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



September 26[edit]

Augmented reality to make instrument flights visual?[edit]

Are any aircraft equipped with augmented reality systems that can project 3D models of the terrain or landing site onto the windshield, using instrument measurements of the craft's position and bearing, in case the pilot has to use instrument flight rules unexpectedly or without full training in IFR? NeonMerlin 18:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of. VFR pilots should carefully avoid being out alone in IFR conditions. IFR pilots create their own reality with GPS, compass and artificial horizon. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I recall such things being mentioned in a military context. This showed such things as threat 'envelopes', allowing the pilot to select a route to avoid detection and weapons. In those cases the image was projected onto a Helmet-mounted display not a windshield or Head-up display. I suppose such things usually originate with military aircraft, before moving into the civilian sector. The idea may have been usurped by the more frequent use of Drones and Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV). Helmet-mounted display may have more relevant information.
• It seems the Eurofighter Typhoon had something like your query designed for it, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the jets WP page as being in service, see BBC story from September 2012
• I found a website about the entire augmented reality topic [1] which may be of interest. And a leading company in this area is/was VSI Vision Systems International, mentioned in the BBC link above. Also see the abstract at "Augmented Reality in the Battlefield", unfortunately you have to buy the full report.
• Frequent ref. desk contributor @SteveBaker: may know more about this topic. ₪ 220 of Borg 00:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Augmented_reality#Navigation has some specific information. It seems such systems have been tested by NASA on the NASA X-38, a Crew Return Vehicle. See abstract at "Delgado, F., Altman, S., Abernathy, M., White, J. Virtual Cockpit Window for the X-38, SPIE Enhanced and Synthetic Vision 2000, Orlando Florida, Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 4023, pages 63-70. doi:10.1117/12.389361 (subscription required) ¤ 220 of Borg 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A friend of mine has a G500 with SVT that pretty much does what you're thinking. This stuff is cheap and available on the general aviation market! But having such instrumentation doesn't mean that it's acceptable to fly in to instrument meteorological conditions unless you're current and legal. Nimur (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few military aircraft use Augmented Reality (AR) of one kind or another. The Apache helicopter projects infrared images into a monocular display. (See: Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Avionics_and_targeting) As the pilot turns his head, the camera swivels around to track where he's looking. This is used for targetting - so (in essence), the pilot looks at what he wants to shoot, and pulls the trigger...that's a pretty old system.
The F-35 has a system where the output of cameras are projected into the helmet to allow the pilot to look 'through' the structure of the airplane - it's also overlaid with symbology indicating where other aircraft are. Most of that stuff is classified though - so I don't know any details.
I'm not aware of any systems that project synthetic terrain or landing information onto the helmet...although many aircraft contain enough electronics and data to make that possible. In general, pilots feel happier about seeing the real world though sensors (radar, night-vision, infra-red, etc) than viewing synthetic information, which could (and often does) contain errors.
But there are systems that require that degree of confidence - there are is a variant of the F16 (used by the Dutch Airforce) that uses synthetic terrain information to drive the "terrain following" feature of the aircraft that allows it to fly close to the speed of sound 100 feet above the ground. They do that with synthetic data to avoid broadcasting their presence with active radar. It's kinda risky though - one error in the data and they could end up flying into a mountain. (When I was working on the simulation of this, I always joked that only the Dutch (with their notoriously flat country) would go for a system like that!)
SteveBaker (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Extracting a statement of recent activity from PayPal.[edit]

I have a merchant account with PayPal and I need to write software to use their REST API to go in once per day and extract a list of payments made into that account. I can see a bunch of stuff out there on how to do this - but it looks like a steep learning curve.

Does anyone know of example code (preferably in PHP or C/C++, but I'll take what I can get) to grab account statements or to make specific requests for payment transactions? I really don't need to learn all of the details, I just need to get one, very specific, job done using it.

Surfing around to find this myself, it seems like I have to learn way more than I have time for, just to ask the right questions and understand the answers!

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this a memory leak?[edit]

I have a class that looks a little like:

And I use it like this:

std::list<className> instanceList;		//Create a container for the instances
instanceList.push_back(className());		//Create an instance

According to top, the program starts out by using about 1.1% of my memory. If I create a batch of, say, 30 className instances, it goes up to 1.3%. If I then delete them with several calls to "instanceList.pop_back()", the memory usage never goes back down. However, when I repetitively create an instance and then delete it without creating another instead (so that there are never more than 2 instances at one time), the memory usage doesn't seem to go above 1.1%.

I assume that this means that no memory leak is occuring and that the memory is just kept for further usage by the program rather than the OS. Is that correct? If that's indeed the case, is there something that can be done to free it for the OS? SphericalShape (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, and there may be nothing you can do about it. The allocator probably won't bother to release such small amounts of RAM back to the system no matter what you do. If you allocate thousands of objects, you probably will see a decrease in RAM usage when you free them. -- BenRG (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm quite mistaken, or things have evolved a lot in the recent years, UNIX processes obtain heap space via brk() and sbrk(). This is then partitioned and handed to the user code via malloc() (or new() in sissy code). In principle, the malloc-library could return this space, but only if no single part of it is still used. In practice, this is so rare that it almost never happens, and many (most?) malloc-libraries simply never bother to return that memory. The use-case would be a process that uses a lot of memory at one time, and than much less later - not impossible, but unlikely. Most long-lived processes will either find a steady-state, or keep using more memory. And reserved space that is not actually used will mostly get swapped out anyways, so there is no performance hit. For very particular memory usage patterns, the user process can always use mmap() and handle it manually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This page suggests that glibc uses both sbrk and mmap and can release memory to the system through both, though obviously only if special conditions are met. This particular program should meet those conditions since it frees everything. -- BenRG (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a good reference, and it got me to the mallopt man page. In its default configuration, glibc malloc() will use mmap() only for individual blocks greater than 128Kb. I don't think the program of the OP meets this condition. Similarly, glibc will return memory from the top of the heap if more than M_TRIM_THRESHOLD is free - this also is, by default, 128 kB. It might be interesting to use #include <malloc.h> mallopt(M_MMAP_THRESHOLD, 4); mallopt(M_TRIM_THRESHOLD, 4); in the program to see if that changes the behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I just began learning C++ and wanted to be sure I wasn't creating leaky code from the start. It's not a problem for me to have it not release the memory. I tried setting the malloc options to a few multiples of 4 and 8 just for fun -- they all seemed to release the memory, but when I was using values below 96, the reported memory usage was higher than it normally is (6.8% with the options at 4, %2.0 at 64, 1.1% at 96). SphericalShape (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Memory allocated with mmap() has to be aligned on page boundaries. So on a normal Linux system (and many other systems) every malloc() that is filled with mmap() will consume a multiple of 4Kb. I suspect that your biggest data type is (with memory management overhead) 90ish bytes, so when you go below the 96 byte limit, you suddenly use 4096 bytes where 96 would suffice. And as you lower the limit, this affects more and more of your data types. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


I am confused by the section of MMIX relating to the local register stack. It seems to be suggesting that a context switch saves registers on "the stack". I thought the registers were the stack. Using R0 through R255 as the name of the physical registers in the CPU, initially I thought $0 was R0 etc up to (say) $5 being R5. Then with a context switch I thought rO was used to now make $0 = R6, and if you now refer to $5 you will get R11. Am I wrong? The paragraph isn't clear. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

According to, §42, there are 256, 512, or 1024 registers in the internal register stack, so you are basically correct except that the registers may go up to R1023 in your notation. I improved the wording in the article. (Incidentally, "context switch" typically means a switch between threads or coroutines, not a subroutine call or return.) -- BenRG (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The document you link to is not the same as the published Fascicle, which I presume to be canon. The book explicitly says 2^8 general registers being both the local and the global ones. I find §1.4.1' on subroutines confusingly written. I think DK talks about complex stuff before he details the basic stuff - Anyway, my impression is that (somehow) the subroutine call does a context switch creating a new $0 and I think initially at least the new local registers only have the one registerallocated regardless of how many the caller had. I'm changing your 1024 in MMIX to 256. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this the Fascicle you're talking about? It discusses an internal register ring (which is what I should have called it, not a stack) on page 79. The size of the ring is called ρ. It doesn't say that ρ = 256, only that ρ is a power of 2 and ρ ≥ 256. The registers making up the ring are called l[0], ..., l[ρ-1]. If $0 through $5 are initially mapped to l[0] through l[5] and you execute a push(5), $0 through $5 will then point to l[6] through l[11]. The global registers are not stored in l. This is basically what the other source said except that this one doesn't require ρ ≤ 1024.
It's not clear to me whether an MMIX implementation is required to have this register ring at all, or whether it could just store all of the local registers in RAM and treat $n (n < rL) as a memory reference M8[rO+8n]. I don't think Knuth could have intended this Fascicle to be the primary specification of MMIX, as it's far too vague about such things. In any case, you can imagine for most purposes that the local registers are stored in RAM, except that they can be aggressively cached and that cache needn't be consistent with the cache used by ordinary load and store instructions. -- BenRG (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Mid-90s Alias software for Mac[edit]

I'm try to remember a software package I used in the mid 90s for PowerPC Macintosh. It was released by Alias (before they were Alias|Wavefront). And I think it has a 3D model of a flower on the front of the box. I think it was a 3D modeling package. Does this sound familiar to anyone? --Navstar (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Alias Systems Corporation mentions "Alias Sketch!" ... Apparently it evolved into Maya which is now under the Autodesk banner. I found this interesting history [2] that includes other possible names. El duderino (abides) 09:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How to get a bigger mouse pointer in Windows 7 ?[edit]

Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The "Extra large" pointer is still way too small. They just aren't increasing the size as fast as screen resolutions. Ideally I'd like cross-hairs that go all the way across the screen. Is there any free way to get this ? StuRat (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found a way to use a cursor larger than 32×32 pixels—when I tried selecting a larger icon in Windows 7's mouse control panel, it resized it to 32×32. However, I have to point out that human foveal resolution is around 1 minute of arc and the moon's diameter is around 30 minutes of arc, so a 32×32 cursor should be the size of a full moon even on a high-DPI display, unless you're sitting so far back that the high resolution is wasted. You might have better luck spotting 32×32 cursors that are fatter and/or distinctively colored, like these or these. Also, you could enable "Show pointer trails" or "Show location of pointer when I press the CTRL key". -- BenRG (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tried both. The pointer trails cause problems when the comp gets slow, leaving them on too long and covering the screen with them. The CTRL button works, but I often have my keyboard tucked away and it's inconvenient to pull it out every time I lose the cursor. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I'd have no problem seeing the pointer if it was white on an all black background, like the Moon in the night sky. Unfortunately, it's often more like trying to spot the Moon on a cloudy day. That is, there's lots of visual clutter on the display, like when I'm watching a movie, and the pointer seems to hide when I stop moving it, like the Moon going behind a cloud. Then, when I do move the mouse, the PC often has better things to do than waste it's time displaying the pointer. So I just keep wiggling the mouse until it finally reappears. Of course, during this time I'm wondering if the mouse came unplugged, or the pointer is somewhere on the screen and I haven't spotted it, or there's some other problem. Very frustrating. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
StuRat, what are your screen size and display resolution? I have Windows 7, bad eyesight, and bad glasses, and the extra large is plenty for me. Unless you have a really tiny screen with some huge resolution, I feel sure we can solve your problem. Btw, I'm using "Windows Inverted (extra large) (system scheme)", for maximum contrast regardless of background color. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1600×1200, or 2048×1536, on a 19-inch screen. I downloaded the cerise (color) cursor from the 2nd link above. It seems a lot better. I had the same inverted extra large cursor, and the problem seemed to be that it would disappear when not moving on certain backgrounds. The new cursor fixes that. However, it still can go almost entirely off the right side and bottom, because the hot spot is in the upper, left corner. Also the image zoom cursors (a magnifying glass with a plus or minus in it) haven't changed. But, it's a lot better than the Microsoft cursors. I'd still prefer full-screen cross-hairs, if anyone can find a way to do that. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
1366x768, 15.6" screen, 16:9 aspect ratio. If I'm using this page correctly, and assuming your aspect ratio is also 16:9, our horizontal pitches should be about the same, around 96ppi (they don't show 15.6", so I started with 17" and added a little to the resulting pitch). Ergo, our "extra large" pointers should appear about the same size. Maybe we should have started with both of us measuring our pointers with a ruler. Anyway, if you're happy, I'm happy. I don't even want to think about full-screen cross-hairs; if you can't find that, it could be because you're the only person on the planet who wants moving X and Y axes on their display at all times. Yikes. :) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I should probably explain why my vision is so poor (at times). I take my contact lenses out to let my eyes rest, and I am extremely nearsighted without them (everything beyond about 3 inches is blurry). But I find I can still use the PC, if I increase the zoom level on the window dramatically. However, the pointer is the fly in the ointment. I can't find the darned thing. If it would just increase in size in proportion to the window zoom level, that would solve my problem, but Windows won't do that. StuRat (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never worn contacts. By "let my eyes rest", are you referring to the contacts' physical contact with your eyeballs? If so, some backup prescription glasses should solve your problem. If not, I think you need a new contact prescription. Compensation for bad vision can only go so far, and then you have to fix the bad vision. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't wear glasses, or anything like jewelry or watches. They cause blisters. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried using Magnifier instead of increasing the zoom level? -- BenRG (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I use both. The magnifier really only works on my 64-bit machine, where it can magnify the entire screen. On 32-bit Windows 7, it just magnifies a portion of the screen, which is less than useless. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think full-screen magnification requires 64-bit Windows. It does seem to require that desktop compositing (Aero) be enabled. -- BenRG (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and Aero seems to require more resources than my 32-bit PC has. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, ZoomText offers the full screen cross-hairs option, presumably by running an app which captures the pointer position and draws that on top of it. However, that's not a free product. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Certification of cybersecurity[edit]

There have been many reports of data breaches and data vulnerabilities in the databases of commercial and governmental entities. Is there an organization (or are there organizations) periodically examining those entities and certifying some as cybersecure, or assigning rating scores on a scale of cybersecurity?
Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC) and 04:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommend spam killer for Windows?[edit]

My email spam killer is part of my (pay) antivirus/firewall/privacy suite. My mom has started complaining about spam, and she doesn't want to pay for what I have. So she needs a recommendation for a free (or <$30) email spam killer that will work in Windows Live Mail on Windows 7x64. I could check out online reviews, but I only trust my buds here at Wikipedia, who would never steer me wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't your email system come with it's own spam management capabilities ? You might choose the white-list option, if it has one, which will only allow emails from addresses you allow (like those you sent email to). That can block good emails, too, though, so you have to be careful to enter the addresses of every new contact and check your spam folder periodically for good mail. And set up a junk email address to give out whenever some web site insists it needs an email address to let you continue. This way all their spam will be sent there, not to your real address. You only need to check that fake address when you need to complete a registration by clicking on a link they send you (but that can be dangerous too, so be careful). StuRat (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, WLM does include some support for that, and it didn't occur to me because I'm not using it. Brain fart. We'll give it a try and see how well it works for her. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Spambayes. You may need to help set it up, but once it's up, trained and running it does a fabulous job. --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Will keep that in mind in case the built-in support doesn't do the job. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

c++ programming project[edit]

I am learning c++ on my own for some 30 days.But now I'm burning out..I need a simple project that will help me to regain my interest in programming Bibek Koiraala (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a C++ programmer, but I'm somewhat handy with Google. See if this helps.
Burnout? Try 30 years. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Install SFML and write yourself a simple game. There are C++ SFML tutorials here, e.g. this video has you coding a Breakout-type game in C++ with SFML. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 09:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that programming something that - by itself - interests you is the way to go...and for many people, writing a game is a great way to do that. You have to start to think of the language as a tool to achieve some end. Then, what interests you is to reach that end - and learning C++ becomes something that is incidental to getting there. Also, working on something like a game forces you to use all parts of the language and not to focus on one small feature at a time, as teaching examples tend to do. Perhaps not a game - but something else that interests you. A lot of people find it fun to work with something like the tiny $25 'Arduino' computer that can run small C++ programs and lets you do things like controlling motors, flashing LED's, doing robotics, home automation or whatever. Just find something that has a goal other than learning C++ - but which requires you to learn C++ in order to get there. SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Why does windows not effectively give smart "Multi-monitor" support yet?!?[edit]

Okay simple question here, but i'm not sure how complicated the answer is.

