come from if there was nothing to start with? Also whats to stop another universe just appearing out of nothing. And anyway, where did God live before the big bang?? This theory must be complete tosh! (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The argument from incredulity is a notoriously unreliable guide in matters outside the realm of everyday experience. In addition, you appear to be objecting to certain vague notions about Big Bang Cosmology in general, rather than the Hartle-Hawking state, which is the topic under discussion. --Amble (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well is it credible that something that violates basic laws of the universe is, in fact, true? Or is it more likely to be false. If false, why? (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
A hypothesis that violates basic laws of the universe is probably false. A commonsense notion that is violated by nature is probably not a basic law of the universe. Do you have a specific question about the Hartle-Hawking state? --Amble (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It was the beginning of everything, including the basic laws. So there was nothing to violate. (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Collin237

Is this a good image of a pediplain?[edit]

I'm determined to find an image for this article, and after researching a bit I discovered that the western Atacama Desert, particularly the Tarapaca region, is home to one of the largest and oldest pediplains on Earth.[1] And so I found [this image], and I'm wondering if anyone with expertise or familiarity with the region can confirm that this is in fact (part of) a pediplain. And furthermore, is it a good enough representation to include in the page? If so, I can modify the image with some labels to make it clearer. = NV1982 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! It looks like you've done your homework. I've read through your links, and it seems right to me... but I'm no geographer or geologist. I suggest (barring any credible, referenced, objections here in the next few days) that you be WP:BOLD and add the image to the article :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll end up doing that. I'm pretty confident in this case. Although an aerial shot might be more ideal, this at least will point readers to an example of what the article's describing. And it'd be a bonus to make more good use of that photo. Thanks for your input! = NV1982 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Origin of body heat when cycling[edit]

When I cycle, which are the main contributors to (over) heating my body - muscles in my legs, heart, diaphragm and intercostal muscles? -- (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is waste heat generated when muscles convert chemical energy into kinetic energy. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the excellent links StuRat has provided for you, Thermoregulation may also be an interesting read. --Jayron32 00:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Fuel and Car Technology[edit]

Hi wikipedia, I dont have a great article to publish but certainly a new idea which i would like to share it with you. Recently i have been thinking about powering cars with wind energy ,can i do so? i have a basic idea not exactly a technical one , so need help hope so ull reply . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojb95 (talkcontribs) 12:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of obvious problems with that. Your best bet is to charge batteries using a turbine, which is already done. Any ideas about sails and turbines mounted on cars are, sadly, not feasible. Zzubnik (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a much underappreciated aspect of history - see land sailing, ice boat, ice yachting. We've seen a thousand film images of Conestogas but anyone ever see a "wind wagon" in film (??!) I remember reading something about ice boats having held the land speed record on Lake Michigan for a time but can't find it now. (maybe a logician objected?) Wnt (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
These old Chinese devices are pretty close to a wind-propelled wagon Wheelbarrow#Chinese_sailing_carriage. Google /Chinese wheelbarrow sail/ for lots of cool pics and articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wind-powered vehicle has examples of the turbine type. Katie R (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We should probably mention some of the problems that make it not feasible:
1) You can't go faster than the wind in a vehicle powered solely by the wind. In most places, the wind doesn't go very fast, most of the time, so your car would be slow. When there is no wind, your car wouldn't move at all. (Addition: While it may be possible to make a stripped down vehicle which can go faster than the wind, I still don't believe this can be done with a practical passenger vehicle.)
2) The wind often goes in the wrong direction. While sailboats can go in the opposite direction as the wind, via tacking, this involves sailing in a zigzag pattern that's not practical for land vehicles following roads. Out on an open desert, it's a bit more practical.
And, in case you are thinking you could power a car by conventional means, and put up a windmill to capture wind energy too, that won't work, since the drag from the windmill will slow the car down more than the electricity generated would speed it up.
So, I agree that the best way to power a car by wind energy is to use a windmill to charge batteries for an electric car. However, for a car that gets much use, if the windmill is only set to charge the batteries and nothing else, the best option is to charge the batteries outside the car, and just swap those in for the discharged batteries in the car whenever you leave home. Alternatively, if wind power is used to generate electricity on the grid, then you can just use a standard plug-in electric vehicle. (In many places you can sell your unused wind energy back to the power company using the grid.)
One other possible use of wind energy for powering a car is when parked away from home. You could conceivable have a windmill that deploys above the car to trickle charge it while parked. However, this would provide rather minimal power, so would only be practical if parked for long periods in windy areas, with only short drives. Also, high winds might tip the car over, necessitating the use of outriggers (I see our article is just on boats, don't we have one for outriggers on cranes, etc. ?), which would add to the weight of the vehicle. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that these vehicles aren't practical for everyday use. However, your first claim is wrong. Blackbird (land yacht) can go upwind and downwind faster than the wind speed and doesn't need to tack. Katie R (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Your comment 1 seems very confusing or inadequately explained as our article sailing faster than the wind (and perhaps vehicle) will indicate. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The key to understanding the concept is that by using a turbine coupled to the wheels, it can use the speed between the air and the ground, not just the relative speed between the air and the craft. Katie R (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that I'm not just thinking of Blackbird concept but the general concept of sailing faster than the wind. StuRat's comment 2 mentioned the issues tacking etc poses for road based vehicles. But comment 1 didn't say anything about that nor did it refer solely to sailing dead downwind. So comment 1 seems to ignore the more general idea where you can use tacking or other methods to achieve a VMG higher than the windspeed particularly on ice boats (which Wnt already mentioned) and unlike Blackbird, I don't think is something only recently demonstrated (if you didn't believe the theoretical calculations), even though StuRat's comment itself could be taken to imply this isn't possible. These may not be practical for most land based vehicles but again, the comment was phrased very generally. So I'm not sure making the claim as StuRat did without additional explaination of what they were referring to, or at least a link to our article (which I found in about 3 seconds), helps the OP much. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the physics of the thing, consider the economics. A typical car engine puts out something of the order of 100kWatts. According to The American Wind Energy Association a 1kWatt turbine costs between $4000 and $9000 (already way too expensive to put onto a car!) and a 100kWatt turbine costs $350,000. So right there, you know that you can't bolt a wind turbine to a car and get free energy. However, since you aren't driving your car 24 hours a day - and the wind might maybe blow 24 hours a day (in a good location) - if you restricted yourself to driving for at most one hour per day, then you could charge the batteries on an electric car with a mere 4kWatt generator. Sadly, that's still going to cost you more than your car...but why bolt the thing to your car? Why not use it to charge the batteries and leave it behind when you drive off? What this leads you to is that electric cars are a good idea...and that using wind energy to make electricity is a good idea. These are completely separate concepts though...linking them together and saying "Let's run a car on wind" is an unnecessary (and exceedingly difficult) linkage! Why have your expensive windmill only work while you're driving your car? Why not use it to power your refrigerator instead?

Taking it one step further - the larger a windmill is, the more efficient it becomes. That's why the wind energy folks use windmills with blades the size of a 747's wing. So having each person who drives an electric car spend all that money on a 4kW windmill is silly. You need to fund your share of a megawatt windmill and share it with everyone else...or, in other words, buy your electricity from a wind-energy company and run an electric car.

What most concerns me is that you're probably thinking "Wow! When I drive my car, and stick my hand out of the window, there's a heck of a lot of wind! Why can't I capture some of that to drive the car?" - and that's a fatally flawed argument. The problem is that windmills cause fact, that's what their function is - to cause as much drag as possible, slowing down the airflow and stealing energy from it. So if you could bolt a small windmill onto your regular car, it would increase the drag on the car such as to increase fuel consumption by an amount of energy that would most certainly be considerably more than the windmill would generate. That's 100% certain - and it doesn't depend on how clever your design for the windmill is - or how you use it's energy. The laws of thermodynamics guarantee that this approach won't matter how clever you are!

The only thing that might work would be to have a windmill that popped up out of the roof of your car when you stepped on the brakes! The windmill would slow the car down AND generate energy. This might, somehow be a seemingly good idea (I doubt it!) - but cars that recover energy from the braking systems ("regenerative braking") already exist - the Prius does that exact thing - except that it turns the electric motors that drive the wheels into generators when you step on the brakes - and that requires no new mechanical systems - just $10 worth of electronics. So if you already have an electric car, that's a vastly cheaper, easier, more efficient approach than trying to capture the energy from the air flowing over the car.

So, sadly, this idea is a non-starter. Not going to work!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No. A moving Prius regenerates from the moment the accelerator pedal is released i.e. during coasting. Let Toyota explain. (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah - but it's simulating the effect of engine braking. When I take my foot off the gas pedal of my conventional car, the engine speed drops to the point where it's actively slowing the car down - the Prius wouldn't do that unless they had something like regenerative braking. The Prius can't harvest energy without slowing the car down more than would otherwise be the case...that would be impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's totally impractical, but it isn't ruled out by the laws of thermodynamics. You can extract power from the air-ground speed difference while moving relative to both. As Katie R mentioned above, people have actually built wind-powered vehicles that move faster than the wind. Also, a wind turbine behind the front grille of a car seems likely to produce more power than it would cost in drag. There's no law of physics saying that it can't. -- BenRG (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"a wind turbine behind the front grille of a car seems likely to produce more power than it would cost in drag"? Citation most definitely needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There absolutely IS such a law! The First law of thermodynamics in fact! A machine that produced more power than drag would allow you to build a perpetual motion machine...and thermodynamics has rather strong opinions on such things!
Building a machine that moves faster than the wind (and even against the wind and faster than it!) is perfectly possible if your machine is in contact with the ground (or water or whatever). You can use the relative speed of the wind and ground/water to extract energy - which (if you're careful) does allow you to move faster (relative to the ground) than the wind travels (relative to the ground) - but that in no way frees you from the laws of thermodynamics.
Bobbin (PSF).jpg
For example (you can actually do this): Take a spool of thread. Rest the spool on its side on the ground and unspool a length of thread so that it runs under the spool. Now, if you pull gently on the loose end of the thread - the spool will move in the opposite direction from what you're pulling and at a speed that's higher than you're moving your hand. Now imagine attaching a large, very lightweight parachute to the loose end of the thread so that it moves away from the spool at more or less the same speed as the wind - and now our little vehicle will move against the wind and at higher speed than the wind...(at least until it runs out of thread...but this is a thought-experiment so the thread and parachute are massless and can be collapsed and reeled back in once in a while for zero energy outlay).
SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Cars already lose energy to air friction, and there's no law that you can't get some of that as useful work instead. Not all of it, or more than all of it, but more than a typical car does. You gave an example yourself with frictional vs. regenerative braking. If the air that enters through the front grille is decelerated to the speed of the car anyway, decelerating it with a turbine doesn't make the drag any worse and generates some power in the bargain.
The best citation I can offer is a car that does have turbines behind the grille, though it could be a gimmick. -- BenRG (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
But, if the air in the grill was formerly used for engine cooling, then if you use a turbine to slow that air, you've effectively reduced the efficacy of the air cooling system... and it's also possible that a spinning turbine can increase drag: if the induced drag of the turbine blades is greater than the static drag of the stagnation point (i.e., the moving turbine can be worse for aerodynamics than the stationary material that it replaced, even if the exit air velocity is identical). Anyway, I don't think it's useful or instructive to nitpick at this hypothetical situation too much: it depends on a zillion unspecified details. As a whole, I think we're all very familiar with conservation of energy and we understand the limitations of pushing this analogy. I only wanted to highlight some of the many engineering-details that would make an actual implementation more difficult. Nimur (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wind powered cars seem impractical now, but that could change back toward how it was in the past. We assume that we have abundant energy storage available, either as fossil fuels or batteries. But land sailing was proposed for some situations on Venus where those may not be so easy and wind more so;[2] really, any formerly uninhabited planet will probably lack fossil fuels, and some may also lack metals or other usable battery components. Even Earth could end up in that boat in a few millennia, though I suppose (knock on wood) we'll always have water to split and store away as bags of hydrogen at least. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Space suit color[edit]

Why were the first space suits like those that Shepard wore shiny silver? (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To reflect heat away from the body. The interior of those early spacecraft weren't well insulated against the heat of launch and re-entry - or from the suns' rays while in orbit. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't Yuri Gagarin's suit on his first space flight orange? (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The SK-1 spacesuit was indeed orange - most likely to aid in spotting the cosmonaut after s/he ejected from the capsule during reentry. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Found a citation for it:"The orange colour of the overalls was selected to facilitate the search for the cosmonaut...". Russian Spacesuits, by Isaak P. Abramov and Å. Ingemar Skoog, ISBN 1-85233-732-X. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm - so how does a wind-farm work?[edit]

All this talk of wind-powered cars got me thinking.

I'm imagining an invisible cuboid surrounding a wind farm containing hundreds of windmills. Air flows into the cube at some velocity. The windmills steal kinetic energy from it - so the air must leave my imaginary volume at slower speeds than it enters. We know that the cube doesn't fill up with increasingly high pressure air - and what comes in has to go out again! I suppose a larger fraction of the surface area of my imaginary cube has a net low-speed outflow of air than has a high-speed net inflow...but this has to result in some crazy wind directions when several hundred windmills are set up close together over several miles of hilltop (as we see out in West Texas, for example).

What exactly happens there?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is of course a net reduction in energy in the air when some of it is slowed down to do work on the turbine blade. But it doesn't necessarily result in crazy wind directions beyond scales of a few meters. Turbulence (at all scales) takes care of mixing and averaging of wind speeds, but usually engineers want to diminish wake vortices and vortex shedding to improve efficiency of conversion of kinetic energy in the air into mechanical power. For some relatively long-distance effects, check out this image search for /wake vortex wind turbine/ [3] My understanding is that a turbine array would be most efficient if we could magically eliminate all wake vortices, and then the simple effect of the wind farm would be to reduce the velocity of the laminar flow. Here's a power point presentation from the Sandia national lab [4] that talks about how turbulence effects arrays. Here's a more technical book chapter about mathematical modeling of how turbine blades affect wind [5] These both relate to your question, but do not address your specific phrasing. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean to say that turbulence affects arrays. (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It is true that you can't extract too much energy (aka speed) from the wind at each site, or the air piles up and causes stalls. IIRC, the exit wind speed must be no less that 75% of the source speed, but I don't have a cite for that. CS Miller (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The physical limit is known as Betz's law and says that no wind turbine can extract more than 16/27 (~59%) of the energy in an airflow. Typical real windmills for power generation operate around ~75% of this theoretical maximum efficiency. It also implies that the air behind the windmill will optimally move at about 1/3 the speed of the air approaching the windmill (the exiting air is assumed to move across a larger area). Dragons flight (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Byron Airport (C83) is in very close proximity to a large number of windmills. I can feel their effect on the wind when I fly my Citabria there. Their effect is still smaller in magnitude than the coal power plant, whose "smoke-stack" produces thousands-of-feet-tall vertical updrafts of very significant magnitude. Both the wind farm and the steam plume are documented in the official Airport/Facility Directory entry, "Remarks" section, for C83, which is officially published by the FAA[6] to make sure that aviators are aware of all relevant information. (It's up to us to use our own judgement about the magnitude of the effects)! And it's not only their effect on local wind: they're also large, tall, weirdly-shaped moving obstacles; one generally prefers to avoid flying into such objects. Windmills also have serious effects on modern Doppler RADAR (to air traffic control, the windmills have a radio return that looks exactly like a small aircraft with an inoperative transponder - i.e. an out-of-the-ordinary radar blip that blinks into- and out-of existence, a little bit too close to the rugged terrain). Windmills are also tall and difficult to avoid.
Here's a video of a C182 landing at C83 on Runway 30. (The really exciting footage is the take-off from 23, directly upwind into the rising terrain full of the windmills, but I can't find any online. Maybe next week I'll post a video...) Nimur (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And before anyone nitpicks, I always comply with 14 CFR 91.119 and all other applicable regulations; in particular, I do not fly closer than 500 feet from the structure of a windmill. Even still, I can feel the wind change. Nimur (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Steve is asking about the mass balance. If I had a (wind driven) turbine in a duct, I would expect to pressure (and thus density) to be lower downstream of the turbine than upstream. If the downstream velocity of the air is also lower, then there would appear to be a greater rate of air (by mass) flowing into the turbine than out. How can that be? -- ToE 11:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
For efficient turbine drive, the cross sectional area of your duct should vary inversely with speed, as in the diagram at Betz's law. (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed the larger area mention that Dragons flight made earlier. -- ToE 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also see Disk actuator theory. Dolphin (t) 13:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Does Betz's law also apply to water-turbines, and free-flow tidal generators, that look like underwater windmills? The article indicates that it is for air only. As water is non-compressible, a different law may apply. CS Miller (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I too would have assumed that compressibility would be a factor, but the article does say, "Betz' Law applies to all Newtonian fluids, but this article will use wind as an example." -- ToE 14:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I really need to improve my skim-reading. The lead only mentions air/wind, but the first section says all Newtonian fluids. CS Miller (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
[7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sadness and heart problems[edit]

Is it possible that sadness, whether from a sad movie or a real situation such as a breakup, which causes the physical sadness feeling in the chest area, is bad for the physical health of the heart? Could it increase risks of heart disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, also known as broken heart syndrome. --Srleffler (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Anti Armor Weapons[edit]

I read in a forum that Kornet uses a low energy laser beam to guide the missile so that it cannot be discovered , my fist question is : does the TOW 2 have the same ability to be undiscovered ? My next question : are there any other methods to guide missiles - within SACLOS systems not fire and forget systems - which is resistant to jamming and detection ? (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

See BGM-71 TOW for our article on the missile. According to the article, the wireless version of the TOW-2B employs a "stealth one way radio link", but no details are given and the statement isn't cited. The standard version uses a wire link for guidance, so there's no radiation to indicate the missile's presence - I'm not sure if that makes it "undiscoverable". Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ask yourself this: Is a Sidewinder missile undiscoverable just because it uses passive infrared guidance? And this will answer your question whether any missile can ever be truly "undiscoverable". (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hardening against coronal mass ejections?[edit]

I just read a story saying that a 2012 coronal mass ejection could have put Earth "back to the stone age" if it had hit us. Which makes me wonder: what would people need to do to prepare against them?

To start with, where would they do their damage? (This would be good to add to the article also) I had a clearly ludicrous notion of wrapping computers and power cords in tinfoil, but from very not-Wikipedia-grade sources it appears that the damage is mostly to big features, long transmission lines.

  • Is this true?
  • Would Germany, with its advanced state of conversion to solar power that I assume is more decentralized, be spared from the event to the degree they have done so?
  • Would underground power lines be unaffected?
  • Which power generation facilities would be affected?

Last but not least, since we've now seen an event like this, can we begin to estimate how long it is until we are hit by this? Wnt (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is true that we use computer-controlled machines to build machines to build our technology, so that if all surface computers were to be destroyed we would be in trouble. However, there should be computers in Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker, and its Russian/Chinese equivalents that will survive. There will be details of how to (re)build our technology stored on surface CD/DVDs that will survive, and on tape/hard drive deep in old salt-mines as long-term backups (Iron Mountain etc use old mines if available). The question is, can our just-on-time supply network provide sufficient food etc for us to survive the few years before we can rebuild everything? CS Miller (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Our Electromagnetic pulse article should cover much of this. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Another one just missed us, according to this Guardian report ---- CS Miller (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't see any mention of another one. Far as I can tell, the report just refers to the same 2012 event Wnt refers to (along with one in 1859 that we have an article on Solar storm of 1859). The report itself is from the past few days, as I'm sure is Wnt's report, that's just because NASA just put out the PR about it [8] and everyone is reporting it now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the NASA PR has useful information. In particular it mentions a NSF study. Some quick searching ('National Academy of Sciences solar storm') finds [9] which is probably referring to the same study and gives a title which suggests it's [10] or NSF workshop report (working without registration copy).
The other papers referred to are [11] (wrong date but all the other details seem right so I guess NASA or someone who gave them the date screwed up) and [12] + [13] (found with a search for 'Nature Communications Janet G. Luhmann'). However as the first is about estimating the probability of such events and the second two are about an analysis of the 2012 eruptive event, it looks like they only briefly mention or don't mention at all the possible effects.
Also this is the related PR about the 2014 study [14] and has some cost and recovery estimates. Of course as a press release not a great source (amongst other things, very few details) but it does mention a study in the previous year (i.e. 2013). The NSF workshop report is from 2008 or so unless they do go their dates mixed up it's probably not what they're referring to. But again a quick search for '2013 solar storm 2.6 trillion' finds [15] which mentions a $2.6 trillion Lloyd's estimate from 2013 so the details match up with the Berkeley PR. The same search (or I guess the details from Telegraph) finds the report Lloyds report. They don't actually talk about the figure much, more about other stuff.
Oh and due to misremembering what the Berkeley PR said, I also looked for '2011 solar storm recovery' which found [16] which mentions and links to an OECD report OECD report.
I didn't look at these that well but the 3 reports, particularly the NSF and OECD ones look like they provide a resonable amount of information on what could happen. I think all 3 agree the effect could be fairly disastrous. I doubt any of them say anything about "back to the stone age". It doesn't look like that's even in the NASA PR. I'm not sure who came up with it, but I suspect it may have been a journalist somewhere. I did find one newspaper quoting a researcher but the full quote is "back to the stone age for days" [17] (however it looks to me like this only came after every paper and their dog were already talking about "back to the stone age").
Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that the damage is not done directly by geomagnetically induced currents, these are too weak to cause damage. The problem really is that power transmission through the generators of a powerplant has to be extremely efficient. A 1 GW powerplant with 10 generators will be transporting a power of 100 MW through the generators, so 99% efficiency won't be good enough as that would mean that each transformer would be dissipating 1 MW of heat. This would cause the tranformer to explode. So, the transformers used in powerplants are extremely efficient and that comes with a big price tag. Power companies are not going to keep spare transformer on standby, they are just too expensive.

Then the effect of a geomagnetically induced current is to cause the core of transformers to get magnetized which will make the power transmission slightly less efficient. But that is then enough to cause the transformer to explode. What happens is that beyond a small threshold, a slightly less efficient transformer will lead to more heat to be dissipated and thus a higher temperature. But at that higher temperature the power transmission becomes even less efficient, causing even more heat to build up, eventually the whole thing explodes. If this happens to many powerplants, then you'll have problems operating the factories that are needed to make new transformers.

The best defense is to cut the power when a solar storm is predicted to hit Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

An electromagnetic potential of Brownian motion[edit]

Did a Brownian motion always had been an electromagnetic potential? Why the Wikipedia don’t include that?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What the devil does Brownian motion have to do with electromagnetism??? (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I _think_ Johnson noise is what the OP's getting at. Tevildo (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If been seek a Brownian motion as movements of electromagnetic charges, we been seek that Brownian motion always had a electromagnetic potential. But I have asked a question about a make been resonances by Brownian motion in which an electromagnetic charges lost’s or had their mass. Why's the Wikipedia don’ting include that?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Which why losted mass of electromagnetic charges in Brownian motion up to had mass a twice?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Don’tly been mind if a Brownian motion is been a low point of the theory of relativity?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As all been know, in a Brownian motion an electromagnetic charges always been change to divide their volts by themselves.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, part (c) of the illustration for Johnson noise has me wondering: can you use this noise to transfer heat energy? I understand of course that the noise source in a loop with a resistor is not really going to produce perpetual motion; but it seems like the resistor ought to heat, so the noise source ought to cool ... shouldn't it? Right now our article on solid state refrigeration is synonymous with the Peltier effect or other thermoelectric materials, but could you somehow make a system like this very noisy electrically, and find a way to apply power so as to somehow transmit a meaningful amount of energy this way? Wnt (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, I been speak about a nuclear electromagnetic resonance, but you is been speaking about a electronical resonance which always been consists in an electronically transaction.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Figure (c) is the Norton equivalent circuit for a noise source, not a practical circuit diagram. The ideal current source and the ideal resistor it depicts are both implemented by the real resistor in figure (a), not separate components. That being said, it would be possible to use the noise voltage produced by a resistor to power another circuit, but not to transfer a "meaningful" amount of energy, compared with simple thermal conduction between the two systems. If you wanted to transfer energy from a hot system to a cold system, where the only possible connection between them was electrical rather than mechanical, _and_, for some reason, you didn't want to use a thermopile or other device that uses the thermoelectric effect, it would work. But I can't see that ever being a practical requirement. Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that Johnson noise is a really small amount generally, and hence the amount of heat moved would be infinitesimal... nonetheless, is there a law of physics that says it must be a small amount? Are we sure there's no way to make the circuit noisy enough that the electrical sort of "thermal conduction" might outstrip the ordinary sort, and begin to make inroads against the inefficiency of a standard thermopile? (Mostly these questions come from having no real appreciation for how the electrical noise decides on its amplitude - I keep thinking "what if we had a room temperature superconductor" and suchlike wishful thinking) Wnt (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The (Johnson) noise power depends only on the temperature (and Boltzmann's constant), even if the resistance is zero, so that is a "law of physics" limit. The noise is due to Brownian motion of the charge carriers in the device, which will always exist for any conductor above absolute zero. There are other sources of electronic noise that might add some extra power, but Johnson noise will be the dominant component for a passive, non-semiconductor, device. The _efficiency_ of the transfer will be close to 100%, but the _rate_ of transfer will be very low - in a (fairly) realistic situation, where we have two insulated boxes, each with a resistor in them, with the resistors connected with ordinary wires, the major route for heat transfer will be the thermal conductivity of the wires, rather than the tiny noise power generated by the hot resistor. If we had wires with low electrical resistivity but high thermal resistivity, the noise power might become a significant component of the heat transfer. Tevildo (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not the answer I wanted to hear, but it does sound convincing. :( Wnt (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If in nuclear physics a science quest about a safe’s energy always been decide, why in electronically physics this quest not been decide at now.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The USSR almost had the thermo-resistors in which always been a low thermoresonance, but why the safe’s energy is not been powered in, I don’t know.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Because thermo-resistors don't GENERATE energy -- they vary their electrical resistance with temperature, so they actually DISSIPATE electrical energy under ALL conditions. That said, there HAD been a proposal to generate electricity by surrounding blast furnaces and such with blankets of thermocouples (this was one of Khruschev's pet projects), but nothing came of it because the capital costs would have been too high and the power generated too small. (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See RTG and this article for practical examples of thermoelectric generators. However, these all use the thermoelectric effect (with dissimilar metals), rather than the electricity generated by heat in a single homogenous component. Tevildo (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd cat behavior[edit]

Unlike dogs, which wag their tails when happy, cats normally wag their tails when angry. But I know a cat that wags it's tail when happy, for example, when being petted and purring. So, how rare is this ? Do cats raised with dogs pick up this behavior from the dogs ? StuRat (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cat's have different ways of moving their tails. Some mean that they are happy, some mean that they are annoyed. Just part of the enigma of having a cat share its home with you. [18] ---- CS Miller (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Our cat is almost constantly twitching its tail, whether it's happy, uncomfortable, impatient, or whatever. I think it just likes twitching its tail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There's more than one way to wag a tail of course. When my cat is getting perturbed, it swooshes its tail side to side in very quick motions; when it's in attack mode, the tail lays more or less straight but quivers; when it's happy and relaxed, the tip often curls about like someone keeping time to slow music. It also seems that cats have a particular mood where they're contented but very close to getting extremely pissed off; in those case, my cat both purrs and swooshes his tail "angrily". Continued petting in those cases might lead very quickly to a bite while backing off calms down the tail. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

MSF and Scotlands free ride[edit]

If Scotland vote for independence, will the MSF transmitter be moved back to central England (Rugby) like it was before? I assume it was moved up north to give better coverage over Scotland so if they are independent, why cant they build their own time reference and stop riding on our backs for free?-- (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that the Multi-Stage Flash desalination process required any sort of transmitter! But yes, if Scotland declares independence, they'll no doubt have to build their own desalination transmitters (whatever that is)... (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
[citation needed]. (EC) Questions begining with "I assume" (or for that matter "if") are rarely good questions for the RD. Most sources about the move e.g. [19] [20] [21] mention the move of Time from NPL (MSF) to Anthorn Radio Station was a result of changing the contract from BT to VT Communications (which occured concurrently with an upgrade meaning less maintenence) and don't mention at at all about Scotland or coverage which is kind of weird if that was the intention. Particularly since from what I can tell, these come from before the SNP 2007 Manisfesto was published so I'm not sure there would even be much controversy then. Plus a quick search doesn't find anything 'anthorn NPL scotland' so it doesn't seem likely it was said much by anyone. So basically you're making a claim which few people involved seem to have said which is very weird given the reasoning you claimed. Note that in case there's any confusion to other respondents, the transmitter remains in England, just a different part. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well certainly the move to Anthorn has reduced signal strength in most of England, so why was it moved to a central part of the island as a whole if it was not to benefit the Scots?-- (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Um did I not already say quoting 3 sources? Or do you really need a link to Pound sterling and free market as well? In case you're still confused, you are of course nominally correct. Since Scots must (currently) pay for NPL in some way, just the same as those in Northern Ireland, England and Wales it was ultimately intended to benefit them, just as it was ultimately intended to benefit the people of NI, England and Wales. But not in excess proportion (actually since I suspect England pays more on average for the NPL, because amongst other things they probably use it more on average, it was probably intended to benefit England more. Sort of. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me there. care to explain? (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
After EC. Your answer makes sense now. (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Just from curiosity... how well can you synchronize time over the Internet? I've done a few traceroutes long ago and I know that transit times are variable, but if you choose the right routes to analyze simultaneously, and have a network of a few thousand users' computers analyzing the results after the fact for each experiment, I'd think you could get something pretty precise. I feel like this MSF service ought to be obsolete already. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The MSF signal is mainly used as a frequency standard, rather than a time standard. The GPS frequency standard is an alternative, but MSF is still a useful backup. Tevildo (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Would a "mirrored" human body work?[edit]