Multi-monitor environments have been out for a long time now. It is quite common to find setups that involve 2 monitors, although i know more is also possible. In all this time of multi-monitor PCs, im really surprised at Windows. I use Windows 8.1, and when i have a video game in full screen mode on monitor 1, it will tend to "Shift" over some of my windows so far that they are only half way on Monitor 2, with the other half of the window not being rendered. Also, if i go click something on monitor 2, it forces my game on monitor 1 to stop running until i click its icon again. It effectively has to choke, stop what its doing, and minimize just so a window can gain focus!

Why does fullscreen mode mess up my window placement, and why cant windows be made so that when you click things in monitor 2, a fullscreen game simply "loses focus" (and pause if the programmer of the game makes it that way), just like a windowed game? Am i missing some technical reason why this cant happen? Is there something really special about fullscreen rendering that makes interacting seamlessly with a second monitor impossible?!

Edit: I found this webpage where someone is asking the same question, with no good answer. (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know "why," you'll have to ask Microsoft. I can tell you that other popular operating systems (e.g. Linux, OSX) manage multiple displays just fine though... I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that *NIX systems have semi-interchangeable Windowing_systems, while the Windows family of OSs do not. Our article on Multi-monitor systems indicates that the graphics card can also be a limitation in some cases. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you run full-screen games on those platforms? I haven't, but I'm not sure it's any less annoying than on Windows. -- BenRG (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have run full-screen games on multi-monitor OSX, and used multi-monitor Linux for normal applications, both of which gave me no problems. I think your answer below about weird resolutions was not a problem for me because I had set the games in question to run at the appropriate full-screen resolution for the TV I was using as a secondary display. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on your symptoms, I think the game is running at a non-native resolution. When it gets focus, it changes the resolution, which also shrinks that portion of the desktop, and that's why the windows are shifting. Setting it to run at native resolution should fix that problem.
I don't know whether there's any way to prevent a fullscreen game hiding itself (and restoring the desktop) when it loses focus. I think this is a deliberate design feature, as you couldn't see whatever's on the desktop "behind" the game otherwise. When a game runs in full screen it has exclusive access to that screen and its frame buffer, which means that other windows can't appear above it. Even if the system could access the frame buffer to draw the other windows in the first place, they would disappear when the game painted over them or flicker when it swapped buffers.
The best solution is to run the game in windowed mode, which leaves the window manager in control of the display (at some cost to performance, but probably not much). Most games support this natively, though it's not always accessible through the GUI—you may have to edit a configuration file or pass a command-line parameter—and you may need a third-party tool to get rid of the window border. Borderless Gaming (latest release here) looks like it might work well, but I have no experience with it. -- BenRG (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Suppress tap-to-click on Elan touchpad (Toshiba laptop)[edit]

I have a new Toshiba laptop (Satellite C55 series) with a touchpad that is apparently either made by Elan or has an Elan driver. In Ubuntu 14.04 I was able to turn off tap-to-click quite easily, so from a hardware POV I know it can be done.

But I haven't been able to figure out how to turn it off when running Windows 8.1. If I go to Control Panel->Mouse and choose the Elan tab and the "Options" button, I see a list of items and check boxes. However, the "Tapping" item has no check box next to it, just a question mark, that when clicked vouchsafes the information that "One-Finger tapping always performs Point/Click/Select function...".

My takeaway is that, for whatever reason, Elan has chosen to make tap-to-click (possibly the worst idea in the history of pointing interfaces, or at least the worst one that survives to the present day) mandatory.

Has anyone a workaround for this situation? Is there perhaps an alternative to the Elan driver for this hardware? The driver is apparently "ETDWare PS/2_SMBus-X64". --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Try setting HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Elantech\SmartPad\Tap_Enable to 0 and logging out and back in, as suggested here. Or uninstall the Elan touchpad software and see if the default Windows driver has the option, as suggested here. -- BenRG (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much! I'll try the regkey idea, I think. The second suggestion sort of sounds as though it worked by accident (Windows found a different version of the Elan driver somewhere, or something like that, and it was three years ago). I don't know whether I would be able to get the driver re-installed if Windows didn't come up with a usable default. (Risk is somewhat limited because I mostly use Linux, but still, it's convenient to have Windows around for certain things.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! The regkey worked. Thanks, Ben. --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(By the way, I have pinged Elan Microelectronics' customer service about this rather horrible decision-or-bug as the case may be. Who knows whether the complaint will get escalated to the right people, or whether it will be taken seriously. But if enough people complain about it, perhaps something will be done.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Invalid process attach attempt[edit]

I just had an invalid process attach attempt on my Windows 8.1 computer, so after things restarted normally, I searched for the phrase and understand it well enough to know what's happened. I don't know, however, if we have an article that discusses this kind of situation. Is there something for which invalid process attach attempt would be a good redirect? Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It could redirect to Blue Screen of Death, but it's just one of many bug check codes, and a rare one at that. There's probably nothing useful you could say about it in Wikipedia except "if you figure out which kernel module caused the error and report it to the author of that module, it might help them to fix the bug." -- BenRG (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]


When I type in the edit box on Wikipedia, words which either my pc or Wikipedia thinks are misspelt get underlined in red, or sometimes silently changed to the wrong spelling. (Usually, from English to American). If I right-click on the redlined word I get offered American spellings, but the language setting (in the little box that comes up) is for United Kingdom English. So - is this my pc or is it Wikipedia doing this? And, how do I stop it? It's very annoying, especially when it silently introduces the incorrect spelling. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's neither your PC nor Wikipedia but your browser. When you right-click on a red-underlined word there should be a submenu where you can select a dictionary ("Languages" in Firefox, "Spell-checker options" in Chrome). If UK English is selected there, but you're getting US English spelling suggestions, then I'm stumped. -- BenRG (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly words have been added to the original dictionary. In many browsers, it's also possible to remove words so that spellings from the wrong version of English do not appear (though it would be quicker to revert to the original correct dictionary). It's rather annoying that each different browser on each computer I use has its own dictionary. Does anyone know a way to point them all to one dictionary so that I don't have to keep teaching each of them correct spellings? (I suspect that it's not possible because they each use a different system.) Dbfirs 07:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
For Firefox, you need to add the British English dictionary by Right-Click->Languages->Add Dictionaries. You then need to change this to the default, I think that's by |Right-Click->Languages again. CS Miller (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I use IE11, as I said, it's set to British English, and I would never have asked it to remember American spellings. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ben, that it is the browser, and it seems then that IE doesn't really support BrEng properly. It could be that the language setting you've ticked only applies to menu items and not spelling. I'd recommend searching around for information about how to change dictionary behaviours in IE11; this might help [3]. Failing that, I recommend changing to a browser that properly supports your needs. My favourites are the ones with more colour in the icon, e.g. Chrome or Firefox ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see every setting possible is to British English. I only seem to get this behaviour in the edit window on Wikipedia - not in the edit summary box, and not on other websites. I don't wish to change to another browser just for Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I can reproduce this with IE 11 on US-English Windows 7. If I make "English (United Kingdom)" my default dictionary, it still treats color as correct and colour as misspelled. Additional dictionaries can be installed from Tools → Manage add-ons → Spelling Correction, but "English" is treated as a single dictionary language that is already installed. What's really bizarre is that I can't find any mention of this bug online, except this thread (with no solution) from someone who apparently had the same problem way back in IE 9. It must work for most people, otherwise it would have been fixed by now. Are you also running a non-UK version of Windows?
I suppose you could disable that add-on and use a third-party spell-checking add-on like ieSpell. -- BenRG (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I figured it out: Wikipedia's edit box has a lang="en" attribute, and IE is treating that as en-US, overriding the dictionary choice. I don't know what to do about it, though. It seems like a bug in IE, not MediaWiki, although the spec is so vague that I'm not sure. At the least it's clearly an IE bug that "English (United Kingdom)" remains selected in the Language submenu and you can't even override it. Maybe if you report it to Microsoft they'll fix it someday. -- BenRG (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
UK version of everything on my PC as far as I can tell! I have a vague memory that plain "en" for language always means American. Anyway - thank you all for trying! DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't find anything in BCP 47 suggesting that en-US is a default. It does say that individual users could define language priority lists to be used for defaulting. But even if I make en-GB my preferred language in Internet Options → Languages, it still chooses en-US. -- BenRG (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Try Compatibility View. --  Gadget850 talk 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no difference (and I wouldn't expect one since this doesn't seem to be a backward-compatibility issue). -- BenRG (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

addition of addresses in C[edit]

its a question i was asked in an interview and about its logic.though i got the answer right but i couldnt figure the logic. the question is

void main()
    int a;
    a=0x000 + 0x050;

this code prints the value of a as 80; but for a=0x000+0x010; the value of a is 16; thanks in advance. (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are not "addresses"; they are just integers written in base 16. Normal arithmetic applies, and by using %d you asked for the output to be in base 10.
By the way, writing "void main" is an error, though it's common enough in practice that C implementations typically let you get away with it. -- (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
While the above is fully correct, it's much better stated as 'By the way, writing "void main" is an error'.  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessarily an error, it's just not strictly conforming. It is conforming if the implementation is documented as supporting it (WG14/N1124 § That said, you should never write void main because it's less portable, it may have undefined behavior on implementations that don't support it, and it's totally useless. It doesn't even save you from having to write return 0; at the end because that's unnecessary anyway ("reaching the } that terminates the main function returns a value of 0" — WG14/N1124 § (edit: That's true in C99 and C++, but not in C89. Many compilers, including gcc, still default to C89 after all these years, so you may still need to put return 0; at the end of your main function in C.) -- BenRG (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
While the above is fully correct, it's much better stated as 'By the way, writing "void main" is an error'.  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's better to explain the reasons. That's what teaching is. People tend to ignore seemingly arbitrary and unexplained rules, and for good reason, I think. -- BenRG (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Disabling save prompt in a Snow Leopard application.[edit]

It's sort of nice to have the computer remind me I haven't saved something before closing, but when I'm dealing with a bunch of files I don't want to save, it's a nuisance. Any way to disable this? I'm thinking Preview in particular. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

5 V Desktop Power Supply[edit]

I'm wanting to buy a stand-alone 5 V power supply to attach to my breadboard, and I'm not sure which one to get. Ideally, this would be a little box that I plug into the wall and into my breadboard. A quick search at Jameco lists dozens of supplies with different descriptions (and widely varying prices). I want to use this to power simple computer circuits built around processors like the Z80 or 6502, and I'm not sure if I need one of the more expensive supplies to make sure the voltage is correctly regulated. I also don't know if one of the inexpensive supplies is likely to be well-built enough to work correctly. Any suggestions are appreciated. OldTimeNESter (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


September 27[edit]

Can a hearing child speak properly if he is raised by deaf parents?[edit]

How do hearing children learn to speak when they may never have heard a word other than grunts from their parents? Do they have a hearing caretaker that provides speech training or something? And how do the parents know that their children can actually hear? (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on it: Child of deaf adult. Mingmingla (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
OR of course, but yes my cousin's husband is one such. He is much in demand as an interpreter by the police and ambulance service.
Very few children are restricted to hearing only their parents, so a child with normal hearing and deaf parents will hear plenty of talking from other people. They learn speech pretty normally that way. These days, of course, the ubiquitous television plays a role too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've heard that children's dialect/accent owes more to their peers than to their parents. (If so, in Lost it made no sense that Walt spoke American rather than Australian.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What happens to the energy produced in respiration?[edit]

What happens to the energy produced in respiration? I'm especially interested in the brain. How does the brain use energy? Where does the energy go? (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the physical process of respiration? If so, the heat produced by the muscles involved in respiration is dispersed round the body and, if it is not needed, flows to the atmosphere via perspiration etc. Our article on the brain includes a section on metabolism though it gives only an outline. The energy consumed by the brain is also largely dispersed as heat. Dbfirs 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Can the energy be converted into light for use in photosynthesis? Or otherwise converting the carbon dioxide and water back into oxygen and glucose? (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of any process within the body that could turn heat into light. The liver and kidneys do synthesise glucose, but I think they need more than just carbon dioxide and water. Dbfirs 12:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course, other plants and animals are bioluminescent, meaning they convert energy into light. For example, a firefly. However, the amount of light produced is very little, and you couldn't do photosynthesis with that tiny amount. (You can tell how much brighter sunlight is because you can't even see bioluminescence in full sunlight.) StuRat (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is the amount of light produced very little? Energy is conserved. Why can't you use the energy generated by respiration to power photosynthesis or otherwise turn the carbon dioxide and water back into glucose and oxygen? (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify the Conservation of Energy law. While the total amount of energy is the same (except for some theoretical cases where it's converted into mass), when any conversion of energy forms takes place, some of the energy is converted into heat, and heat can not be converted back into other forms of energy (although large differences in temperature can create other forms of energy, as in a Carnot engine). Most energy conversion processes are quite inefficient in this respect, so converting energy back and forth eventually gives you nothing but widely distributed waste heat. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy can never decrease in an isolated system, but is it not possible to create a system where entropy stays the same? (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically, yes, but practically, no, at least not where there's friction, resistance, etc.. An exception might be possible with superfluidity, superconductivity, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I believe there is some micro-organism that basically behaves as a plant during the daylight, using photosynthesis to produce energy, then turns into an animal at night, burning that stored energy. Does anyone remember the name ? StuRat (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by respiration. Are you asking about Respiration (physiology) or Cellular respiration? The only fuel the brain uses is glucose see [4]. The energy it gets from this is used to produce electrical energy which powers the brain's processes and the excess is lost as heat. Richerman (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as where the energy goes, much of it eventually turns into heat, which then dissipates into the person's environment. This is why we tend to be warmer than our surroundings. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Er, not really. Our bodies are designed to run at around 37°C which may be warmer or cooler than the surrounding environment. If that doesn't happen we're soon in in deep trouble. Richerman (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain further. Most people are uncomfortably hot in places that are at our body temperature (with an exception for when in water, which can dissipate body heat more quickly). The reason for this is that our normal metabolic processes create heat, and if we start out in an environment already at our target body temp, that extra heat would make us overheat, or at least sweat profusely to cool down by evaporative cooling. This is why we prefer cooler temps than our body temp, or, looking at it the other way around, "This is why we tend to be warmer than our surroundings". StuRat (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Temperatures significantly above body temperature will cause the body to absorb heat from its surroundings, and cause hyperthermia. The laws of physics are a mean bitch, and since heat cannot flow spontaneously from cooler temperatures towards warmer temperatures, people cannot maintain physiologic body temperature in an environment where the ambient temperature is above physiologic body temperature. --Jayron32 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That's true at 100% relative humidity, but evaporative cooling can allow people to survive at temps significantly above body temp, provided they have a water supply, low humidity, and perhaps some wind to help the evaporation process along. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mushrooms with holes[edit]

Drilled mushrooms.jpg

What's going on with these mushrooms? They look like someone has been drilling into the tops. They are right outside my workshop, but I don't think I am that careless! SpinningSpark 11:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Slugs? Thincat (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you observed other mushrooms like them, except without holes, in the vicinity of your workshop? Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, definitely slugs. I saw one just like that the other day with a large slug sitting on it eating away. Richerman (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change[edit]

One quick one...why hasn't this article addressed the recently published findings by the National Academy of Science, through the Federal study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in conjunction with the University of Washington?