Hi. A 2-dimensional surface with an R on it can only be made to show an Я if rotated in 3-space; similarly, a 3D cube with R on the sides can only show an Я if rotated in 4-space. H G Wells wrote The Plattner Story, in which a man passes through a fourth dimension and returns with his body mirrored: the heart is on the right-hand side, his eyes are reversed, and so on. Suppose that this actually happened to a person: could they still live and function normally, or are there reasons (perhaps e.g. Stereoisomerism) why they could not? Thanks. (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a physiological condition where the internal organs are reversed, the name of which escapes me. Slightly shorter life experience is noted in those with it, but that might be because pain localises to the wrong side of the body, making diagnosis harder. (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
His body would have the wrong chirality of amino acids, so I don't think he would get the proper nutrition from normal food. Chemical chirality in popular fiction covers some other stories where this happens. Katie R (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Having all molecules mirrored, it seems perfectly feasible that perfect mirroring would produce a fully functional being, since physics is almost exactly symmetrical (there are subtle asymmetries, e.g. in the weak interaction, but I expect that this would have no effect at the chemical level and above). Katie's point about nutrition is of course valid: a source of chemically mirrored food, not only amino acids, would be necessary. For example, the stereoisomer of vitamin C is useless to the human body. —Quondum 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Might it be useful to the mirror image of a human, though? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the R-ascorbic acid would be exactly what the mirror image body would need, and our normal L-ascorbic acid would be useless to it, just as R-ascorbic acid is useless to us. —Quondum 22:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe "Chemical chirality in popular fiction" is an article. WP really has everything. Thanks for that. (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that one's on my list of favorite article titles now. List of animals with fraudulent diplomas is still my favorite, although I preferred it when it was "cats" instead of "animals." I agree with Quondum that there aren't any fundamental reasons a mirrored body wouldn't function. 3D movies wouldn't look right unless they put the glasses on upside-down, but that's a pretty minor problem. :-) They might also have trouble writing at first. Katie R (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Or actually the movies probably would be fine... This is confusing to think about. Katie R (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See "Situs inversus".—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that that condition involves reversal of the organs from right to left, but no change at the molecular level. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Flatfish have already evolved a 90° rotation of one eye to join the other "topside" eye. This could have occurred (may still be occurring) in either direction. If a single human should suddenly reverse his Chirality it would cause a ±180° Angular momentum problem that doesn't rate a Wikipedia article. (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mediterranean & South China Sea poles of inaccessibility?[edit]

Where are the Mediterranean and South China Sea poles of inaccessibility (points farthest from any land above the surface) and which one is farther from that land?Naraht (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that reliable sources for this question will be found, so I'm going to attempt the forbidden Original Research instead. It's easy to get an approximate answer to this sort of question by just moving a circle (cut out or drawn on thin paper) over a map, provided that it is large enough in scale to show all relevant islands. (It would be useful if the map showed water depths so you could be sure you weren't missing an island, but I'm going to use Google Maps, which doesn't.) If you make the circle the right size, you just need to place it so that you can see by eye that it's equidistant from three points of land in different directions, not all on the same half of the circle, and that nowhere else you put it has the points of land so far away. (For geometrical reasons the desired point will always be equidistant from three points in that manner.) After a bit of experimenting in Google Maps, I find that in the Mediterranean the point 35.15°N,18.45°E seems to be near the correct answer, about 340 km from the nearest points of Italy (at Pachino, south of Syracuse), Greece (at the island of Schiza), and Libya (at Tocra, east of Benghazi) and somewhat farther from Malta and from western Libya near Misrata. The South China Sea is tougher because there are so many different groups of islands, but my best attempt is 18.45°N,117.95°E; this is about 260 km from the island of Luzon, Philippines (at Cabugao, south of Laoag) and from two islands whose names Google Maps doesn't have (one of those is C-shaped, probably a coral atoll, one at about 20.6°N,116.9°E; the other is round, one of the Zhongsha Islands, at about 16.3°N,116.7°E). Hope this helps. -- (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Trying to get a feeling for in a fictional story whether the Mediterranean for our World War II or the South China Sea in this story (France doesn't fall, Italy stays out) would be more "cramped" for World War II era combat.Naraht (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Naraht: Reading about Operation Pedestal may help to give an idea of how the physical size (or lack of it) of the Mediterranean affected World War II style naval combat operations. In particular, the conditions were ideal for the use of torpedo boats, E-boats, and land-based air attack. They also made naval mines a greater threat, and indeed submarines, although of course the submariners' own escape would end up being more tricky as well. There's still a fair bit of sea out there though; plenty to have survivors of sunken ships bobbing around in the water for a few hours before being rescued by other ships from the same side, then going on to assist other crippled ships from the same side, and so forth.
Another significant difference from the war in the Pacific and (to some extent) Atlantic was that, in the Mediterranean, rather than seeking out an enemy fleet or convoy and then throwing everything you had at it in a strike which would largely either be decisive or not, in a number of the Mediterranean convoys, including Pedestal, the attacking Axis air forces would find and attack the convoy with everything they had, but if that attack failed, the available sea space was sufficiently limited that they would still have a very good idea where the convoy was (unless it turned back), so could basically re-fuel, re-arm, and attack repeatedly - for days on end - until they either ran out of planes or the convoy reached Allied land-based air cover. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Fusion > Fission?[edit]

Will nuclear fusion deliver the era of almost limitless, almost free energy that fission promised but didn't deliver? -- (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a request for speculation, so isn't really answerable. See Fusion power for our article. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it definitely makes for more destructive bombs, if that's considered a plus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So at the very least it's a possibility which cannot be immediately discounted? -- (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The sun is a naturally-occurring fusion reactor which provides us with effectively limitless energy. It can't be controlled any more than the H-bomb can, but at least its energy can be captured. I'm curious to know what promises fission failed to deliver upon? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the Sun! I'm interested in terrestrial fusion reactors. Atomic age discusses fission's broken promises. (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The electricity too cheap to meter was just marketing hype, it was not the serious belief of the engineers. From the Electrical Engineer's Reference Book, Malloy, Say and Walker 6th ed. 1952, I see that an atomic power station is estimated to cost 4 times as much as a coal-fired plant, and it is estimated that the energy will cost 25% more than that from coal. There were other reasons for nuclear power: diversity of supply (necessary to keep the miners in their place), gaining the technological expertise, obtaining fissile isotopes for weapons and national prestige. --catslash (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting: Too cheap to meter related to fusion all along; people just assumed it referred to fission (and I still did 60 years later). Amazing what you learn on WP. --catslash (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The idea of anything being too cheap to meter seems faulty. Tap water is pretty darned cheap, yet we still meter that. If we didn't, people would waste it to such a degree that it would become a major expense. Same is true of energy. There are all sorts of wasteful things you could use an unlimited amount of energy to do, and if people didn't have to pay for it, they would do exactly that. StuRat (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of services where the amount that people are charged in/by one city/country/company or another is not related to usage. Tap water is in fact one of them; others include telephone calls, health care, emergency services, garbage collection, and Internet usage. The idea is as logical for electricity as for any other plentiful resource, and in the case of electricity, a limit is imposed on any particular customer by the wiring feeding their home or office. -- (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know if runaway usage is a problem where tap water is free. I've wondered the same thing about unlimited phone calls or internet usage. I'd expect some to take advantage and abuse those privileges. For the others, those aren't the kind of things where you can abuse them as easily. You can't just produce a cubic mile of garbage, for example. Perhaps in the case of a hypochondriac they might manage to overuse medical services, and ambulance services do sometimes seem to be overused by those who just can't get a ride for their regular medical appointments, but there they can just charge for nonemergency usage.
And I still insist that un-metered electricity just makes no sense. People would do stupid things like leave their window open in winter in rooms that are overheated by their electric heating unit. Of course, there could be a limit placed on usage just due to the fact that the wires can only deliver so much electricity per house, and that might make it work, even if technically "un-metered", provided something limits usage below the level that would make the wires melt. There are many unwritten limits, too. For example, I found out my car insurance had a limit of 5 tows per year, when I had a rather defective car and they canceled on me after that many. They never stated that in any of their communications. StuRat (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If the resource is plentiful enough, that kind of "stupid thing" is not important. You persist in thinking in terms of real life instead of embracing the "too cheap to meter" ideal. -- (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A confident technical prediction does not necessarily give an infallible socio-economic prediction. Thomas Edison predicting development of the light bulb said "We shall make electricity so cheap that only the wealthy can afford to burn candles."[22] (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that essentially true? Candles are essentially luxury items now - while I suppose you can try to read for a few hours by the light of a 50-cent candle, even conventional light bulbs were something like $5 a month, and the high efficiency ones are only a fraction of that - for much more light and no fire risk. So I'd call this one "confirmed". Wnt (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It may be nearly limitless (as close as infrastructure allows), but it certainly won't be free. Like with fission, the majority of the cost will be the capital costs of building the power plant, rather than the fuel. Whichever design ends up being used, a fusion reactor will be an extremely large and complicated device requiring expensive components like superconducting magnets or huge capacitor banks. ITER is expected to cost €15 billion. It's a research device designed to work out the best design, so "industrial" reactors will (hopefully) be cheaper. But they will still be extremely expensive compared to a natural gas turbine. Maybe in 100 years the technology won't be so exotic and it won't cost very much. But the materials and time required to build it will still have a non-zero cost. The main benefit to fusion is that it's "clean." The main byproduct is helium. Some of the reactor components will be made radioactive by the neutron radiation produced, but the half-lives will be much shorter than spent fission fuel. And it would require less physical space than other "clean" power methods like solar or wind while being able to produce a consistent amount of power. Mr.Z-man 15:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

quantum immortality[edit]

this is what i found in simple english wikipedia, see question below:

Quantum Immortality is an idea in which it is put forward that the consciousness stays alive even though the conscious being dies. For example, someone sets off a bomb beside the victim, that victim survives in an alternate universe by being injured but living, or by the bomb not blowing up. However, in the original universe, the victim "dies" in the blast. The consciousness continues to exist in another, perhaps many alternate universes. This is related to the thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat.

The idea is that if you use a special gun that goes off, something called a quark is spinning one way, but not if it spins the other way. However, the quark somehow manages to spin both ways at once, so the universe splits into two separate possibilities as the person pulls the trigger. In one universe, the person survives, in the other, the person dies. The person themself does not notice anything different.

my question is, is that (bold text) true and what does that mean? Dannis243 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire passage is somewhat confused and not very accurate. The bold text is correct, though: it just means that the person never experiences the outcomes in which he dies. In the few outcomes where he somehow survives, he just experiences a narrow escape, just as in any situation where someone has a close brush with death. --Amble (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder about the same thought experiment done with quantum unconsciousness. The apparatus randomly determines each 10 seconds whether to anaesthetize the experimenter. So in some universe, the events that would render him unconscious never happen, and so he remains awake for the experiment.
What is the difference between someone being rendered unconscious, returning with an at least someone different configuration of nervous system later, and someone who dies, but leaves behind some other member of his species who can then pick up and read about the experiment? Wnt (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a variant on the old expression, "Blown to kingdom come." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The idea is that some variations of quantum theory maintain that every possible outcome to every event happens in one or other of an infinity of alternate parallel universes. Since you can't reason about what's going on in universes in which you died, then by analogy with the anthropic principle, "you" must exist in a universe in which you survived. What this is claimed by some to mean is that you will live forever - dodging bullets and surviving catastrophies by increasingly crazy and unlikely means. At first sight, this seems like a good thing - it predicts that you'll live forever. But if it's true, the idea might mean that we're going to find ourselves in a literal living hell. This idea would only mean that you survive to observe the universe in this state - not that you are healthy, happy, comfortable or anything else. So, for example, it seems likely that in this view of the universe, the insane series of coincidences actually FORCE you to survive. You can't die even if you try. However, it doesn't prevent you from going blind, deaf, losing all of your limbs, being in continual agony, having all of your family, all of the rest of humanity dying around you, etc, etc. We'd better hope this isn't true - because it means that every single one of us winds up in their own, individual hell-universe. It quite literally dooms us all to the worst hell imaginable for all eternity!
Fortunately, there are many get-out-clauses that most people who've seriously considered it believe will ensure that it isn't true. SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
it calld "the next world" , thanks water nosfim — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

All of this depends on there being a non-zero probability of you surviving. What if the probability really is zero?-- (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The notion of quantum immortality was developed by among others MIT Professor Max Tegmark whose other achievements include writing a word processor in Z80 machine code and proposing his Mathematical universe hypothesis whose postulate is "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically". Wikipedia's article is Quantum suicide and immortality. (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The mistake made here is that it assumes that time exists in some objective way which is unlikely to be true (it contradicts most of modern physics). So, while you can write down a wavefunction and consider how it behaves under time evolution, it is wrong to say that just because in a superposition of different outcomes you are not present in some of the states, that you must be in one of the other states where you are present. This is only true of you redefine "you" to limit it to you experiencing one of thse future states, making the statement trivial. However, that's not consistent with how you would want to consider the probability of you experiencing one of the possible states you can be in.
What about quantum insomnia? There is always a probability that I could experience the time that I should be not experience if I would not fall asleep in time. Quantum theory yields a finite amplitude for that, and yet I usually sleep well. The hidden assumption made in quantum immortality predicts that we should all suffer from chronic insomnia.
The correct way to think about these issues is to stop considering time as fundamental, the universe doesn't evolve in time. What we consider to be time evolution is just a mapping from one universe to another that preserves information. All these unverses exist a priori. So, it's not true that the dinosaurs don't exist, that's only true in our universe, just like in some other universe it is the case that we are dead and burried for millions of years. Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
A related issue is that we don't know whether our universe is infinite or finite. In any given volume of space, there are only a finite number of arrangements of energy and fundamental particles that are possible. So with literally infinite space, you'd expect to find infinite numbers of copies of the exact same piece of space for any sized volume you happened to choose. That means that there are infinite numbers of large collections of entire galaxies that are utterly identical to ours. So infinite numbers of earths orbiting infinite numbers of suns, with infinite numbers of Steve's typing this same paragraph. Of course, there will also be infinite numbers of earths with copies of me that make a typo in this sintence instead of typing it correctly. This leads to another variation of quantum immortality, which is that in an infinite universe, we all exist in infinite variations - including those variations where we survive every terrible thing that can possibly happen to us. The same anthropic principle says that all of us exist without having died in any of a million possible ways because we are the copies who survived. So "quantum immortality" is very similar to "infinite universe immortality". SteveBaker (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Either the infinite universe thing or split universes seem like they can really get out of hand and make a hash of the laws of nature. I mean, if the universes are infinite I suppose there's a universe where I jumped out the window thinking I could fly. There's a universe where I've done so and think that I am flying by flapping my arms, despite normal gravity. There are an infinite number of universes where I do all this and I have the delusion I've been doing it for hours. And if you take the copies of me from all those universes you can put together a nice motion picture where I am indeed in every stage of the wingbeat, flapping my way around town, with a delusional memory that perfectly matches the preceding frames in the picture you've spliced together. So in what sense is it not occurring as an "actual physical phenomenon"? Wnt (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
More than that - there are an infinite number of duplicate Earths where not only does a freak wind gust allow you to fly briefly but there are an infinite number of THOSE Earths where by a truly astounding number of consecutive coincidences, you can actually fly whenever you want to. Infinity is a strange concept! SteveBaker (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of these wild hypotheses, invented to support other wild hypotheses, remind me of the logic gyrations astronomers had to go through in order to retain the notion of planets orbiting in crystalline spheres. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How Steroids eliminate Fungal infections or Hemorrhoids?[edit]

If Steroids help to "Construct" tissues... How is it that they "Eliminate" Fungal infections or Hemorrhoids? --- Such actions sound a bit different for me than "Constructing" tissues\enhancing the Biosynthesis of tissues... Ben-Natan (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is your "if" statement; there are hundreds of varieties of steroid, with a multitude of different actions. For more detailed information about steroids acting as an anti-inflammatory, see Glucocorticoid and Cortisol, among many others. Other kinds of steroids inhibit fungi by inhibiting Lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase (see here for a list). Matt Deres (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The article Hemorrhoid notes that steroid-containing agents should not be used for more than 14 days, as they may cause thinning of the skin. It is more appropriate to prescribe Non-Steroidal (NSAID) drugs to relieve pain and inflammation. (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In reality steroids do not 'get rid of' haemorrhoids, they reduce the inflammation that is causing the irritation, this may give the impression that they have gone, but the swollen anal veins will still be there. Richard Avery (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What kinetics?[edit]

By what a physico-mathematical mean of the kinetics always been different from a physico-mathematical mean of the statics?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are all English words, but I don't understand what you are saying at all. Is there another language you speak as a native tongue? Perhaps you should find a question answering service in your native language? --Jayron32 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're Russian, as your name suggests, maybe it would be better to post your questions in Russian. I can think of several users here who understand Russian and might be able to translate your questions for us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the intended meaning of the question is something like "How does kinetics physically and mathematically differ from statics?" I don't have time right now to tackle providing an answer, though. Red Act (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the simplest way to explain it is that kinetics is the study of things that are moving, while statics is the study of things that are not moving. --Jayron32 23:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that basically sums it up in one sentence. There's a slightly more detailed comparison at Analytical dynamics#Relationship to statics, kinetics, and kinematics. Red Act (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a spamming troll, its posts on Ruwiki are similar, coherency-wise. It just likes stringing sciencey-sounding words together Asmrulz (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm but they're also targetting the Russian wikipedia? I long suspected this was our Argentinian friend who I suspect can't speak a word of Russian and who's native language is probably either Spanish or English. But may be the troll really is Russian although their real English level is obviously far better than they show here (as I guess is their Russian). Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Dose the mass been move in a static’s?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. Statics deals with objects that are in "static equilibrium", which for sure only includes objects on which there is no net force and no net torque, and therefore no linear or angular acceleration. However, it depends on the author as to whether or not the phrase "static equilibrium" includes objects which are moving at a nonzero constant velocity. Wikipedia articles are inconsistent about this; the Statics article says an object moving at a non-zero constant velocity counts as being in static equilibrium, but the Mechanical equilibrium article says it does not. Of the physics textbooks I have on hand that talk about equilibrium in the context of classical mechanics, one of them defines "static equilibrium" in such a way that it would include non-zero constant velocity objects, and one of them defines just the word "equilibrium" the same way, as does this web page[23]. None of those three sources defines "mechanical equilibrium", or distinguishes between mechanical equilibrium and static equilibrium. Looking online, it looks like in places where "mechanical equilibrium" is also defined, "static equilibrium" is defined such that it only includes objects with zero velocity, but in contexts where "mechanical equilibrium" isn't defined, then "static equilibrium" usually but not always is defined in such a way that it also includes objects with a nonzero constant velocity. It really just depends on the author. Red Act (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, if the mass been move in a static’s it been a static’s or kinetic's potential? I’m been study in the physics of the USSR which always been a physics of Ideal Cases.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I been see, that science mind of the kinetics always been in a constant moving in static’s!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Operations sector[edit]

What I the best way for a graduate to get into the operations sector whether in events, travel, leisure, airports industries etc? And does operations involve future planning as well? For example would a job in event operations involve the planning and managing of it too? What about for a fixed building such as an airport, shopping mall or station? Is planning and management also part of operations/operations management or is it separate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are all quite different industries, even if they share some skill-sets or similar sounding titles. Operations is a very broad field; it often draws people who have academic backgrounds in mathematics, business, management engineering, engineering management, industrial engineering; or people who are farther along in their careers after starting out with a technical specialty in a specific industry.
If you're totally lost, start with the Occupational Outlook Handbook, a service and publication of the United States Department of Labor. That can help you narrow down the exact kind of occupation you're looking for. For example:
... and thousands of related types of employment prospects. These types of careers typically imply that you have completed a bachelor's degree and/or additional higher education in a relevant field.
If you're outside the United States, you might find your local government service office helpful. For example, the Career Skills and Training website, produced by the UK government, might also be informative.
Nimur (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Bubonic Plague[edit]

What is the chance of contracting Bubonic plaque from a bite from a rat infected with Bubonic plague? Hypothetically in this scenario infected fleas of the rat didn't bite the person (the normal vector to host transferal for yersinia pestis). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope this isn't actually a request for medical advice. If you or someone you know has been bitten by a rat, please see a doctor!
The CDC has a number of web pages about plague linked from this page. This page about its "Ecology and Transmission" lists three transmission modes: fleas, airborne droplets in the case of pneumonic plague, and "contact with contaminated fluid or tissue". Well, being bitten is a form of contact, so it would depend on whether the rat's mouth and saliva contain the bacteria. This page about its "Symptoms" says that bubonic plague bacteria multiply in the closest lymph node, but "can spread to other parts of the body". So it makes sense that a rat's bite could indeed be infectious. I was not able to find anything directly addressing the question "What is the chance?", though. -- (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I believe many people have at least a partial immunity to bubonic plague by now, which is why, despite there still being many areas of the planet where people, rats, and fleas all live closely together, it's not the type of pandemic it once was. Of course, if a new strain develops, people may lack any resistance to that, and it could once again become widespread. StuRat (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There are nearly always a few people immune to almost any disease; consider the case of AIDS-resistant sex workers. Why bubonic plague doesn't flare out into Black Death any more is not well understood, but the existence of a few resistant people is probably not a significant part of the explanation. Antibiotics, advances in vermin control, and greater separation of people from animals probably all play a much larger role. It's also possible that the bacterium itself is now different. I recall reading a article which noted that, during plague epidemics, everything involved is sick - the people, the rats, the fleas, and even the bacteria themselves. Matt Deres (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Unlike AIDS, bubonic plague has been around for well over a thousand years, and killed off a substantial portion of many generations, giving human survivors time to develop immunity, assuming it hasn't mutated to prevent this. And, of course, a population develops herd immunity without every individual being immune. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the reverse seems to transmit the disease well - cats and dogs biting infected animals get the disease via the mucous membrane in their mouths ref. I haven't found anything that directly answers your question, but that does point to the disease passing through the mouth. Matt Deres (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a bigger reason is that people are more hygienic and don't have fleas as a general rule. Fleas biting people was the transmission route during the black death periods. When the rat die, fleas went to a new host and Europeans didn't particularly care or bathe regularly. Compare that with Japanese culture in the same time period. --DHeyward (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Rats don't bite humans unless they are rabid or need to defend themselves. They are a prey animal. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It only takes once. Doctor to patient: "The good news is, you don't have bubonic plague. The bad news is, you've got rabies. It was nice knowing you." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


What does a matrix isolation setup look like where the guest species is generated by pulsed laser ablation, and where post-deposition photosynthesis is facilitated? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientists talking outside of their area of expertise?[edit]

Is there are name for those situations where someone with a solid scientific background attempts to speak with authority on a subject matter far outside of their own particular area of knowledge - and ends up talking utter nonsense of the 'not even wrong' variety or perpetuating horrible bunk, yet nonsense which is taken seriously by the public because the person advancing the idea is an otherwise well-respected doctor, or a professor, or whatever?

For example, you might get a theoretical physicist claiming that he has discovered proof that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or a chemist stating that he has discovered a method of curing cancer with magnets. Things that many people in the real world would dismiss as 'probably hooey', if the source had just been 'some random guy with a website'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ultracrepidarian. See also argumentum ad verecundiam and junk science. Tevildo (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I could name some examples, but WP:BLP. I'm sure that you can all think of a few though... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, since he's dead, we can name Linus Pauling. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and this leads to the answer to the OP: "the Linus Pauling effect". --Heron (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Does Newton's law of cooling apply to a hot car?[edit]

An automobile's interior on a sunny day will heat up, but eventually will have a limiting temperature after a few hours. I'm not sure if the law applies here, since the temperature rise is due to external radiation rather than conduction alone, but a graph I've seen has shown that without air conditioning, the rise appears to be of the form A-exp(-at). Is my intuition correct?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- as a car heats up, it will lose more heat to its surroundings until eventually the rate of cooling will equal the rate of heating. (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question, since there are an infinite number of functions with finite initial condition and a finite limit as t→∞.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
To a first approximation, yes. The external heat source (the sun) in not involved n the law of cooling; it is merely a constant power source. In your exponential model, you have assumed that the interior of the car acts as a single thermal mass. However, under some conditions, you might get the system acting according to differential equations of higher order. For example, if the body absorbing the bulk of the solar radiation is a metal object of substantial thermal mass inside the window, the interior of the car would initially warm up very slowly, with temperature gain accelerating as the metal object grew hotter, after which equilibrium would be reached. This would be expected to result in interior temperature rise being the sum of two decaying exponentials with different time constants. Nevertheless, for each heat flow path, Newton's law of cooling would remain fairly accurate. —Quondum 03:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some complicating factors:
1) The sunlight will not be constant, but will vary as the Earth rotates, clouds move over the car, etc.
2) There are multiple forms of cooling. At a low temperature difference, thermal conduction from the car to air will occur. At higher differences, the air outside the car will start to rise as laminar flow, assuming no wind, setting the car up like a cooling tower, using convection to cool the car faster. Wind has the potential to cool the car even quicker. Then, at high temperature differences, radiation of infrared/heat from the car will become significant.
So, other than in lab conditions, I wouldn't expect to see a smooth graph of interior temps. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In my local newspaper, I saw a graph consistent with Newton's law of cooling (but note again my comment about the existence of other such functions)- it was only for the first hour or so, when the change in the sun angle is small enough to be neglected, it would seem.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. In most physical systems, simplifying assumptions can be made, and the simplified model then remains a reasonably accurate description. If your question is whether a first-order model is a reasonable for the typical parked car, the answer would be yes, mostly. One can argue that in the time span involved the typical car on a typical day can be adequately modelled as a single thermal mass with a constant power source and a cooling function that obeys Newton's law of cooling. Over very short and very long times, or with atypical configurations or nonconstant heat source profiles, the complicating factors become significant. So, in effect, for the typical configuration, your intuition is correct. —Quondum 16:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath of the 79 A.D. Mount Vesuvius eruption[edit]

This could be an appropriate question for the Humanities desk too, but I decided to ask here.

Following the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79, the deaths of 16,000 people and the loss of several towns and villages to the volcano, I presume that the Roman authorities will have launched an investigation to determine exactly what had happened there - and that learned men of the day would have been sent forth to the area soon afterwards to investigate and tasked with devising plausible explanations for the mechanism of a volcanic eruption. As far as I'm aware, this would have been the first major European volcanic eruption in over a thousand years and at the time, no-one would have the slightest idea about what had just occurred.

Now, I suppose that there would be a lot of people who simply believed that it was punishment from the gods, or somesuch - but I'm curious as to what the scientists of the day concluded about the disaster. Anyone know? Or has this information been lost to history now? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought the the authorities would have considered it self-evident what happened. The idea that they would see a need for "devising plausible mechanisms" is an attitude that mainly developed after the scientific method became widely adopted during the Renaissance. But if you want the historical facts, you probably do want that other desk. -- (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, self-evident in that 'a mountain exploded and hot stuff came out', I suppose - but even back then, I'd have thought that there would be much in interest in finding out 'why?' for the purposes of then figuring out 'is it possible to know in advance if this is going to happen again, either here or with another mountain upon which lots of people are living?'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, the classic description of that particular eruption was in the letters of Pliny the Younger, in which he recounted the death of his uncle Pliny the Elder in the Vesuvian eruption. But the Romans were quite familiar with volcanic eruptions, particularly those of Mount Etna. The Romans in general (at least those of a scientific bent) usually attributed volcanoes to the interaction of subterranean fires and winds; see Volcanology#Greco-Roman science. Deor (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Ecological footprint awareness and self-esteem[edit]

Have any studies examined how awareness of one's own ecological footprint impacts self-esteem? I doubt I'm the only one who's ever wondered how many tons of carbon dioxide I'm worth to the rest of humanity. NeonMerlin 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though the negative ecological footprint of a single person is approximately zero. You're much more likely to affect the rest of humanity with communicable diseases than anything to do with carbon. I'd be more worried about your anti-biotic footprint if it makes you feel better. Plus your footprint is all within your control with use of fossil fuels. I'd question you're awareness if it was affecting you self-esteem, mot the other way around. --DHeyward (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's think of a few examples, people who fly all over the world to lecture us about how we shouldn't be flying all over the world. Al Gore, Tim Flannery,Michael Mann for example. If one were to try and limit one's CO2 output to the average worldwide number , you'd be allowed the energy intensity per capita of Cuba, for example. Greglocock (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And everyone in Cuba is happy ("or else"). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
People who care about their carbon footprint probably try to minimize it, and thus feel good about themselves, while those who don't care are unaffected. However, there may be some who care about it and feel depressed no matter what, as they can never get their carbon footprint low enough to be happy. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some folks aren't happy unless they aren't happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Debbie Downer ? StuRat (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Where is she now? Working for Fox News, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You obviously don't watch Fox or only watch Judge Jeannine, Bugs. Harris Faulkner and Megyn Kelly (!) ? Unfortunately, not only is a certain person I won't name an angry drunk, Mom's also never happy unless she's unhappy. I've advocated a carbon tax in the form of a tax on fuel and packaging an other inefficiencies for years. The problem is while you could easily get most Americans to agree to a large tax on shipping and packaging costs in exchange for an end to sales taxes, the left wants to keep the latter on top of the former. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I should have put that one in small print. And I know who you're talking about. He's on leave, so to speak. As regards taxes, I'm like any American, in that I strongly support taxes on things I don't use. And as regards a carbon tax, you'll never get conventional industry to accept it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How good is satellite image?[edit]

If we put a printed newspaper outside, could satellite capture a picture of that newspaper with readable text?-- (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, see Satellite imagery#Resolution and data. For current commercial satellites the answer is certainly not. The maximum resolution available from spy satellites is not something that countries publicize, but is unlikely to be that good because of having to look having to look through the atmosphere. -- (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Imagery intelligence#Satellite discusses the Rayleigh criterion limit for resolution, and says that IMINT satellites are believed to have a resolution of about 10cm. So the answer appears to be "no" even with spy satellites. Red Act (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The US military has been filled with stories of satellites with ungodly resolution. One frequent claim is that they can read car license plates from orbit - another is that newspaper headlines can be read from orbit. Both of those claims were made during the cold-war era when the actual photographs were conveniently labelled "Top Secret" and nobody could be called upon to prove this capability. Probably those are both apocryphal. The US Military certainly do have 10cm imagery, I've worked with it - it's not even secret...but that's not enough to do either of those things. An entire newspaper would be only a handful of pixels and you'd be lucky to tell whether a car even has a licence plate - let alone be able to read it!
The highest resolution Google Maps images are also around 10cm - but they mostly use aircraft-derived photography.
Right now, the US Department of Commerce places a ban on commercial satellite photography with resolutions under 50cm - on grounds that this is the highest resolution that doesn't allow you to see individual humans - hence preserving some sort of anonymity. That limit is currently being appealed by at least one commercial provider (DigitalGlobe) [24] who could provide 40cm resolution with satellites already in orbit - and who plan to launch new satellites with 25cm capability sometime next month! The US Military and the Whitehouse have already lifted their versions of the resolution cap - and it seems that the Department of Commerce may finally eliminate all restrictions sometime this year. Some people are horrified by the privacy implications - but since Google Maps already provides higher resolution than that from manned airborne photography, and the un-banning the use of commercial drone aircraft is probably going to happen just as soon as the FAA can figure out the flight rules for such craft - it seems pointless to disallow satellites from doing the same exact thing.
But no, I don't think reading the text on a newspaper from orbit is possible right now...maybe not ever. That said, I would imagine that even with 10cm imagery - you could get a good enough image of the page to recognize which newspaper it is, and infer which page was being looked at by comparing the blurry image you got from orbit to images of all of the pages of all of the newspapers printed in that part of the world within a week or so of the date that the photograph was taken. In a sense, perhaps that's good enough.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that 10 cm limit just for visible light ? How about if we move to the non-visible parts of the spectrum ? StuRat (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Those are either outside the Optical window or longer, hence worse. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Earth's atmosphere blocking above-visible-light frequencies, the solar spectrum cuts off quickly below violet. Unless we posit a giant orbiting ultraviolet flash bulb, it would be photographing in the dark through an opaque wall. (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for very detailed responses. I have one more question. I watched an American movie describing an American POW who notifies his superiors his location by facing the sky (to let a satellite see him). In real life, is this possible to identify a man through satellite if he faces the sky?-- (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Based on the resolution described above, no. I think a better method is to spell something out on the ground. If spread over a large enough area, it won't be noticeable from the ground. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a new film called Lucy, based on the debunked notion that we only use 10 percent of our brains. The notion of being facially identified by a satellite was also used in a movie starring Gene Hackman and Will Smith, I forget the title. Basic preposterousness never stops writers from writing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Enemy of the State, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Somewhere in the attic is my college physics text, which if I recall correctly, had a way of calculating the maximum resolution based on aperture size, and i recall calculating long ago that a spy satellite would have to have unrealistically huge optics to allow reading wristwatches, newspaper headlines, or even license plates. This is a limit regardless of atmospheric effects or the quality of the lenses or sensors. Edison (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How about a precisely placed array of smaller lenses ? StuRat (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be the Rayleigh criterion, that I mentioned above. Red Act (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 14[edit]

July 16[edit]

July 21[edit]

July 22[edit]

July 23[edit]

Is every infinite field with cardinality aleph-0 isomorphic to the rationals?[edit]

Just wondering. --2404:2000:2000:5:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Consider the field Q(sqrt(2)) (I'm no longer sure of the notation; what I mean is the smallest field containing the rationals and sqrt(2)). Any isomorphism between them would have to fix the rationals, so there's nowhere for sqrt(2) to go on the Q side. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Your notation is pretty standard, sometimes rendered with the "blackboard bold" or square brackets, e.g. as \mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}] . Our relevant article is Algebraic_number_field. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I learned square brackets for the extension as a ring, parentheses (round brackets) for the field. --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That is also what I learned. However, \mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}]=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}), so it is not very important in this case. —Kusma (t·c) 18:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Even worse: the algebraic closure of a finite field is countable but doesn't even contain an isomorphic image of the rationals. —Kusma (t·c) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But any field of characteristic 0 contains the rational as a subfield -- (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm trying to figure out a way to equitably pay off debt with my spouse. She makes 71% of what I make.

Let's say debt d=1750 and d=m+h (mine and her contribution)
Does h=0.71m??
And then does d=0.71m+m??
Does m=1232.39?

I'm doubting because then h=517.61 and I think h/m=0.71, but it doesn't...

I want to ultimately make an excel spreadsheet. Thanks

You're right up to d=0.71m+m, but you must have made a mistake after that, because it gives m = d/1.71 = 1023.39, and so h = 726.61. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick answer. That makes sense. Maybe you could help me spot my mistake, too?

  1. d=0.71m+m
  2. Divide d by 0.71 and cancel from other side
  3. so 2464.79=2m
  4. m=1232.39

Step 2, somewhere I think. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want a simple formula for a spreadsheet for proportionally dividing a quantity, think in terms of each income as a fraction of the total income. So, say you each earn a = $1 and b = $0.71 respectively. Then an apportionment multipliers would be a′ = a/(a+b) = 0.585 and b′ = b/(a+b) = 0.415, so m = ad and h = bd, and these factors a′ and b′ can be reused for splitting other amounts. —Quondum 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
And as to the specific algebraic error, yes, step 2. You can divide both sides of an equation by 0.71, but the right hand side would become (0.71m + m)/0.71 = m + m/0.71, not m + m. What you should have done is to see that 0.71m + m = 1.71m, and then divide both sides by 1.71. -- ToE 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is how you should solve the problem. Very simple ratio.

You should think like this

  1. For every $100 I earn, she earns $71
  2. Thus we earn a total of $171 dollars ($100 + $71) for every $100 that I earn
  3. Thus my ratio of the debt is 100/(100+71)
  4. Thus her ratio of the debt is 71/(100+71)
  • d = 1750
  • m = 100/(100+71) * d
  • h = 71/(100+71) * d

Very easy. You don't need an excel spreadsheet. You just need to think clearly. (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain why the paying off of the debt is to be divided up according to how much each earns. There are lots of ideas on how it should be done, e.g. see fair division and airport problem and see how complex and confused these sorts of things can be made at Entitlement (fair division)#Entitlement in the Talmud. Basically you sre agreeing with proportional tax rather than a progressive tax for income. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

July 25[edit]

What's the use of complex numbers?[edit]

After reading Complex number I still don't get what makes the invention of imaginary numbers so special. Is it like Syntactic sugar for mathematicians so they can use less text to get to a proof? Are there proofs that wouldn't be possible without inventing i at the spot? I remember reading a book on fractals with surprisingly little mathematics in it, yet it had some formulas using the magical i as well. The BASIC code that was also in the book to actually draw the fractals didn't need such magic and was completely understandable (besides the astonishing pictures generated by such simple code, of course). Are there things that wouldn't have been discovered/invented/proven by now if no one ever had been thinking out of the box to by writing down the square root of -1? Joepnl (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you can represent the complex numbers using pairs of real numbers. Dealing with such pairs doesn't, however, have a natural touch an feel like the set of complex numbers have once the -1 = i is accepted. At any rate, many discoveries and applications would have been delayed many years without the complex numbers. YohanN7 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Edit: As a matter of fact, you can dispose of -1 = i as well. Just regard complex numbers as a particularly efficient notation for a certain field consisting of pairs of real numbers with extraordinary properties. It is the field with these properties we can't do without, whether it's represented by complex numbers or pairs of real numbers. YohanN7 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You need complex numbers to have a "Closed Field" or algebraically closed field. What this means is that any mathematical operations on a "complex number" will always result in another "complex number". As a comparison, an mathematical operation on a Real number can result in a number that is NOT REAL. For example the square root of negative one. (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's useful in appreciating the bigger picture, which is always a good thing to focus on. Because we're typically taught complex numbers later in our mathematical education, it might seem that they're curious exceptions to the real numbers. The truth is sort of the reverse. ALL numbers can be expressed as a complex number, but not all complex numbers can be expressed as a real number. That means that the real numbers, the ones we know and love and are familiar with, are the real curiosities, being merely an infinitesimally small subset of the complex numbers. Henceforth, when you order 3 hotdogs, you'll be asking for "3 + 0i" hotdogs. Right? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
See Complex numbers#Applications.—Wavelength (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not an expert in mathematics, but only an enthusiast. I think that I have enough knowledge to provide an answer. There are 2 separate issues in this question, the first one is that complex numbers aren't an elementary concept as taken by most mathematic treatises, but rather they're usually defined as pairs of real numbers, one of which is the real part and the other is the imaginary part, then arithmetic operations and other properties are defined as well. You can replace all references for complex numbers in theorems and their proofs for the corresponding definition and they will still be valid, in this case complex numbers only make the role of syntactic sugar; likewise it would be possible to deal away with intermediate theorems on proofs by replacing them with their proofs and so on until only axioms and inference steps remain, but it would make intractably huge proofs, and consisting mostly of redundant information.
However, as far as human reasoning is concerned, the concept of complex number embodied in its definition (Or axioms, if you're treating them as a an elementary concept) is absolutely necessary because when we think, we do so on the properties of complex numbers as a structure standing on its own and the definition is abstracted away. There are results for which complex numbers are necessary which aren't about complex number themselves. For instance, the prime number theorem; using an area of mathematics to prove results in another is commonplace. Note that the PNT uses not only complex numbers, but complex analysis. (I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand those proofs themselves or results of complex analysis, however).
Thinking (Apart from writing proofs) in terms of complex numbers makes some things easier, even when they're not indispensable. For instance, a Fourier transform convert a signal from time domain (Values represent immediately intensity as a function of time) to frequency domain (Values represent the intensity of pure sinusoidal frequencies, which sum to the original signal and hence are another representation of it). Each frequency component has 2 components which are in quadrature (90° out of phase), even if the input is real; at this point it's trivial to see each of them as a pair of real numbers, rather than a single complex number, and there's little if any practical difference. However, the FT has very nice properties that are only intuitive when expressed with complex numbers. For instance, the convolution theorem says that convolution in time domain equals multiplication in frequency domain. It makes sense to see one operand as the signal and the other as the filter in a convolution (Specifically, its impulse response). Intuitive, when you pass a signal through a filter, it may attenuate some frequencies in different degrees (Multiply them), but it also may rotate the phase of the frequencies, and complex numbers define this multiplication for both components of each frequency (Either expressed as sine waves in quadrature or the magnitude and phase of a single one, AKA rectangular and polar form) while real numbers by themselves only explain intuitively the magnitudes.
It's exactly the same with real numbers, which can be defined as Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences, or rational numbers, which can be defined as pairs of integer numbers, which in turn are usually defined in set theory treatises in terms of sets. Of course, the reason you're asking about complex numbers and not any of the just listed number sets is because you're likely not used to them since your childhood, as you're with the R, N and Q sets (I wasn't, either, but maybe parents and elementary schools should begin teaching them). There's no fundamental distinction, your question can also be justifiably made for them and also for any other mathematical definition.
Also, note that complex numbers are defined and the question of the square root of negative numbers has no sense whatsoever in real numbers. To manipulate expressions containing \sqrt{-1} pretending that it's a real numbers has no more validity than the pseudo-proofs of any other Mathematical fallacy and may give contradictory results as well.
I hope that it helps, regards.
QrTTf7fH (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, QrTTf7fH, parentheses within a sentence do not call for a capital. —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A very important use of complex numbers is for solving the differential equation of a linear harmonic oscillator: d^2y/dx^2+y=0. An exponential function y=e^{ax} is a solution if a^2+1=0. Without complex numbers you are stuck, but using complex numbers you find a^2+1=(a-i)(a+i), and so the solutions are y=Ae^{ix}+Be^{-ix}. The differential equation can be written (d/dx-i)(d/dx+i)y=0, and so the second order differential equation breaks up into two first order differential equations, (d/dx+i)y=0 and (d/dx-i)y=0. This trick is used in quantum mechanics: the Schrödinger equation is of order one in time. Bo Jacoby (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Well, you aren't stuck without the complex numbers, since you can just guess A\sin x + B\cos x instead of e^{ax}, but yes, this is an important application of complex numbers.
An interesting point here, though, is that the complex-number approach fails (as far as I know) to generalize to the harmonic field equation in d+1 spacetime dimensions. What does work for all values of d is the degree-0-and-1 part of the Clifford algebra Cℓd,1(R), which is isomorphic to the complex numbers when d=0 (the harmonic oscillator case) but not when d>0. The usefulness of complex numbers in the harmonic oscillator seems to be an "accident" inasmuch as none of their interesting properties (like algebraic completeness, or even being a field) matter, just their isomorphism to Cℓ0,1(R). This makes me wonder if the complex numbers in quantum mechanics would likewise disappear in an approach that didn't break the spacetime symmetry by treating the time coordinate specially. But I've never found a paper supporting that idea. -- BenRG (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

elementary mathematics[edit]

what are the main basics in mathematics.what are the elementary based questions that appear in the competitive exams117.204.70.51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of "elementary" varies widely depending on context. I assume that you want to know about some examinations set in India, but you will have to tell us the level of the examination before anyone can help. Dbfirs 20:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of Grids with connected pathways?[edit]

Let An be the Universe of grids of 2n by 2n black and white squares where half of the squares are white and half are black. *and* both the upper left and lower right square are black. (so A1 only has one grid, A2 has 14C6 grids (the other 6 black squares among the other 14 spots. Let a grid be successful if there is a path of black squares joined on edges from the black square on the upper left to the black square on the lower right. As n goes to infinity, does the percentage of successful grids in An go to 0%, go to 100% or something else?Naraht (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Purely intuitively, I'd guess that the proportion is either 1/e or 1 - 1/e. (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I ran a numerical simulation where I generated random grids meeting your criteria and tested them for successful paths. Here are the numbers for ten million iterations for each value of n from 1 through 20.
For n=2 it is easy to hand-enumerate the 150 distinct successful grids (there are twenty distinct paths (each of total length seven), with nine remaining spots for each path to place the eighth black square, though some remaining square choices need to be excluded to avoid duplicating earlier paths), and the actual ratio of 150 / 3003 = 4.995%, matches my simulation closely. This gives me hope that my code may be correct.
If so, this suggests that the percentage goes to 0% as n goes to infinity, and for these first few numbers, at least, it appears to do so roughly exponentially, with the ratio of successive values not so far from the inverse of the golden ratio, though I don't know if there is anything to that. -- ToE 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I worked the following out on the back of a piece of paper during a business meeting, stuffed it in my pocket, and forgot about it till now - it is a slightly dirty use of estimation, but should bear out. (in what follows, Bin(a,b) is the binomial coeff. a over b) Define a minimal path to be a path of black squares (from the fixed corners) so that removing any square breaks connectivity, let k(n) be the number of minimal paths in an n x n grid. Then, k(2n) = Bin(2(2n - 1), 2n - 1). Given a fixed minimal path, the number of ways to colour the rest of the grid to the desired parameters is Bin(4n2 - 4n + 1, 2n2). Since every successful grid contains a minimal path, there are at most Bin(2(2n - 1), 2n - 1)Bin(4n2 - 4n + 1, 2n2) such grids (in fact, should be quite a bit less). The total number of grids, in general, is Bin(4n2 - 2, 2n2), taking the quotient gives, [(4n-2)!(4n2 - 4n + 1)!(2n2 - 2)!] / [(2n - 1)!2(2n2 - 4n + 1)!(4n2 - 2)!]. Using that ln(n!) is approx. n*ln(n) - n + 1; applying ln to the previous quotient and taking n -> infinity, if we may assume (for purposes of the limit) that ln(an + b) is small enough to disregard and that ln(an2 + bn + c) is ln(an2), then we arrive at (4n - 3) ln(1 / 2), which goes to -infinity, and, hence, the quotient limits to 0. Since the quotient approx. bounds the percentage above, this should also go to 0. --since we will have several minimal paths in any successful grid, we are overestimating quite a bit, so even if there is a little fudging involved, I'd feel confident in asserting that it does, indeed, go to 0; obviously, though, this is nothing like a proof, and "back of the envelope" no less, so take it with a grain of salt. -- the approx. bounds on the % is smaller than the above numerical, however, a few random square root factors are being left out and ln of linear growth discarded, thus, for small n, it isn't surprising that it is off.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"Then, k(2n) = Bin(2(2n - 1), 2n - 1)" -- that's definitely correct, is it? I'm surprised that this formula is so simple. (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
k(2n) = Bin(2(2n - 1), 2n - 1) is only counting monotonic paths. For n=2, k(2*2) = 20 gives the correct total number of minimal paths because there is not enough room in a 4x4 grid to turn back and forth, but consider this path on a 6x6 grid:
As n grow, these non-monotonic paths should become more common, and I suspect that they may dominate for large n. -- ToE 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I can't believe I missed that...I feel kind of like a jackass. Thank you for catching my mistake, sorry for the wrong answer. I still feel that there will be a fairly tractable formula that deals with these, I don't think they are too unwieldy - yes, now that you point them out, I agree that they should end up dominating as n goes up. I'll think more about this tonight, unless someone else posts an answer first. Thank you again:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Type conversion[edit]

Is there any standard mathematical notation for specifying the type (e.g. scalar, vector, matrix) and dimensions of an otherwise ambiguous expression? For example, can the zero matrix of some unknown dimensions x×y and the scalar zero be represented by separate symbols that are standard and unambiguous, given that 0 can mean either? (Intuitively I'd think \left( 0 : 0 \in \mathbb{R} \right) and \left( 0 : 0 \in \mathbb{R}^{x \times y} \right) would be comprehensible, but possibly more awkward than necessary.) Also, is it possible to distinguish the empty set whose sum is scalar zero from the empty set whose sum is a zero matrix? NeonMerlin 13:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Computer programmers distinguish, but mathematicians do not. The zero scalar is identified with the zero matrix, and no distinction is called for. Bo Jacoby (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
That's completely wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Mathematics_of_general_relativity#Energy_conservation has
T^{ab}{}_{;b} \, = 0
T^{ab}{}_{;b} \, = 0^a
Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC).
But surely by 0, the RHS means the zero vector, rather than the zero scalar. No identification has occurred. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. The zero vector 0^a is written 0. No distinction is called for. Bo Jacoby (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC).
It is clear from the context here that the notation 0 means the zero vector rather than the zero scalar. No one seriously believes there is no difference between these (which is what "is identified with") would mean, and it would be perfectly reasonable to write 0^a if there were any risk of confusion. You would not see the vacuum equation written as R_a^b=1/2R. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you were to believe that scalars and vectors were naturally identified, then you would write the Einstein vacuum equation as R_a^b=1/2R. As far as I know, no one writes it this way, even though scalars do naturally embed into the endomorphism algebra. Since no one writes it this way, it would be rather mystifying if they regarded the zero on the right hand side of the equation G_a^b=0 as a scalar, rather than the zero endomorphism. And for your example, there isn't a natural embedding of the scalars into the space of contravariant vectors to begin with, so claiming that the zero on the RHS of the equation is the same as the zero scalar is obvious nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I, for one, seriously believe that "there is no difference between these". 0^a-0 = 0 . Where do I find the vacuum equation? Bo Jacoby (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC).
You may believe that there is no difference between the zero vector and the zero scalar. But you are wrong. It only makes sense to "identify" scalars with vector quantities when there is a natural embedding of the scalars into the vector space (e.g., working over an algebra). The zero vector and zero scalar, in this setting, live in completely different spaces. Do not be confused by the fact that the same symbol is used for these different mathematical objects. And this is not the place to push your crank theory that everything denoted by the symbol 0 is the same thing. That has already been conclusively refuted by others. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Bo, to answer your question: at Einstein field equations#Vacuum field equations. Actually, in the context of tensor component equations, there is room for interpretation: interpreted as a whole bunch of equations on numeric components, the problem does not arise (each component is just a real number); however this interpretation of the notation rapidly loses value, for example when the covariant derivative is used (as in your example), for which the component-wise equations make no real sense. Sławomir's argument is entirely unaffected by this notational thing. If you want to be able to equate a zero scalar with a zero vector, you need to embed them both in the same algebra (which is possible: see Tensor algebra), but in this case you are formally treating them as part of the same algebra, and permitting addition of tensors of differing order. —Quondum 22:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The vacuum field equation is written
R_{\mu \nu} = 0 \,.
The zero on the right hand side is to be understood as a zero tensor field. The OP asked: "can the zero matrix of some unknown dimensions x×y and the scalar zero be represented by separate symbols", and my answer is that zero is written 0, no matter if it is the zero scalar or zero vector or zero matrix or zero function or whatever. My examples show that this is correct. I did not mean, (and I hope I did not write), that scalars are generally embedded in vectors. Bo Jacoby (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
Ok. But the zero scalar, zero vector, and zero matrix are not identified (your phrasing, that you vigorously defended). They are different mathematical objects that are often denoted by the same symbol.
Also, the Einstein field equations can be written in a number of equivalent ways. I brought it up only because you seemed comfortable enough with relativity to use it as an example. Obviously that is not the case. The vacuum equation can be written as G_{ab}=0 or, raising an index with the metric, as G_a^b=0, or. using the definition of the Einstein tensor, as R_a^b-1/2R\delta_a^b=0, or as R_a^b=1/2R\delta_a^b. By taking traces, one would normally see that the Ricci scalar is zero at this point, but it is still a valid tensor equation. It would not be written as R_a^b=1/2R however. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen 1n and Idn for the n×n identity matrix. I may have seen 0x×y, or I may be imagining it. You don't see zero matrices in any notation very often.
Abstract index notation is widely used in relativistic physics. It distinguishes scalars, vectors and matrices (properly rank-2 tensors) by the number of indices, and often their size is implicitly encoded in the letters used for the indices (μν for spacetime indices, ij for spatial indices, etc.). The identity matrix/tensor is sometimes written δμν or δij and called the Kronecker delta.
I've never seen a notation for a typed empty set, except in programming languages. -- BenRG (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Mathematicians do actually distinguish. There are times when "up to isomorphism" is meant, and no ambiguity results. At other times, two structures can be isomorphic but are intended to be regarded as distinct sets, such as the set of complex numbers being isomorphic to distinct subrings of the quaternions (there is no canonical embedding of C in H, unlike with Z in R). However, it seems pretty normal to "expect" the reader to understand what is "meant", with occasional verbal disambiguation. This is somewhat frustrating to the more literal-minded and to newcomers. The closest seems to be set membership, usually appended as a qualifying statement (e.g. " where xQ). —Quondum 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Where internationally is USD valued highest?[edit]

In which major metro cities in the world is USD valued highest? AKA where will your dollar work harder for you outside the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8051:4D60:918B:EBE3:685C:C84C (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is going to vary over time and with the basket of goods you want to purchase. A general measure to help evaluate this is the purchasing power parity; a light-hearted version of this is the Big Mac index. --Mark viking (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like the wrong reference desk section for this question, but I agree with the former Wikipedian. QrTTf7fH (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

I was wondering where the dollar goes further and the refreshingly simple Big Mac Index answers my question completely. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8051:4D60:918B:EBE3:685C:C84C (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer might actually be in a place where the US dollar is illegal, but continues to be used for black market transactions. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious what exchange rate they use. In Argentina, the government sets an official exchange rate for dollars to argentine pesos, but the black market will give you substantially better. I forget exactly how much better, but it might be enough to push Argentina into the lead.-- (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt if there's a single black market exchange rate, unless there's one powerful black market leader who can set a universal rate. More likely, the rate is set at each individual transaction, via haggling. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't haggle. In fact, they openly post their rates. There is some small variation between merchants, but they're all pretty much the same.-- (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would think those engaged in black market sales would use the same "one hand giveth and the other taketh away" strategy as car dealers, where they offer you a great deal on the purchase price of the new car, but you get soaked on the trade-in, finance rate, extended warranty, etc. In this case, they could offer you a great price for the black market item, then you decide to buy, only to find out the exchange rate is bad. Or, conversely, they might offer a great exchange rate to sucker you in, only to find out the purchase price is high. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That would require them to be selling actual items. They're simply selling currency.-- (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Rotational invariants?[edit]

I am not a mathematician but a long standing project drags me in operating with objects I do not completely understand. I need help here.

I have a 2-Sphere (radius r = 1) and a function F(θ,φ) defined on it. The function F is well behaved, it is continuous and differentiable everywhere. The function F is therefore a function in the Hilbert space on 2-Sphere with the basis consisting of Spherical Harmonics with two indices l & m: Y_l^m(θ,φ). I also want to introduce another basis Y_l^m(α,β) which is the result of rotation of the first basis via Euler angles ε, γ & ω. The latter are fixed.

Then I expand the function F(θ,φ) into the first basis: F(θ,φ) = \sum_{l=0}^N\sum_{m=-l}^l f_l^mY_l^m(θ,φ) where N is in fact a very large number.

My next step is to expand F(θ,φ) into the second basis: F(θ,φ) = \sum_{l=0}^N\sum_{m=-l}^lg_l^mY_l^m(α,β)

I want to know if the expression: \boldsymbol{\Iota} = \sum_{m=-l}^{l}f_l^m\bar g_l^m, where the bar denotes a complex conjugate, will be invariant under rotations? In other words if I arbitrarily rotate the function F(θ,φ) via three Euler's angles and keep calculating the expression \boldsymbol{\Iota}, the latter will remain invariant?

I also want to makes sure that the expression \boldsymbol{\Iota} is the inner product in the Hilbert space?

My next question is this. Is the expression: \sum_{m=-l}^lf_l^m\bar f_l^m not equal zero? If so, is it going to be invariant under rotations?

Thanks in advance. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be easiest to answer the last question first. If you can write the expression as a function of Y alone rather than Y and the F's then it must be invariant. In this case I believe the sum is equal to \int_S F\bar F , which follows from multiplying out the expansion of F in terms of the Y's and using orthonormality. So the answer to the last question is yes. More generally, if G is any function which can be written \sum_{l=0}^N\sum_{m=-l}^lg_l^mY_l^m (\theta,\phi) then the \boldsymbol{\Iota} you defined will indeed be the inner product \int_S F\bar G and so invariant. So to answer the first question plug in G(θ,φ)=F(α,β) so show that it's invarient, though you have to be careful in your definition to apply the rotations (θ,φ)->(α,β) and rotation on the sphere in the correct order because it makes a difference here. (In the 1-sphere case, basically Fourier analysis, the rotations commute so it's not an issue.) Note there's nothing special about the sphere here, the same applies so any orthonormal bases for the functions defined on some base set and the group of inner product preserving symmetries of the base set. If it makes it more intuitive, let your base set consist of three points, then your function space is just Euclidean 3-space. --RDBury (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sir. I will need some time to think about what you said. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 23[edit]

Is there a philosophical notion for the inability of a corpse to have faith?[edit]

An old discussion I had on death was recently dug up on another Desk. Not revived, mind you. What's done is done and what's gone is "deceased". All good. But something I said there (and someone's recent question here) got me to thinking of something I can't seem to put into Google terms.

Is there a school of thought (or even a lesson) about how those who believe faith itself is what promises eternity are doomed, since dead people can't believe anything, thus automatically lose their faith and all the perks?