Many people say that "Wikipedia" is left-biased, and although I defend you, it is becoming more difficult when differing scientific opinions are dismissed completely.

Thank you (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Which findings? And WP:SOFIXIT. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that recent findings haven't been added yet doesn't mean they've been dismissed - it just means they haven't been added yet. Now's your chance to add something useful to the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And I don't think people on the left wing of politics are any more likely to disbelieve that climate change is happening than those who lean towards the centre or the right are they? Richerman (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A better place to discuss this would be on the Talk page for the article at Talk:Climate change. But it would be nice if you could give us a link to this publication so that we have at least a rough idea of what you're talking about.
As you might expect, there have been a lot of contentious debates about the Climate change article - and it's currently under discretionary sanctions from the ArbCom folks (meaning that people had better behave themselves there - or retribution will be swift!). As far as I can see, nobody has yet added a reference like that to the article - so it's not like there is some kind of active suppression of this information. You'd (perhaps) have grounds for complaint if it had been inserted, and then deleted again without good cause.
Right now, I think you should carefully ensure that the article you're planning on 'addressing' meets Wikipedia's guidelines for "reliable sources", and if you're sure that it does, go ahead and change the article. If you're not 100% sure (especially given that ArbCom are watching) - then you should perhaps discuss it first on the Talk page...and, I'd strongly advise you to follow the "assume good faith" rule and not start off by accusing the people who work on that article of being biassed! That's a fairly insulting thing to say here - and the Wikipedia rule that you assume people are behaving in a nice way (until proven otherwise) is essential in this kind of matter. So it would be better to assume that the paper you're talking about simply didn't get noticed by them - or was rejected for solid reasons - rather than charging in and proclaiming bias, as you've already done here.
Ordinarily, a little slip in your assumption-of-good-faith would go unnoticed - but because that article is on a hair-trigger (and for good reason), I advise you to tread gently and to be as polite and assuming-of-good-faith as you can manage!
SteveBaker (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It may have something to do with this, although I can't see at first glance how this would would impact on the climate change article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That workshop looks quite technical to me, and at first and second glance does not contain much that would affect our current articles. I certainly found nothing that seems to conflict with my high-level understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
More to the point perhaps, the title and content suggest that if anything, info from there is more likely to lead what the OP would call a left wing bias and not demonstrate it by excluding it. I think the OP is more likely referring to [5]. My uninfotmed thoughts are 1) It was published in PNAS but as with all such articles it's simply the peer reviewed work of the authors not the findings on the NAS. (I suspected this.) 2) It's simply a single recent article, peer reviewed sure, but as with all such things on both sides, needs to be used with care compared to more established stuff from reviews or at least studys which have become well accepted etc. 3) It hasn't even been published now (although accepted) it's even more silly to get worked up about it not being currently used. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Climate change is a significant political issue along the left/right divide only in the United States so this may be a good opportunity to point out that this website is not the Yankopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

scale of climate belts[edit]

I wonder why the climate belts' scale is constant, and why it is what it is.
I mean, why one year can't the northern belt reach the equator? what prevents it?
Exx8 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1) Sunlight hits the tropics more or less straight on, while near the poles it hits at a shallow angle. This means much less light hits there, and as a result, there's much less solar heating. See insolation.
2) Ice at the poles exaggerates the above effect, by reflecting most of the little sunlight they get.
3) Heat can move around a bit, in the atmosphere and oceans. But most of the heat in the atmosphere moves around parallel to the equator. If you look at Jupiter's cloud bands, it's more visible there. The rotation of the planet causes this.
4) So, the atmosphere doesn't move much heat away from the equator, but the oceans do. See the Gulf Stream for one example. (I believe, in the absence of land, water currents would continue to move parallel to the equator, just as air currents do.)
5) The atmosphere can also be redirected, at times, by the jet stream. So, when it gets a kink in it, heat may be directed away from the equator, or cold air away from the poles. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Even in the absence of land the currents wouldn't go parallel to the equator but form cells because of the Coriolis effect. The great red spot on Jupiter is probably one of these. Dmcq (talk)
Well, the primary direction is still East-West on Jupiter, and I'm sure it would be in our oceans, too, if the path wasn't blocked. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for a camera to take photos in low light conditions without image noise[edit]

Even the most expensive and advanced digital camera still produces Image noise in low light conditions. My friend bought a $2,000 digital camera and it still has image noise in low light conditions. My question is this a physical inevitability or is it a technological limitation and with sufficiently advanced technology, cameras in the future will not have this problem? ScienceApe (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a technology/price limitation. I believe astronomers have cameras that can detect a single photon, and record them over time to build up a complete image. Noise on those would make them useless. Apparently either $2000 isn't enough, or he got ripped off. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
See (Digital camera ISO speed and exposure index) and F-number. As far as "future technology" is concerned, in theory it is a matter of recording photons hits and sorting out the signal from the noise. (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the practical example, (using current technology) presumably the expensive camera has a decent max ISO; buying a lens specifically for low light photos might be a solution (i.e.: f/1.2 lens). (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As an old film photographer who has made many interesting photos with l-o-n-g exposures in low light conditions:, I wonder if a time exposure similarly allow integration of light over a period of seconds or minutes in a digital camera? Edison (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Of course that requires a tripod and a subject that doesn't move (unless a blurry subject is desired, which often makes for an interesting photo). (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Detecting one photon at a time when there are not many photons will still give you a noisy image. There is a limit to how much information there is in the light, and you cannot get that information if it is not there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow. A telescope on Earth can be expected to get stray photons from reflections/refractions in the atmosphere, if that's what you mean. But a telescope in space shouldn't do that much, especially when looking at a very narrow speck of space. Is this the "noise" you meant ? As for the signal, if you only get one photon at a time from a distant spiral galaxy, you should eventually be able to see the spiral shape emerge, if you collect enough photons and are able to place them in the correct location. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Extremely low noise cameras already exist. The problem that has to be overcome is to reduce the amplifier noise; this requires cooling the camera to extremely low temperatures. You can then take extremely long exposures at extremely high ISO settings without much noise.
In practice, it's quite easy to eliminate the noise you get using ordinary cameras when taking long exposure pictures. What you do is you take multiple exposures with shorter exposure time instead of a single, long exposure. You then combine all the individual images, but instead of simply adding up the grey values for each pixel, you take the median. This automatically removes outliers. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to our question, expensive hardware can help, but as with other photography, or other just about anything, there's a lot more to it. Astrophotography hints at the great mental effort require to do it well. As with just about anything. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lowest possible noise for any sensor is the Poisson noise, caused by the discrete nature of light. If a certain pixel receives 100 photons, for example, the Poisson noise will be 10 photons (square root of 100), which is 10% of the signal. This limitation is imposed by the laws of mathematics, and no amount of clever engineering can defeat it. The only solution is to collect more photons, for example by having a bigger lens or bigger pixels. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As has already pointed out, you're trying to solve the wrong problem. With DSLR's there's two separate things to consider when working at a fixed shutter speed: 1) the ISO or light sensitivity, which is a function of the sensor (or of the film, in the case of older SLR's) and 2) how "fast" the lens is, ie. f-stop, or in other words how wide you can make the aperture. Obviously a wider opening (lower f-stop) lets you shoot in lower light without having to increase the ISO. At high > 3000-ish ISO no matter how good the sensor, it's still going to look noisy, although some sensors are of course better than others, it's likely in the $2000 range that your friend has purchased a camera with a full-frame sensor, so that's probably not the issue. It's not lack of light that generates the noise, it's the fact that you're increasing the sensitivity of the sensor that's the problem, since you're picking up more stray light. Basically it's a signal-to-noise problem. If you're trying to shoot in near darkness, and don't want a noisy image, either get a fast lens (f < 1.8) which can be pricey, or increase the exposure time, the later option being the more cost effective since it only requires purchasing a small tripod (and probably a remote trigger) to keep the camera stationary until the exposure is complete, that way you can shoot at a low ISO and just keep collecting light until you have an adequate exposure. Never crank the ISO higher than it needs to be, or your image will be noisy. I would suggest that the OP's friend, having just invested in a $2000 camera body should probably also read up on the fundamentals of photography. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 13:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OP's friend here. The image he is referring to is one I took of a firework on the 4th of July, with an ISO of 6400 (as it was well into night time at the time the photo was taken), a zoom lens whose F-Stop was (unfortunately) F/3.5, and a 1/640th second shutter. The noise was already controlled in the unaltered photograph (being mostly limited to the areas I didn't want the viewer to focus on), and the camera itself (A Nikon D600) had won good scores for its low noise performance even at ISOs up to that level. While the unaltered image has noise, some very basic sharpening and a touch of smoothing eradicates it, turning it into a more pleasing fine grain and produces a fine photo. Simply put, he believes "any noise is a failed photograph," even if it's grain-like noise, and despite my attempts to tell him some noise (hopefully grain as opposed to color) is inevitable in pretty much any photo you take, nothing seems to be able to sway him in the slightest. Any adjusted photo (be it even basic things like color correction) is also a "fake" photo, as it does not represent exactly what the eye sees, which is his golden standard for a good photo, and hence why any noise makes for a bad photo. That's not to say I'm not learning (still am - I think I would've tried ISO 3200 or perhaps a quicker shutter speed now), but I think that he is making the picture sound far worse than it actually is. (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I occasionally see that purist sort of view, though more often in discussion of audio recording. The problem is that every image recordation technology since daugerrotypes has been subject to inbuilt bias or limitation based on the system, the camera, and its reproduction process. All digital images are subject to some form of processing before we even get a chance to make our own manipulations, depending on what the engineers at Nikon, Canon or Sony have built into the imaging system to make it functional, particularly at high ISOs. For instance, Canon sensors are known to produce vivid reds, which can be an opportunity or a problem depending on one's goals. Anyone who's spent time in a darkroom will know that photography is highly subjective and malleable, which is where its potential for artistic effect is realized. Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why we need the International Commission on Illumination to try to standardize things as best as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: remote trigger: another work around, if time is not an issue, is to set the camera for a delayed shot (2 or 10s). If you're shooting on a tripod, it will allow the shakes of pressing the button to die down before the photograph is taken, and thus reduce / eliminate blur. I did that with my Canon EOS 60D for a candlelight only shot, and it worked perfectly. The text of the book I was photographing remained perfectly legible.13:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

People used to hold a black page or similar very close to the lens, press the shutter, wait some seconds, and then take it away very very quickly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Two things. I used to shoot on ISO800 film because I actually used to LIKE the slight grain to the resulting images, (the Fujifilm 800 in particular was pretty well known for its subtle but pleasant grain). Secondly, I was interested in night time astro photography and can say that, some, perhaps not all, but a decent portion of "noise" is NOT stray light, but in fact, caused by essentially brownian motion in the CCD. You can prove this by taking long exposures with HIGH ISO in the middle of the night, with the window shades drawn, with the lens cap on, with the camera in a heavy black garbage bag, under a heavy bed sheet. etc:) You will still get a photo with noise. Vespine (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point. You're right, I've done that with my Canon 60D. Even with the lens cap on in a shaded unlit room, there is still visible noise, so I'd have to agree that it can't be just stray light. However, CCD's are solid state, and brownian motion requires that *something* be moving diffusively in response to thermal fluctuations, so what is the "something" in this case? The only thing I can think of would be that it's light being scattered by dust, but then where does the light come from? (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Or, were you thinking that thermal fluctuations were directly triggering excitation of the CCD? In which case the relevant process would be thermal noise. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is thermal noise, which is why in professional applications where they need extremely long exposures at extremely high amplifications, they cool the sensors with liquid nitrogen or liquid helium. Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Imaging the cosmic background radiation sky to WMAP precision with a CCD must be a pain in the neck... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A low focal length (to reduce magnification) telescope is another solution. They make field flatteners too for photography with telescopes, they minify it somewhat. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry yes I accept the correction. I think I heard it once described like Brownian motion, but having just a brief look at the article it's clearly NOT Brownian motion, but thermal noise. Vespine (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Color changing material[edit]