Don't confuse this with a question about whether this is how the world works. Things like that are best left unknown. Just things like who discussed it, where, when, why and how it went. What new words (if any) were invented? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine there's much discussion of it, because the premises are self-contradictory. Most beliefs about eternal life assume a soul-body dichotomy, with the implicit assumption that it is the soul that has faith, and thus can live forever. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't even considered that. Are you sure it's common? Took a quick look around for that idea, I see theosophy believes this. First I've heard of that, though. (Had heard of it after all, just not the name.) I'll look around some more. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
The notion that the body and the soul are separate would be common among pretty much all religions that believes in an afterlife. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean the distinction between the soul and the brain part of the body. Is it common for the soul to do the thinking? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
The belief is that the soul remains intact regardless of what happens to the brain. Consider the case of someone suffering from dementia. Obvously, their personality and thought processes are significantly impaired. The soul is not likewise impaired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so the soul's intact. I get that part. But if the person's brain is demented and they can't even remember their religion, can they use their soul to believe in it instead? If so, citation needed. Fate of the unlearned shows a lot of disagreement about what happens to those who don't know before they die, but they all seem to agree there's a difference between them and those who know, even though they all have souls. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
The belief would be that once they're "saved", then they stay saved. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't seem true for those that believe in mortal sin. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
Neither is it true for those who believe in the veracity of Romans 11:19-24. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it is for those who like clicking. Or for something almost completely different, the "God's Word" version. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Not all denominations within Christianity believe in a ethereal soul, at least one believes that a soul is simply another term for a living being, composed of body instilled with the breath of God. Meaning that consequentially, there is no consciousness between death and the advent resurrection. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
True. As if the soul goes into cold storage or something. But either way, separate from the physical body, yes? (Where's Jayron when we need him?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, all the "soul"s in the Old Testament were intended in that "complete living being" way. Nephesh, they say. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
I've usually seen Nephesh used more in the context of a life force, and Ruach for the person's collected consciousness (not merely their consciousness in that moment, but their true self).
Part of the problem, I think, is that most people no longer distinguish between the life force, collected total identity (what one's Heavenly Wikipedia article would look like when all is said and done), and one's current identity. Older philosophy, religion, mysticism, and magic does. You have the Greek Psyche and Pneuma, the Indian Prana and Atman, the Egyptian Ka and Ba, and the Chinese Qi and Shen. While there are differences in finer details (sometimes splitting one aspect into different facets like "rational" and "emotional" or "hungry" and "horny," or treating the two as a spectrum, with different shades of grey being distinct spiritual elements), and major differences in what happens after you die, the idea is that one is the (now scientifically disproven) life force (like the Odic force or Orgone), while the other is a hypothetical reconciled collection of every stage of your consciousness (of which your current identity is only a portion of). The life force (so say the mystics) may receive impressions of the consciousness, akin to jello being left in a mold long enough. Distinguishing between the two is also why I really don't get why everyone thinks the Christian afterlife and reincarnation are irreconcilable: most of the religions that teach reincarnation hold that the consciousness is impermanent and focus more on a peaceful transition of the life force, while the Christian afterlife (at least in some of the religion's mysticism) assumes that the life force is mortal and needs to be replaced by Jesus and the Holy Spirit if the identity is to survive. Lurianic Kabbalah gets it.
Anyway, to answer the original question: most such religions hold that when the body dies, the brain only hosts the current "page" of the book of the person's overall identity, and it's the whole book that gets put on the top shelf. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Another important consequence, is that thought/personality/identity are completely organic in nature, in that it is an attribute of only the 'nephesh'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, those organic souls are the ones I was concerned with in the original question. When their brain stops, their identity stops and their god doesn't recognize them anymore. There must be a term for that condition somewhere, even if it's not English. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Then again, if the soul departs immediately before we die, ultimately causing death, I guess there'd be no problem. Only if it leaves after, without remembering where it was supposed to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
According to the view that I spoke of, the Ruach departs the nephesh concurrently with death. The Ruach is an inanimate object, and does not need to remember where to go, any more than a stone needs to know to fall when it is thrown. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
But what's left to throw it (at least aim it), if the faith is dead? Or does the Angel of Death take it? According to the view you spoke of, I mean. The older ones seem different from the Michael I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I found them. Something like Michael. Apparently, Joshua ben Levi knew his pretty well. That article is copied verbatim from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but Wikipedia has its own Entering Heaven alive article. Probably useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
The stone metaphor does not extend in that way nothing throws it. It just returns to God of its own accord. Ecclesiastes 12:7. The psychopomp candidates that you've give only seem to cause death instead of transferring Ruach. Another key element to answering the question, would be your definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1. It is reasonable to think of faith as an investment with a guaranteed future return. It is an investment which must be secured while one is still living. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're saying Ecclesiastes says it works like a boomerang, I'll say it doesn't. Only that it returns to God. Something can return without moving itself. Mail does it all the time. Some of those angels are more the Slayer type, but Michael row the boat ashore. Like a taxi driver, he doesn't judge, but gets where you got to go. Whether his "you" contains the mind and spirit, not sure.
Thanks for that psychopomp word. I'd have never have guessed it. I'll add it to the See Also for the angels. Another, newer word for those that just kill and let God sort them out is "Psychotron".
As for faith, I guess I think like Hebrews 11:1. Need a working brain to envision and hope for those unseen things. Per Hebrews 11:6, if you go to God without believing in him, he won't be pleased. Belief is a cognitive function, as is diligently seeking. So is disappointment, though, so it's all good, even if we're not saved in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't base my understanding of death on 19th century gospel, but that is your prerogative. I don't know the relevant passage, but it is says that everyone is offered salvation in one form or another, at least once in their lives. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah, my understanding of death is based in growing up in a funeral home. There, it's simple. Bodies are emptied, filled, washed, dressed, viewed and buried. Never was much to learn about life after that, except that families like to be assured the soul went where they think it should.
That gospel tune is just something I considered, in the context of general beliefs about afterlife and that angel. I "know" him more than others, but only in a literary sense. I don't think he's real, certainly haven't met him. This question has nothing to do with my own death or soul, just what people have said. I personally believe our souls recycle in virtually the same way our bodies do, and will be reused to build any life form, not just humans. The human identity is all in our brains, and doesn't influence what happens next. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be based on 2 principle points:
  • 1 - salvation by faith alone, which is SFAIK pretty much an exclusively Protestant Christian belief;
  • 2 - other groups which don't believe in the Christian concept of the soul or their own approximation of it;
and, basically, what a member of group 2 would think of the fate of a member of group 1.
I very seriously doubt there are consistent basically dogmatic views from non-Christian groups regarding one group within the broad field of Christianity, because it is only the belief of a percetage of Christian groups and many or most of them don't have anyone in a position to make dogmatic statements. Of course, inconsistent nonauthoritative views are likely.
There are some Christian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses who don't accept the conception of the soul other Christians have, but again SFAIK they do have their own conception of the continued life of the individual, and the continuation of individual existence is based on how well the individual does according to those standards, more or less without regard to whaever that person themselves believed.
If there were a group that denied the Christian soul and believed the individual is judged primarily or exclusively on their own personal beliefs, they may have addressed this, but I personally know of no such group. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What is does the term "Christian soul" refer to? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple variant religious conceptions of ths soul, as per Soul#Religious views, including a predominant Christian one at Soul#Christianity. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In order to make sense of your final statement, I need to know what the group is denying. If "Christian soul" is a vague term then, the statement is equally vague. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It was intended as being an abbreviated version of the previously used "Christian concept of the soul". John Carter (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So that would be the nepesh then? I did not say that there is a group who denies it, instead believing in judgment based on beliefs. To make things clearer, I am referring to the Seventh Day Adventist, and perhaps, the Baptist denominations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The condition of the dead is discussed at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Resurrection" at and "Sadducees" at
Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting reads. "Sheol" (or even "gravedom") is another of those words I'd been lacking without realizing it. Good to distinguish between the physical hole and the intangible sort of sleep. Same goes for rephaim, rather than the ambiguous "shade" or "ghost". More accurately describes those who reside in the gravedom, rather than haunt the living world. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, July 27, 2014 (UTC)
Also somewhat described (with euphemism aplenty) in "The Ballad of Sir Blunderbrain". He (and Wembley) were kind of like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


what is the source of le corbusiere's statement that a home should be a treasure-chest? (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears on BrainyQuote as: "The home should be the treasure chest of living.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point I'm not sure what the OP is asking: The specific source of the quote? Or the meaning of the quote? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If you can provide a reference that answers either question, don't feel inhibited. I was only able to find it only popular quotation sites, which don't help much. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I suspect Vers une architecture, but I can't find a definitive link, either. ceranthor 19:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Searching in Google Books for "maison doit" together with "Corbusier", I found several sources giving Le Corbusier's wording as "La maison doit être l'écrin de la vie". Google Translate renders "écrin" as "jewel" in this context, but my French-English dictionary translates the word as "jewel case, case, casket", which fits better with the translation as "treasure chest", particularly when the metaphor is presumably that home is where you store your memories.

Now searching for the full phrase, I find this page which says he used it in response to an order from a Bordeaux businessman named Henry Frugès; so I presume it comes from a letter. According to the page, Le Corbusier summarized his own attitude as: "Une maison est une machine à habiter. La maison doit être l'écrin de la vie, la machine à bonheur. J'ai travaillé pour ce dont l'homme d'aujourd'hui a le plus besoin, le silence et la paix." Which I would translate idiomatically as: "A home is a machine for living in. A home should be a treasure chest of life, a happiness machine. I have worked at what today's man needs most: peace and quiet." (Note: French does not have distinct words for "house" and "home"; I've chosen to translate "maison" as "home", the same as in the passage quoted by the OP.) -- (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha! That's why my search for caisse au trésor dew a blank. Well done! Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The usual phrase in French is malle au trésor or coffre au trésor. Sometimes we can translate "home" by foyer. Le Corbusier wrote "une maison est..." in the first sentence but "la maison doit...". I wonder if we can say "house" for the first one (because it is the concrete place where we live) and "home" for the second one (because je vais à la maison = I go home). Just an idea: I am not fluent in English — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if you did that, the reader would likely think Le Corbusier was making a contrast between what a "house" is and what a "home" is. -- (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. There is no such contrast in French, just a very slight difference. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The French cunningly rendered A House Is Not a Home (film) as La Maison de Madame Adler (The House/Home of Madame Adler). Cheats. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do Russians love to name their children "Alexei" and related names?[edit]

What's so special about "Alex" in Russian culture? (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Russians like to think of themselves as European empire builders (they consider themselves European, if their empire extends well into Asia), so perhaps Alexander the Great serves as a model. Also note that the word Tsar is based on Ceasar. Neither communism nor the current post-communist period seems to have dampened their dreams of empire. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Russia had three emperors named Alexander: "The Blessed", "The Liberator" and "The Peacemaker". Not so familiar with any, but those are rather "great" nicknames themselves. Seems reasonable they may have inspired some parents. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
Historically, Russia also saw itself as the Third Rome and made many self-conscious cultural connections to Classical Antiquity, both Greek and Roman culture. --Jayron32 16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Alexei is not Alexander. The latter is shortened colloquially as Sasha. Peter the Great had the son Alexei who was tortured for joining a conspiracy against him. He died in prison. There have been no Russian rulers named Alexei. In Slavic lands the names for children are fixed by tradition and the church. People cannot deviate much. I think Alexei was a saint sometime in history. The pool of acceptable names is not that great. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, don't get Aleksandr I/II/III confused with Pyotr Alexeyevich's father or son, both of whom were Alexei. Bizarrely, we anglicise his father's name but not his son's. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Saint Alexius, Metropolitan of Moscow has a bearing on it. He "has been revered as one of the patron saints of Moscow" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My apology. I just did a bit of a search and it turned out the second Romanov was Alexey. So I stand corrected. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? You weren't wrong. My "don't get Aleksandr and Alexey confused" was building off what you said, not attempting to correct it. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It ain't just the Russians. My Scottish grandfather was called Alec (short for Alexander), as were several other male ancestors from that line. Are the Scots empire builders? I teach Greek kids. Many are called Alex (for Alexander, et al). HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Since no one has linked it, see Alexey and Alexander. The two names share a similar etymology, but arrived in Russia via different paths, and thus in Russian are considered distinct names. The closest parallel I can think of in English are the names Jacob and James, which like Alexei and Alexander are distinct names with a common root. --Jayron32 20:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The assertion above that the Russians are in awe with Alexander the Great is incorrect and Russian Alexanders are named after a different person. Until recently (perhaps until 1917) the Russian church made decisions. You have to baptize a child, you take him to a priest and the priest looks at the calendar if he already did not memorize it by heart. Every day had a few saints (their birthdays or days of canonization, whatnot). So, the priest says: the boy is Alexander, it is his day today. He most likely meant Alexander Nevsky, a ruler of Russia or a part thereof who in medieval times confronted the Teutonic knights and defeated them, That stopped the German Eastward expansion. The church canonized him. He is a saint now. Alexander, of a Norwegian (viking) line, was a direct descendant of Vladimir, another Russian ruler, a Norwegian gangster, who grabbed the power in Kiev after a series of murders and in the end he baptized the whole Russian populace by ordering them to jump into the Dnieper river. For that the church declared him a saint. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It is worthwhile to note that all of those Alexanders still likely derive (either directly or a more circuitous route) from Alexander the Great. --Jayron32 03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And that Alexander was named after earlier Alexanders in his family (Alexander I and Alexander II). Maybe they were ultimately named after Alexander, otherwise known as Paris of Troy. 09:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
See name day for what AboutFace describes above. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
There is a strange almost mysterious power attached to some personal/proper names. I don't know if everyone feels it. For me Alexander sounds much stronger than Alexei. Ticonderoga is another example. Perhaps people here can bring out more examples. Why is it so? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear strength in John, George, Jim and Frank. Johnny, Georgie, Jimmy and Frankie sound like little boys. Same with Alexei. Something about the vowel. Trails off, while consonant has a decisive finish. Shorter names help. Jonathan, Franklin and Alexander sound a bit more "nerdy", probably due to verbosity. Those sound mature, but not physically strong. Alex would be the strongest version, I think. Drop the Frenchish "le", even stronger. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
If a short name denotes power and decisiveness, then a long name denotes gentleness and thoughtfulness: Aloysius, Llewellyn, Percival, Solomon, Terence, Vladimir. Also, female given names are important: Ann(e), Claire, Dawn, Faith, Hope, Ruth.
Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC) and 17:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Philatelic Collection[edit]

Who owns it: the Queen or the Crown? In other words, could Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor sell it like any other personal property, or would selling it require vaguely the same kind of procedures as selling a chunk of Crown land? The answer may be at this website, but my computer refuses to load it (but won't give a 404 or any other error message) for whatever reason. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And that site says
"After the death of King George V, Edward VIII became King. He is said to have considered selling the Royal Philatelic Collection but did not do so. Although the Collection is the personal asset of the Sovereign, it was, and is, regarded as an heirloom to pass down."
Rojomoke (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Which means that it's her personal property to do with as she pleases, but we can just about guarantee that it will please her to hand it down. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, Liz might succumb to an as-yet-unknown gambling addiction and squander her fortune at Monte Carlo, in which case she might want to sell those dusty old stamps to have another go at roulette, but that would be the sort of speculation we don't do here. Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter L. Shaw[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg
WikiProject Reference Desk
Article Collaboration
This question inspired an article
to be created or enhanced:
Walter L. Shaw (inventor)
Please consider contributing

Of all the individuals listed on wiki I am most surprised that Walter L. Shaw, the American inventor, had no entry. How come? AT&T? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting (and definitely notable) fellow. Why no article? Because you (or more likely I now) haven't gotten around to writing it yet. Stay tuned to this bat channel ... Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Voila: Walter L. Shaw (inventor). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, considering a conspiracy involving AT&T and Wikipedia to hide the existence of a man is a much more reasonable assumption than "not done yet." --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Shhhh!  —I haven't received my payola from AT&T yet. (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the nature of his grievance from what's in the newly-created Wikipedia article, because assigning one's patents over to one's employer was and is a standard and very-well-known condition of employment for researchers and scientists at technology companies... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Washington Street, Boston[edit]

I have a photograph said to be taken "on Washington Street, Boston" maybe 1860 to 1863 (the date of the subjects death) or around the time of the Civil War. Were there any photographers or photography companies active during this time with their businesses located on Washington Street, Boston?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Street was at that time the main commercial street of Boston. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Carte de visite the most popular form of photography at this period?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No. While carte de visite were a popular fad, larger portraits were still the mainstay of the photographer's business. For example in William Burton's A.B.C. of Modern Photography (1886) he mentions the popular carte de viste only once, and then just for their small size. You might take a look at the 1876 British article Photographic Portraiture Chapter IV — Some Lessons from Leslie. Or William Heighway's Practical portrait photography. A handbook for the dark room, the skylight, and the printing room (1876), or the earlier Treatise on Photography (1863) by Charles Waldac. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A contemporary Russian author?[edit]

Just a bit of a background. I recommended someone to read Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" to sharpen his writing skills. The man is an amateur writer. He liked the novel of course. Now he is asking me if I know of a contemporary Russian novel of the same magnitude set in the background of Perestroika (1989), pretty much like the Tolstoy's work, translated in English of course. I don't know if such a work exists, so am posting here. Solzhenitsyn does not qualify, though. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You might try a "search inside" this book for suggestions:  Encyclopedia of contemporary Russian culture (1. publ. ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge. 2007. ISBN 0415320941.   —Valentin Rasputin seems to come up often as novelist from this period, (perhaps not in the same category as Tolstoy; but who is?). Sources seem to recommend Rasputin's 1979 novel Farewell to Matyora which has been translated into English (ISBN 0810113295); however, this predates perestroika.
See also: Russian Literature after Perestroika (authors are interviewed) here: ( although JSTOR access required to read full interviews (or $44); it does list several authors:
  • et al...

...I hope this helps, ~E: (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your knowledge base is very impressive! Thank you very much. It helps. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • He's a bit dead, but isn't Bulgakov's Magister and Margarita considered worth reading? Ayn Rand and Vladimir Nabakov are also highly praised, even if they emigrated and died. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you friend is looking for a Tolstoyan novel from the 20th century, you may recommend Life and Fate or In the First Circle. Both novels are set in the Stalinist period, however, and both novelists are far inferior to Tolstoy. The major contemporary Russian authors are not interested in imitating Tolstoy's approach. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This person asked me specifically about a novel reflecting the Russian life after Perestroika. Bulgakov obviously won't qualify since Master and Margarita is set in the 20th. Nabokov was an emigrant, and also he wrote in a different epoch. But your suggestion is appreciated. Thanks --2601:7:6580:49D:E86C:234D:728C:7088 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eleventh Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society[edit]

Can anybody help me find an online version of the Eleventh Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society or volume 11 of Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the the year? Since the 61st was in 1913 (archived here), presumably the 11th would have been 50 years earlier (1863). might be your best bet: ~: (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Strangely, this one is dated 1853, yet it references the "Eleventh Annual Report"[25] on page 42 [further research required] ... ~: (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the first. Yes the Eleventh was published in 1863. I need to use page 15 of that book. It doesn't seem to be on google book or I wonder if there is any other sites that have these in more complete forms since the Eleventh Annual Report isn't the only one that is hard to find.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it is → [26]   — (p. 15)  ~: (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No -- actually, page 15 of the 11th is here: [27] —There seems to be some sort of computer compilation error.   ~: (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Here is a better link to that page. It seems to be a compilation of many volumes. I hate it when it does that on google book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is this Corresponding Secretary of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society Martha or Mattie A. Chamberlain mentioned in these reports? Was she a daughter of sister of Levi Chamberlain and what did the A stand for In her name?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Anime and manga with pregnancy as a major theme?[edit]

  • I just finished reading/writing an article on Kodomo no Kodomo, and was trying to populate a new category with works in which teen pregnancy is a major part of the narrative: Category:Teenage pregnancy in anime and manga. Looking through the teen pregnancy trope at TV Tropes, I only found Bitter Virgin to add. Is anybody aware of other manga/anime which have (pre-)teen pregnancy as an important or even central theme? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've never seen it and know nothing about it, but Tide-Line Blue may qualify. -- BenRG (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. From what I've been able to find on Google, that doesn't look to be central to the narrative. :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
        • (It's more common to use colons rather than asterisks to indent on the refdesks) Crisco, you might have been better asking on the Entertainment refdesk. If that fails, then the folks at Anime/Manga wikiproject will surely know. (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The thought of going to the ent desk struck me only after posting here... I will try the anime project though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Did/does this type of language exist?[edit]

I was wondering if there are any languages that are not sequential i.e start from the beginning of a sentence and ending at the end of the script. Rather, a mass of information, a bit like a map. The meaning is the same but the way the language is expressed is in its entirety rather than a start and a finish. With bits of the map added on whenever new information needs to be expressed. Is there any validity in this. Or perhaps its beyond our intelligence to communicate in this way. I just had this dream that a yet to be discovered alien civilization communicates in this way. -- 15:05, 25 July 2014

Cephalopods may be able to communicate non-sequentially by altering the colouration / patterns of their skin. Maybe an expert can direct you to relevant references.. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: Of, course, this (Cave of Altamira)
Parallel information
is an example. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Many sign languages are able to express various elements of a "sentence" simultaneously, as opposed to the strictly one word after another sequential nature of spoken or written language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC) -- Maybe you should look at Charles F. Hockett's list of design features of human language to see why the short answer to your question is "No". A feature not included in Hockett's list is hierarchical structuring (i.e. syntactic constituents are embedded in nested Immediate constituent structures)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How are Jewish and Christian values different from each other?[edit]

Can someone provide a brief summary of Jewish values and Christian values? (I recently saw an episode of the "Prager University" on Youtube, in which it asked whether or not belief in God or atheism was "more rational", and concluded that belief in God was "more rational". Then, I did a Google search, which led me to Dennis Prager's wiki page, which told me that he's Jewish, with "Judeo-Christian values". If Judeo-Christian values are shared by Judaism and Christianity, then what values distinguish them?) (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

See Christian–Jewish reconciliation. (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What does that tell me about values? (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Define "values". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
wiktionary:values (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to know what the poster thinks "values" means, not what wiktionary thinks it means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
All I did was rephrase what I read on Dennis Prager's wikipedia page, and surprisingly, he uses the term, "Judeo-Christian values". I find it surprising, because I often hear Christians use the term, not (observant) Jews. His wikipedia page says his religion is Judaism, though. (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you'd have to ask Prager what he thinks "Judeo-Christian values" means. But at least on a high level, it includes belief in God, belief in the Ten Commandments, i.e. belief in morality, etc. Those would be values generally shared by all three Abrahamic religions Obviously there is a wide variety of opinions on the details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some might say that Christianity would side with mercy and Judaism with justice, but in practice it tends to be the other way around. Because of long-term Jews' minority position, being accepting of non-Jewish otherness was the best way to stay sane (and alive). Judaism tends to hold itself to some pretty high (but fairly definite) standards, while it kindly asks everyone else to consider some fairly simple guidelines on not being evil. From what I've read, the concept of Tikkun olam ("repairing the world") tends to be influential even in branches of Judaism that aren't particularly interested in Kabbalah. Israel causes some exceptions to this, but that's an discussion I'm not touching. There's also plenty of finer points (such as distinctions between Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism) I lack the experience to comment on.
Meanwhile, almost all of Christianity accepts that there's something like right and wrong (certain interpretations of Kierkegaard and Calvinism can get pretty Antinomian), but what defines morality isn't as firmly nailed down beyond the idea that it should fulfill "Love others," "Love God," and that the values should be in some way Biblical (the latter two used to shoehorn in a lot of ideas). Consequently, many Christians tend to look at what they believe in the here and now, find some way it matches some part of the Bible, and call it Christian values, without comparing them to other Christian values throughout the world and its history (which may or may not be the same as or different from Inculturation, phrasing Christian values using another culture's terms). Since Christianity makes up about a third of the world's population, and has existed in a number of cultures, this raises questions that we can't answer here about whether there are unified Christian values, whether certain groups are right or wrong, etc... (plus no one wants me to make Jeremiah Wright's sermon about America sound like mild mannered patriotism).
The American Religious right tends to favor Young Earth Creationism (source), indicating an overall belief that the world already works the way it's supposed to, in law, society, and nature (whatever the root is of this is a matter of debate). At the other end of the spectrum, there's a lot of overlap between Christians who believe in Theistic evolution, socially progressive Christians, and those who use terms like "Social Gospel". These are very broad and extreme examples, most people falling inbetween. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said values must be mutually exclusive? Every religion or ethical philosophy may teach values, and these values have their similarities and nuances. This does not necessarily mean they are derived from each other, and may mean they have evolved independently. A person may call something "Christian values", because it is a body of values that (a certain group of) Christians (however defined) may hold. (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There are many good points raised in Wright's sermon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Who are the "Some people" here? (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"Some who do" as opposed to "some who don't". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the "Some people" at the beginning of the sentence. (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Some do, and some don't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
what are judeo-christian values? that eating people's brains is wrong. that r**ping a woman is an offence first and foremost against her, not against her male relatives who are invested with guarding her chastity. that a handicapped or a pauper are people who had bad luck, not born-again miscreants serving their karmic punishment. you know, that stuff that made Europe great and that you only notice when you see how others got it wrong. I'm an atheist, btw. Asmrulz (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"A lot of nuns are born-again Mafiosi." -- Father Guido Sarducci. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"The word was celebrate!" :) Asmrulz (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have published "The Early Christians and the Mosaic Law" at
Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't possible to generalize about "Jewish values" or "Christian values", because not all members of either group hold the same values. That is to say, there is no such thing as a uniform set of Jewish values or a uniform set of Christian values. Since Jewish values are in theory codified in the Talmud and the Rabbinic literature, one might expect the values of Jews to be more uniform than those of Christians, and maybe they are, but even among Jews, the values of, say young, gay Reconstructionist Jews are likely to be vastly different from those of elderly Hasidic Jews, even within New York City, let alone in other parts of the world. If anything, there is even more diversity among the value sets of different groups of Christians. For example, the values of Jehovah's Witnesses are very different from those of other Christian groups. Even if it is possible to identify ways in which early Christians' values were different from those of neighboring Jews because of Christians' partial departure from Mosaic law, that has little relevance to differences in values among Jews and Christians today, beyond the trivial observation that some Jews continue to observe dietary and ritual rules laid down in the Jewish scripture while hardly any Christians do. There is much more to a person's or group's set of values than that. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Asmrulz: "eating people's brains is wrong" is a pretty universal value. And Leviticus would seem to disagree about who rape is primarily an offence against. (And there are also some Christian movements that seem to think poverty and wealth are signs of God's favour or judgement, and/or a sign of Godly living - although that seems to me to be so at odds with the Gosples that I'd be inclined to consider that heretical). Iapetus (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Our article Judeo-Christian is quite informative. In a nutshell, the ethical values of Judaism and Christianity have a broad overlap, since both are based on the Ten Commandments. The moral code of Judaism is somewhat more formalised than in Christianity (dietary restrictions, Sabbath observance, circumcision etc.). The biggest differences between the two religions are in the area of theology, especially around the means of salvation, the status of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look at the articles on Sermon on the plain & Sermon on the mount. There is, of course, a fundamental difference in the way God is perceived in Judaism and the way Jesus is perceived in Christianity. Also bear in mind the vastly differing historical context of the development of Christianity vs the history of Judaism and the Jewish diaspora. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also be aware that "Judeo-Christian values" is fairly common code word, often meaning "conservative" with overtones of "you can trust me; I hate [fill in scapegoat du jour] just like you do". --NellieBly (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some differences between Jewish and Christian mythology and values:
Jews Christians
effectively worshiping Mammon worshipping God (JHWH/YHWH, Jehova/Yahuwah, Jahve/Jahwe/Yahweh) and Jesus (Jesus Christ(us), Jesus of Nazareth)
an eye for an eye, death penaltys (cf. Torah/Pentateuch), mass murdering & killings of women and children (e.g. Amalekites), genital cuttings for males, racism (e.g. "God's choosen [racial/ethnic] people"), inherited guilt forgiveness, brotherly love, a free religion (everyone can become a Christian, if he wants to and believes)
no pork meat, brutal "kosher" butchering of animals eating pork meat is fine, brutal butchering is not necesary
"Judeo-christian values" might mean, that he accepts some Christian values, e.g. forgiveness instead of inherited guilt. -IP, 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

July 26[edit]

American white supremacist[edit]

I desperately need help trying to remember the name of an American white supremacist as I just can't recall it and Google has been no help so far. My exact recollections are hazy but this guy was a figure in either the KKK, one of the sundry other far-right groups or both until he announced that he was done with all that. He subsequently turned up on Geraldo and similar shows discussing his decision to give up racism, meeting African American activists and the like. In this case however he then returned to white supremacy, possibly claiming that his initial abandonment of the ideology had been all a ruse in the first place. I've gone through every article in Category:Ku Klux Klan members and none of them seem to match up so can anybody help or did I just imagine all this? Keresaspa (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

David Duke maybe? --Jayron32 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Tom Metzger famously met with Louis Farrakhan in 1985 and claimed to find common ground, but he never renounced racism. AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I know both of them and neither of them were the guy I'm thinking of. If memory serves me right he had a big cowboy-style moustache if that helps. Keresaspa (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it Buford Furrow you're thinking of? Mogism (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, don't think that's him either. This guy was pretty thin (assuming I'm not imagining him). Keresaspa (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I might have found it: [28] mentions a Greg Withrow (a name also mentioned in Tom Metzger (white supremacist)), though I should emphasize I have not looked into this and have no idea where this story went from that time. The cool thing is, Rivera kept his efforts going, and eventually Johnny Lee Clary appeared on his show expressing a conversion which appears to be genuine and enduring. Wnt (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry[edit]

Where can I find this but in book form? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that regiment was known as "Henry Wilson's Regiment", and there is a book by that name, which includes the chapter:  Alphabetical Roll —which I suspect would replicate the roster you linked (but haven't checked):
  • Parker, John Lord (1887). HENRY WILSON'S REGIMENT. Boston: Franklin Press. (Google eBook)
~E: (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. This is a tremendous help. It even has a biographical sketch of the person I am researching.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg You're welcome! ~E: (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mosby referred to in this book is John S. Mosby, right?