I've recently learnt about chemical clock phenomenon and it made me wondering whether there are any solid materials that change colour overtime. (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Loads of them. Copper turns green over time, silver turns darker, iron turns rust-colored, bright colored paper and plastics tend to fade (although one pigment may fade faster, changing the color, too). On artificial plants, the greens tend to turn blue over time. And tattoos also lose their bright colors over time, leaving only greens and blues. White paper and bones/ivory tend to yellow over time, too. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Chromatophores on cuttlefish is a more interesting example. (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Timber fades or darkens over time, depending on the type of timber and conditions. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Metals turning colors would be due to oxidation, which would technically mean the material itself is changing, wouldn't it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a chemical change, yes, but not always oxidation. I'd bet that most color changes relate to some chemical change within the material itself. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oxidation is a "chemical change within the material itself." - EronTalk 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think he meant that oxidation is one possible chemical change that could occur, but there might be others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cobalt chloride in solid form changes colour quite dramatically in response to hydration from the environment. —Quondum 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and our cement basement floor turns from light gray to dark grey, depending on the humidity. However, this is a reversible change, so probably not what the OP meant. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I think everyone above is missing the point of the question. The OP did say "solid materials that change colour overtime" -- but of course chemical clock doesn't just refer to any change over time, it refers to periodic change over time. The whole point is that it reverses itself over time, and with regularity. That is why it's called a 'clock.' (Didn't anyone look at the article before responding?!) The classic example is the BZ reaction, detailed in the article. To my knowledge, none of the examples above display periodic changes over time. The key to the periodic behavior in the BZ reaction is that it is a nonlinear dynamical system and constitutes a reaction diffusion system that is an example of an excitable medium. Theoretically, you could perhaps pour out the BZ reactants into some aerogel or agar or some other solid/porous object, and it may well continue to periodically change color. I don't think you'll be able to make a true 'solid' chemical clock. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone identify this green animal?[edit]

On this Life in green BBC page all the green animals are identified except the one at the very top, the first one you see when you get to that page. At least I can't find anything. Can you tell what it is? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxybelis fulgidus (aka the green vine snake or the flatbread snake). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast. Did you get it by Googling the image? I got nothing with that at first, then once (after you'd answered here) Googling the image did give me Oxybelis fulgidus, and now again it gives me nothing. Odd. Or do you just happen to know what that snake looks like? In any case, thanks. Contact Basemetal here 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Google keeps doing it: from time to time when I Google for the image of the BBC site it finds this match and I am thus able to find out it's Oxybelis fulgidus and at other times it only returns the very BBC image I was searching for as a match and so I get nothing. And it's doing this apparently at random. I didn't know Google was so unreliable. Contact Basemetal here 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
TinEye led me to Getty Images [6]. Thanks for the question about this elegant creature! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Allergy rates across countries[edit]

Is there any significant difference between developed countries in the level of diagnosed allergies? I remember reading somewhere that the UK has much higher rates than other rich countries, but I can't find the reference and now suspect it was just a made-up factoid. (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One published study said that only a few countries have credible data on allergy rates in children. Edison (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like whether a condition is a "sensitivity" or an "allergy" is subjective. That being the case, how can you come up with a meaningful comparison when different people may use different criteria to decide ? StuRat (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It is known that indigenous people in Africa like the Hadza people have far lower allergy rates than people who live in Western countries, see e.g.. here: "One hunter-gatherer community was found to not only have a higher diversity of bacteria, but only one in 1,500 suffered from an allergy - compared with one in three in the UK.". Count Iblis (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, that would be the hygiene hypothesis, but the Q was specifically about developed countries only. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Trees shedding leaves[edit]

When deciduous trees shed their leaves in the autumn, are the outermost leaves the last leaves to fall from most species of trees?
Wavelength (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect the reverse, since the outermost leaves will get coldest first, which is what I think triggers them to change colors and then fall. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Going on simple observation (looking out of the window) it seems to be random. Alansplodge (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It could depend on the species. I think the birch, for example, retains some of its leaves all winter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The shedding is a form of abscission. Our article suggests that leaf abscission is indirectly due to changes in sunlight, but it's as unreferenced as StuRat's opinions above. This suggests that ethylene plays a role. According to that site, each leaf produces ethylene and, as that builds up, it eventually triggers the abscission response. Neither of those things would be influenced much by placement on the branch - in fact, if sunlight hours are the trigger and each leaf is triggered individually, it would seem that the outer leaves would be the last to go. Of course, it could also be that the plant triggers the abscission en masse and the fall of individual leaves is mostly due to chance and/or wind. An image search of autumn tree doesn't show any particular pattern to the sequence of leaf fall, though it does seem that some branches empty ahead of others. Long story short, the facts of the matter are either poorly understood or at least are not well explained on the web. If you find something good, our article could really use an expansion. Matt Deres (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


The color of an object is said to depend on the wave length. the object reflects. So if you viewed colored objects under water in which the wave length of light is different, does the color change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janfred keno (talkcontribs) 10:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How would being under water change the wavelength? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Going under water changes the spectral distribution of the light, because longer wavelengths are more strongly absorbed. That does indeed change the perception of coloured objects. During my Advanced Open Water Diver deep dive, the instructor (very dedicated and not afraid of sharks) pricked his finger to show us that blood looks black at a depth of 90 feet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Then the general answer to the OP's question is "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There is probably some confusion here. The speed of light changes in water, so the wavelength for a given frequency changes correspondingly. However our eyes, if I remember correctly, don't detect the wavelength of light, they detect its frequency, which does not change. Therefore this effect does not cause a perceptual color shift. There is, as others have already said, a color shift caused by the fact that water transmits some colors better than others. Looie496 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been a long time since Physics 101, but I thought wavelength and frequency were effectively inverses of each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
They are related that way as long as the speed is constant. When light enters a different medium (like going from air to water) its speed changes, so the wavelength is different. But as Looie says, what really matters is the frequency and that doesn't change. It's just that, because we usually think of light moving in a vacuum (at a truly constant speed) or in air (at very nearly the same speed), each frequency has a specific wavelength associated with it when the light is in air or vacuum and we happen to use that wavelength as the way of describing colors. -- (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Speed of light in water is about 25% less than in vacuum. So for the same frequency, wavelength is reduced accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Something seems wrong there, since objects don't change color when submerged in shallow water. Only deep water appears to have this effect, where enough water is present to absorb the reddish end of the spectrum. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong is that you're missing the point: the wavelength changes, but the color doesn't change because color depends on frequency, not wavelength. We just usually describe it in terms of wavelength. Of course it's different if the depth is sufficient for the fact that water is slightly blue to be noticeable, but that's because the color distribution of the incoming light is changed, not the color of a particular frequency of light. -- (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
All of the above discussion is entirely irrelevant. Your retina is what detects the color - and that lives behind the aqueous humor and various other tissues making up your eyeballs. So the speed of light in the aqueous humor (or some other tissue of the eye) is all that matters - and that doesn't change when your eyes are in the air or in the water, so no - the color doesn't change and it has nothing to do with wavelengths or frequencies or any of that other stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A photoreceptor cell detects light when a photon hits a protein in the retina and excites it to a higher state. This excitation depends on the energy of the photon, which is proportional to frequency: E=hf. That's why changing the wavelength of light doesn't change our perception of color.
By the way, color has a lot more to do with biology than it does with physics, and depends on a lot more than the wavelength of light. See this entertaining video for how human vision works. The part about color begins at 7:00. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

optics 2[edit]

how is it possible that the complete circle of a rainbow can sometimes be seen from an airplane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janfred keno (talkcontribs) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's because there is no ground to get in the way. Read Rainbow and it should answer your questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You see part of a rainbow wherever the rain or mist, the sun, and your eye make a certain specific angle. So any time you are looking away from the sun, there is a cone shape with its vertex at your eye (and the line from the sun to your eye as its axis of symmetry), and if any part of that cone has rain or mist in it then you see part of a rainbow there. (If the sunlight is intense enough to make a dobule rainbow, the geometry is the same but the specific angle for the second rainbow is different.) When you're seeing a rainbow because you're seeing the sun shining on distant rain, it cuts off at ground level because that's as far as the rain falls. But if you're above ground, you can see the rain falling below you, and yes, that means it's possible to see a full-circle rainbow like this one. You can get similar effects with the rainbow is formed by the mist from a waterfall, because you can be much closer to the mist and can see down into the gorge, as in this example and also this example. It's all a matter of how much of that cone shape the mist is in. -- (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Should there be maximum speed limit for the perception of human vision?[edit]

Human eye can’t see an object if move beyond certain speed such as

1- Spinning of spooks of wheel 2- Spinning of propellers or blades of fan 3- Firing of bullet from firearm 4- Spinning of the coloured desk which turns into white

Similarly vision becomes out of sight upon moving the cursor on the recorded events (red in color) in the selected timeline faster than the normal rate (play) of any video camera e.g. surveillance

Although all above are either spinning or travel with high speed but untraceable by the human eyes. No idea if size of an object would affect that limit or not but should there be a maximum speed limit for the perception of human eye beyond which it can’t see things in motion (just like a sound for ears) if not then how light/ photon is perceptible with its high speed (299,792,458 m/s) when our eyes simply can’t notice aforementioned motion? (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)EEK

Are the spinning spooks for Halloween ? StuRat (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by what "should" be the limit ? From an evolution POV, there would be no point in being able to spot things faster than would occur, or could be reacted to, in our evolutionary past. Much smaller animals, like insects or hummingbirds, might well benefit from faster vision, since they have the ability to move out of the way of fast predators or capture fast prey. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
... and to answer the last part of the question ... photons are invisible as they pass by (at any speed) ... they are detected only when they enter the eye and cause a stimulus to the rods and cones of the retina. Dbfirs 06:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the moon, it is travelling at 2000 mph. Greglocock (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's not absolute speed alone that matters, but how quickly a given point in your visual field moves from not having the object in it to having the object in it, to not having it there again. The direction of movement is important, and even a bullet in motion can be visible if it's moving straight away from your eye or towards your eye (duck !). The size of the object and distance also matters, and the Moon is large enough and far enough away that it takes quite some time to move noticeably. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)'s the speed that the object tracks across the retina...which is the angular velocity at the eye, not the linear velocity - so it doesn't matter how fast the moon is moving in linear velocity terms - it's the rate that it moves across the retina - which is incredibly slow. The size of the object (on the retina) also matters. In the end, it's the amount of time that the focussed light from the object remains on a particular cell in the retina that matters. When you hit the cell with light, it takes time for enough light to accumulate to cause the cell to fire - and after it's fired, it takes a while for it to recover enough to fire again. However, how much time that takes depends on the brightness of the light. A very brief (but intense) flash (like a lighting strike) is enough to trigger the perception of light - but the light reflected off of a passing bullet isn't. Notice that you can easily see 'tracer rounds' fired at the same speed as a normal bullet - that's because they are so bright that the cells in your eye get enough light to cause them to 'fire' in a very short amount of time. A regular bullet at the exact same speed and distance is invisible. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Motion perception is the relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any phenomenon in physics which can explain why 1- above mentioned spinning blades or spooks become out of sight 2- we can see through them. (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)EEK

1+2) The brain averages out the spokes and the image behind them, and you see a slight graying of the image through the spinning wheel. There's a toy with a spinning wheel like that, and if half the image is blue and half is yellow, it all averages out in the brain and you see green. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that motion does eventually blur into a smear means that there are limits. I do know that this limit varies significantly from person to person - and also across the retina. When a sequence of still images fuses into smooth motion is one indication of those limits. I used to work in flight simulation - and having flickery displays proved to be a serious impediment to people trying to learn how to do air combat in a simulator with a wide field of view display.
With the center of your eye, very few people have trouble seeing flicker in a 60Hz computer screen or TV tube - quite a lot of people see flicker in 24Hz movie theatres (they used to be called "the flicks" because they flicker). I met one guy who continued to see flicker all the way up to 90Hz. He has to use a special computer monitor that refreshes at 120Hz and he's completely unable to enjoy television or movies. I've also done experiments that show that some people still see continuous motion at 12Hz. So the limit is probably somewhere between 10 and 100Hz. However, at the edges of the retina, most people see flicker at 50Hz and quite a few at 60Hz - but very few see it above 70Hz.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Movies haven't been 24Hz for a while, the shutter closes either 2 or 3 times a frame while the film only moves once. If someone sees 100Hz flicker, they could be pissed off if they were too poor to leave the 50Hz area (the entire Europe?) and was easily annoyed. (I'm distracted watching '14 World Cup super-slow motion, is it that hard to make 4 phase lights?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Alien possum ?[edit]


Hi, white eared possums use to be Didelphis albiventris‎ species. But they live in South America. So what do you think of this guy, said to be North American but white eared and black footed unlike regular Didelphis virginiana‎ ? --Salix (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts: 1) the source for the image (link rotted away) is linked to a URL from the IESB, a Brazilian institution. 2) The data that says it's D. virginiana is linked to "Nordopossum" on the de.wikipedia. So, it's likely that whoever made that association was not a North American. 3)Coat pattern and color can vary quite a bit within species. With all that in mind, it seems that this is definitely a questionable ID, though I would also hesitate to say with certainty that it is a white-eared possum. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Alien? HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that's a white-eared opossum, not a North American opossum. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That's slightly problematic, because the picture of the white-eared opossum in our article differs in appearance from this picture, and when you check the file description, that animal is called Didelphis marsupialis. Also, a reverse search on the picture here at google gives a link to an article in Portuguese that say the animal here has a range just up to the southern border of the US, not the rang shown in our article. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The title and file description call it Didelphis marsupialis Commons:File:Didelphis marsupialis, Bahia, Brazil.jpg. But someone recently removed the cat and added it to Didelphis albiventris instead [7]. More importantly perhaps, the only reason why it's called marsupialis appears to be because that's what the source called it at the time. But if you check out the current version [8], it calls it albiventris. So it's very likely marsupialis was simply misidentification. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are hippos the most dangerous mammal in Africa?[edit]

Hi, there are a lot of websites that state that the Hippopotamus is the most dangerous mammal in Africa, and that it kills more humans than any other - but does anyone know if there is actually any evidence to support this? All I can find is an unverified figure of 2,900 - even if this is true how does it compare to, say, the crocodile or the elephant?

I did spot a paper by the FAO ( that suggests the crocodile has superseded the hippo, but, again, it doesn't provide any evidence.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks.