It seems so; the book mentions "Mosby's guerrillas" which was an alternate nickname for "Mosby's Rangers" (a.k.a.: "Mosby's Raiders"). ~E: (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

November 18, 1862 letter at Fort Tillinghast[edit]

Can anybody tell me who wrote the November 18, 1862 letter at Fort Tillinghast, shown in the sources below? The sources says "Our brothers of the artillery writes." Is the letter's writer identifiable or is it just a collection of letters with the name of writers not mentioned? Also a letter dated to November 18, 1862 couldn't possibly be talking about reading a newspaper article about a funeral that didn't take place until March, 1863 (Henry's died around this time), so what is the explanation for that? The letter can be found here:

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


2K14 is a redirect to 2014, but not explained there. Where is this notation used, and where does it come from? Google search is riddled with computer games and confusing. --KnightMove (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, before it was a redirect, someone tried to pretend that it was a common thing, and not just a branding ploy by the company 2K Games. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be one of those hatnote-things:  " 2K14 redirects here; for the sports video game, see: NBA 2K14.  "  (?) (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a once only thing by a user who didn't know about WP:Notability. There's no 2K13, 2K10, 2K06, and so on. (There are redirects for 2k12 and 2k11, but those are for surface to air missiles). If the brand thing was anything beyond 2K Games's cutesy titling gag, I'd be more open to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Presumably it's an outgrowth of Y2K, which was hugely notable (until it proved to be the greatest fizzer of all time. Granted, we'll never know how many aircraft would have "fallen out of the sky" had the companies ignored the issue ...) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Jack, some of us put in a _great_ deal of work to ensure that sort of thing didn't happen. The way people go on about it nowadays, I get the impression we shouldn't have bothered. I can hope that people will be more appreciative in 2038, but I doubt it'll be the case. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
My "Granted" sentence was acknowledgment that the problem was not ignored and disasters were averted, for which I'm sure we're all grateful. But you know what humans are like: they're attracted to disaster and make a big deal out of it, whereas when people act proactively and consequently nothing happens, it's not news. "Fizzer" was a poor choice of word, for which I am flagellating my naked body with a spiked rawhide whip using my left hand while I type this with my right. That is surely an image to die for. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
They say that kangaroo hide makes a very good whip for this purpose. Not that I have any contact with them, oh no. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it was a fizzer, and many innocent but less well informed business people, and even home computer users, were ripped off unmercifully by unethical IT practitioners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and 2K14 should not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to change the redirect to point to the video game. I agree that it's very unlikely anyone will enter "2K14" if they're looking for the article on the year. Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the origin of it, but there seem to be many non-computer-game uses of 2K14 to mean the year 2014. Likewise 2K13 and 2K12. I didn't try any earlier years. -- BenRG (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, for each of those years there are at least two games with 2Kxx in the title, so it is probably a bad idea to redirect to one of them. -- BenRG (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed 2K14 to a proper dab page, in the light of the above. Tevildo (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Iambic trimeter[edit]

  • did I do those lines right? I can't truly know if ε in the words "τερπνοῖς" and "καθῆντ" is long or short, right?
 -    -  u  -\  -  -  u   -\ u u  uu u  x
ν δ’ ἄγκος ἀ\μφίκρημνον, ὕ\δασι διάβροχον,
x  -    u -\  -   -  u  - \  x    -   u   x
καθντ’ ἔχουαι χεῖρας ἐν \τερπνοῖς πόνοις.

and "τά" has short vowel? or I can't know? thanks! -- (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In ancient Greek in standard Ionic orthography, ε not part of ει is always short, while the vowel of τα is short in the neuter nominative/accusative plural, but long in the (rather rare) feminine nominative/accusative dual. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The "ε" in "τερπνοῖς" is short as a vowel, but its syllable is long by position because of the consonant cluster following it. As for the "α" in "καθῆντ(ο)", if that's what you were asking about, it's also short, the word being an inflectional form of wikt:κάθημαι. Your scanning of the metre seems correct to me. Fut.Perf. 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Christian denominations which do not receive the Eucharist[edit]

Are there Christian groups which do not practice receiving Communion? If so, what are their reasons for doing so? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Quakers do not recognize any formal sacraments. According to our article Sacrament#Non-sacramental churches, they believe "that all activities should be considered holy", and consider it inappropriate to single out any particular activity as being "more sacred" than another. See this article from a Quaker meeting-house in Philadelphia. Tevildo (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Jehovah's Witnesses don't receive it either, from what I understand. Apparently, they think themselves unworthy, and instead pass it from person to person. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
According to our Eucharist article, Jehovah's Witnesses observe an annual feast of "The Memorial" on a date corresponding to Passover. Tevildo (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have published "The Eucharist—The Facts Behind the Ritual" at
Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That depends entirely on who you ask. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are Christians. See No True Scotsman to understand why... --Jayron32 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The requirements for being rightfully called a 'Christian', varies from one denomination to the next. So, it does depend on who you ask. There is no absolute right or wrong answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus can consider themselves Christian. And the verbiage in the JW link provided by Wavelength a little ways up certainly sounds like "Christian talk" to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The different requirements stems from the disagreement over the exact teachings of Jesus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly. The "requirements" established by any particular denomination for itself, carry no weight with other denominations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If anyone who reveres Jesus is a "Christian", then JW's are Christian (but so are Muslims and Bahais). If you only include "mainstream" Christianity which is "orthodox" according to traditional definitions (which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things), then they're not Christian. There's no one definition of "Christian" which will satisfy all people, but things aren't quite as squishily subjective as you seemed to imply (at least when applying definitions to church bodies with formally-defined doctrines)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So how do we get the numbers for Christianity? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the statement "2.2 billion adherents"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It's nonsense to start with. And if we removed every group another "Christian" says aren't proper Christians, we have a much smaller number. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Those numbers come from adding up each denomination's claims as to the number of adherents within their sect. Various sources will break that number down, and one thing that's kind of amazing after all these centuries is that Catholicism still claims about half of that 2+ billion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit like the number of extrasolar planets dilemma. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It depends whether you're looking from the inside or the outside. If you're a Christian, you know what you believe the true meaning of Christianity is, and anyone who doesn't conform to that can't really be Christian. If I was a Christian I'd probably be very keen to distance myself from the Westboro Baptists, for example. But if you're not a Christian, as I'm not, then which ones are right and which ones aren't isn't an issue, so every kind of religion that claims to be Christian is Christian. I just note that there are differences between them and that some of them are weirder than others. Muslims and Baha'is aren't Christian, because they don't claim to be (and as far as I know don't consider Jesus to the the Christ or Messiah, which I would have thought is the diagnostic of Christianity). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There's an exception to your view about who Christians think is a Christian. For the total numbers in the Christianity article, they're happy to claim anyone who has ever been near a church. I find it pretty hypocritical. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Who does "they" in your sentence refer to?? Most such estimates of world religiously-affiliated populations are made by sociologists or demographers working with rough-and-ready definitions of major religions, not by Christians anxious to inflate the Christian population... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The absence of ego that Christians (and other religions) are enjoined to live by would mean that, whatever Christian denomination you may belong to, you would accept that those who adhere to other denominations are not "wrong" just because their interpretation of the Scriptures differs from your own. It's supposed to be about you living your life in accordance with the rules as you understand them; not about judging others for daring to live by a different understanding of the rules. Nowhere in the New Testament does it talk about people needing to join any particular version of Christianity. Now, some people use, or abuse, a religion to give some legitimacy to their bigoted attitudes; but there are those who truly and sincerely believe that such attitudes are divinely inspired, and others can no more say they are "wrong" than vice-versa. I'm sure the Westboro Baptists contain examples of both. That isn't to say that anyone should be allowed to practise illegal discrimination or vilification. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Contrasting ideas cannot be right simultaneously, as much as a single coin cannot simultaneously land on heads and tails. Accordingly, if one promotes one idea to be correct, the other must inherently be wrong. The Bible does mention the existence of a particular "version of Christianity" - the Nicolaitans. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Err - this is the fallacy of false dilemma. One can only make this sort of statement if the ideas in question are genuine logical contraries, which doesn't apply to most real-life statements, and certainly doesn't apply to the views of Jehovah's Witnesses and mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity. Many Christians, of course, don't consider JW's (or Mormons, or Roman Catholics, etc etc ad nauseam) to be "real" Christians, but nobody can validly make this assertion on purely logical grounds, as you appear to be. Apologies if I've misrepresented your position. Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Tevildo --Things are simply not as subjective and indeterminately ultra-relativistic as you seem to imply. JW-ism and Mormonism factually and objectively fall outside the traditional definitions of "mainstream"/"orthodox" Christianity, which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things. Groups which were not already in existence in 451 A.D. (such as the Coptic and Armenian churches were), but instead were founded in the 19th or 20th centuries with doctrines strongly divergent from traditional "orthodoxy", are likely to be rejected as Christian by mainstream Christians. Calling Catholicism not true Christianity has nothing to do with any of this, but instead goes back to the bitterness of reformation/counter-reformation disputes. Most of the people vocally maintaining that position nowadays are either semi-weirdos (such as Jack Chick) or semi-extremists on the sharp edge of sectarian disputes (such as Ian Paisley), or are none too traditionally orthodox/mainstream themselves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are, because I say so! So nyah! My main intention was to highlight the logical fallacy in Plasmic's statement, rather than to address the issue "Are JW's real Christians?" I agree that their beliefs do not coincide with those decided on at Chalcedon, and that this takes them outside "traditional mainstream" Christianity. I would take issue with the view that this takes them outside Christianity altogether, or that there is an objective test for "Christianity" that they fail. Why stop at Chalcedon? We can go all the way to Vatican II and allow the Pope to make the decision - a view to which many of my Roman Catholic friends would subscribe. However, although the Pope has the authority to make such rulings in the context of Catholicism, I would argue that no individual or organization is in a position to do the same for Christianity as a whole, and, if a particular group of people consider themselves Christian, there isn't anyone that should (legitimately) prevent them from so doing. Tevildo (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Baptists are among the largest denominations in America. They were started in the 1600s, but they definitely qualify as part of "mainstream", at least in America. They are quick to claim that Mormonism is not "true" Christianity. But they don't much care for Catholicism either. Christianity is about believing in the teachings of Jesus, not about whatever those characters decided at the First Council of Nicaea. The "fundamentals" of "true" Christianity are faith, hope and love. And the core belief was stated by the apostle Simon/Peter: "You are the Christ, the son of God." Anyone who adheres to those biblical tenets can call themselves Christian, whether the First Council of Nicaea or "mainstream" Christians would approve or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Tevildo, please note that I have not assumed a position in this discussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The point being that there are really no human-invented "requirements" restricting who can consider themselves Christian and who can't. There is no world governing body of Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement, since that is what I have been saying. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii[edit]

Is there a Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii? There was one in 1895 and 1906.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints Churches located in and around Kealia, Hawaii 96751   —E: (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... this one is very close, (3.3 miles, walking) but doesn't show up on that list:  4561 Ohia St, Kapa‘a, HI 96746 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The source seems to indicate it was in Kealia, not in the neighboring towns. It might no longer exist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Kealia is an unincorporated community, containing about 10 buildings; [I can't find where I read that] so on maps it shows up as a single location (most likely the post office). And, the coordinates that I used were from the Wikipedia article (Kealia, Hawaii) -and Google maps put that location out in the middle of nowhere in a farm field. ~Anyway, ... (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Piéton a tributary of the Sambre[edit]

Several of the detailed histories of the Waterloo Campaign written in the 1900s mention the Piéton a tributary of the Sambre (eg here). It does not appear that any Wikipedia language has an article on it. There is a village in the vicinity called fr:Gouy-lez-Piéton, and it is possible that it is now a feeder steam into the Brussels Charleroi Canal.

The trouble is that in looking for reliable sources for Piéton is more difficult than for some words because "piéton" apparently means "pedestrian" in French, so lots of false positives appear in searches. I am hoping someone who's French is better than mine can find out what has happened to the river and write a small stub on it (in either French or English). If it is placed on French Wikipedia then I will translate it. If there is a better place to post this request please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck here, you might try over at Wikipedia: WikiProject European history, or Wikipedia: WikiProject France.   — (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea I have placed a link to here on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France page. -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hope this helps: and Akseli9 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Salut PBS, you could have a look in french at fr:Piéton (ruisseau) and in dutch at nl:Piéton (rivier). Alvar 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks to all who contributed. The article now exists Piéton and I was able to use the information to add a list of tributaries to the Sambre article. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Why do every piece of land have to be owned by a country?[edit]

Why do every piece of land on Earth have to be owned by a country? Are there any human colonies in Antarctica or in the deep seas? (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Every piece of land is not owned by a country. See Antarctic Treaty System. That being said, if there is some plot of land which is not under the control of a state, who is to keep people living there from lawlessness and the like? --Jayron32 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, who is to stop the people living there making it a state? Iapetus (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Antarctic Treaty only suspends the operation of national claims to Antarctica, but they still exist. However, a large section of Antartica is not claimed by any country. This is mentioned deep in the article under Antarctic Treaty System#Legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See also Bir Tawil - 2,060 km2 of land on the Egypt-Sudan border, claimed by neither state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That's because each of them thinks it belongs to the other (so that the 'winning' side can claim Hala'ib) - not because it's really part of no country. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Congo Free State was not owned by Belgium, but was effectively the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And ask the Congolese how well that went for them... --Jayron32 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a strange question and appears to treat the term "piece of land" as if it can't also be a "country", which it can, because some countries are very small indeed. Wherever there is a human population, some form of government arrives, even if it is only a personal dictatorship. Every human community is subject to some sovereign power, and if a piece of land with people on it has no state above it (as, for instance, Easter Island has Chile), then the local power is also the sovereign power. In the case of a piece of land with no people on it, it is almost certain to be claimed as part of the territory of one or more countries, and the whole of Antarctica is subject to territorial claims, some of them overlapping. I wasn't aware of the exception of Bir Tawil mentioned by AndyTheGrump, and I shall be surprised if even two or three more exceptions can be identified, but of course large areas of the world have little effective control, because they are so remote from security forces. However, with regard to the law of the sea, much of the world's surface is not claimed as any country's territorial waters. Moonraker (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- Land not owned by anybody would be terra nullius. Libertarians have been looking for places outside the jurisdiction of any state to set up a libertarian utopia since at least the 1970s (see Minerva Reefs) but without much luck... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia was settled in 1788 on the legal basis of terra nullius, and it took till 1992 for that fiction to be turned on its head. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Even trivial little rocks just barely sticking up above the ocean surface are subject to fiercely contested ownership, which may even become violent. Such competition occurs not because the rocks themselves have any value, but because they come with large exclusive economic zones attached, where the sovereign has the sole right to determine who may catch fish, drill for oil, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As the Flanders and Swann song goes:
Though we're thrown out of Malta,
Though Spain should take Gibraltar,
Why should we flinch or falter,
When England's got Rockall.
There is no most islands have an economic value because of their seabed potential it is extremely unlikely that such potential will not be wanted by some state or other. This is the or at least the predominant underlying reason for the disputes over ownership of islands such as the Falklands, Liancourt Rocks and the Pinnacle islands the last of which could become a hot war at any moment. [All most] all islands were claimed by imperial powers in the rush for empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, those claims have be continued by successor states. The neutral territories between states are often recognition that no agreement has yet been reached, there is nothing new in this see for example Debatable Lands that used to exist between England and Scotland (plus ça change, plus c'est la même) and more modern examples suh as Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone where the border is still not precisely agreed. Also the unfortunate boarder wars that Eritrea has been involved Eritrean–Ethiopian War, Hanish Islands conflict and the Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict are example not of no claims to ownership but what can happens when two more more states claim the land. At the moment the closest the world gets to unclaimed land is territory under the [temporary] protection of the United Nations, but of course such areas are inhabited it is just that the members of the UN have not agreed to whom the territory belongs. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Even Sealand tried to set up a government. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some DMZ's might qualify as "not owned by any country", in that everyone avoids them completely. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The question seems philosophically malformed. I mean, I hereby claim the planets and other appurtenances of Tau Ceti on behalf of Wikipedia. Voila! A claim. To prevent such claims being made you'd have to shut up everyone in the world; or more likely, pretend that their claims don't count, that only certain claims made in a certain way count. (Like is proposed for asteroid mining where some rich guy can afford to spray radio transmitters at asteroids. For some reason sending a signal from a certain kind of probe would make it Officially Theirs. For millennia afterward their heirs and descendants will probably be making and losing fortunes speculating in the ownership of these asteroids and their hypothetical resources, like those English lords without lands people were talking about here a few weeks ago, long after all hope of mining them had been given up and even the idea that the ancients had once gone into space had been dismissed by reputable authorities as a myth. (OTOH it's a stronger basis than Bitcoins) Wnt (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Joining two political parties in the US[edit]

Is there any reason I can't be both a Democrat and a Republican and vote in both of their primaries? Isn't there an absolute right to freedom of association? (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When registering to vote, we choose which party to 'belong to" (dem, rep or ind)... though I assume this might vary according to state or county jurisdiction(?). not sure how that affects primary voting, i've heard of ppl voting in primaries outside of their registered affiliation. El duderino (abides) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some states have an open primary, which means you can vote in either primary, or both, regardless of your party affiliation. The concern is that some may use their vote to sabotage the opposite party, by voting for a nut job who they don't expect to be elected in the general election. This could result in both primaries selecting "unelectable" candidates, which would be a bad situation. StuRat (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this what happens anyway? Mingmingla (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes. And if the parties don't like it, they can work on getting the given state's laws changed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As our article says, Freedom of association generally implies that someone else can't stop you from associating with other people if they want to associate with you, such as being part of or forming a party of willing participants. It doesn't imply others have to associate with you if they don't want to or that a party has to accept you.
Actually that would frequently be considered the opposite of freedom of association when you're forcing people to associate with you when they don't want to, such as preventing a party from setting conditions on your acceptance as a member.
To put it a different way, if you are preventing from forming a party which accepts Republicans and Democrats, some may consider that a violation of freedom of association. If the Republican Party or Democrat Party chooses to expel/reject the membership of anyone who joins your party that's considered them exercising their right to freedom of association, not a violation of it.
Note as our article says, current intepretation of the constitution in the US generally implies there isn't an absolute right of freedom of association since there are restrictions such as considering race in making or enforcming private contracts.
Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do Americans need to declare their party preference when registering as voters - is there no secrecy of the ballot in America? If a South African government or civil service official were to demand to know my political affiliation they would in fact be committing a crime. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Declaring a party affiliation does not constitute violating secrecy of ballot. All it does is increase the chance of spam mailings and phone calls from politicians' staffs. Some primaries will also contain non-partisan candidates or issues, which will appear on both parties' primary ballots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to explain the difference between a Party election (primary) and a General election. First we have the Party elections - The voter officially joins a party (registers), which gives him/her the right to decide who the party's candidates will be. Republicans get to decide who will be the Republican candidates... Democrats get to decide who will be the Democratic candidates... etc. The voter shows up at the polling place, is asked which party he/she belongs to and votes in the appropriate primary... but who he/she votes for is secret.
Then there is the general election. Here, the voter is no longer voting as a Democrat or as a Republican... but as a Citizen. The voter is not asked which party he/she belongs to. The voter is free to vote for anyone, regardless of party affiliation. The ballot is secret. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Further, the system for primary elections varies between states. Not all require voters to declare a preference at registration. See Primary election#Types. -- (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Corrected a few typos above.
Also I should clarify I'm not saying that it's impossible for a primary election system to be seen to violate freedom of association. I meant simply not in the simplistic case outlined by the OP. For example if a closed primary is the only legal option and not the choice of the party, then that may be seen as problematic. That said, although as with many outsiders I find much of primary system in the US including the administration weird, I don't think anywhere forbids non closed primaries. I suspect if anything the more likely problem is that a closed primary is required if you want govermental support for your primary which is a more complicated issue.
Of course the high level of governmental involvement in the primary system is one thing I find weird. Particularly since in some states there seems to be weird stuff like the that mentioned a few weeks ago, ability of the government workers to challenge someone's eligibility based on fairly loose criteria and how neutrality is enforced for such challenges. And there does seem to be a weird disconnect between the parties and the primaries. I recall that during the 2008 election cycle, some states held primaries in violation of what the parties themselves wanted and so the parties were reluctant to accept the primaries.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- In Texas, the only way you declare your party affiliation to the state is to show up at a primary election and vote. If you vote in the Republican party primary, then trying to vote in the Democratic primary would be double voting, and vice versa. Further, the poll worker may stamp your voter registration card (which are mailed out to registered voters every two years) to prevent a Republican primary voter from voting in the Democratic primary runoffs and vice versa (though with instant poll-worker access to computerized vote records, the card stamping now seems to be optional)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the primaries is to allow members of parties to nominate their candidates. No one forces you to vote in a primary. But if you do, it's only fair to declare your party affiliation. Every state's laws are different, as noted many times here. In the general election, you can be "both Democrat and Republican" by splitting your vote among members of different parties. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume party declarations are sincere, let alone binding declarations of association. Game theory applies to all games, including American electoral politics. See party raiding (which article helpfully disambiguates this common practice from the reportedly equally fun, though now politically unpopular, practice of the Great All American panty raid), citing a couple of recent examples of non-party members' strategic use of an opposed party's primary elections. Game on! Paulscrawl (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If the political parties were concerned about this loophole, they would work on getting it closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
They have indeed. Political parties have long sued for preferential clarification of the ever-ambiguous and controversial public/private nature of political parties and the applicability of freedom of association, the OP's question.
A recent review of party efforts to retain control is Robert C. Wigton, The Parties in Court: American Political Parties Under the Constitution (Lexington Books, 2013 ISBN 978-0739189672 ). A freely accessible source of one such party effort to close one such party raiding loophole (cited in Wigton) is Gary L. Scott and Craig L. Car, Political Parties Before, the Bar: The Controversy Over Associational Rights (Seattle University Law Review, 1982). The blanket primary at issue in that Washington case has resurfaced in that state and others (California) as the nonpartisan blanket primary (in Louisiana, its origin, the "jungle primary.")
So yes, political parties are aware and care about these loopholes, as a long history of party litigation attests. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to switch back and forth, I want to vote in both parties' primaries. If it's illegal, why? If it's legal, how do I do it? I live in Hawaii. (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stu's link to open primary redirects to a section that seems to have been removed. I've never voted elsewhere, but in Massachusetts registered independents (that is, registered voters who declined to declare affiliation with either major party) may cast a ballot in a primary election for either party. The poll worker asks which primary you wish to vote in, hands you the appropriate ballot, and you may vote without declaring for the party you pick. Of course you can only pick one (i.e. vote once) per election, but nothing stops you from going back and forth from one party to the other in consecutive primaries. To 72.130, voting in both primaries would be illegal because voting more than one time in a single election is illegal (as it should be). Where the two parties have separate primary ballots, you don't get to have more than one ballot. In a non-partisan primary you can vote for whoever you like and the two top candidates will have a run-off election, but that's almost always a local rather than a state election.
Now, I think the danger of bad-faith voters trying to pick a nutty or unelectable candidate in their "enemy" party's primary is exaggerated - most voters have bigger fish to fry picking their own party's eventual candidate. Or, in cases where their own favorite is an incumbent who doesn't face a primary challenger, they may cast a ballot for him/her anyway or just not vote at all.all of which [citation needed] In any case, it may either fail or backfire: I know people who openly wondered if they should vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 MA Republican primary, because he was "obviously unelectable," while a John McCain presidency would be a distinct but mildly unpleasant possibility. Now - "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is Australia part of the "West"?[edit]

Australia is located near Asia. Why is it not called "The Far East", even though it's closer to the other Far Eastern countries than any "Western" country? Who invented the directional naming (Far East, Near East, the West, the Byzantine, etc.) anyway? Or maybe Australia is considered the "West", because it's located farther west than the United States of America? Does the Western world cover Central and South Americas too, since they were previously under Spain and Portugal's control? (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See western world. Australia was colonized by (and retains close ties to) Great Britain, and culturally speaking it is part of the West despite its geographical location. Colonized nations that retain fewer elements of their colonizers' culture are less/are less seen as part of the West. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It is more of a geopolitical designation than a geographical one, (as inferred above).   — (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as Central and South America (and the Caribbean), if the world is solely divided into East and West, then yes, they are "the West". However, "the Third World" is often used as a category, too, which would include many of the less developed nations there, as well as in Africa and Asia. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 22[edit]

The word "Holey"[edit]

How should the comparative and superlative form for the word "Holey" (adjective: full of holes) be spelled? Places I find by STFW do not seem to agree. Thieh (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary has "holier" and "holiest" at wikt:holey, but Collins English Dictionary has "holeyer" and "holeyest" at In this instance, I prefer the forms given by Collins, because they avoid confusion with the inflected forms of "holy".
Wavelength (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd go with "holier" over "holeyer". Plenty of things are homophones, and people understand just fine, in the right context. Trying to avoid confusion like this would likely make more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
I find that "has more holes" avoids any confusion, even in speech. --Jayron32 04:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll second that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
Thirded. I have also never seen Collins' suggestion before, nor any parallel construction in common use. As far as I know, all adjectives ending in -y form their comparatives in -ier and superlatives in -iest. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(Slightly relevant to the holeyest things: Trypophobia, more holey examples here [29]) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
While we're at it, I've never liked that the atomic weights given for the various elements aren't whole numbers according to reliable sources; let's just round them off here at wikipedia, or avoid their use altogether. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I may as well second that, too. Crank boron all the way to 11. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
OneLook Dictionary Search mentions "boneyest", "feyest", "greyest", "riceyest", and "surveyest" at*eyest&ls=a. Wiktionary mentions "clayier" and "clayiest" at wikt:clayey.
Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Cod is bonier than tuna. I don't understand how varying degrees of rice work, but I know "boneyest" is terrible. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, July 23, 2014 (UTC)


I just watched an episode of the Antiques Roadshow filmed in Salt Lake City Utah. Two separate members of the public whose items were appraised used "deceased" in an identical manner that I'm not sure I've ever heard before. The first woman said something like "once my grandparents deceased I..." and then a man said "once my mother deceased I..." Note that even though they were not together at all, they were interviewed in the same segment (as they both brought in similar lamps), so there is a possibility the man heard the woman's usage, and then followed her lead in a way he wouldn't have if he hadn't just heard the word used that way. But anyway, two people saying this got my attention. Is this a common regional use? Is this common to any of you?-- (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't use it myself, but I'm pretty sure I've heard it. It seems to be a revival or persistence of the archaic verb to decease, which the OED dates back to 1439: "Yf the saide Iohn decesse withoute heires". My guess is that it's not restricted to one region; it seems to be a logical choice for anyone who wants to express the formal or euphemistic tone of the adjective deceased using a verb (though of course the usual go-to is to pass away). Lesgles (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's like "departed". People who have departed are departed. You could say those who desisted are "the desisted", too. Not common. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
InedibleHulk—this was fun to discuss here. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, joyful times indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
'Deceased' would seem to be less ambiguous and euphemistic than 'pass away', without breaking the 'never say die' taboo. (I can't say I much understand the taboo myself, but I've seen it in action a lot.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not as bad as "lost", though: "I'm depressed because I recently lost my wife ... I sure wish I could remember where I left her." StuRat (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, euphemisms. Actor: "I understand you buried your wife recently." W.C. Fields: "Yes, we had to. She died." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Stu, Oscar Wilde had great fun with "lost" in The Importance of Being Earnest. When Jack reveals to Lady Bracknell that he has "lost" not just one but both of his parents, she retorts: "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune ... to lose both seems like carelessness". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Decease and sist from discussing this any further. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of Asia[edit]

I noticed that apparently none of the Oriental languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai...) have a native word for Asia: They all seem to use derivations of the Hellenic word Ἀσία from the opposite edge of the continent. Did they really never elaborate a native term for their own continent or for a similar concept? Or was it replaced in recent times? -- (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Asia is a Western concept. From the perspective of physical geography, there is nothing to distinguish Europe from Asia but a rather arbitrary, culturally defined line across the landmass of Eurasia. This line was part of the Western, Greco-Roman tradition but not the Sinitic tradition. To the Chinese, south and southwest Asia and Europe were lumped together as "the West." This is no less rational than lumping the 3/4 of Eurasia east of the Urals and the Bosphorus as "Asia." In premodern times, East Asians were not aware of any other landmasses comparable to Eurasia, so there would be no need to distinguish Eurasia with a name. Although Zheng He reached East Africa, it isn't clear that he recognized that it was part of a separate continent distinct from other lands he had visited in South Asia. The Chinese would simply have referred to Eurasia with terms such as 大陆 (dàlù), meaning "continent" or "mainland". Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What is Europe and what is Asia? Depends on who you ask and when you ask them
Boundaries_between_continents#Europe_and_Asia has a pretty nice discussion about the issue, and it largely confirms what Mr. Polo has said above. The perspective is largely a European one, and is also largely culturally based. You can even see that, historically, the line has jumped around quite a bit, and with a bit of danger of being too simplified, Europe was where the white people lived. The overland border between Europe and Asia generally included Slavic and Georgian peoples in Europe, but not Iranian, Turkic, Mongol, or Tartar peoples. The tripartate division of the "world" into Africa, Europe, and Asia (as well as the now debunked division of people into Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, i.e. people that live in Africa, Europe, and Asia) permeates Western thought for thousands of years, and it is largely based on the racial-cultural definitions as defined by European culture over that time period. The physical geography definition of "continent" came about MUCH later than the cultural one, which is why many geologists and geographers prefer terms like "landmass" over "continent", as the word "continent" carries too much cultural baggage. --Jayron32 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and us British pee ourselves laughing about it, presumably because we are incontinent. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"...Europe was where the white people lived"
Well, only if you consider Greeks to be white. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Greeks were typically classified as Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've always thought that Greece is quite far from the Caucasus. I wonder why the Argonauts sailed for the Golden Fleece if they could do it by land.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Long story short: although deriving from the Greek mainland, many of the Ancient Greek peoples and their allies, trading partners etc. were scattered over various other non-adjacent city states, areas and islands, often with non-Greek (and potentially hostile or non-cooperative) peoples separating them. Traversing such areas by land could be time-consuming, arduous and dangerous. It was generally easier (though not without its own hazards) to sail rather than travail, which was how many of the Greek 'colonies' were established in the first place. The semi-obsolete and much-misunderstood anthropological term Caucasian, though of course deriving from the Caucasus, was never intended to imply actual residence of that area, or for that matter a particular skin complexion. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It was my sarcasm. I do not like the racial term "Caucasian" at all as it's accidental, outdated, unscientific, confusing etc. If we need a racial (or beter say, "phenotypical") term for "white people", Europid is much better (most anthropologists outside of the English-speaking world use this or alike term). Though for now more than a half "Europids" live outside of Europe (Americas, N. Africa. M. East, N. India, N. Asia), this type is most associated with Europe in general, and a great bulk of them have been lived there non-intermingled with other types for millennia.
And, of course, Ancient Greeks did not live in the Caucasus (apart from small colonies) and hence they weren't and isn't "Caucasians". They travelled to Colchis by see because it was the best way to get there in Ancient times.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Terms like Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, etc. were only fairly recently considered to be negative or out of date. They were at once time considered superior to the colloquial terms white, black, brown, yellow, red, etc. They were like euphemisms. And as often happens with the euphemisms treadmill, those terms likewise fell out of favor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
People in the Middle East and North Africa are classified as white. Arabs aren't exactly black. (Some natives in Afghanistan look really white. Not sure if whites consider lighter-skinned people from the Indian Subcontinent white nowadays.) In some regions of Europe, especially in the south (e. g., Sicily), the natives do not look appreciably different from Middle Easterners; it's not like at the European side of the Bosporus people are blond and blue-eyed and at the other side everybody looks Chinese. (In fact, the whole southwest of Asia is inhabited by peoples who definitely do not look "Asian" in the sense of Chinese. I hate when people equate Asia with East Asia and act if everything in between Europe and East Asia did not exist.) So it's not that neat. (If it were, Europe would have to extend all the way to the Himalayas.)
As far as I know, the division Europe–Asia–Africa began in Ancient Greece. Europe was west of the Aegean, Asia the eastern coast ("Asia" originally only referred only to Asia Minor, i. e., Anatolia), and Libya (whence Africa) the southern coast of the Mediterranean. It makes only sense from the perspective of the Greeks. Funny enough, Crete was once considered to be part of Asia. Egypt too, possibly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The American racial categorisation is one of the stupidest things in the world I know. It always leads to confusion. Being for centuries a racist country but later rejecting racism passionately and thus being paranoid about everything racial, America still divides peoples by the most ambiguous outdated racist terms like "White" or "Black" or even worse "Asian". And after the racial taboo in science, physical anthropology is in abyss there, so it is most probably these terms will be used, unfortunately. If they banned physical anthropology as it is "racist" and they do not want use proper scientific categorisation (nevertheless, I wonder why even this scientific categorisation is needed in everyday life), why the heck are they using the outdated 18-19 century one?
I believe initially "white" meant "Anglo-Saxon" or "Teutonic" as most American people, who were neither Natives nor African slaves, migrated from the British Isles or Germanic North Europe. And they, being North Europeans, indeed were relatively fair-haired and fair-skinned, thus this term had some sense. But when immigrants began arriving from South Europe as well as M. East and India, this became obviously unacceptable. These people are swarthy but still anthropologically they are close to "Anglo-Saxons". And the only thing American bureaucrats have found out is to widen the definition and now we have "white" but swarthy Indians or Yemenis. And when this also became ridiculous, instead of dropping out races at all (as they know nothing about them, cannot define them properly and pretend to be an anti-racist country) they dug out outdated no less ambiguous "Caucasian" and added "Asian" for Far Eastern nations. Voilà, we have an absolute incomprehensible terminological mess.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Purely descriptive terms like "Europ(o)id", "Mongol(o)id" or "Austral(o)id" are not exactly racist as such, even if one may take issue with their accuracy or appropriateness in specific contexts. I have thought about calling these morphological phenotypes "Regional Ancestry Correlated Entities", i. e., RACEs in short. :-) I do find it annoying when you find yourself needing to employ cumbersome circumlocutions, whether in daily life or even scientific discussions, only because people exhibit a reflex-like distaste for these handy and for many purposes reasonably accurate terms. Racial phenotypes aren't going to go away anytime soon. Even with the most vigorous mixing humans aren't ever going to be a completely homogeneous mass as, even if we inbred semi-albinos from Europe disappear as a coherent group, the variation will not; the characteristics typical of this and other groups are going to surface time and again and blondes, redheads etc. are never going to disappear completely.
And face it, human phenotypical variation, prehistoric migrations and related issues is a fascinating topic to many people regardless of their political views. Instead of rendering it completely obsolete, archaeogenetics both enriches and corrects it. For example, some terms such as "Mongol(o)id" or "Nordic" correlate remarkably well with certain narrow haplogroups, while the number of lineages lumped under other terms such as "Negr(o)id" is far larger and so these handy terms conceal huge diversity – although this is hardly surprising given what we know about human prehistory now.
Racial classifications are hardly more arbitrary than those of other – even quite scientific – fields, such as colours, celestial objects, day and night, periods of history, dialects, vowels, music genres and other cultural phenomena, even tools, fashion or furniture. Or geographical objects such as seas and continents, of course: There is no objective solution, it's all culture-dependent. The concept "species" is no less controversial than that of "race". That's the nature of classification and semantics: reality is full of continua and complexities we try to handle with our reductionist categories. The concept of, say, "planet" is (as everybody should be aware of now) not based on a god-given objective fact of the universe, but an arbitrary human invention, with a long and confused history of its own.
That's the real fallacy (and quite harmful folly) at the heart of flat-out "race denial", as opposed to quite different issues that are only related to politics and economics and have nothing to do with the objective existence – or not – of race. In fact, denying classifications on the grounds of them being arbitrary to an extent is an inherently anti-scientific mindset, because science cannot do without classifications that are to some extent arbitrary, even if scientists try to avoid them more and more. "Racial realism" as a far-right movement is not really about the mere existence of races as a plain descriptive fact, after all. Non-white people are happy to acknowledge the differences as such and don't wish them to be eliminated or suppressed, only the associated harmful cultural baggage.
On either end of the political spectrum, colourblindness and tabooing of the subject makes people only more racist. Also, misunderstood "political correctness" is exploited by nationalists and other ideologues to manipulate (among other things) Wikipedia all the time to rewrite or suppress the nasty or inconvenient bits of history (often attributed to "white colonial history/science"). For example in the case of Mileva Marić, where Serbian nationalists and Anti-Semites team up with feminists to deny Einstein his true place in history. Or when Turkish, Indian and other nationalists together with well-meaning helpers gang up on Marija Gimbutas and absurdly impute white supremacist ideological motivations to her. Afrocentrism isn't made true by the oppression directed against black people, either. Science can inform politics, but politics should never inform science. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC) -- I strongly doubt whether any nations or peoples adopted names for continents until well into historical times, because there's no reason to name a continent until you have explored fairly widely and are aware of more than one continent. The origin of Western continent names is that the ancient Greeks used the word "Asia" to refer to lands directly across the Aegean sea (i.e. "Asia Minor" or Anatolia), the word "Europe" to refer to mainland Greece itself and vaguely-known areas connected by land to the north, and the word "Libya" to refer to vaguely-known areas reached by sailing long distances to the south. These words were not at first continent names, because the Greeks didn't know about continents until they acquired broader horizons of geographical knowledge, after the three words had already been in use for some time to refer to narrower less-than-continental areas... The Romans substituted "Africa" for "Libya" ("Africa" in the narrower sense was the name of a province encompassing today's northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria), and that's how we got the three eastern hemisphere continent names (Asia, Europe, Africa). AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As a personal observation, it seems to me that the Ancient Greek definitions of the continents were really a Mediterranian-centric definition, rather than Europe-centric. Essentially, they divided up the lands around the Med, using the major waterways as boundaries. "Europe" was northern land west of the Bosphorus and the Don, "Lybia" was the southern land west of the Nile, and "Asia" was the land between. I doubt that northern or central Europeans with little or no contact with the Med would have had the same idea of "Europe" and "Asia" - and probably even less so for people like the Scythians who lived in both. Iapetus (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