Last Polar Bear (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that humans are the most dangerous mammal in Africa. Wars in Africa kill hundreds of thousands humans. --Mark viking (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. According to our hippo article, humans killed ten times that many of them alone, in the mid-70s alone, in the Congo alone. So I stopped counting. We are the undisputed champions.
A crocodile is not a mammal. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:33, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
The way I've heard it (as in a comment in National Geographic a number of years ago) is that the hippo is the most dangerous animal in Africa, not just the most dangerous mammal. Obviously, humans are biologically animals, but in this context the term is used to refer to non-humans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tsetse fly has no fans? Anyway there's a lovely story of the Zulu troops of John Robert Dunn singing a song of praise with a stanza which he translated as "He is a lion. Yes, he is better than a lion—he is a hippopotamus." Scouting in South Africa Jim.henderson (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not just myth, it is basically true. Here's some hard research on at least part of Africa [9]:

. Another paper here has some general numbers, but is restricted to tourist attacks [10]. I think the claim is fairly plausible, Croc, hippo and lion seems to be the top non-human killers of humans, crocs are not mammals, and lions seem to be a bit more predictable... if you check your FAO source it probably has references to the studies they were citing. Google scholar will also help you find other hard numbers. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just a matter of qualifying the claim:
  • Most dangerous kill more than any other animal.
  • Most dangerous non-human mosquito and/or tsetse fly kill far more.
  • Most dangerous non-human think maybe the croc kills more.
  • Most dangerous non-human mammal...Yes - the hippo!!
With sufficiently careful qualification, you can get it to come out true.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
To be fair to the insects, they don't try to kill us. They just want a little blood, and happen to be infectious. Still dangerous, but not malicious or even reckless. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Being mauled by a wolf on one's way to work was a real possibility in 13th century England, too. Civilization means clearing your neighborhood of critters whoever put there Asmrulz (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that everyone knows crocodiles are dangerous, while the danger from hippos is not necessarily as obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Malaria would be another runner-up (most dangerous species), among other bacteria (viruses are out; they lack metabolism and therefore don't really count as lifeforms).
Among all multi-cellular lifeforms, only h.s.s. comes close. It would be interesting to see how close exactly, but data on that is hard to get...
"For only $2 a month, this african child can survive. Donate now!
p.s. Airing this commercial just killed 4,500 kids!"
However, the malaria plasmodium and the tsetse fly amount to something more deadly than the two species separately – the insect draws some blood and spreads bacteria via her saliva, and the plasmodium is the one that kills you. Not sure how that should count. The Black Plague was even doubly-symbiotic: Black rats are usually blamed, but it was their fleas that carried most of the bacteria.
BTW, bacteria don't qualify as "animals", so Steve Baker's "Most dangerous" list is accurate if the tsetse fly gets the kill (or even half the kill). - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Engineering a living conscious system where entropy does not increase[edit]

Is it possible to engineer a living conscious system where entropy does not increase? Sustaining a consciousness indefinitely. (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

no. --Jayron32 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy never decreases; it does not say entropy must increase. (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
There are no known systems made of real materials where entropy does not increase. --Jayron32 13:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not true. For example, the entropy of a system does not increase if the system is already at thermodynamic equilibrium. (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
True, but a system that was conscious (let alone living) would need to do work on the physical substrate of the system's mind (neurons or transistors), and the Second Law tells us that entropy must increase in this case. Even if we allow non-physical conscious systems (see substance dualism), any interaction of such a system with the physical world would involve work. If we allow non-physical conscious systems that don't interact with the physical world (see Afterlife), we're outside the realm of engineering. Tevildo (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would a conscious system need to do work on the system's brain? (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Because information processing requires work. We have an article called entropy in thermodynamics and information theory that will introduce several of the concepts. Put very simply: whatever physical representation you use to store or process information must put enough work into the system to overcome the system's tendency not to store or process that same information. If you consider a single bit, it always takes energy to store a zero- or a one- because if the system were at equilibrium, the bit could flip between the two states at random. Any machine that processes information must necessarily have an energy well and then do work to put the system state into the energy well that corresponds to a particular informational state. Nimur (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. So is the human brain always entering a higher and higher energy state as work is being done to it continuously? (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily: let's look at the simplest possible case: let us use a single bit, zero or one. We can let it represent anything we like - perhaps it is the bit that represents the thresholded value of a thermostat, and will be used to turn on a boiler. Perhaps the bit represents The Answer to some great philosophical question that the abstract thinking-machine has to compute. For our purposes, it is a single bit: it has exactly two states.
We can build an electrical circuit to store this bit: we might have a capacitor, and if the capacitor carries charge such that its potential is greater than one volt, the bit equals "1"; if the capacitor carries charge such that the potential is less than half a volt, the bit equals "0." For this machine, that bit has more energy when it is in the "1" state.
But suppose I am a clever engineer and I do not want my machine to spend any more or any less energy, no matter what answer it computes for the result of the Great Question. So instead, I can represent one single bit using two capacitors: the same threshold values apply, but in this case, if capacitor A is high, and capacitor B is low, the state is "1." If A is low and B is high, the state is "0." I build my machine such that all other combinations are invalid.
This incarnation of my machine carries the exact same amount of potential energy for state 0 and state 1. Yet, the act of calculation - i.e. when the machine operates such that it switches state from zero to one, or from one to zero - necessarily wastes energy to heat and that energy necessarily escapes the system. This is the energy lost because the entropy decreased. By placing the device in a known configuration, energy had to be spent; work had to be done on the system.
So it is not always true that the machine must be left in a higher energy configuration after each calculation. But it is true that for each informational-processing operation, work must be done. If this were not true, state 0 and state 1 would be in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the machine could freely transit between them. There is necessarily a potential energy barrier between these states, or else they are the same state.
Nimur (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You could impement such a system using a quantum computer that would simulate it in a virtual environment, see also this reply to a question explaining that entropy does not have a physical meaning. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please explain: in your quantum computer, exactly which parameter would you quantize? Most computers have already quantized every value they work with: information is quantized into discrete bits; voltages are thresholded into discrete levels; time-intervals are quantized into distinct steps through the use of electronic clock pulses. Which other parameter would you quantize, and in which way would you expect the machine to behave differently because of this change?
In the example I gave above, do you believe anything would differ if you built a machine in which state was stored by the polarity of the spin of an electron, instead of the magnitude of charge on a capacitor plate? Why would you expect this different behavior? What reliable source concurs with you?
Count Iblis, it is common to have difficulty in defining entropy. You are in good company when you find it difficult to describe the physical nature of entropy. But you are frankly incorrect if you take the claim further and state that it has no such meaning. Many scientists have defined entropy and related its interpretation to physical quantities. Here is a review-article from the Plato Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Which Entropy? This article presents several historical sources, and cites other articles that provide more detailed reviews; and proceeds with a tandem description of the qualitative properties of entropy alongside a formal mathematical definition.
Nimur (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A quantum computer is a closed system that evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, it does not decohere. This means that you can always describe the exact state it is in from the knowledge of its initial state. Thermodynamics is only really useful to give an effective description of macroscopic objects in terms only macroscopic variables. The fact that the laws of thermodynamics were discovered empirically without a sound theoretical basis, has led to entire generations being indoctrinated by wrong ideas. Most people think that concepts like heat, temperature entropy are physically fundamental quantities while in fact they are purely statistical concepts that arise when you attempt to give a closed description the dynamics of a system of say, 10^23 particles in terms of only a few macroscopic observables of that system. In general, this cannot work, but it turns out that that under suitable conditions this is possible (we call that thermal equilibrium). Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A computation can be done with an indefinitely low expenditure of energy by biasing a reversible computer but the time taken goes up as you use less and less energy. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am intrigued by this idea. Can you use an arbitrarily little amount of energy to perform a computation (at the expense of computation time)? How? (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Taking on the second part of the question - how to run consciousness indefinitely, one idea for doing that relies on that fact that although entropy increases, the universe will never be able to attain a perfect state of uniform chaos implied by that increase. It asymptotically approaches that state - but can never, finally, reach it. There is always just a little exploitable energy somewhere. So imagine you have a consciousness embodied in a computer. As entropy increases, the energy required to power the computer gets harder and harder to find. But suppose you engineer the computer to soak up available energy until it has enough to cycle the processor through one clock tick. Initially, the clock ticks a billion times a second - but as the universe becomes increasingly uniform, collecting energy gets harder and harder - and the computer runs more and more slowly. But it never becomes utterly impossible for there ever to be another clock tick. Eventually, you might have to wait a trillion years for your computer clock to advance by a single 'tick'. So from the perspective of the consciousness inside, time would seem to gradually increase in speed - things going faster and faster. But since the universe has less and less that can change, being able to 'fast-forward' over it seems like that would be OK...perhaps even advantageous. Thinking of "time" as the accumulation of energy rather than the increase in entropy is the key here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Heat death of the universe is the relevant article. I would argue that there _will_ come a time when there isn't a sufficiently large energy gradient anywhere in the universe to power the machine; the universe may not be at a state of perfect equilibrium, but the machine will have a minimum energy per tick that the universe will be incapable of supplying. There will eventually be a last tick. Genesis 3:19. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
At that point, will time cease to exist? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No; it will just cease to be an interesting or useful way to describe events, because events will be pretty homogeneous with respect to changes in time. Nimur (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
At a certain point, that question becomes more a matter of philosophy than science. Relevant articles: Arrow of time, Entropy_(arrow of time), Philosophy of space and time, temporal finitism, and of course good old Time. It's also worth mentioning that there's lots of uncertainty regarding the Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_the_universe, and I'm not sure if all of Nimur/Steve/Tevildo's comments above are compatible with all of the current theories. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I should admit at this point that my contribution is shamelessly ripped-off from Barrow (as in the Strong Anthropic Principle), but I would still consider it valid at a high level of generality. Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps some clarification is needed here. It's not possible in any meaningful sense to create an isolated complex system where entropy doesn't increase, but it is possible if the system is not isolated. In fact an animal is essentially such a system: it maintains more or less constant internal entropy, by taking in matter that has low entropy and expelling waste that has higher entropy. (This might be implicit in some of the answers above, but I can't see it stated clearly.) Looie496 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think everyone here understands that - the problem here is that our OP wants a system for "Sustaining a consciousness indefinitely." - and that implies a constant entropy system. SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are chickens really cowardly?[edit]

I haven't really spent a huge amount of time around chickens, granted, but they never seemed particularly cowardly to me, or at least not moreso than any other bird that will move away from you if you walk towards it. The adult males are certainly not cowardly by any stretch of the imagination - those guys will stand their ground. Is the chicken's yellow-bellied reputation really deserved? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw something on stackexchange or something like that saying that the expression originally had to do with the chicken's apparent lack of defence, though it was revived to have a slightly altered meaning.. ~Helicopter Llama~ 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
okay i found it ~Helicopter Llama~ 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No; no more than rats are traitorous, snakes are deceitful, or badgers are annoying. Nobody who's ever seen a Cockfighting rooster would ever think they are cowardly (google images at your own risk.) This stuff is all just an accident of history and culture, and little-to-none of it really holds up to biological scrutiny. I'm sure there's some culture where rats are seen as valorous, chickens are seen as clever, etc. Here's a collection of academic papers on the topic. It all comes down to the fact that metaphors aren't made by biologists: [11] [12] [13]. A few of those works cite Metaphors We Live By, which is a very interesting and influential book on the topic of metaphor. (I know this answer is more socio-linguistic than biological, but that's how I see it. Interestingly, there are some areas of biology where the folklore is basically correct, particularly the ones that have to do with phenology, e.g. "Plant your corn when the oak leaves are the size of a mouse's ear [14]") SemanticMantis (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I bet some of those animal reputations have a grain of truth to them. Snakes are ambush predators, for example, and that could well be described as sneaky. Rats can turn on each other in the case of scarce resources, more than, perhaps, a more tightly knit eusocial species, like bees or ants. As for badgers, there I believe "badgering" was the term applied to the way dogs hunt badgers, with a pack attacking from all sides, then each retreating when the badger turns toward them. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
With bees and ants, "each other" itself is an alien concept. One hive, one code, one mission. Somewhere between their truth and rats' is the naked mole rat. Another "sneaky" trait of some snakes is the way they weave laterally before striking straight on, without telegraphing it. More of a rapid acceleration than a snap, too. Deceptively slow. Yoel Romero does something of the same to humans. Tying it back to chickens is chicken hypnotism. There's apparently a state beyond fear and confidence. You could use it to pet them as well as behead them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
One example that does more-or-less hold up to "biological scrutiny" is "elephants never forget" (per Scientific American) (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really. There isn't remotely enough capacity in an elephant brain to literally remember absolutely everything and never forget it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, submit that to SA for peer review. Note that "more-or-less" is not synonymous with "literally remember absolutely everything" — Preceding comment not intended to be snarky, so please don't take it personally, okay?  ;) (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Chinese culture has a very different view of roosters and snakes, they give them all very positive traits, just look up Chinese zodiac for examples. Vespine (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, isn't the chicken a prominent national symbol in France? Obvious political humour about French military accomplishments and foreign policies aside, I'm assuming that the chicken must have very different connotations over there too? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The French symbol is a cock. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
We have an article on it - Gallic rooster, which includes intimations of cock-worship. DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As Mantis said, roosters are very far from cowardly. But an important factor is that roosters have spurs, which are a wicked weapon. Hens don't have spurs, and are basically defenseless, therefore timid. It's much more common to encounter hens than roosters, because you can't have more than one adult rooster in the same area without them fighting to the death. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Apparently (this has come up here before), in the wild the roosters will form a pecking order within the flock and don't actually kill each other for coming too close and/or making eye contact. The subordinate males help with flock defence and finding food. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have six roosters, only the old, weak one gets chased (somewhat gently). If they're raised in the group, they come up knowing their place. Just the strange males that cause problems. Did that once, and eventually had to cage them both for a couple of weeks beside each other till they calmed down. It'd be the same if a strange guy moved in with our women uninvited, I think.
Compared to a cat or dog, chickens are hard to pet. But as far as birds go, their inability to fly makes them easier to befriend. I can pet three of my hens and two roosters. They all come pretty close, especially for food. Also, some hens grow spurs. Has to do with a hormone rush that comes from protecting their chicks. When they're doing that, they're definitely brave and can terrify cats, even without spurs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we may have been forgetting that chicken traditionally means a young bird (especially a young domestic fowl). So, we need to stop thinking about full-grown cocks and start thinking about the behaviour of young fowl. Are they cowardly? DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't identify "Chicken" with a young bird...that would be a "chick". Adults are hens and cocks - but generically, all three are "chickens". If I see a group of such birds of mixed age and gender - I'm going to call them all "chickens". I guess there are probably regional dialect differences at play here. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Chicks are the fluffy little yellow jobs. A chick grows into a chicken, which grows into a hen or a cock (of course, most male chicks don't get the chance to grow up). Collectively they are fowl. What you buy in the supermarket labeled as chicken will be a chicken, that is to say, not fully mature. Even in my lifetime I've noticed a tendency for "chicken" to absorb the other meanings. It's also noticeable, in my experience, that there is a difference in usage between people who grew up in traditional mixed agricultural areas, and those from big towns or cities - the latter calling everything chicken. DuncanHill (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I grew up around farmers, and that's the first I hear of this. Killing a chicken for market before it's mature would just mean less meat and less money. Everything I've ever seen in stores in Canada (and on TV) was a full-grown chicken. "Fowl" is the collective term for all sorts of birds, usually chickens, ducks and geese, in a food sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary has "Chicken - the young of birds, especially of the domestic fowl: the flesh of a fowl, not always very young: a prairie chicken: a youthful person...." We used to keep hens for eggs. The ones you buy in supermarkets aren't mature - they are killed as soon as they're the right size, not when they have reached maturity. DuncanHill (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of a right-sized hen when I said mature, but I guess you're thinking of sexual maturity. Fair enough. Thanks for the reference, though people here would generally think it odd if you said a laying chicken isn't a chicken. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
"Laying chicken" sounds odd to me - chickens are for eating, hens for laying. DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Laying hen works for me, too. And yeah, there's chicken (food). Haven't heard of hen salad or hen fingers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
I think your notion of "chicken" is closer to the definition of "pullet" -- 'Females over a year old are known as hens and younger females as pullets[8] although in the egg-laying industry, a pullet becomes a hen when she begins to lay eggs at 16 to 20 weeks of age.' -- IMO, the fact that the prepared chicken we buy at the market may in fact be the bodies of very large-bred pullets is a bit of a red herring with respect to this question. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Pullet is basically the Norman-French word for a chicken. In modern French poule means fowl, poulet means a young fowl. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR here but chickens do run from people unless they are brought up being held by people often. Our first batch of chickens were often being pet and held. They'd go up to strangers as well as my wife and I. Since then we've taken a more hands off approach and they do run away at the slightest provocation. Our rooster will keep with the hens but will normally take a position between us and the hens. Dismas|(talk) 01:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Birds in general often run or fly away from humans. The ones that don't (such as the dodo) tend to go extinct. Penguins are supposedly unafraid of humans, but the frigid temperatures are their friend. If they lived in a warm climate, they might already have gone the way of the dodo or the passenger pigeon. And given what usually happens to chickens, running away is justified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Even without memories of of killer humans, I think there's an instinctual fear (in everyone) of enormous creatures. If The Friendly Giant (or a primitive chicken) came up to shake my hand and pat my back for the first time, I'd step/run away. Even after knowing him for a while, I'd stay cautious. Accidents happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
Chickens tend to be "cowardly" near animals that could kill them, which, for a chicken, is quite a lot. If people were surrounded by T. Rex's, then we would be rather cowardly, too. Of course, most birds are in the same boat, except perhaps those with few natural predators, like penguins or emus. Killdeers also seem irrationally brave, threatening any animal who comes near their nest. I suppose their ability to come close to the animal but veer off at the last minute and still stay out of range allows them to be that brave and survive. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Penguins have few natural predators? On land, perhaps, but not underwater, to judge by the article. —Quondum 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant on land. Perhaps a better example is the dodo, which had no natural predators, and hence no fear, which did them in when people came around, and they neither ran nor hid from the hunters. However, this left them with the reputation of being stupid, more than brave.StuRat (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Another brave bird for you. Found videos of this species when looking for footage of the bird that *I* know as a lapwing (which is also pretty brave in the face of a potential predator in its own right). There are loads of vids on YouTube of these Australian critters standing their ground. Note the spurs on the wings, ready to strike. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
A sandhill crane dropkicked my "playful" dog a couple of weeks ago, instead of fleeing. Apparently, even cars aren't scary enough. Here they are, chasing an alligator. But yeah, it's easy to be brave when you're tall. I haven't seen how my chickens interact with them yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
Yet here's a video of a rooster backing down a sandhill crane... :) Also a rooster backing down a great black-backed gull (also a very powerful bird) and 15+ turkeys that're trying to gang up on him. Roosters - not chicken at all. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Terminology Question[edit]

Does 'immunological response to X' mean something different than 'allergic reaction to X'?

Or are they two ways of labeling the same thing?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, not the same. See: [15]. (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
... which explains that the former is more general. An allergic reaction is one example of an immunological response. Dbfirs 07:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be correct to say that an allergic reaction is a "negative" event in that the person's immune system is overreacting to a perceived threat (allergen) which would not be a problem to the person if the immune system was able to ignore it? CBHA (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be correct, given "Allergic reactions occur when a person's immune system reacts to normally harmless substances in the environment.", from allergy. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Puppies and running water[edit]

Puppies are, in my experience, often scared of running water. Mum and I were talking about this the other day and mum suggested that perhaps there was something in the appearance of it that could trigger an instinct to avoid snakes - the wiggly, slithery motion of a small stream perhaps looking like a snake. Has there been any research into puppies' fear of running water, and into dogs' instinctive reactions to snakes? The dog we were reminiscing about later came to love water, insisting that we threw sticks for her to fetch into any body of water we came across on our walks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The usual cursory means of finding research sources hasn't found anything specific to puppies and running water (quite a bit about dealing with dog's fear of water, etc.). While speculation should be avoided (despite rumors to the contrary, "Wikipedia is not a forum"), I wonder if it might be related to the sound of running water. Perhaps its an instinctual reaction to rain storms and/or rushing water and the like? While an adult dog can usually deal with a small stream, generally a puppy could not. (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I dunno. I've both owned and seen puppies that have a lot of fun with the stream coming out of a hose. I don't think it's a species-wide thing. Justin15w (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Volcanism of Io[edit]

Earth's volcanism is powered by radioactive decay, while Io's volcanism is powered by tidal effects from Jupiter's gravity. Since energy is drawn from the Jupiter-Io system, can it cause orbital instability? If so, when will Io fall into Jupiter? Also, can humans tap Io's volcanism as a source of energy? Jayakumar RG (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The article on Volcanism doesn't say anything about radioactive decay. What's your source for that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I learnt it elsewhere, but it is mentioned in the Volcanology of Io article. The presence of magma beneath the earth's surface is because of heat generated from radioactive decay.

You might be interested in reading our article Volcanology_of_Io. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, the article is extremely informative. But it says nothing about orbital instability. Jayakumar RG (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It is for that reason that I directed you to Galilean_moons#Members yesterday, User:Jayakumar RG. The article has references for further reading. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Galilean moons also orbit in various whole number or fractional resonances. This might affect any orbital change or decay. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bumpers on motor vehicles[edit]

When and why did manufacturers of (some) motor vehicles discontinue the practice of equipping them with bumpers? I did not find answers in the article "Bumper (automobile)".
Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example make/model/year? In the USA, bumpers are required for all passenger vehicles, and there is a set of safety standards that the bumpers must meet. See e.g. here from the NHTSA [16]. Certain non-passenger vehicles are exempt from those regulations, and "some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards". So perhaps you are seeing vehicles with a sort of "disguised bumper", i.e. one which meets the regulations for bumpers but doesn't have a highly visibly separate piece of metal? SemanticMantis (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
First I heard someone mention it, and later I saw some in a printed advertisement. From a Google Image Search for "2015 ford", I found this image.
Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That car has bumpers. They are covered by a plastic panel Greglocock (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The Audi R8 is an example where the function of a "bumper" is integrated internally, with no conventional bumper visible.→ (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked this question to myself many many many years ago. The bumper article says:
Cars were equipped with bulky, massive, heavy, protruding bumpers to comply with the bumper standards of the 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s most bumpers were concealed by a painted thermoplastic fascia. The thermoplastic currently in use is a combination of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene called PC/ABS. The internal aspect of the bumper usually consists of a lightweight foam or polyurethane. This foam does not contribute to the impact absorption factor of the bumper, but serves as a filler and prevents the thermoplastic fascia from cracking upon impact.
Cars always have bumpers. They are always useful. It's just they are not concealed. They do not use beautiful and big chrome plated bumpers anymore. -- Toytoy (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Like my car

I drive a car similar to this. Where are the bumpers? Don't say behind the plastic bar because there is nothing there except the radiator. Not all cars have bumpers because bumpers are no use whatsoever in a road traffic incident above about 20 mph. Richard Avery (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all motor vehicles have bumpers because not all vehicles are classified as "passenger cars" by the NHTSA for the purposes of bumper laws. If you read my link above, you'll see that SUVs and light trucks are not regulated by the law that applies to "normal" cars. You'll also see that the intent of the laws is to prevent damage to the vehicle in low-speed collisions, and has nothing to do with passenger safety or higher speed collisions. I'm not sure, but I suspect your vehicle might not be classified as a passenger car for the purposes of bumper laws in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Spacecraft Thermal Blankets[edit]

Voyager spacecraft diagram
Voyager spacecraft

This first illustration says: "Shown Without Thermal Blankets".

I guess the thermal blankets are the black things in the second picture.

You can see the optical equipments and the spacecraft's body panels are covered by some black fabrics.

The Voyager's 3.7 meter antenna must point to the Earth all the time to keep the connection alive.

Since it is far away from Earth, the sun must be roughly in the same direction.

Except for the antenna disc and some extended parts, almost everything else is in the antenna's shadow.

This means nearly the whole spacecraft is not lit by the sun, not to mention the spacecraft is very distant from the sun most of the time.

Then why did they put thermal blankets on it? Did they use it to dissipate the heat generated by the radioisotope thermoelectric generators and all these electric-powered equipments?-- Toytoy (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Protects it from cold, I do believe. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
See multi-layer insulation. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Are there any photochromic materials that can slowly change colour under the regular indoor lighting? (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver nitrate is probably an option, but see the article for details and handling instructions. Matt Deres (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cigarette Filters[edit]

People that roll their own cigarettes often use a Cigarette filter; if someone cannot obtain more of these, how many times could they reuse the same filter in multiple rollies? (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done this once, it tastes horrible. After a few uses it starts to clog with tar. The clogging will be different with different tar-level cigarettes, and depending on how the person smokes and how much of a horrible taste they can endure. Zzubnik (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In this situation, I usually use a Roach - although it doesn't act as a filter, it keeps the tobacco out of your teeth very effectively. Tevildo (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As a former smoker, I can attest to there being nothing desirable about reusing a cigarette filter (either integrated in commercial cigarettes, or in hand rolled cigarettes). In smoking culture you may hear the term "halfsies" on occasion. This refers simply to cigarettes that have been put out after not being smoked entirely. I have even known people to relight unfinished cigarettes on more than one occasion. However the effect is one of diminishing return. As User: Zzubnik points out, these filters clog with each use and produce truly terrible tasting cigarettes.
An article explaining filters in general can be found here:
As well as an article describing several different makes on filters here:
And finally, supposed "reusable" filters have a market in the industry as well: (although I've never actually used these to comment either way)
Jwo235 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Instant and Land cameras[edit]

What is the difference between an instant camera and a Land camera? (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Land cameras were a specific brand of instant camera that were sold in the middle part of the last century. Nimur (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Named after inventor Edwin H. Land.  — (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


September 20[edit]

September 21[edit]

September 24[edit]

September 25[edit]

Linear equation perfect square solutions[edit]

I was reading about finding a solution to a quadratic equations which is a perfect square (the solution is easy to understand) and I started wondering about linear equations. Given a simple linear equation in the form y=ax+b where a and b are constants, what value of x will ensure that y is a perfect square? I've tried turning ax+b into (cx+d)(cx+d), but that hasn't worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want integer solutions {x,y} then these only exist if conditions are met for the constants, see Diophantine_equation#One_equation. Then you would just have to search among the (countable) solution set for perfect squares. You could also write y=z^2 and think of z^2=ax+b as a quadratic Diophantine equation, and solve using a Pell equation as described here [17]. Both of these methods would miss solutions where x is not an integer and y is a perfect square. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I worked on this last night in earnest, but I don't see the relationship between y2=ax+b and the Diophantine ax2+by2=k. I changed my original request of y to y2 to reinforce that I am looking for a square. However, the x is not a square. If I rearrange it, I can make, at best, ax+by2=k. Without the squared x, I cannot make any headway on the solutions provided. (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I misread my mathworld link. I don't know much about this area, but you could try looking up the Ito (1987) paper cited at mathworld, and also see what other papers have cited it. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're happy with just rational solutions then draw a circle around the origin intersecting where y=ax+b is zero. This will be a rational point since y is zero and a and b are rational so the other point on the circle where y=ax+b cuts it is also rational. Any choice of a rational number for x and 0 for y for the origin will do the same thing. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Oops silly me I misread the question, I'll have a think about it. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are looking for integer solutions with a and b being integers then your question is equivalent to asking if y^2=b \mod a . See the article Quadratic reciprocity for how the Legendre symbol can be used to quickly check if there is a solution is a or b are large - though it won't give an actual solution unfortunately. The article quadratic residue gives a ways of calculating the residues without checking each possibility except when a prime factor is of the form a=8n+1. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't look at it as a mod problem. Once you throw that in, I can see why there is no simple solution for x. It looks like you'd have to try every x in the range you like to see if any work. (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Approximation of the cosine function[edit]

In the Cosine article on Mathworld, an interesting approximation is mentioned:

A close approximation to cos(pix/2) for x in [0,1] is

\begin{align}H(x)	& =	1-\frac{x^2}{x+(1-x)\sqrt{\frac{2-x}{3}}}

& \quad (8) \\

	& \approx \cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2}x\right)	
& \quad (9)

(Hardy 1959), where the difference between cos(pix/2) and Hardy's approximation is plotted above.

However, all it mentions is Hardy's work, and the work cited does not contain any other information about this approximation! The derivation and/or potential applications for this would be interesting, but no other information about this can be found on the internet. Do you know any other sources/information about this? Llightex (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a way you might reverse engineer the formula, though I have no idea how Hardy derived it. Let C(x) = cos(πx/2). We know from the Taylor series that C(x) = 1 - x2/constant + other terms. Rewrite this as C(x) = 1 - x2/K(x) where K is to be determined. We also know C(1) = 0 from which K(1)=1. Expand K at x=1 to get K(x)=1+constant⋅(x-1)+higher terms. Again, collecting the the constant and higher terms into a single function, write K(x)=1+(x-1)L(x). At this point you can get a fairly good approximation for C by plugging in a linear approximation for L. But we also know C(1/2)=√2/2 which would imply (after some computation) L(1/2) = 1 - √(1/2). So perhaps a better approximation of L would be L(x)≈ 1 - √(1/2+m(x-1/2)) for some constant m. If you plug in C(2/3)=1/2 you get m=-1/3 which produces the approximation given, but other values of m might work just as well or better. I found m=-.337 gives the lowest mean square error on the interval. Note that there are points in the derivation where different choices could be made, for example you could write C(x) = 1 - x2⋅K(x) or K(x)=1+(x-1)/L(x). It might be fun to explore these variations to see how they compare with the one given. --RDBury (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Decimal exponents[edit]

[I really really ought to remember this!]