greek diacritics[edit]

At Yarmouk River, I added the ancient greek name in greek script. The problem is the first letter in the source is printed with a diacritic, and I don't know which one, or how to fill in the transliteration template. trespassers william (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it; it would be Ἱερομύκης, with a spiritus asper, as in the root hiero. Fut.Perf. 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The template:transl is still empty. It never occurred to me this can be an originally Greek name. Surprisingly, no semitic older name is easily found. Do you have an idea as to what μύκης would mean in that context? trespassers william (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a Greek word wikt:μύκης, but it doesn't really make much sense here. The Greek name might well be a folk-etymological adaptation of a pre-existing native name, just like the "hiero-" in Ἱεροσόλυμα, the Greek name of Jerusalem, so I wouldn't be too confident that it has to be the original etymology, even if it happens to be the earliest attested form. Fut.Perf. 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A "holy mushroom" could be a psilocybin mushroom, but it makes little sense as a river name (unless the region was known for shrooms, perhaps), I agree. It's probably of Semitic origin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, at least Amanita muscaria is apparently not actually endemic to the Middle East, but the Greeks themselves would have been well familiar with psychoactive mushrooms used in sacred ritual if speculations that the kykeon of the Eleusinian Mysteries contained mushroom-derived substances are correct. In that case, "holy mushroom" is not such a random collocation, even if the association with the river may be purely phonetically motivated and unrelated to local circumstances. I recall other cases where ancient Greeks have clearly distorted foreign names and words as the result of folk-etymological re-interpretation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Robert Graves believed that the Amanita was in use [30]. I should probably add that citation to the Eleusinian Mysteries article. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I can find several sources (including, apparently, the 1974 Encyclopedia Britannica) stating that the earliest mention of the Yarmouk is in the Mishna (Tractate Parah), as ירמוך Yarmuk. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Though I can also find sources that say that the Yarmuk is Pliny's Hieromices, so ignore my previous comment. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The Greek seems to me pretty clearly derivative of "Yarmuk" or some earlier version of that name. The Ἱερο in Ἱερομύκης mirrors that at the beginning of Ἱεροσόλυμα, pronounced roughly Yerushalem or Jeruʃalem in Aramaic. According to Koine Greek phonology, ύ was still pronounced 'y' (like a French 'u') at the time the first Hellenistic Greeks arrived to coin a Greek name for that river. The -ης at the end of the name was likely added so that the word would fit into the Greek noun declension scheme. Very likely, the Greek word is derived from an earlier form something like Yerumuk/Jerumuk. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Here comes the pendulum. I had already seen in Yohanan Aharoni that Arar might be an old Egyptian name, but wasn't thrilled with two syllables, and two shady consonants (as r and l are conflated in Egyptian). But after jumbling some names, thought it ,might be convenient if there was an Arar Maacha or Aram Maacha. And then found hebrew, jstor page or eng weird site, relating to the execration texts. Now where to find an echo to the speculation? trespassers william (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Did Karl May know genuine Apache words?[edit]

Karl May's character Winnetou, described as Mescalero Apache, has a horse called Iltschi, whose name is explained as meaning "wind". Iltschi's brother Hatatitla, whose name is said to mean "lightning", is ridden by Old Shatterhand. Did he simply make these words up or are there really similar words with those meanings in Mescalero or some related language such as Navajo? He certainly got the general sound of Apachean languages at least vaguely right from what little I know of them, although Navajo phonology#Vowels informs me that [u] is not present in Navajo even allophonically and there are no diphthongs. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Winnetou sounds more like an Algonquian word (like a mix of Winnipeg and Manitou). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There's also Winnebago (although Ho-Chunk#Etymology makes me think the name may be etymologically identical with Winnipeg – see Winnipeg#History and Lake Winnipeg#History) and the Siouan-derived first name Winona. So this could really be the way the name was created. Perhaps the name is actually Algonquian, because it is translated as "burning water" and Winnipeg/Winnebago is also supposed to mean "muddy water" or "stinking water" respectively.
Karl May gives meanings for all the names. One gets the impression that the names are supposed to be actually real – and the context is very specific: Winnetou is not a generic Indian, he belongs to an identifiable ethnic group. May's descriptions are detailed and he gives the impression to have done detailed research. So you would expect that it's not all made up out of thin air.
I just thought there might be Athabascanists, natives or people with access to dictionaries in relevant languages here. Oh well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In Navajo, níłchʼi can mean wind and the holy wind or one of the holy people. See also Diné Bahaneʼ (Story of the People). According to one undergraduate thesis "that simple translation [i.e. "wind"] does not capture the word’s full meaning. For the Navajo, nilch’i is considered the means of life. It represents not only a god, or holy person, but also a means of communication, the act of breathing, and every Navajo’s soul. Wind is present in virtually all aspects of Navajo culture." (Della Hall, The Navajo Concept of Wind, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011). The Navajo word for Oxygen is níłchʼi yáʼátʼéehii, or "good air". (See also Navajo Wikipedia's article on O.) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As for Hatatitla, the closest I found came from Nuu-chah-nulth: Via Haietlik ("lightning fish"), I learned that Tl'iihtl'iha means "lightning" (it's also the name of a legendary chief, according to Michael Harkin, Whales, Chiefs, and Giants: An Exploration into Nuu-Chah-Nulth Political Thought, Ethnology, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998), p 322). I know nothing about this language or how its words are inflected and compounded, and there may well be a closer-sounding cousin in another Wakashan language, or it might be from a completely different language. Just throwing it in, because there is some similarity with Hatatitla. I didn't find anything similar in any of the Chinook Jargon dictionaries I found online, and Wiktionary's Chinook Jargon Appendix gives saghillie piah ("fire above") for lightning. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for having a go at the question with online resources only! Too bad that there do not seem to be any experts around, but at least this confirms my suspicion that Karl May may have used real words. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

Take no prisoners[edit]

I sometimes read about some musician playing a piece in a "take no prisoners" style, and I always wonder what they mean. When I google the phrase, I get a range of related meanings, like 'ruthless', 'merciless', 'determined' and so on. I can understand how these meanings might apply to many human actions, but not to music making.

  • To whom is the performer showing no mercy?
  • How do the qualities of mercilessness and ruthlessness apply to the complex interplay of nuance, rhythm, harmony and tempo that is at the heart of music?

Leaving jazz and other intentionally improvisatory genres to one side, a musician doesn't just make it up as he goes along. He learns the piece thoroughly, and that includes having well developed ideas about how it all fits together. He then performs the piece according to this interpretive concept. His ideas about the piece may well (or even should) change over time, but on any one occasion, what he plays is how he conceives the piece at that time. And if he played it any other way, he would not be being true to himself. That fits my understanding of 'determined'. In that sense, pretty much all decent performances could be described as "take no prisoners". But relatively few of them are so described. What marks these few for this particular description? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a defintive answer, but I think it has to do with not caring about the audience too. There are pianists who seem to play in a "crowd-pleasing" way (one very famous one comes to mind, but I hesitate to list examples since this is also a matter of taste and opinion, and I don't wish to start that kind of debate). In any event, those crowd-pleasing performances don't fit the "takes no prisoners" label, in my view. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
When I hear the phrase, I think of Megadeth. Particularly the sort of rhythm in "Architecture of Aggression." Feels like advancing machinery, then the riff gets sinister for the chorus. Structure fits the lyrics. A similar thing happens in "Angry Again". All in rumbling and forward-driving steady beats. Tank songs. "Take No Prisoners" itself seems more like an aerial assault to me. Dave Mustaine's snarl helps the feeling in all of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
Can't forget to mention Kill 'Em All. That album might have invented the style, at least as I hear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
Might be virtually synonymous with thrash metal. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
"Take no prisoners" to me suggests an aggressive approach - which most forms of metal but also punk and grunge might fit, but you could also imagine, say, a classic pianist playing a piece more aggressively than another pianist might. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Aggressively, yes. But does that necessarily equate to "take no prisoners"? Certain kinds of music (the ones mentioned above, mainly) are inherently aggressive, regardless of how anyone sings/performs them. But normally it's not the music itself that's tarred with this epithet, it's individual performances. Is this just a cliched expression that means little but helps to pad out music reviews? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Could just be a label. I don't get how music can be inherently anything regardless of how it's played, though. Isn't the way it's played what makes it music? Or are you talking about stage presence? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
Typically a metaphor for a strong, dynamic performance of some kind - possibly misused in this case, but it's a pretty mainstream metaphor, watered down. Like a real Nazi vs. a "soup Nazi". I'm thinking back to one time a number of years ago, when the Chicago Cubs swept the New York Mets in a four-game mid-season series, including a fistfight in the final game. The Chicago Tribune's headline the next day was "Cubs take no prisoners!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Inedible Hulk, I was thinking of heavy metal and its ilk. My exposure to such music is very limited, by my choice, because what I've heard of it has turned my aural stomach. There may well be a death metal version of a lullaby, but I'm not going looking for it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There's probably some sort of melodic metal (not to be confused with melodic death metal, for which we actually have an article) for you out there. But yeah, turning some stomachs is part of not taking them prisoner (widening the fanbase). Just more mouths/ears to feed. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
More speculation: to take no prisoners means, by extension, to do things "all the way" and completely dominate the action. I can see those phrases pertaining to any style of music; it means to play without timidity. Don't hesitate or play with reluctance - do your best. I don't have the musical vocabulary to describe it, but I think it's fairly common to hear someone playing a piece technically well, but without a sense of surety, so that it doesn't sound as good as it should given the technical ability. Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My impression is pretty much the same as Matt's (as well as those that suggest that the expression is a reviewer's easy way out of actually characterizing a performance in detail). In my younger days, such a reviewer might have said that a performer "let it all hang out"—played with passion and enthusiasm, even if perhaps not with technical precision. The opposite of "by the numbers". Deor (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
By Merriam-Webster's take on the phrase, music that feels charitable, compassionate, humane, kindhearted, kindly, merciful, sensitive, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warm or warmhearted is the opposite of "take no prisoner". Sarah McLachlan music takes prisoners and adopts dogs, even if she's passionate and sloppy about it. Bugs' Cubs example is more in line, I think. Just "destroyed" the Mets, something like how a stack of amplifiers "destroys" the first few rows at a rock show. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, July 23, 2014 (UTC)
I would assume, though lacking real knowledge in this area, that a "take no prisoners" approach to playing music is putting the emphasis on an "offensive" style, as though the performer is not afraid to be offensive. This would be hyperbole because truly offensive would be simply offensive and consequently without any redeeming qualities, in my opinion. But the description implies "pushing the envelope" of acceptability, or at least I would assume. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
G.G. Allin was that sort of purely and simply offensive type. But even he had fans. Fans he literally beat and pissed on, but still. They saw something in him. But no, I doubt he's cool in your opinion. Mine neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
"music that feels charitable, compassionate, humane, kindhearted, kindly, merciful, sensitive, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warm or warmhearted" - it's not really possible to play or sing such music in a "take no prisoners" style, is it? This is why I feel that certain genres of music are themselves inherently of the TNP style. You can't play death metal in a softhearted or tender way (and expect to be taken seriously), and you can't sing a soft, slow romantic ballad in a TNP style (and expect to be taken seriously). Comments? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't each genre have its own spectrum? Within that spectrum (and for those who enjoy that particular genre), I do think death metal contains moments performed in a softhearted or tender way while being taken seriously. Though I'm not a native speaker, I will re-iterate what I wrote above about crowd-pleasing. I guess what I meant was compromising (the composers intentions, one's own artistic or aesthetic judgment, etc.) in order to give the audience what they want to hear (or what the performers/conductors who do take prisoners think the audience wants, or what they're being told it wants). Various definitions of "to take no prisoners" include "uncompromising". Googling for "takes no prisoners" in reviews of classical music performances and recordings gave several examples where I think "uncompromising" is also the intended meaning, applicable to non-aggressive, non-driven music as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I hear you now. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well said. That's what the last bit of that Chicago Tribune article on Slayer got at. They don't care if they're on the radio, or stay "relevant". They just want to keep making Slayer-style music. Could work for an unflinching, stoic flautist or marimba player, too, but the connotations apply better to music that somewhat feels like war and testosterone and slaughter. I'd call the gentler musicians simply "uncompromising".
As for the inherency, the same song can be adapted in many ways, depending on the performer. Richard Cheese has made a career out of pussifying and ridiculing aggressive music, while retaining the general tune and lyrics. It's actually quite nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • "Take no prisoners" is an obvious metaphor for "to go all out". Is there some further question? μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I have one. Do you really think it takes maximum effort and enthusiasm to literally take no prisoners? I think "going all out" means taking the extra time to captivate and enthrall (like "winning hearts and minds"). Much easier to just crank it up to eleven and blow everyone away. Become the loudest band in the world. You don't even have to make eye contact. Just a vulgar display of power. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
This article on Slayer paints a decent picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
I think that all that we can say is that the writer is using the metaphor of the “take no prisoners” style of music to make the reader interested in hearing the music. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that "taking no prisoners" is the polar opposite of "keeping/playing it safe", "bland (or inoffensive) music" and "middle of the road". While the distinction certainly smacks of rockism and its worship of "authenticity", I agree that it is not necessarily specific to any specific genre and just describes a performance that conveys passion, enthusiasm or conviction to the audience (sometimes described by musicians in terms of an exchange of energy). That does not necessarily mean that a "boring" performer who appears to be "going through the motions" is not truly passionate and does not truly "feel" the music personally (though one may be forgiven for the impression that the musician lacks "soul", "the spirit" or "groove", etc.), and vice versa, that a compelling musician is completely honest, mind you, these are not necessarily connected; it's probably more a question of acting: putting on an act so well (if necessary) that people don't realise that you are doing so. "Stage presence", "selling a song", "rocking an audience", "taking the world by storm", etc., is apparently a distinct skill (or talent) from the mere technical skills involved in playing an instrument. To which extent this elusive ability of engaging and exciting an audience is conducive to training and experience (like, for example, rhetorical training), and how much of it is natural (acting?) talent, is a question better asked of a practicing musician on the road.
No doubt this is a, if not the, key part of the secret of any successful musician (or performing artist in general). There is, in any case, definitely the phenomenon of "studio bands" as, after all, a studio recording offers much more occasion to "polish" the performance and many aspects and cues of the live performance are completely missing. Still, listeners not infrequently claim to be able to pick up on a "bloodlessness" or "plastic-ness" of a recording, although only when there is broad agreement about this failure to engage the audience even through a studio recording is there reason to think there is probably something objectively perceptible involved.
A case in point that this issue is as important for classical as for popular music – I recall reading an opinion piece (I think) complaining about the flood of classical musicians (especially instrumentalists) from East Asia looking for jobs in Europe who are on a high technical level but perceived to be lacking in interest for the audience; the "human robot musician" phenomenon. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I do not think it truly has anything to do with any sort of innovativity and perception of being cutting-edge, while the quality of being "edgy" is certainly often connected with it. Certainly you could play the most cookie-cutter 50's rock'n'roll or 80's thrash metal and be praised by critics who simply happen to enjoy that kind of music as long as it's done well – after all, what is more uncompromising than sticking to a style that has not been in fashion for a long time? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting thoughts, Florian. And to everyone else who helped me with this important matter. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Blimber Road[edit]

I remember Blimber Road is a place in Dickens' novel "Dombey and Son", but I forget in which chapter the place is mentioned. I need your help here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Searching inside the book finds Blimber and road (or) Road, but not together. (pp. 161, 217 and 384).   — (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The novel is available from Project Gutenberg in plain text form here. By downloading it you can search the text yourself with any tools you like, and see that while several characters in the book are named Blimber, that name never occurs followed by a capital letter without punctuation intervening, as it would in "Blimber Road", "Blimber St.", or any other such street name. -- (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Googling the phrase "Blimber Road" led me (only) to Martin Amis's Lionel Asbo - the Google Books extract here also mentions the Dickensian-sounding "Squeers Free" (a school). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]


Here is part of a poem I wrote. I seem to write most poems in this metre. I would like to know what type of metre it is.

  • We slip into the office
  • And I carefully choose my seat,
  • Another bloody meeting
  • In the awful office heat.

KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what it's called (and Metre (poetry) didn't totally work for me, but it might make sense to you), but except for the second line, it matches this oldie:
I eat my peas with honey (7 syllables)
I've done it all my life (6 instead of 8)
They do taste kind of funny (7)
But it keeps them on my knife (7)
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"Iambic trimeter", maybe? This may help too.[31]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some type of an iamb. Especially the 1st and 3rd lines are pure iambic. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Though I think it's mixed metre: 1 and 3 are iambic, 2 is anapestic, 4 is anapestic with iambic.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's ballad meter, with the "and" and "in" properly ending the first and third lines rather than beginning the second and fourth lines. Otherwise you're splitting a metrical foot across two lines. Not that that's intrinsically a bad thing to do; strictly regular form is easier to analyze, but that is hardly the first priority in writing poetry. John M Baker (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Word for low quality scientific papers[edit]

What word can be used for the type of papers/articles (usually humanitarian) which have low quality, have no or little sources, trivial conclusions, just verbose texts about nothing but pretending to be scientific, but nevertheless not pseudo-scientific in the traditional sense? This type of "science about nothing", "science for science's sake" is quite wide-spread today.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an example or two? Terms that come to mind are Pseudoscience [already mentioned] and Fringe science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Любослов means something like what is described in "How science goes wrong" (The Economist, Oct 19, 2013). See also publish or perish, though it's not covered well there. All I could think of is fluff. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"Factoid" and "Truthiness" also come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, by the way I didn't mean that article, but a different negative consequence of the publish or perish maxim, i.e. not bunk or fake or cherry-picking, but lots of words signifying nothing. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
The Sokal affair was an attempt to expose/criticise/parody the sort of writing I think you mean. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Любослов Езыкин -- Generic terms are "filler", "Curriculum Vitae fodder", "published only to bolster the author's credentials on paper towards achieving tenure" etc., but none of those are science-specific... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

—Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5)

( (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC))

Hence the Tom Lehrer comment about Gilbert and Sullivan: "Full of words and music, and signifying nothing." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Humanitarian? As opposed to vegetarian? I think you mean "humanities". Anyway, how about "aerothermology" or hot-air research? (Which is presumably a valid scientific discipline.) The Sokal affair text, by the way, is characterised as outright pseudoscience in that article. That said, the word "bunk" is probably sufficient and covers it all, including bad science – if not borderline pseudoscience – like what Quentin Atkinson has become infamous for peddling. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
We are sometimes speaking about "salami publishing" - instead of giving the whole research at once, you slice it thinner and thinner and thinner (until a reviewer writes "this salami is sliced to thin" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As with this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Stephan, I certainly hope he writes "this salami is sliced too thin", or I won't be reading any of his reviews. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC) of the errors I'm very aware of[f], and still seem to make over and over again. There must be something lo[o]se in my brain! Or English is a weird bastard of a language ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Never a truer word was spoken. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. No, the BS word is too straightforward and offending. I'd like more neutral euphemisms. It happened I was having a conversation with some guy about his "scientific" article which was not good at all, and he seemed to have no good competence (just shallow general knowledge; many ordinary RD/L-ers here know much more) in what he was writing about (in spite of his degrees and all) but I couldn't find a proper word to characterise it. At the end I decided not to use one word, I didn't name this and just said the paper was bad and shallow or like that. Nevertheless, he didn't like my very short simple critic and was very offended. He appeared to be such an arrogant person. I do not want to give his name though, sorry.
It is not about traditional pseudoscience, it is about "science-like" texts ("mimicry science", hm?). From the first look they are good but they are about nothing. Many words but no good science. I was lurking through a dictionary for scribble, twaddle, babble, etc. but no, too informal. Verbiage? Not exactly. So, probably, there is no good euphemism for that. These works are pretending to be scientific but they'd be better considered as petty amateur journalism. Like the guy above, he thinks he is smart and competent and has a degree (wow!), he writes about something he knows little about, he's sure his piece is worth something, but in reality it is nonsense and textual trash. He may even send it somewhere and get it published, because he has good connections ("science mafia"?). I have had no illusions about modern science, but frankly after that I was very disappointed about such low level of it. I don't want to and cannot call this "scientific", it should offend good "old school" scientists.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever pretends to be science but really isn't, including pure useless blather (sorry for linking to it again, but it's just such a priceless example), is by definition pseudoscience. "Mimicry science" is a good way to put it (that I have thought of before myself actually). Full of logical and rhetorical fallacies? No consistent method or even structure and purpose, let alone theoretical background? You emerge more confused after reading than before because you have no damn idea what the paper is about? Congrats, you have a pseudoscientific paper on your hands. It's not a shame for a paper to be wrong; it's much worse to be so useless to fit the characterisation of not even wrong. When even an expert doesn't understand what the hell a paper is even about or for, it's not the expert who is at fault or too stupid. See also cargo cult science, pathological science and junk science for various other flavours of pseudoscience. If the paper uses a lot of superficially impressive terminology without rhyme nor reason, perhaps the term you are looking for is technobabble? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You could also compare your colleague to Deepak Chopra if you would like to damn him with faint praise ... :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The guy is not a physician but formally of our tribe, a linguist with MA degree, who works at American university. This is why it's bad. The article is not entirely hopeless, but of very low quality, it is a bunch of well-known facts and his unsourced or badly sources fantasies. As I said it is the level of amateur journalism, it is quite worth to be published in some sort of popular general education web sites "for dummies", but not to be praised as a good scientific article. This "science" obviously can be done by any student or amateur linguist. But the guy is very proud of it, he boasted that somebody even reviewed it and gave praised responses.
Thank you for your answers anyway, it appeared to be a very interesting borderless theme.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so it's lightweight, largely trivial fluff (or worse, "everybody-knows-that"-type "commonsensical" prejudice) that isn't necessarily all wrong or even "not even wrong", but simply of a low standard and little value – even as popular science: Well-written and well-researched popular science, in fact, is extremely difficult to achieve, and hence rare and valuable (in fact, this is exactly what Wikipedia aspires to deliver, after all).
A German expression that comes to mind is Dünnbrettbohrer – not a dimwit as the translation "intellectual lightweight" I've encountered could be taken to imply, but somebody who takes the path of least resistance (not necessarily stupid, but intellectually lazy). And in your case, appears to be seriously delusional about it, and infuriatingly, even successful with this strategy – as so often, regrettably. Of course, that's what you get when specialised expertise becomes rarer and rarer and even general education declines. People's expectations and standards of quality decrease, as they are not even aware that far superior, deeper and more solidly founded work exists, and they fail to realise that serious contributions to any field of science (including popularisation of science) require damn hard work. Anything that has value requires hard work, of course. (Gee, isn't that obvious?)
Anyway, a similarity with the pseudoscientific method does exist here, don't you think? That's also what Atkinson's stuff reminds me of. Very much borderline. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for the answers. As always here, a quite simple question may lead to a very interesting discussion.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Postmodernism? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in such abstract theories but it seems "no" in the case I mentioned above. Florian explained this situation quite good.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Request for a quote in arabic script[edit]

A long time ago I read somewhere that the Quran states that each human is a universe. It is a beautiful idea. May I ask that someone shows what this quote looks like in arabic? Alternatively, if what I read long ago is not correct, please debunk the idea. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Have no idea about the Qur'an, but in quasi-western mysticism there are the concepts of Macrocosm and microcosm or "As above, so below"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you AnonMoos. I am aware of these. I am just looking for a hopefully pretty rendering in arabic script for a facebook thread. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit difficult to look for this since there isn't really a good Qur'an concordance in English (at least not online). You can search, but searching for "universe" doesn't give any results for anything like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember any such quote from reading the Quran, and indeed to me it doesn't seem like the kind of statement the Quran would make. However, it may well have escaped my memory. The best way to verify this I think would be to find a knowledgeable Muslim. There are quite a few that have memorized the entire Quran (though maybe not here on Wikipedia). - Lindert (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping that there was a knowledgeable, arab-speaking Muslim here on Wikipedia. :) I know of none where I am. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC) I have read an english version of the book, and I do not either remember it from there. It was in some other context that I read about it, much later. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't read Arabic, so I just read a translation of the Quran too. Anyway, similar thoughts are apparently present in Sufism, e.g. the Persian poet Attar of Nishapur wrote that "the heart is the dwelling place of that which is the essence of the Universe" (source), and a Sufi saying states that "the universe is a big man, and man is a little universe" (source, includes Arabic). - Lindert (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"man is a little universe" is close enough! and with a script to boot! And sourced :) Who needs the Quran. It was almost boring as the telephone catalogue anyway. Lots of repetitions too. Thank you Lindert! This will do nicely :) Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ali al-Ridha apparently says in Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah: "Do you think that you are a small body, while the greatest world has folded itself in you?" but I've never seen the Arabic; the Farsi wikipedia doesn't have much of an article on it, and the Arabic wikipedia nothing at all. Belle (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there languages talking about "saurs"?[edit]