How do decimal exponents work? How do I calculate the result of x × 10y.z (with a numeral in place of each variable), for example? To my surprise, decimal exponent redirects to scientific notation, which didn't even address the issue as far as I could tell, and the fractional "Rational exponents" section of exponentiation didn't either, unless it went over my head. Not trying to understand the theoretical basis for it — I just want to know how to solve x × 10y.z, and I don't even know what to call it, since "decimal exponent" apparently means something completely different. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a^x and x is not a whole number, the decimal form for x isn't helpful in the computation. Write the exponent as a fraction x = n/d, and then
a^x = a^{n/d} = (a^n)^{1/d} = \sqrt[d]{a^n} = (\sqrt[d]a)^n,
So for example 4^{1.5} is 4^{3/2} = (\sqrt 4)^3 = 2^3 =8. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
For one thing, I'd forgotten that x½ is equal to the square root of x. But what to do about a fraction that's not conveniently .5? I don't know how to interpret the "d" outside the √ following your third equals sign — I know it's the denominator, but what's the significance of a number in that position? It's been several years since I took a maths course. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Take 1000.1. I just discovered that the result is the tenth root of 100. But the result of 1000.4 is not 4x the tenth root of 100, and it's not exactly what you get when you raise the tenth root of 100 to the fourth power. I can't yet follow your instructions to use the fractional method, since I don't understand what you're doing in the <math> section. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Any difference between your calculation of 1000.4 and the fourth power of 1000.1 will just be rounding errors, because they are the same by definition. In the fraction n/d above, n is the nth power and d is the dth root (for example if d is 3 then you want the cube root). You can do the calculations in either order. Try working out 10281024 to the power of 0.7 (=7/10) It is easiest to find the tenth root first (a whole number) then raise this to the seventh power. You should get 128. Dbfirs 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I think I remember better; thank you. What I needed was the simple examples such as 10280.1 and 10280.7. I was using Windows Calculator (Windows 8), typing 100, hitting the xy button, typing 0.1, hitting enter, squaring the result twice, and adding this to memory. Next, I typed 100, hit the xy button, typed 0.4, hit enter, and subtracted it from memory; there was a difference, with the latter method getting a result smaller by approximately 4.958 × 10-37. (I do understand negative exponents). But then, I know quite well that 2 is the tenth root of 1028, but typing 1028, hitting the xy button, typing 0.1, and hitting enter produces a result of 2.0007798800968566238308934329587. Is it a calculator error? If my experiment with 0.14 and 0.4 had produced equal results, I would have understood much more easily. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You're confusing 1024 with 1028. Try 2 [xy] 10 to get 1024. Then 1024 [xy] .1 to get 2 again. Generally arithmetic errors in computers, even in Microsoft products, are so rare as to be practically nonexistent. There was the infamous Pentium FDIV bug, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Not to say you don't have to watch out for rounding errors which are a different type of thing, --RDBury (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops! that was my fault. Memory problems of the non-electronic variety! Dbfirs 16:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My Mac calculator program gives the exact value '2' when you raise 1024 to the 0.1 power. 'Decimal exponents' isn't the best search term to use. Fractional exponents would be better. More background on fractional exponents is given in our logarithm article. When x = 10^y, x is the logarithm of y, y is the antilogarithm of x. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One has to be a bit careful when applying this to complex numbers since the complex logarithm is multi-valued. For example the complex square root can have multiple meanings depending on context.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

the result of 1000.4 is not 4x the tenth root of 100 -- nor should it be. Unless I'm reading the comment above wrong, there seems to be a mix-up. By the product rule of exponents,1000.4 is equal to (1000.1)4 which is the same as (1004)0.1 -- and none of these is 4 times 1000.1 . El duderino (abides) 10:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

September 29[edit]

September 30[edit]

Quadratic expression evaluates to perfect square[edit]

For example, 2x^2 - 238x + 14161. Is there any way, apart from just substituting a succession of x values, to determine which integers will give the square of an integer? If my calculation is correct, the first eight positive ones are 20, 35, 39, 51, 68, 80, 84 and 99, which give the squares of 101, 91, 89, 85, 85, 89, 91 and 101. I see no obvious pattern beyond the symmetry about x=59.5 for a minimum.← (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Google quadratic Diophantine equation, or use PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Note for the QUAD, you are looking for x and y that fit 2x^2 - 238x + 14161 =y^2, move the y^2 to the other side, so the entries on the left are 2, 0, -1, -238, 0 and 14161.Naraht (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've realised that 2x^2 - 238x + 14161 = y^2 reduces to x^2 + (119-x)^2 = y^2, so a search of, or parameterisation of, Pythagorean triples will suffice in this case.← (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Automatic calculation with Excel[edit]

I don't want an explanation of how to do it - just even give me the name of the concept\function and I'll read about it.

I need to get to know the Automatic calculation option of statistical data with Excel (for example, for getting a Standard deviation). Right now, I can only write the data myself (e.g Multiply\Power every single piece) and I ought to automate this process. Thank you for your help and guidance. Ben-Natan (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This question more properly belongs in the computing desk, also I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, but I'll give it a try. First, there are two standard deviation estimates commonly used, one with N-1 and one with N. (If you know the formulas the you'll know what I'm talking about.) Excel has the N-1 version as a built in function STDEV() and the N version as STDEVP(). I think what you're trying to do is get Excel to include one or both of these in the status bar along with min, max, sum and average. There doesn't seem to be a way of doing that, at least with the version of Office I'm using which is fairly recent. Maybe the next version will do it, but until then I think you'll have to make do with the STDEV or STDEVP. --RDBury (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
A more basic goal: I want that if I have 3 columns: X, f, and f*x, Than, Excel would multiply x&f for me. I want to achieve this goal for saving time. Ben-Natan (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, your question is not very clear, but if I understand correctly then this is a very basic use of Excel. If X and f are in columns A and B, with the values starting on row 2, then you would enter =A2*B2 (a Formula in Excel terminology) in cell C2 and then copy it down as far as you need it, e.g. by dragging the "handle" (small square) that appears at the bottom right of the cell. Apologies if I've misinterpreted, but if this is new to you then you really need to do some basic tutorials before going much further. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This is sometimes called "replication" of the formula. Dbfirs 22:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't know what wasn't clear to you in the question, but anyway The third column (f*X) should just contain the multiplications of X(Column A), and f(Column B). Is what you've described is the way to achieve this very goal? Does this process have a clear name that I could look for some Youtube videos about it? thank you again. Ben-Natan (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean just the "Insert >> Function" feature in Excel? Any basic tutorial (or the inbuilt help) will explain this. Dbfirs 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the method I described will achieve what you want. The "clear name" for the key concept is formula, and it's absolutely basic in using Excel. This page (for example) might give you a start; no doubt there are plenty of others, e.g. this YouTube video. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Monty Hall and Condorcet[edit]

Perhaps someone would consider whether there is a connection between the Monty Hall problem and Condorcet's voting paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pondered it a bit, but only based upon my own recollection of the former and a quick skim of the latter ...but I've also considered the possibility that this is a homework problem, so I have to ask[18]: do you think there is a connection and if so, what is it? El duderino (abides) 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, on the face of it, Monty hall problem is fully solved, and several variants can also be analytically solved. In contrast, the "paradox" is simply that the Condorcet criterion does not allow for condorcet methods to satisfy Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives, because of Arrow's_impossibility_theorem. So both phenomenon are fairly well understood (with some careful analysis), but both issues can be counterintuitive and surprising to first time learners. So I'd say the similarities have more to do with human psychology than any strong connections in the mathematical structures. Another connection is that I taught both of these topics in the same class in 2005 :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


September 26[edit]

What ever happened to the Puritans' religion?[edit]

I was reading this article. I'm no history expert, so I can't judge the accuracy. Anyway, what ever happened to the Puritans? Did their beliefs transform? Did their descendants die out? Did their anti-Catholicism become absorbed in modern-day Baptist teachings? Looking up "puritanical" brings up a meaning that it's a derogatory term. Since when did it become derogatory? The website seems to paint a picture that they valued a more democratic church environment, where clergy wouldn't be able to say, "Ha-ha! I'm better than you!" (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of what happened to the Puritans (at least in America) was that:
Baptists were historically as likely to be Arminian as Calvinist, and the increased popularity of Calvinism among American Baptists may have had to do with lapsed descendants of Puritans (nonetheless raised a strong belief in semi-predestinational Providence, like Abraham Lincoln) getting caught up.
Slightly off topic: Also, historical Baptists were (sadly) more likely to be anti-Catholic than modern Baptists. Transhumanism (although they haven't issued a statement yet, some views gave me the impression it won't be favorable when they do), LGBT marriage (for principle), and euthanasia are the main things keeping me from joining the Catholic Church (without leaving the Baptist Church, either). Most members of my church are good friends with Catholics. The Baptist anti-Catholics I've seen were mainly seen fringe fundamentalist groups clinging to 19th century beliefs. My (Baptist) grandparents were worried about my aunt marrying a Catholic, and their (mostly Baptist, some Methodist) grandparents wouldn't even associate with Catholics. However, it should be noted that I'm not a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and usually leave a church when they start to take over. As such, my perception of Baptists is a bit skewed away from the most common conservative body among Baptists. Their current criticisms of the Catholic Church appear to be political rather than religious, however.
Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
And they all claim to be Christians. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There's some major points they manage to agree on. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
All of them? The fact that the Christian churches all argued that others also claiming to be Christians had so much of it wrong was one of the things that convinced me they were probably all wrong. But obviously some can deal with the contradictions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
See my comments here... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd think transhumanism is already ruled out by Catholic teaching, because it rests on the idea that you are essentially a mind, whereas Catholicism teaches that you are a body and soul. This is a core difference, so I would imagine a transhumanist would have difficulty assenting to Catholic teaching that touches on most things to do with the material world, human identity, or the nature of reality, let alone the afterlife. (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As a child in elementary school I had two close friends who identified with the Pilgrims. One was Baptist, she warned me that my papism would condemn me to hell. The other was Presbyterian, and she warned me that my idolatry would send me to hell. Then when I was thirteen, my obviously gay Catholic priest gave a very odd sermon, which I finally figured out meant I was a heemaseshual, and that even though I was Catholic I was going to hell anyway. I think the great revivals of the 19th century explain how the Puritans retained their anti-Catholicism, but became political crusaders rather than witch burners. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Many individual Puritan congregations also converted to Unitarianism. Broadly speaking, the above are correct, regarding Congregationalists. That's the modern term for churches in New England that were begun by the Puritan settlers. But see also First Parish Church in Plymouth, First Church in Boston and First Parish Church (Duxbury, Massachusetts), three VERY early churches in Massachusetts that trace their history to the first settlers. It describes, briefly, the conversion from Congregationalism to Unitarianism. Congregational church#Unitarianism also describes the broader trend. --Jayron32 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article linked by the person asking the question implies that most Puritans came to New England after the Commonwealth of England, but in fact, the peak of the Puritan migration was in the late 1630s and early to mid-1640s before the Commonwealth. In England, most Puritans became Dissenters, later known as Nonconformists, after the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Many became part of the English Congregationalist Church, which was absorbed (along with Presbyterians, some of whose congregations were also descendants of the Puritans) in 1972 by the United Reformed Church. Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Property in the Enlightenment[edit]

I know that natural rights, social contract theory, popular sovereighty, and democracy/republicanism were important themes in the Age of Enlightenment, but how central was the concept of property to it? I look throughout history and across the world and property seems to be a rather ubiquitous institution present everywhere from feudal Europe to totalitarian North Korea. Was property really that important an idea to Enlightenment philosophers? — Melab±1 02:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Property#Modern philosophy briefly outlines the thoughts of several enlightenment thinkers. --Jayron32 10:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we still living in a world dominated by the western civilization?[edit]


Please try a chat room or internet forum. --Jayron32 10:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are we living in a world dominated by the western civilization? The immense global influence of the western powers remains unparalleled by any other non-western cultures and civilizations today. History also tells us that the western civilization has brought about most of the significant events that shaped the modern world. From pop-culture to world politics and economy, the western powers are undeniably on top. Does this mean that the west has upper-hand in out time? What is your take on this matter?Sabone123 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Our take on this matter is "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." See the sign at the top. Also, this sounds a bit like an essay topic, which we also don't help with. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See the following works:

The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. This website (and this page in particular) exemplifies his main argument.
The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. Rendered otiose by the subsequent rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
The Triumph of the West by John Roberts. (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

boat on dry land[edit]

A short distance between AT&T Park and Red's Java House in San Francisco is a boat which is on dry land. It's used for corporate parties. What's the boat called? (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the name of that structure, or the general phenomenon (in some manifestations called "boats in a moat")? AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the first. The location seems to be here, perhaps the OP could pinpoint the boat he's talking about on that photo. --Viennese Waltz 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the boat in the photo. Perhaps a street view would be more helpful. (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could tell us where in those several blocks you saw it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The boat on dry land is probably near some other docked vessels in the area. (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Where are you seeing it in Google Maps? What's the nearest street intersection and/or other building? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it in the photo, I just linked to a photo of the area between AT&T Park and Red's Java House. I expected the OP to tell us where on the photo the boat is. --Viennese Waltz 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The OP seems not to be able to find it. Presumably he needs to go into Google Maps Street View and pinpoint it. By the time he does that, though, he might also have the answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's try King and Brannan Streets. (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it. Have you tried Google Maps Street View? Do you live anywhere near there? Where did you see a reference to this shore-bound boat? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
While I was in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd pass the boat while riding a light-rail vehicle from and to the Caltrain Depot. (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

List of religions and spiritual traditions[edit]

Except Abrahamic Religions all other religions are classified as per their Geographical locations or as per their philosophical names. My question is, On what basis the name Abraham is given the religions which are originated in Middle east regions. Even Abraham is not a prominent figure in all Middle east religions. So if my above argument is correct please change title from Abrahamic Religions to Middle East Religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

See Abrahamic religions for an explanation. The name is not synonymous with Middle Eastern religions. There are several Middle Eastern faiths (Zoroastrianism, for one example) which do not bear historic connection with Abrahamic religions. Abrhamaic religions DO have a common history, which is why they are grouped together. --Jayron32 11:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ezra Pound's Envoi (1919) (Hugh Selwyn Mauberley): Who was the woman "that sang me once that song of Lawes"?[edit]

You may be familiar with Ezra Pound's poem Envoi (1919) which ends the first part of his work Hugh Selwyn Mauberley.

If you are, do you happen to know who the woman was that Pound says "sang me once that song of Lawes"?