In German, it's rather usual to use the term Saurier ("saur") as collective term for extinct, usually giant reptiles like dinosaurs, ichtyosaurs, pterosaurs etc. The borders of the term are not clearly defined, it might also include early amphibians. Is such a term also usual in other languages? --KnightMove (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In the original Greek, Σαυρα or Σαυρος means "lizard"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
French has "les sauriens" (or "Sauria"), Italian has "i Sauri" (or "Sauria"), and Spanish has "los saurios" (or "Sauria"). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The French link is: "les sauriens" (the one given by Sluzzelin refers to Saura a Norwegian village, a typo...). But, in French "les sauriens" is a suborder (which is a subject of controversy) that contains lizards, not dinosaurs. However some people use the phrase "grands sauriens" to refer to what the OP call "giant reptiles". The phrase is not used by scientists nowdays. A Google search gives a lot of references to Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire who wrote Recherches sur de grands sauriens trouvés à l'état fossile vers les confins maritimes de la basse normandie, attribués d'abord au crocodile, puis déterminés sous les noms de téléosaurus et sténéosaurus. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Saurian μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Pronunciation of Polish surname[edit]

Does anyone here know how to pronounce the Polish (I assume) surname "Sowiak"? It was a family name way back, but as my mother was deaf I've never known how it was pronounced. Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Polish pronunciation: [ˈsɔvʲak], close to SOV-yahk. It must mean "a male owl".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I bow to Luboslov in all things Slavic and his answer is most likely the correct one, but I'm also wondering if that is indeed a Polish name or an Anglicization of a Polish name? Could it be an Anglicization of Żywiec (in which case the Polish pronunciation would be something like [ˈʐɨvjɛt͡s]).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I know of a singer named Oksana Sowiak, and there appears to be no anglicisation involved in her name. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not an expert of Polish surnames, but it's 100% Polish [32][33] [34]. It looks very rare though. I'm sure, they are all relatives, and Nelly can find them in Poland. If I were of Polish origin I'd also learn the language of my Polish ancestors, languages are always interesting. The question above is of 101 level. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, and especially Luboslov for his expert advice. Interestingly enough, it looks as if there are no Sowiaks left in the area my grandmother was from. Given the circumstances that's not surprising, but I didn't know how rare the name was. As for Anglicization...she immigrated at Quebec City, so I'm not sure if that was an issue. Thanks again. --NellieBly (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might be Jewish. Then they rather came from Ukraine. Сов’як/Soviak is quite wide-spread surname there. Pronounced: [sɔvˈjak] (like above but the stress is on the last syllable).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See [35] for a geographic distribution of people with this surname in Poland. — Kpalion(talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Based out of?[edit]

Why are so many bands, musicians, record companies and other popular music industry entities "based out of" some or other place? When did being "from" or "based in" become unfashionable in the music industry? Is there a reason why musical types prefer to be "out of" a place rather than "in" or "from" it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Get Up Offa That Thing" (and dance til you feel better...) (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Pop culture is about many things, not least an instant adherence to "cool" new expressions which almost immediately become cliches. One apparently demonstrates one's independence from parental/adult authority by becoming a slave to one's perceived peers. Some presenter once thought of encouraging an audience to "Give it up for ..." some singer, so others now follow suit. The whole pop world is saying "<someone> be like <something>". People regularly "hit up" other people. Thousands of other examples. None of these make any sense, naturally, but that's probably part of their appeal. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yo, Jacko. Sick, rad and wicked, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See also wikt:Talk:based. I'm reminded of the bastardisation of the already slightly cringe-inducing (to me at least) idiom centered around (see wikt:center#Usage notes) into based around. Brrr. Fellow grammar-nazis™ have also picked (up) on both. I can already feel the metaphorical rash blooming. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence for this premise. The matter seems to be regional variation along the lines of "it looks to be" or "different to" and not a matter of the music industry per se. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
For "regional variation" can we substitute "US Eng"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Irish translation help needed[edit]

A friend asked me to translate the James Joyce quote "When I die Dublin will be written in my heart" into Irish, it is intended to be a tattoo so I'm looking for someone better at Irish grammar than me to help out before I'm responsible for an indelible grammatical/ spelling error. Thanks. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a reference to a tattoo or to be taken literally in any way. It is a common idiom, for example "When I die, I think that "Haiti" is going to be written on my heart." Franklin D. Roosevelt, which means his heart "belongs" there..--Shantavira|feed me 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think either Biggs Pliff or FDR were actually contemplating open-heart surgery. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate suggests "Nuair a fhaighim bás, beidh Baile Átha Cliath a bheith scríofa i mo chroí." That looks reasonably good? But a bit more of a mouthful than "Is breá liom Mhamaí"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate is not a reliable source for grammatically accurate translations. Sometimes it screws up vocabulary too. There is no amount you could pay me to have an unedited Google Translate result tattooed on me. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Could I interest you in a "Bloody Mary Skull and Crossbones"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The first usage I'm familiar with is Mary I of England, ie. Bloody Mary, who said, "When I am dead and opened, you shall find 'Calais' lying in my heart". I suspect Joyce was echoing her - remember that Mary lost Calais. --NellieBly (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a "cauli lying in her heart" was the least of her worries, compared with the ovarian cysts and uterine cancer. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 22[edit]

In which Movie was this one ?[edit]

I watched 'Sea of Love' the other night, nodding off for about ten minutes around the time Al Pacino's character meets Ellen Barkin's in her shoe store, and his altercation with two young punks reveals to her he is a Cop. Now having woken up I thought I had missed an amusing scene, and looked back at the Movie at the place I missed when it repeated, but did not see it, so I thought I might have missed it anyway, as if I could have nodded off more than once - not because the Film was boring, because it certainly wasn't.

The scene I thought was in it, and perhaps indeed is, but could be in another film, is one where a Cop, and if in another film, it could still be Mr. Pacino, is waiting for someone outside a flash school where diplomats and such send their kids, and he notices another man standing about ten yards the other side of the gate, and they acknowledge each other, but within a minute, they end up pulling their guns on each other, but it turns out the other guy was a bodyguard for I think the child of an Iranian diplomat, so all is good. The actor playing him resembled the Canadian born Elias Koteas, who himself bears a slight lookalike to Robert de Niro, but I cannot recall any other movie that this was in.

Also, while I am here, I may as well ask about another movie I have made mention of twice before, to see if anyone else is now reading, or others who have heard it might now remember - a film from about 1987, where a mother finally finds her son in New York, but the drug dealer he is with has him as a slave, and will not let him go, so the Lady calls a street cop, who challenges the crook. This toe rag makes the mistake of drawing on this middle aged officer, who shoots him dead, and mother and son are reunited. It is similar to the David Ogden Stiers T V Movie The Kissing Place, but is not it. Any help ? Thanks. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Webber's name[edit]

Why did they put Robert Webber's name in a box? -- Toytoy (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys and photography[edit]

I was recently at Pori Jazz to see Pet Shop Boys live for the first time in my life. Right before the concert, the staff told us fans not to take any photographs. I noticed that people were taking photographs anyway, so I took a couple myself too. What I find curious here is that the Pet Shop Boys Facebook page states "Please share any pictures you take", which I understand to mean that the band itself is fine with fans photographing them. Does anyone know what is the situation here? Should we fans have been allowed to photograph them or not? How can I contact the band themselves or their manager to ask about this? JIP | Talk 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be the venue that was trying to enforce its own no-pictures policy. May want to start there, instead. --McDoobAU93 15:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why the venue had no problems with fans photographing other bands, such as Hurts or George Clinton & Parliament Funkadelic. JIP | Talk 15:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the Facebook page you're referring to is the band's official page? Even if it is, the band themselves probably don't manage it and have probably not authorized every single statement on it. Sounds to me like it's run by a fan or someone connected to the band who just wants as many photos as possible for their page. --Viennese Waltz 15:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the e-mail address of "Becker Brown management" on the official site of the band. I've sent a question there. JIP | Talk 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps they only meant to ban flash photography, which can blind the performers, and the message got garbled along the way. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the security staff definitely told me that any kind of photography is forbidden. But they only did that during the Pet Shop Boys concert. JIP | Talk 06:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. I am suggesting that the band said to the head of security "No flash photography", and he then relayed that to his security guards as simply "No photography". StuRat (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Their official Facebook page and their Twitter feed both regularly ask fans to post pictures from concerts. If you have access to the internet you can check these yourself. I went to see them at the Brighton Centre at the start of their current tour, and they were asking for pictures of that. Any restriction will be a venue-specific thing. I'm going to see them at the Albert Hall on Wednesday, I expect that there photography will not be permitted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lil Jon free download songs and instrumentals[edit]

Louis ("Blues Boy") Jones[edit]

My father is blues legend Louis Blues Boy Jones. I wrote a Bio and I had my cousin Phil O'Neal to submit it to Wikipedia for publication a few months ago. Phil told me that there were more questions. Please let me know what information is needed to complete my Bio for Wikipedia. I am Jones' oldest daughter LaVern. I almost have my book ready to be published about my father's life and I am truly excited. Jones, my father was an amazing entertainer in the early 1950's and 1960's. Now there is a tremendous amount of info provided on Jones' music on websites worldwide. Thank you all kindly. LaVern Jones Lemons

I added a section title. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
We generally prefer that somebody unrelated to the person in question write their article, to prevent them from only showing their positives and suppressing any negatives. I did find over 1.6 million hits on a Google search of his name, so he does appear to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. So, perhaps you could write the article, but would need to allow others to modify it, which may include adding negative info on your father, to balance out the article. Will you be OK with that ?
Also, if your father is still alive, our "Biography of Living Persons" guideline will apply, requiring sources for everything (we want to be extra careful not to make mistakes in such cases, where the person is still alive to be offended). StuRat (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Two things. IF LaVern, or anyone else, writes an article, then it's implicit in the way Wikipedia works that others may add to it or otherwise improve it. Whether the original author is ok with that or not is by the by. Nobody "owns" any Wikipedia article, and that includes the initiator.
LaVern, if anyone, such as your cousin, had started an article and it's since been deleted for whatever reason, there should still be a record of that, but I can't find any record of any article on your father, and I've looked under various variations on the name. So, I'm not sure what these "more questions" were. Can you provide any further details? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I have found this, on what I assume is a mirror site. If Ms Jones Lemons would like to leave a message for me here, I'd be happy to help. But an obvious problem may be the shortage of information in existing reliable, published sources. Incidentally, it seems that Mr Jones died in 1984, so not a WP:BLP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That site is weird. It appears to be a mirror site, and it does accord with the feedback reported by Ms Jones Lemons, however I've looked in various obvious places for the original and come up with a total blank. It doesn't show up under User:FoCuSandLeArN's contributions, or in Category:Declined AfC submissions or in Category:AfC submissions by date/12 September 2013. Normally, declined AfC submissions remain buried in the archives but still accessible to the intrepid researcher, but this one seems to have been airbrushed from our history. I wonder what's going on. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Found this. So, I assume it could be requested for undeletion and worked on further - or someone could try to create a new article based on published sources. I'd be happy to help were it not for the fact that I'm currently encased in a plaster cast that makes editing somewhat problematic! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

TV show from the 80s/early 90s[edit]

Hi everybody,

i remember a show where a ghost (probably a deceased high school student from the 60s) helped a not very popular high school student in 80s/early 90s to master his life... The ghost showed him how to paint cars, play arcade games and date girls... Basically, that's all i remember. Can anyone tell me the name of the show? Thanks alot, with greetings from Austria -- (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Teen Angel perhaps? --McDoobAU93 16:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Extract from a novel[edit]

Could somebody post the last paragraph of Book 2, Chapter VI of And The Ass Saw The Angel (Nick Cave)? My eBook copy stops at "It was of Beth aged...". I'm fairly sure that this counts as "fair use" as we're not reproducing a significant part of the work. Thanks. Incidentally, should I complain to Amazon about the missing text? Tevildo (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

""Beth" hung opposite the spiralling afflatus of "The Martyrdom" in the Ukulite tabernacle, on the north wall. It was despised by some, lauded by others. Others it simply baffled. Sardus Swift made the decision to have it hung in the tabernacle. It was of Beth aged six." --Viennese Waltz 08:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Just one word? OK, I'll let them off. :) Thanks for your help. Tevildo (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

REM's (Don't_Go_Back_To)_Rockville[edit]

According to your article, REM's (Don't_Go_Back_To)_Rockville was originally performed in a punk/thrash style, and later recorded in its more familiar country style. Where can I hear the former? Llamabr (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You would have to look for live bootlegs of the early REM. I don't think any early live recordings of the song have been officially released. --Viennese Waltz 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I did some looking for the OP on YouTube, and the oldest recording I can find is from a live show at the Raleigh Underground in 1982, which would have been two years before the song made it on an album, and it was pretty much the same country/jangle pop hybrid you find on Reckoning. If there is an earlier punk/thrash version, it predates 1982. --Jayron32 03:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

dario costello[edit]

Costello was a baroque composer of music for small ensembles. I'm looking for CD titles recordings of his music for flute and bassoon only97.123.251.17 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

His name is actually Dario Castello and you can find a list of his extant compositions here. --Jayron32 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


hey i'm was trying to download a Pokemon ROM of Pokemon white but i keep getting adobe can not read Pokemon white.ndes any help to get my computer ( windows 7 ) to allow and run the ROMS

-- thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestlinglord (talkcontribs) 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your system is already "allowed" to run ROMs. Adobe doesn't open .nds files or any other ROM file. You're trying to open a rom with a program that is not an emulator. Square peg, round hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

New topic: Ainsworth Gaming Technology[edit]

Not sure how to add a topic, so thought I'd pass along. There is another slow machine manufacturer that is not included in Wikipedia. They are "Ainsworth Gaming Technology" located here — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonVegas (talkcontribs) 14:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This question would be more appropriate for the Help Desk (WP:HD). See WP:YFA for instructions on creating an article. For an article to be accepted, the subject must be notable (see WP:N and WP:CORP), and its notability must be established with references to reliable sources (WP:RS). Note also that, if you're associated with Ainsworth Gaming Technology in any way, you shouldn't create the article yourself - see WP:COI. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

List of video games never imported to the USA?[edit]

Is there a list of NTSC-J region video games never imported to the US? I'd like to research survival horror and horror games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8051:4D60:918B:EBE3:685C:C84C (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The closest we have is:  List of Japan-exclusive video games (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Do foreign movies always have an North American/British distributor?[edit]

And do all English/Scottish movies have a North American distributor? They seem to use paramount alot...... Venustar84 (talk)

Well, define "foreign"... Also, many movies made outside of North America or the British Isles never get distributed to theatres there. So, no, not every move has a North American or British distributor. --Jayron32 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of movie directors (active today) who hate CGI[edit]

Which famous directors who are still making movies have said that they hate CGI and only use traditional special effects like puppets, models, matte painting, camera tricks, etc? I know Terence Malick didn't use CGI for his cosmic sequences in "Tree of Life" and I believe Quentin Tarantino has also forsworn CGI, which is interesting because his good friend and collaborator Robert Rodriguez seems to use nothing but CGI.-- (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer, but I bet what those directors really mean is they won't use CGI at it's current technology level. Presumably, at some point in the future, it will progress to the point where the end result will be indistinguishable from any other method. The same is true in many other fields, like digital photography versus film and digital audio versus vinyl. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You've hit upon the problem. CGI is nothing more than high-tech cartooning, and is blatantly obvious on the screen. In fact, the average "action film" looks like a video game, not like anything real. Which is presumably the point - gamers are used to those types of graphics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Forfeiting games based on misrepresentations?[edit]

I recently watched She's the Man where Viola was allowed to continue playing in her game even after she disclosed that she was not her brother Sebastian (who she had been pretending to be). Leaving aside the issue of gender, I began wondering: in real life, if such a situation were to occur, would the fact that the player misrepresented their identity (e.g. a person whose real name is John Doe playing under an alias, Richard Roe) be sufficient grounds to forfeit the game(s) that the player had participated in? (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This will depend on the rules of the game in question. Richard "Jim" Rathmann and his brother James "Dick" Rathmann come immediately to mind, and there may be other examples, but, in general, ringers are banned in any sporting competition. There's a difference, of course, between pretending to be somebody else and competing under a professional name which isn't the one on your birth certificate. Tevildo (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And not just the rules of the game itself but the rules of the organization under which the game is being held. As an example, in major league baseball, you have to be under contract, and the contract has to have been approved by MLB. Sometimes players will fudge the facts. Tony Oliva kind of assumed the identity of his younger brother. But he was a productive enough player that fibbing about his identity was ultimately no big deal. The bottom line to the OP's question would have to be whether the player in question was technically eligible to play in the game under their true identity. If not, there is indeed a risk of forfeiture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The NHL has a rule specifically addressing player eligibility. Any goal scored when the player is on the ice is void, but only if people notice a the next stoppage of play after the goal is scored. Mingmingla (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I read that rule as referring to the same stoppage in play caused by the goal being scored. -- (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Kind of like an appeal play that requires defensive vigilance, or batting out of order. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
These issues are not limited to professional sports. The American Contract Bridge League sets out these conditions (PDF, 5 pages) for its tournaments. Impersonation is not specifically addressed, but much of the first page addresses eligibility criteria based on the person's tournament history, and it says that the director in charge of an event has authority to "resolve any issue not specifically covered". It's reasonable to assume that if a player was found to be using a false identity, they would be treated as ineligible and any masterpoints they won would be forfeited. -- (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


July 23[edit]

Same location - Different cell phone experience[edit]

At my home here in Vermont, I can use my cell phone to make fairly clear calls. My plan is with Verizon. Meanwhile, if anyone with AT&T visits, they cannot make phone calls and only occasionally get text messages through. Is this simply a matter of the different technologies used by the two carriers, e.g. LTE for Verizon and whatever AT&T uses? Dismas|(talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It also depends on the coverage of each network, including the cell towers and signal strength each company controls. Depending on where you live in Vermont, the nearest AT&T cell tower may be too far away or not have enough signal strength to reach you. Verizon likes to advertise it has "America's most reliable network", and posts comparison coverage maps in the middle of this page on their web site. Other comparison maps can be found on such independent sites as . Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I hadn't really considered where the towers are. Thanks. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that Open Signal link you provide though. It shows hardly any coverage anywhere around me and yet I can get a decent 3/4G signal in most places around my house. Dismas|(talk) 05:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The quality of signal you get depends on more than just the distance to the nearest cell tower belonging to your provider though. The topography of the landscape matters too. I once owned a home that was halfway down a hillside which had a massive cell tower on the top - not 200 yards from the house. But most since most of those 200 yards were straight through solid rock, we got almost zero reception. We ended up switching carriers a couple of times before we found one that had usable signal strength. SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Camera extension tubes[edit]

I recently got a set of extension tubes for my FX-format DSLR. This is the first time I've had extension tubes. The set consists of 12, 20, and 36mm tubes. I have three lenses: 18-55mm, 18-105mm, and 55-300mm. That makes a lot of combinations.

Suppose you want to fill the frame horizontally with something that is X cm wide. How can you tell which combinations of tubes and which lens (or lenses) will allow that? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All of them might because you haven't said how far away the object is. (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally I can get any distance from the object. But I've experimented around with the combinations, and some combinations will focus on the object and some will not. I'd like to know in advance which combinations can focus. There are seven combinations of the extension tubes and three zoom lenses. So with all of the tube combinations, lens choices, the zooming in and out, the focusing ring, and changing the distance, that is a large number of combinations to try to find one that will work. How can I tell in advance a combination that will work? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Try it and find out", until you get an intuitive sense, is often not a bad approach. (Surely the first thing that you did when you got the tubes was start trying to take pictures of tiny things!) If you want a direct readout, take a few pictures of some graph paper or a ruler. "Start with the shortest or second-shortest tube" is also often a good rule of thumb. Focus at 'infinity', and approach the subject until it's in focus. Get closer while adjusting the focus until you find the closest focusing distance, or the object fills the frame the way you want it to. (Fire off a few shots before you switch to a longer extension; you can always crop if you have to.) Honestly, if you're photographing a subject that requires you to stack multiple tubes, you're probably shooting something that isn't moving very quickly, and you have time to fiddle and swap.
Bear in mind that extension tubes have proportionally less effect on longer-focal length lenses; you'll get more bang for the buck (magnification) with shorter, wider lenses. Physically long, heavy lenses can also be harder to support and manipulate around tiny subjects. Mind you, for very wide lenses the working distance may be less than zero (that is, the focal plane will be inside the lens even when the lens is focused at 'infinity'—too close!) I've done some satisfying hand-held nature work with a cheap-and-cheerful 50mm prime lens and a 20mm tube as a 'walking-around' combo.
All that said, there are online calculators that you can use. A Google search for "extension tube calculator" or similar turns up a number of them, here's one to get you started. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did take some shots when I first got the tubes. But then when I tried to take photos of something specific, I saw how hard it is to get it the right size (or even in focus). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


W/O tubes, cropped and enlarged
With tubes, slightly cropped

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Quoting: Focus at 'infinity' - it isn't easy to focus on infinity with the lenses I use now. On my old manual-focus lenses, I could turn them all the way one way and they were at infinity. They also had markers showing the focus distance, including ∞. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Google searching use of plus sign[edit]

If I was to perform the following search "word1 +word2" (ignoring the quotation marks), what function is the plus sign performing? Hack (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It means that the result must contain word2. It's described here [36], which was linked from [37], which was the result of searching for "search help" (sans quotes). CS Miller (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This page doesn't say that it must contain a word. Dismas|(talk) 08:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I'm sure it used to do that. Perhaps it biases the results to contain word2. CS Miller (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Google Search notes that the '+' was removed from Google on October 19, 2011 [38]. It presently does not seem to work as either a Boolean operator "OR" nor as a literal quotation mark so it may be treated now like a text character. A search for A+ student confirms this. (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be filtering results somehow. For example "barack +obama" (minus quotes) returns 4.6m results while "barack obama" (with quotes) returns 201m results. The numbers themselves are unimportant but it's significant that an apparently more precise search is returning more results than a plus search. Could it have something to do with adwords which are formatted with a leading plus sign? Hack (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It is filtering results, probably just as the page we linked points out. It's finding instances of people using the term "+obama" for whatever reason. And it's finding Google+ pages which contain the word "obama". Whereas your "barack obama" (with quotes) example is finding every page with those exact words in that order. Which is naturally quite a few million more than the other results. Dismas|(talk) 09:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

His / Her Majesty's Ship[edit]

In Britain, when a ship is given the "HMS" prefix, does the designation change when a King's reign changes to a Queen's (or visa-versa). For examle, would the Victorian "Her Majesty's Ship Hornblower" be referred to "His Majesty's Ship" during the Edwardian era, or would it always be referred to with its original "title"? (I need a WP:RS for this)  ~Thanks in advance, E: (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does change for ships in commission but historic vessels keep the original name, looking for a reliable source. Victory for example is still in commission so currently is Her Majesty's Ship Victory despite her age. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a moot point. Technically, the ship's title hasn't been "His/Her Majesty's Ship" since 1789 when the abbreviation "H.M.S" became simple "HMS" (ie, no longer an abbreviation). So these days, the title of the ship is just HMS - and what that stands for is unimportant to the naming of the ship. (See: Victory isn't "Her Majesty's ship, Victory", it's "HMS Victory" the name of the ship doesn't change at all. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Minor point User:SteveBaker but thats not what the page you linked to says have you a reliable reference?. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If the full title can no longer be used, nobody has seen fit to tell the folks who sit in Parliament - see HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "HOOD" AND "RE NOWN" (COLLISION) - House of Commons debate 20 February 1935 or indeed, their Lordships at the Admiralty, who no doubt arranged The Commissioning of Her Majesty's Ship Sheffield at Portsmouth on Friday, 28th February , 1975 (two examples plucked from the internet at random). I read the National Museum of the Royal Navy's note to mean that the abbreviation was first used at that date, rather than the use of the full title being prohibited thereafter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It would obviously be going too far to say it was "prohibited" - but then what terminology ever is?! But they made a clear decision to switch from the long form to just HMS - and that's what the ship is intended to be called. Anyway, if you have a better idea of how to tackle this question, let's hear it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The answer was given by MilborneOne above. It all changes on the day of accession. Also, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and everything else. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope...our OP went to the trouble to say "(I need a WP:RS for this)" - and so far, nobody has a reference for the assertions we're making. I can show that the naming of ships HAS changed - but that's only tangential to the question. I agree with pretty much everyone here that it would be crazy to keep calling a ship that was named during the reign of a king "His Majesties Ship XXX" when there is a queen on the throne...but where is the reliable source that says that? I don't see one. The best I can offer is that the NAME of the ship isn't "His/Her Majesties Ship XXX" it's "HMS XXX" - so the NAME of the ship doesn't change. What does change is what "HMS" expands out to - but that's not the name of the ship - nor has it been since 1798 or so. I have a reference for that change in the naming of ships...but you still have a layer of unreferenced interpretation going on.
So, nobody disagrees that the name (or the meaning of the name) changes with the gender of the's only logical because "His Majesties' Ship" implies that the ship is the property of the monarch - and when one monarch dies and another takes over, the new monarch inherits the navy along with all of the ships - so the name must logically change or be meaningless. But CRUCIALLY: we can't find a reference for that - and that's what we're being asked for. In most reference desk discussions, I'd say we'd answered the question - but this time, we're not done without reliable sources.
Let's stop discussing what we all pretty much agree to be true - because it's WP:OR - and try to dig out some kind of formal proof in a WP:RS. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the re-focus, Steve. My apologies for this turning out to be more difficult to pin down than expected (I won't cry for too long if it turns out to be unanswerable).   —OP (Eric): (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Steve, the expansion would of course be "His/Her Majesty's Ship", not "Majesties". It's a possessive, not a plural. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

relating to images[edit]

I am a frequent user of Wiki and I noticed something about the viewing of your images. Since you have switched to the new image viewer I have noticed that your images are now smaller. I currently run Windows 7 and found that with the new viewer I can right click to view the image. Now your images no longer have the enlargement they used to have. Have you restricted the size of all your images now?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the solution is to go into preferences | appearance and de-select the use of the image viewer. This is one of those "fast ones" that the developers pull from time to time and don't bother telling the average reader about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an enormous ruckus going on about that as we speak. There are inflammatory debates in half a dozen places. You'd think that the developers would have learned their lesson after the WYSIWYG text editor debacle...but evidently not. Fortunately, you DO have the ability to disable it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least it's being talked about. As far as learning their lesson, remember that even the smartest mule may have to be whacked over the head in order to get its attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Court Order[edit]

My university are really bad at grading, and so far they have changed my grades four times as a result of me investigating and questioning them. So, if I hadn't investigated, then I would have got a worse degree.

I want copies of my examination scripts, so that I may rigorously check the marking of them, but the University doesn't want to give them to me. The Data Protection Act 1998 doesn't let me request them, as examination scripts are an exemption (Sch. 7 para. 9).

Because of this, I want to court order them. Whilst the Data Protection Act doesn't help me, I believe that a court will appreciate my distrust in their marking, resulting from the multiple mistakes in the grading of my degree, and let me analyse them. How do I court order them?

I am not asking for legal advice, i.e. what I should do; I know the reference desk is not for that. I am asking for a reference on how to do something. I am going to get a lawyer soon regarding the whole situation, but any research and work I can do myself is a great deal of money saved.

The problem is that our court order article is US-centric, and I'm in the UK [edit: I forget the UK doesn't have the same laws; I should have said England]. I would be more than happy if anyone could assist with a link. The only help I can find from the government regarding court orders is getting a court order regarding children: . Hopefully you might be able to find a more relevant link.

Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide. (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - as you are evidently fully aware, the Reference desk has a policy of never offering legal advice - and that most certainly is what you're asking for. By recommending an article that might be relevant to your case, we're implying that this is appropriate advice for you - and we're not allowed to do that. Talk to that lawyer - we can't help you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, here we go again. No, it is not a request for legal advice. The OP is asking a strictly factual question – in (presumably) England, how does one go about getting a court order? That is a plain & simple request for information. If the OP had just asked that, without explaining why he wants to get a court order, would the question have been acceptable to you? --Viennese Waltz 08:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Viennese Waltz, yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Apologies if in what I wrote some think I gave too much information, but I did not want to waste your time and mine in receiving responses on how to get a court order for custody over children or whatever.
SteveBaker and others like you, if you do not like the question, you are more than welcome not to respond. I did try to make it clear that I am *NOT* asking for legal advice. I am not asking for recommendations or advice on a legal case; I am asking for information on how to do something. (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And how do you propose we give it to you without making a recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct of or relating to law? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:13, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Well, if he was after a court order relating to the custody of children, we could have pointed him to this page. Since he said that he wants a court order relating to obtaining information, we could point him to a page relating to that. If you can't find such a page, you can go and do something else. --Viennese Waltz 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I can recommend getting legal advice. No matter what, he'll need a lawyer eventually, so may as well start with one. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Why do you assume he'll need a lawyer? There's nothing to stop someone from applying for a court order on their own. --Viennese Waltz 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the inconveniences, costs, and possible penalties associated with doing it in the wrong way, of course. Note that many universities have legal aid clinics which are open to students, which can provide pro bono advice or connect you with appropriate experts. These clinics often have a fair bit of experience in dealing with the most common legal and quasi-judicial disputes affecting students, and may be able to counsel you on what the most likely outcomes of your case will be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Need" was probably too strong a word. But they certainly help. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
The best advice we can give is to go and see a solicitor, preferably one that specialises in education law. Yes it may be expensive - but some solicitors offer 30 minutes free legal advice, and you will get better advice in that one session than you can get from a bunch of guys (and gals) on the Internet. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their input. Particularly Viennese Waltz who got that what I was hoping for was a page relating to making a court order. I didn't want advice on whether I should make a court order, or what options I should take, I just wanted to know how to do it. I think my Union has a pro bono advice clinic, so I'll ask them how I could do it. I am aware that I can get a solicitor to do it for me, but at this stage I simply want to know how to do it.
Also, for those that can't understand the difference between factual information and advice, factual information would be: "One court orders something by writing a letter to their local court with the subject 'Court Order'." or "Court Orders are made by filling in the form available here..."; and advice would be: "I think you shouldn't court order the information, but instead informally talk to your university." or "You can court order the information by writing a letter to a court. And, I think it would be best to include a lot of detail, and word it formally. Maybe even get a friend or relative to proof-read it or you before sending it." There is a *big* difference. (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're not asking for advice on a decision, you've made up your own mind. Now you want us to recommend a course of conduct. Not "Should I do this?", but "How do I do this?" "How", like "in what manner or way?" Way, like "the course traveled from one place to another" or "a method or system that can be used to do something". If you truly can't grasp that sort of English, your odds of understanding (and using) highly precise legal writing aren't good. That's a fact. Why do you think law school takes so long, and why lawyers charge so much? It's not even easy suing an idiot, let alone an institution of knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Staying with the purely factual, then, the relevant legal term is "disclosure" (on which we do not have an article - see Discovery#Discovery in the United Kingdom for the placeholder), and the form of order required is a subpoena duces tecum. So, to answer the unambiguously answerable bit of the question, you don't want to "court order" the documents, you want to "subpoena" the university to "disclose" the documents. In order to obtain such an order, you'll need to issue legal proceedings (see claim form) against the university, and establish a cause of action for your claim. Moving away from the purely factual, you would be _very_ ill-advised to attempt to do so without taking professional advice, as mentioned repeatedly above. Tevildo (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Disclosure happens when a legal case has already been started, which underlines the impossibility of giving advice about this online. The OP may be advised to request a judicial review but this will be up to his advisers. He should contact his Students' Union immediately. They will indeed be able to get him legal support if necessary but also may be able to get the issue sorted internally without recourse to the courts. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Judicial review relates to challenging decisions of the government (or a government department), so it doesn't seem to be relevant in this case, unless universities have som special status I'm unaware of. Disclosure is generally used to obtain evidence for a specific case (e.g. to obtain sales records for a potential patent infringer), I'm not sure if it's possible to bring a case purely to get disclosure without seeking other remedies (i.e. disclosure is evidence collection, not a remedy in itself). Disclosure would happen as part of the process of most cases you could bring against the university. Make sure to talk to a lawyer, who will be able to guide you through the process, and outline the possible remedies at the end, as well as working out which actions to bring against the university. MChesterMC (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their responses. The answer from the above appears to be that it is not possible to court order the documents. Avenues such as a subpoena for disclosure might be the correct course of action. However, whether it is or not, given that the disclosure would not be for any current litigation, is unknown, and hence the process to produce such a subpoena is unknown. To discover this I will have to read some law books and consult a solicitor. Thanks for the information! (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Has Ronald McDonald ever been played by a black actor?[edit]

Has Ronald McDonald ever been played by a black actor? Thank you . YŶwechen (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly - but it's hard to tell because of all the white paint. McDonalds is not without humor - for example, HERE is an advert from McDonald's Japanese division that features a female "Ronald" - without all of the paint. So it's perfectly possible that they used a obviously black Ronald in some market or other. Also, bear in mind that this character probably shows up many thousands of times a day across the world - often at individual branches of McD's. So there must be at least a few hundreds of clown suits and hundreds - if not thousands - of "actors" (and minimum-wage fry-cooks given the job for the day!) who've donned the big red shoes. It would be pretty surprising if not one of them was a black person because that level of discrimination would probably be illegal. But finding actual evidence of that happening might be hard to find because the restaurants want to maintain the fiction that the guy interacting with your kids right now is THE Ronald McDonald. SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Beyond the US, according to List of countries with McDonald's restaurants, McDonalds is in South Africa. (Two or so other African countries but they don't seem to be ones with a high "black" population.) McDonalds unsurprisingly only appeared in South Africa after apartheid. I don't however know how common Ronald Mcdonald is in South Africa (AFAIK he isn't particularly common here in NZ). Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This one seems black. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
This site provides a list of actors who "played Ronald McDonald" with dates and such - from doing a Google Image search on their names, not one of those is black...but that list can only refer to the Ronald McDonald who appears in major events and TV adverts because the character shows up at FAR too many minor, local events for just one actor to do them this list certainly isn't definitive. SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a similar list in our article Ronald McDonald which has a few different names but confirms it's just referring to national US TV actors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The role of Krusty the Clown was once filled by Mr. Black. He didn't care enough to dress up, though, and was strictly yellow. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:02, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
I did find a comment attached to a YouTube video (sorry, hardly a great reference!) that says that McDonalds trains people to wear the Ronald costume at a special school in NewYork. The same person remarked that African Americans are actually preferred for the role because their bone structure is a closer fit for the idealized Ronald character. Sadly, it's really hard to find information about this place online because every web search turns up a bazillion references to the the Ronald McDonald charity schools - or the "Hamburger University" where managers and franchise owners are trained. But I bet that if we could find that institution, we'd be able to confirm that black actors do indeed take the role on occasions. SteveBaker (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be safe to assume "bone structure" meant something like this and "idealized Ronald" meant something like this? An offline black clown in Montreal said something of the sort to me, years ago. He wasn't Ronald, though. I have no idea what his clown or real name was, or whatever became of him. So at least your reference is better than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Buying shares[edit]

Is it better to buy shares at a high price and wait for the dividend or buy at a low price and sell when the shares increase in price ? Thank you . YŶwechen (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're equipped to give that kind of financial advice here. It's going to depend DRAMATICALLY on the business you're investing in. Some companies (Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon) don't pay dividends at clearly you wouldn't want to buy those and "wait for the dividend"! Which you should do depends on what you know about the company, what level of risk you want to take, how long you anticipate holding the shares...far too many variables. You should consult a financial expert who can assess your situation and give the advice you need. We can't do that. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you never intend to sell the shares, then it doesn't really matter at what price you buy them. But if you want to sell the shares eventually, it is obviously better not to buy them when their price is high. For an individual share, it is impossible to know whether its dividend yield will be greater than its net change in value from the time of purchase to a given future date. It is also impossible to know whether a given stock with a high price (measured, say, by its price-to-earnings ratio) with a high dividend yield will outperform a stock with a low price and a low dividend yield. For actual advice, you need to consult a professional financial advisor rather than random editors on the Reference Desk, though even the best financial advisor cannot predict the future. He or she, though, can suggest strategies to minimize the risk of loss and improve the potential for gain. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dividend income is much less risky than income from an increase in the stock price (a capital gain), but it is also much less profitable: dividend yields on the S&P500 are typically 1-3%. Returns from capital gains can be much greater; of course, you need to pick the right stock, which is either largely a crap shoot, or entirely a crap shoot, depending on how much you believe the Efficient_Market_Hypothesis is correct. Having said that, you will be lucky to beat inflation by investing for dividend yield, and as the saying goes ". . .taxes takes the rest." OldTimeNESter (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you are just talking about buying directly before or after the company pays the dividend? In general, the difference does not matter - the day the dividend is payed, the ex-dividend price of the stock is lowered by the amount of the dividend. There are always exceptions, but in general, information available to the whole market will not give you an advantage. If everyone knows that "tomorrow I will get EUR 5 dividend for the stock", then people are willing to pay about EUR 5 more today than otherwise. See efficient market hypothesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Life in 1991 in the UK[edit]

What was life like in 1991 for people in the U.K? Thank you . YŶwechen (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It varied. --Viennese Waltz 13:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
1991 in the United Kingdom gives a general idea, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:23, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
I lived in the UK in 1991 - I don't recall it being in any way special. Does our OP have some specific aspect of UK life in mind? Given the huge range of people living there with wildly different life-styles - without more direction it's an incredibly vague question! SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that people were watching television, using land lines to make phone calls, reading books, or spending time in pubs instead of using computers and mobile devices to access the internet and communicate, life wasn't really much different than it is today. (The internet existed at the time, in a more primitive form without the web, but few people had access to it other than scientists, computer geeks, and a subset of university students. Personal computers existed, but they were used mainly at work or for writing texts to send to a printer, and most were not connected to the internet. Primitive mobile devices existed as an expensive niche product, but they were not widely used.) The UK was in a fairly bad recession in 1991, and there were riots in some cities that summer connected to discrimination against ethnic minorities. But most people got up each morning, went to school or work, came home, watched television, and went to bed each night, much like today. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Another big social change in the past 23 years has been the demise of VHS and the home video rental market. I assume the concept of "getting a video and a pizza" is as archaic to today's generation as a trip to the music-hall is to ours. (I wouldn't say mobile phones were that exotic in 1991, compared to (say) 1985 - they were heavy, expensive, and inadequate of battery, but were to be commonly found attached to the ears of yuppies in the financial districts of our cities and, most notably, in our trains...) Tevildo (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite a recent change, though. My small and unremarkable town had a Video Sales & Rental Shop operating until about 3 years ago, though it was transitioning to DVDs. (I didn't have a VCR Player myself, but occasionally bought them as presents for relatives.) It's now a Pet Shop, but the numerous Charity Shops (AmE: Thrift Stores) still have a good turnover of 2nd-hand videos (as well as DVDs, of course.) However, I digress. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Marco: You're way off about the computer thing!
The UK had the ZX80 home computer in 1980, the ZX81 in 1981 and the Sinclair Spectrum in '82. The Spectrum in particular was huge as a games machine - they sold 5 million of them (which, for a country with a population of around 50 million people is a LOT!) and lots of families had them - about 20,000 games were published for that computer alone. Just about nobody used them at work because they were just awful for text entry...and the only printer that worked with it was a piece of junk, so they weren't being used for writing text. That was a games machine - pure and simple - and they were EVERYWHERE - not just with us geeks. Computer games in the form of machines like the Atari 2600 have been around in the early 1980's and were not just commonplace - but rapidly being obsoleted by "real" computers. By 1991, I had been using the Commadore Amiga for 4 or 5 years and the Atari ST for some years also. My Commodore PET, Apple ][ and Tandy TRS-80 were *way* obsolete and collecting dust! I had an IBM PC clone too - the IBM PC was already 10 years old in 1991. Games were big on all of those machines and there were *MANY* mainstream games magazines in every high street store that sold this was not just a niche thing. I didn't quite have have Internet access from home - I think that came a year or so later...but you could use a cheap modem to access "bulletin boards" and services like that did enable you to "get online", play online games, chat with people in realtime, etc. At work, we had (and used) email both within the building and to and from people in Europe and the USA via "Usenet" and the fledgeling Internet - and we could exchange documents and other files using services like Gopher (protocol) (which allows for primitive hypertext links). We also had forums and such via Usenet "news". For people who had that access, the arrival of the Internet over the next few years was more evolutionary than revolutionary. SteveBaker (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Marco on this issue, to be honest. The important words are "For people who had that access". You and I may have been among them, but being "on-line" was a very rare hobby to have back then. Computers were ubiquitous, true, but not the Internet or its equivalent. There was a question a few months ago on RD/H (about Russian nobility, as I recall) which lead to a link indicating there were only 200-odd UK internet users in 1992. I didn't believe this at first, but, on thinking about it, it doesn't sound unreasonable. But this is personal reminiscence unbacked by data. Tevildo (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
True the internet was uncommon, but gaming wasn't. I was 11 in '91, and was pretending to be characters from Space Quest, already on it's 3rd iteration with my pals. If an 11 year old was savvy enough for, that, I can't imagine what older kids were playing. SimCity was another favourite. Mingmingla (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I can recall in 1991, for some machines you still had physical discs, with copy protection that meant they wouldn't load. Didn't encounter it myself, but I recall someone recently mentioning that 1991 was when they encountered cracktros.21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No-one has mentioned so far the Sony Walkman, as popular among teenagers back then as mobile phones are now. Definitely a difference one would notice if one were to go back. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember pagers being pretty popular, and watches almost universal. Also, far fewer coffee shops, fewer food outlets in general, and less out-of-town shopping. Newspapers were much more widely read, and there was a great deal of interest in the top 40. There were many more payphones, and they were used more heavily. TV and monitor screens were generally smaller, although the CRT devices were huge. Offices were more heavily paper-based, and typewriters - including electronic typewriters - were still widespread. Rail was still nationalised, with services remarkably similar to now, but cheaper, and bus networks tended to be more extensive. In terms of society, there was slightly less ethnic diversity, and homophobia was much more prevalent. Warofdreams talk 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
For those of us who lived and worked in London, there was always the slight worry that we could be blown to pieces by Irish terrorists (see "The Troubles"). A friend in our office overslept and missed his usual train, thereby avoiding the Clapham Junction bombing in December 1991. The following April, I left a drink-up early at a pub near the office, and avoided being showered with glass when the Baltic Exchange bombing happened later that evening. A teenaged girl and two other innocent bystanders were killed. 91 people were injured. Alansplodge (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Correction, it was more likely to have been the London Bridge Station bombing of February 1992. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of technology before email, the fax machine was the popular for business use. Some people I knew had one at home too. People used to send each other jokes by fax. A none-too-bright colleague received a hoax call-up paper for the Gulf War on an official looking fax, asking him to report to the nearest barracks. He was quite taken-in until he read the details. One point was that recruits were expected to bring their own map of the Iraqi desert; "if you can't obtain one, a sheet of sandpaper will do instead". Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
And another thing... before the Sunday Trading Act 1994 we were subject to the bizarre laws which meant that generally, only small newsagents and corner shops were open on a Sunday. It was legal to buy a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips. It was legal to buy a pornographic magazine but not a Bible. This meant that everybody had to do their shopping on a Saturday. Before the Licensing Act 2003, pubs (if I remember rightly) could only open on Sunday between 12 noon and 3 pm and then from 7 to 10:30 pm. There were some counties in Wales where the pubs couldn't open at all on a Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(We need a Wikia for anecdotal social history.)

Here are my thoughts:

  • I'm suprised no-one's mentioned the whole BIG deal about going to see a musical act live, compared to downloading the youtube video.
  • Compared to now copyright infringement was at least according to PSA undertaken by dodgy market traders ("As Advertised on Crime Stoppers!") as opposed to organised crime, [citation needed]). There was still an ongoing scare about video nasties (it reached it's peak a few years later with the Bulger case). People still made 'mixtapes' and taped from the radio version of the top 40.
  • I can just about recall a series of downright creepy PIF(PSA to the US) about fire safety.
  • AIDS was still cultrally misunderstood, despite attempts by various charities to educate.
  • Gay whilst legal was not openly discussed as national issue, although I think Pride was becoming a massive event by this time.
  • There was IIRC a row about 'seedy' roms (not dissimilar to the current arguments about net porn), and about video game violence.
  • I also seem to recall a lot of fuss about British Beef and so called Mad Cow Disease.
  • The Police were still respected. although the tabloid media were not even in 1991 respected.
  • Channel 4. (And Euortrash)

(I might have more if people can prompt my memory) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Search engine question. Ignore vs. exclude[edit]

July 26[edit]

Any disproof to the conspiracy theory that companies could make products last forever but don't feel like it[edit]

People often say that companies "could" make products that last forever (this is usually said of tires, light bulbs or razor blades, etc.) but they just don't wanna. They intentionally make products that will wear out so that people will have to buy replacements. This seems like an oversimplification to me, and the laws of supply and demand would seem to suggest that if there were a demand for a tire that lasted forever and someone could produce it, that the market would dictate a price that was satisfactory to both the consumer and the producer. However, are there any articles or studies I could read that seek to disprove this conspiracy theory? A similar conspiracy theory, by the way, is that doctors and pharmaceutical companies WANT us to be sick so we can keep using their products and services.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a conspiracy theory; it's a long established and well documented business practice known as planned obsolescence. You might find that article, and the links therein, helpful.--Shantavira|feed me 06:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Only some of those examples apply. I'm not talking about Apple releasing new operating systems and new models, but I am talking about stuff that physically breaks or wears out due to regular use. In general, wouldn't a company have to have the market cornered, or at least be colluding with all its competitors in order for this strategy to work?. Otherwise a competitor who wasn't on board with the conspiracy could just make a more durable product and siphon away all the customers who were frustrated with the stuff that breaks easily.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Stuff that wears out in time for you to buy a new one has a "lifespan limiting design". The pill companies don't care if people are sick, so long as they think they are. Not enough shoppers could afford perfect tires on their wages. It's the same reason they don't buy jets. There's a demand, only so far as wanting it. Things have to be affordable to sell. Affordable stuff for poorer people is naturally cheap. If companies had to make great stuff at great cost for "the 99%", but not sell it to most of them, they'd fold and nobody would have anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
Like, for example, you don't see "planned obsolescence" in the world of, say, shoes or coats or something. I can pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of expertly made leather shoes that I *know* will last 10-15 years or I can pay a fraction of that price for shoes made out of some kind of synthetic crap that won't last a year. In this case, the consumer has a choice, and there isn't just one kind of shoe available that wears out much sooner than one would prefer. So maybe planned obsolescence works well only in certain industries? What defines these industries?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It reminds me of the saying "two can keep a secret if one of them is dead". Too many people would have to be in the know for it not to leak out eventually. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a contra-example that came to mind —but that mind-partition seems to have been reformatted. Anyway, ... I believe there is a common household product that is virtually indestructible, and everybody that wanted it already had it (and they were handed down within families, etc.), so that eventually there was no need to produce them anymore; therefore, the product was discontinued and/or the company went out of business. I thought it was Corelle, but apparently not. Farberware? —No.  Uhmmm... Corningware? Maybe; the article mentions that it was discontinued in the '90s, the brand was sold, and reintroduced in 2001. ~: (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL, your description also made me think of Le Creuset, but I'm sure that company still does a very brisk business. Their cast iron cookware is fabulously expensive, prettily designed and lasts forever. But I think the way they stay in business by continually coming out with novel shapes and colors. People probably try to collect them or something.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I am informed that Parnell were a manufacturer of washing machines in the UK in the 1950s and 60s, and their machines lasted so well the company went bust because people just weren't replacing them: and it is far cheaper to keep existing customers than it is to get new ones.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are two problems here. First, people don't want to pay more than they need for an object of limited use. If I am baking a cake and need a half-oz of lemon extract and never expect to make this cake again, I am much more likely to buy the 1-0z bottle for $.99 than the "last forever" 1-gallon bottle for $2.50. Same applies for items that go in and out of style, and so forth.
The second problem is due to accidental breakage. Nothing really lasts for ever. In this case you need a reliable measurement of average lifetime (the bulb don't wear out, but they break when the lamp is knocked over. If you can demonstrate to and convince the consumer that the cost for average lifetime is low enough (and the difference in price not too extreme) you'll get willing customers. Even then, what do I do with my great-great grandfather's collection of wear-free horsehoes, and my neverbreak 13" B/W 4:3 analog TV with the neverfade mono speakers?
For refuations of the above and other economic fallcies, see where you can download the standard college text in free PDF format. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No physical product could possibly, literally last forever - so it's always going to be some very long lifespan that we're talking about here.
A great example of manufacturers making very long lived products is light bulbs. Why are manufacturers moving over to LED bulbs that last so long that they can't adequately estimate their lifespan? They could refuse to make them and continue to make incandescants that fizzle out much sooner? Compact Disks have a longer life than old Vinyl disks because the latter are so easily damaged. Cars can be expected to routinely surpass 100,000 miles - but even 50 years ago, a car with that many miles on it was a rarity.
Other non-physical products can last forever software can (in principle) do that - except with technological progress, it becomes obsolete - and computers that can run it cease to exist.
In the end, it's about monopolies. If you have a monopoly on a product, you can indeed make a shoddy version of it that you know will have to be replaced often. However, if you have competition in the same market, then if your competitor's product lasts longer than yours, you could lose all of your sales. In those situations, the risk of saturating the market with immortal products is less than the risk of being undercut by a competitor - so increasing the life of your product makes sense.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Steve, haven't you read your own policy on answering questions? Obviously paraphrasing the person immediately before you is not forbidden by your encyclical, but aren't you at least supposed to give a reference? μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It only makes sense if buyers know that your product has a longer life expectancy. The Market for Lemons is probably the most relevant article. -- BenRG (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I have some familiarity with the history of incandescent light bulbs. There was published research from the 1880's onward showing that the longer a lightbulb was designed to last, the lower was the efficiency (or efficacy). There is a tradeoff: if a bulb provides lots of lumens (or candlepower in the older terms) at a given voltage, and you operate it at a lower voltage, it will last longer but provide less light per watt consumed (and with a more reddish hue). Drop the voltage 10% and you double the lifetime, increase the voltage 10% and you halve the lifetime, approximately. If you are obsessed with maximizing the lifetime of your incandescent bulbs, then buy 240 volt bulbs and they will provide a reddish glow at 120 volts for a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time. But you will need more bulbs, consuming more power, to provide the same illumination. It is cheaper overall to operate the bulbs at a proper voltage, for a shorter lifetime, at higher efficacy, unless you get free electricity.Today, it is supposed to be cheaper overall to replace them with LEDs, but too often people report early failure of the extremely expensive LED bulbs. Edison (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
See durable goods. Many household durable goods, like furniture or toilets, could last several generations. Other items, like glasses (either drinking glasses of optical glasses) don't really wear out, but will tend to get broken, given enough time. Items without moving parts or electronics tend to last longer.
Also, another way to make it in the company's interest to make things durable is if they offer a long warranty period. Cars with a 10 year warranty tend to be well built, and Craftsman tools, which carry a lifetime warranty, are often well built, too. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Books-A-Million (International shipping)[edit]

Does Books-A-Million ships internationally. I am looking for this book, Power Training for Sport : Plyometrics for Maximum Power Development by Tudor O. Bompa. Unfortunately, The new edition of this book is not available in except used one which I do not prefer. Please let me know. Thanks in advance.-- (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you said where you were wanting it shipped to; everywhere is international to somewhere else. You appear to be based in Bangladesh. Books-a-Million, in their Shipping Info page seems to be US and Canada Only. ISBN 9780889626294 gives a list of online bookstores and libraries, with a quicklink to the book; I can only suggest that you try each of them. Amazon Germany seem to have it, I don't know where they ship to. CS Miller (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about Plyometrics is free for you to read. (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Geography: Which Brampton, UK? A1 road (Great Britain)[edit]

A1 road (Great Britain) contains an error, it point to Brampton in Canada, as opposed to Brampton, England. I'd fix it, but there's multiple Bramptons, and I'm not sure which to link to. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Which section are you considering? If you're talking about this part "The planned A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton scheme would require a new junction at Brampton, north of which the A1 will be widened to a three-lane dual carriageway from Brampton to the Brampton Hut interchange. The new two-lane dual carriageway section of the A14 would run parallel with the A1 on this section.[32]" then it's the Brampton in Cambridgeshire. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
We have an article, Brampton Hut interchange, which is near Huntingdon. Apparently there used to be a wooden hotel building on stilts there, which was known locally "the Brampton Hut". This confirms Tammy's answer above, and the correct link is Brampton, Cambridgeshire, although our article says it's in Huntingdonshire (there's been some tinkering with county boundaries in recent decades). Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that the modern non-metropolitan district of Huntingdonshire is not identical with the historic county of the same name. Brampton is (currently) both in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, although this wasn't the case before 1 October 1984. Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - would it be possible to clarify the lead of the article to reflect that? Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've modified the text to read "Brampton is a village near Godmanchester south west of Huntingdon, in the Huntingdonshire non-metropolitan district of Cambridgeshire." Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for people that lived in the UK between (1950-1970)[edit]

This question is for anyone that has lived in the UK between 1950 to 1970. How often did you see a non-white person where you lived? In the area you lived, was there a lot of immigration ? How many immigrant kids did you go to school with? Thanks! YŶwechen (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

See Immigration to the United Kingdom since Irish independence and Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom for our relevant articles. This should (theoretically) be more reliable than the individual memories of the RD regulars. Tevildo (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but I kindly request personal memories if possible, thank you. YŶwechen (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Then you're asking the wrong people in the wrong place. Questions here are supposed to be answered with reference to other Wikipedia article or to reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I went to Hastings Grammar School from around 1955 to 1962 and I do not recall there being any non-white pupils at that time. Certainly none in my class. --rossb (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, you should ask this at Yahoo Answers or some such website, and you should refer to people as who, not that, just as you would refer to a man as he, not it. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you're going to provide incorrect advice, please also provide suitable citations supporting it. There is nothing wrong with using that for a person. See Merriam-Webster here; scroll down the page to the 4th word "that", sense 1, and read the "Usage note" below. Or if you want a British dictionary, see the Macmillan here, sense 7. -- (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I grew up in the Black Country in that timescale, and there were plenty of BAME people where I lived - Smethwick, Langley Green, Sandwell, Oldbury, West Midlands. I'm part of a local heritage project and we think the first mixed race marriage was in the 1800s in Smethwick. The ones I grew up with obviously came across as part of the recruitment drive in the Commonwealth, as spearheaded by Enoch Powell. From memory I think my primary school class was about 40% indigenous white, 15% of Eastern European heritage, 20% Indian sub-continent, 15% Afro-Caribbean. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I grew up in rural North Wales, and I can exactly date the first time I saw a non-white person in the flesh, 3rd September 1969 when I started secondary school - there was one non-white kid in my school of over 600 (who happened to be in my class), his father was a doctor at a local hospital, and the family moved back to Mumbai the next summer. A bit later there was a (Hong Kong) Chinese family who ran the local take-away, but the area was certainly not a Mecca for immigration. Back then, in that part of the country, "immigrant" usually referred to people left behind by the Second World War - mostly families established by Polish ex-soldiers, or of German and Italian POWs who didn't go home after the war, or indeed English people. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I grew up in Leytonstone in East London. During my time at primary school in the 1960s, we only had one non-white child in our class of thirty. At secondary school - starting in 1970 - I think the proportion must have grown to approaching 10 percent; they were almost exclusively from either the West Indies or the Indian subcontinent. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SVG map of Europe with country labels[edit]

Hi. I'm looking for a SVG map of Europe with country labels in the language of English. Can you help? I found a map with this information in png , and an excellent svg map with German labels.,_administrative_divisions_-_de_-_colored.svg . Any ideas? matt me (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Does [39] work or is it too busy? --Jayron32 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Too busy, I think. I want to make a quiz like this matt me (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to install an SVG Editor, such as Inkscape, remember that SVGs are text files, so a standard text editor can be used to make small changes. In the German-language map, the country labels are towards the end of the file, starting at line 26800. CS Miller (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Art style[edit]

I was re-watching my Looney Tunes DVD this evening and was struck by the different styles of background illustration they used. There's a style in particular I found striking, the one used for the exterior shots (and, to a lesser extent, the interior ones) in Deduce, You Say!. You can get a sense of it here. Limited pallet, but unusual colours, and a surprising amount of line detail. More atmospheric than most other examples of Chuck Jones's style, but he did do similar stuff in Transylvania 6-5000 and a few other places. Almost - but not quite - film noir. Is there a particular name for this style of illustration? Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks rather sloppy to me, in that the lines that should be parallel aren't drawn parallel and the perspective lines are a bit off. When I think sloppy, rather basic animation, and a limited color palette, I think The Pink Panther Show or anything by Seven Arts. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning that the backgrounds in most Jones cartoons were designed (and usually executed) by Maurice Noble, not by Jones himself. Noble used a variety of styles, depending on the situations to be depicted, as can be seen in the various "scenes" of What's Opera, Doc?, for instance. As our article says, "The graphic look of his backgrounds could vary widely from film to film; he tried to make the backdrop fit the mood of the film." Deor (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I would associate that style particularly with UPA. According to our article, limited animation seems to be the technical term for it. Tevildo (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Chuck Jones's Warner Brothers cartoons weren't examples of limited animation (the term refers to the animation of the characters, not to the backgrounds). Occasionally, the design work, as in The Dover Boys, is somewhat suggestive of the UPA style, though. Deor (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Looking for name of a type of store[edit]

For context, I'm from the US. There is a type of store that I don't know the name for. They tend to be somewhat small and have a strange and constantly changing mix of merchandise. They tend to carry things like low-end electronics, bikes, camping gear and cookware. They seem to sell whatever non-perishable items they can get a good deal on at the time. For example, I bought a Power Wheels car for my son that had clearly been a display model at a different store, and when they have a large stock of something it is often because the whole lot has damaged packaging. My local one has a furniture section at the back that I think is mainly returns from a local furniture store that aren't good enough to sell in their showroom.

Does anyone know the general term for this sort of store? Do we have an article on it? Katie R (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We'd call them "pound shops" in the UK - this term redirects to Variety store, as does "five-and-dime", which I assume is the standard US term. See also Retail#Types of retail outlets. Tevildo (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that term has become obsolete in the US, as you can't buy much of anything for 5 or 10 cents anymore. We do have lots of dollar stores, though. In the news, Dollar Tree (which really is a dollar store in that everything is a dollar or less) just bought out Family Dollar (which was a fake dollar store, where things were multiples of a dollar). Both specialize in low priced odd lots. A large portion of the goods sold there are made in China, by companies that don't quite get how to sell in the US, such as not knowing English. For example, Dollar Tree had a universal remote for $1, as long as you didn't mind the MUTE button saying METE (a button to allow you to mete out justice to the person on the screen ?). :-) StuRat (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
They are close-out or "odd lot" stores -- including such ones as Big Lots and the like. For Back to the Future fans, this was the company which ended up with a hundred DeLorean DMC-12s. Collect (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds pretty close to what I'm thinking of - Big Lots is sort of the large-scale version of it. Big Lots has much larger stores and seems to have a more consistent inventory, but they clearly work in a similar way. The stores I'm thinking of seem to focus on the $20-$200 price range, unlike the stores that variety store seems to focus on. "Odd lot" store certainly seems like a good fit, but the links/categories in the Big Lots article make me think we don't have much on that sort of store. Katie R (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I used to work at a surplus store that seems to fit your description. (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Caterpillar found in Nuneaton Warwickshire that should belong in Florida[edit]

Can anyone advise what to do with a caterpillar that looks like a Xylophanes Tersa (large, 3 inches long hairless brown six black spots three either side of head, small white tail found in a back garden in Nuneaton Warwickshire 28/7/2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Science Desk would be the best place to ask. But, to clarify, are you trying to keep the Xylophanes tersa and want to know what to feed it and how to house it ? StuRat (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
...or, are you concerned that it might be an invasive species, and that you should report it somewhere?   — (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The caterpillar you linked to is green, but you say you found a brown one, so it's probably something else. I would contact Warwickshire Wildlife Trust as they have a resident butterfly expert who can advise. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)