Contact Basemetal here 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication that he's referring to a real person, especially since the poem was a pastiche of "Go, Lovely Rose" by Edmund Waller [19]. This essay describes the woman in the poem as "a symbolic personification of Beauty". --Viennese Waltz 13:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Viennese Waltz for this reply. I would encourage however other editors to not necessarily consider the question definitively answered. If you have convenient access to a biography of Pound maybe there's something there about the poem. I also seem to remember (maybe mistakenly) something about this in the Norton Anthology of Poetry. Does anyone know of an annotated edition of H. S. Mauberley? Contact Basemetal here 15:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't claim to be up on the latest in Poundian scholarship, but I don't believe I've ever seen a definitive identification. For what it's worth, Pound's own answer to this question, when it was asked by his biographer Charles Norman, was "Your question is the kind of damn fool enquiry into what is nobody's damn business." Deor (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Deor. Ezra being his usual consistent self. How is a biographer supposed to worry about which enquiries are ok with the subject and which are not? When Ezra didn't like a question apparently it was "the kind of damn fool enquiry into what is nobody's damn business". I suspect there's a few of those he'd been asked over the years. But it's not a biographer's job to worry if information might or not annoy his subject. Why work with a biographer at all then? Contact Basemetal here 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an identification after all. Got it through the Ezra Pound Society. The relevant part of the email I received goes as follows:

There was some critical dialogue about this question many years ago, but the best place to look is a note in Paideuma by Eva Hesse, "Raymonde Collignon, or the Duck That Got Away," Pd 10 (Winter 1981): 583-84. There she prints a personal 1953 letter from Pound that makes the ID pretty conclusive. The real question is whether it matters -- to the poem, that is. I think it doesn't.
But for the curious, there's sufficient information about Raymonde Collignon in Ezra Pound and Music, and the correspondence at the Beinecke indicates an enduring friendship. Pound probably first heard music by Lawes (Henry and/or his brother William) during an early visit with Dolmetsch. He often persuaded singer friends to sing music for him privately that was not performed in public. Insight into this habit can be found in an item missed by all of EP's biographers, a chapter in Grace Lovat Fraser's memoir In the Days of My Youth (London: Cassell, 1970), where she describes his efforts to get her to sing early music.

Once I knew it was Raymonde Collignon I could find not much but something about her, for example from this page at the Online Archive of California (whatever that is), that she was born in 1894 (but no date of death) and that it's been known for some time that she "provided Pound his singing model for the closing lyrics of the two sections of Hugh Selwyn Mauberly".


Contact Basemetal here 09:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

She really "went to town" then[edit]

When did the expression come into existence of she "went to town" meaning she really worked hard at it then to accomplish something? Where was it first used?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The website is a good place to research these things. You can even make requests for words or phrases they haven't already covered. --Jayron32 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

From the OED, under 'town' P2. to go to town . (the following is a direct quote with usage citations, sorry about the formatting):
b slang (orig. Jazz).
To do something energetically, enthusiastically, or without restraint, esp. in response to a particular situation or opportunity. Freq. with on.
1933 Fortune Aug. 47/1 Returning to Trombonist Brown, he can get off, swing it, sock it, smear it, or go to town (all of which mean syncopate to beat the band).
1934 Winnipeg Free Press 1 Nov. 18/3 Some of these speedy skaters will really be able to ‘go to town’ on that spacious surface in St. Paul.
1958 A. Hocking Epit. for Nurse ix. 159 The local papers naturally went to town over the murder of Sister Biggs.
1960 N. Hilliard Maori Girl ii. ix. 128 ‘It's funny as hell to see girls fight.’.. ‘They're really tough sorts, and boy! do they go to town. And swear! Punching and spitting and pulling hair.’
1972 P. M. Hubbard Whisper in Glen vii. 67 Whoever had painted the thing, he had gone to town on his picture.
2001 Contact May 38/2 The exhibitors really go to town, sparing little expense in their efforts to create colour and entertain visitors.
-- So, like many of our phrases, it seems we can thank the Jazz community. Note that OED is not claiming that 1933 is the first usage, just the earliest one in print that they are aware of that clearly communicates the concept. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
People in rural areas and suburbs often need to literally go to town to do business. I've always figured that's where it was first used, but citation needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
That's my OR take on the expression. If you exchange "go to town" with "take care of business", in the vernacular sense it usually has the same connotation. (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The old 8:15 into the city. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
Dag-nabbit!   Now I can't get that song out of my head! (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Now I can't get out of my head... DuncanHill (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Why not replace it with a different song? Like The Ring of the Nibelung, for example. I defy anyone to replay it in their head any more than 0 times. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it's an American variation of the English phrase 'to paint the town red'. (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, that's originally an American term for a wild night. Wouldn't make grammatical sense to paint the town red on something that isn't a town (or like one). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
A New York phrase, according to the Oxford English Dictionary's Twitter account, predating Wiktionary's first known use by a year. Somebody with an account there and here may want to change that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
Not according to the scholars of Wikipedia, who must be right; Paint the Town Red. (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
What's worse than an unreferenced section? An unreferenced wall of text. Worse than that? Another article referring to it. Someone should go to town on that Marquess. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Nudes in early 20th century France[edit]

Hi there, I'm expanding the article on September Morn and am looking for a general (accessible) reference that gives some background on the treatment of nudes in 20th century French art and meets WP:RS well enough to be cited. If possible, something like an encyclopedia entry would be nice. Does anybody know of anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find anything obvious in the "Research Resources" at Art History Resources on the Web site, but you might have better luck.  — (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at Heather Dawkins', The Nude in French Art and Culture, 1870-1910 (Cambridge, 2002). Meaty review: Nudes Under Siege (PDF) by Patricia Failing in Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities (2003). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was hoping for something a little more easily accessed for one based in Indonesia (i.e. very unlikely the book would be available here), but that review should point out the main topics to browse in Google Books. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On a less academic level, French postcards were rather culturally prominent in early 20th century France... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be easier if you said what information specifically you are after. The painting was made at a period when treatment of the nude was undergoing dramatic change sand was the subject of extensive debate. I can easily find sources on specific issues. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Julius Streicher and the German Democratic Party[edit]

Under "early life", the article on Julius Streicher says he joined the German Democratic Party in 1909. Its own page says it was only founded in 1918, and as a left-liberal group devoted to protecting minorities, it really doesn't seem like Streicher's bag anyway. Were there several DDPs, or did Streicher actually start off in a different party? (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The German article doesn't mention him joining any party in 1909. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings have him saying he joined the "Democratic Party" in 1911 (page 306, 28 April 1946, see here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In the hope nobody objects, I've changed the date in Streicher's article to 1911, removed the inaccurate link to the DDP, and refeenced it to DuncanHill's court testimony link. Any idea what party or group he was actually referring to? It obviously wasn't the 1918 creation. (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - you just saved me doing the same! I can't so far find another "Democratic Party", but there were of course a host of parties coming and going at the time, both nationally and provincially. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name abbreviation[edit]

Special:Random led me to Hubasha, which had extremely poor English that I've rewritten. One part, however, I can't fix: someone's name, Da'ud b. cIsa b. Musa, governor of Mecca in the early ninth century AD. Do we have an article on the guy? I don't know how to look for him, not knowing what "b." or "c" (before "Isa") denote; I'm guessing that "b." is "bin", but I can't imagine what "cIsa" represents. All sourcing goes to what appear to be scholarly publications in Arabic, so I can't use them myself and can't reject them on WP:RS grounds. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"B." is just an all-purpose abbreviation for the word which can take a number of forms depending on context or dialect (at least "Ibn" and "Bn" in classical Arabic and "Bin" in vernacular Arabic -- with a number of other possibilities if i'rab vowels or further dialect variations are taken into account). The "c" in "cIsa" is supposed to be "ʿ" a transcription of the voiced pharyngeal letter ع ayn (strict IPA symbol [ʕ])... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've seen c used for ע and its Arabic equivalent, but only superscripted. How would you render this person's name? [maybe I should have gone to WP:RDL] Perhaps the answer is in the Arabic article on Hubasha. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It could be transcribed a number of ways, depending on context or the particular transliteration conventions used. In article al-Amin, it appears as "Dawud ibn Isa"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
His name is (داود بن عيسی بن موسی). cIsa should be 'isa. Omidinist (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source for this graphic? (UK European Election results)[edit]

This [20] graphic, found on European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom).

I'm working on an article for which I could really use this data, but the graphic is unsourced. I think the data is real - I've found a couple of breakdowns tucked away in obscure corners of individual council websites, and it checks out - but I can't find a collection of the results by local authority anywhere, and normally I'd know where to look. It'd be really helpful to me, and also to the Wikipedia article, which is presenting unsourced data right now.

Thanks much, lovely helpful Wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the author at their talk page[21]?WinterWall (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good call, thank you, I'll try that. Dan Hartas (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You can find a summary of the 2014 EP election results by district here: European Parliament Elections 2014 - Commons Library Research Paper. And a slightly larger version of the same map (p. 32). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

followup on what did trans people do before modern surgery[edit]

We recently had a question on the above topic, I think on this desk. I had mentioned a reference on Siberian shamanism. This comment from a very old thread might also be relevant: Lev Shternberg documents men living as women (by dress and speech) among the Nivkh people in his classic work, The Social Organization of the Gilyak (Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History). μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I recall that some American Indian LBGT individuals were described as "two spirits" people (male and female), and this was seen as a good thing. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, there are the Albanian sworn virgins. These seem to be mostly have been cisgender women who chose to live as men for social reasons, but no doubt this route attracted its share of true transmen as well. - EronTalk 17:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War Veterans[edit]

Were the majority of American Civil War Veterans that moved to California, Union army or Confederate army veteran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As a first step. I checked to see if this information was recorded in the US Census in years after the Civil War. In the 1870 Census, they just asked where the person and his parents were born, which would give some inkling, but it did not say whether they were a veteran and for which side if so. Similarly the 1880 and 1900 Census did not inquire about veteran information. The 1890 Census was partially burned by accident, then most of the surviving census returns were destroyed by the government for reasons that remain unclear. Finally we get to the 1910 Census, where question 30 asked whether the person was a veteran of the US or Confederate army or navy. I have not found the instructions yet which the censustakers used in coding the responses. This datasource would at lease let you know which side they were on if they were in California 45 years after the war ended.I expect that cross tabulations of this information were created in the years after 1910. A random sample could be examined as a crude check. Edison (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The instruction in 1910 said to ask males who might have been in the war if they were veterans of the was and to enter UA, CA, UN, CN for Union or Confederate army or navy for veterans per [22]. Some of the forms have numbers in this field which do not seem to be related to veteran status, but rather to other classifications for the individual. Edison (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not a thoroughly researched and scientific answer, but I looked at an arbitrarily choses enumeration district in southern California, one in Los Angeles County, and one in northern California, and in each case there were far more Union Army veterans than Confederate Army vets, and out of 62 veterans identified in the pages examined, only 4 were Confederate. There were far more Union soldiers than Confederate to begin with, but not that big a discrepancy. There might have been certain vicinities where ex-confederates tended to migrate. Or they might have lied to the census taker, but it seems unlikely they would worry about retribution 55 years after the war. Or maybe the Confederates tended to die younger. Edison (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Gender ratio in 1967 Miami ?[edit]

The 1967 film Tony Rome contained the statement that "Women outnumber men 10 to 1 here" (in Miami). I can't believe that was true. But, were there significantly more women than men then ? If so, what was the cause ? (I'm guessing Cuban women escaping to Miami while their men were killed or imprisoned in Cuba might be one reason.) StuRat (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoo, spring break? When you're surrounded by scantily clad loud drunk beach bodies, it can seem like more women than in, say, Calgary, all hidden in coats. At least to men. Apparently, the sex economy in Miami exceeds $300 million, quadrupling this year’s payroll for the Miami Heat basketball team. 1967 may have been a bit less wild, but it's been a "hot" destination for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
I think IH has the gist of it. (p.s. Did you watch that on broadcast this weekend too? I learned that Frank Sinatra runs like a little girl, and cannot deliver snappy one-liners, but that he wears a hat very well :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, broadcast TV. (I consider cable TV to be for those with more dollars than sense, although I do have Netflix for premium shows like House of Cards.) StuRat (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps due to the ratio of widows to widowers among retirees? μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reference desk, or just a forum for rampant speculation based on fiction? The 1970 census gives full statistical data for Miami, and shows no evidence whatsoever for anything remotely like a '10 to 1' ratio anywhere. From a quick look at the data, it appears that any surplus of females in the population (665,697 f to 602,095 m in the total for Dade county) is due to the higher female proportion in the elderly population - something you'd expect in an area with a high percentage of retirees. [23]) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that neither of the authors of the work of fiction in question were residents of Miami:[24],[25]. My rampant speculation suggests that there are virtually no males on the beach -at least none that I notice. — (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I saw Tony Rome, once, around the time it came out, so my memory is not exactly what you'd call fresh. But my take on the statement is that he was speaking hyperbolically, and he would have been understood in that light. That is, we needn't have recourse to statistics to get at the truth or lack thereof of what he said. But what someone should have said to him in response was "I've told you four hundred trillion times: Don't exaggerate!". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Your memory is a bit foggy. It wasn't Frank Sinatra who said it, but rather a woman he was talking with, complaining about her odds of finding a good man. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Searches for Employment[edit]

I'm familiar with the likes of Monster, Indeed, and the other sites of that family, but are there any other available options for searching for employment? These websites seem very limited in their scope, and I'm curious as to what other options are out there. Both domestic (US) and international listings are a bonus. Cheers. Hubydane (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an entire offline world out there, full of unlisted openings. Without knowing what you want to do and why you'd do it well, I can't say exactly who to meet and impress. Sometimes the boss, sometimes the boss' wife, sometimes a competitor (everyone's more attractive if someone else wants them). In any case, presenting yourself directly to upper crust types can form more stable relationships with companies than trying to sell a useful service to a disinterested hirer. They get paid the same whether you can increase profits or not. If you meet them first, they may create a file on you, which your potential boss can read and prejudge you by. Best to impress first, then formalize it. Of course, if you make a bad impression, it'll be more permanent, too.
Aside from that, newspapers still have job ads. Never know what'll pop up on classified sites like Kijiji or Craigslist, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
Craigslist often has job listings, but it is organized by geography. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bedaux belts[edit]

In Inside the Whale, George Orwell lists many suboptimal aspects of 1930's society ("Hitler, Stalin, bombs, aeroplanes, tinned food"). One item is "Bedaux belts". "Bedaux" is presumably Charles Bedaux, but why does Orwell associate him with belts? Tevildo (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Conveyor belt. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but why does Orwell specifically refer to Bedaux? He made his money as a management consultant - what part did belts, conveyor or otherwise, play in his contemporary notoriety? Tevildo (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bedaux system (setting an average rate for production, with bonuses paid to workers who exceeded the average) was hugely unpopular with workers - the averages were seen as being set unreasonably high and the bonuses were small, also it was perceived as deskilling work - repetitively putting together the same pieces over an over again on a conveyor belt instead of making something from scratch. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Memories of that kind of thing might be one reason for the popularity of the old TV skits involving conveyor belts, e.g. Lucy and Ethel with the chocolate candies, and Jackie Gleason with cakes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Or further back, some of the scenes of mindless and stressful work depicted in Metropolis, though I don't recall if there was a conveyor belt specifically. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Or for a new system with outdated mechanics you can own and operate yourself today, The Incredible Machine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
Chaplin's Modern Times -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I've worked under such a system: the gaffer had a little black book with the times for each job written in it - woe betide any operative who worked faster than the time in the book, or disclosed its existence to management! I didn't know the system's official name, but I can see why Orwell put it on his list. And thanks for adding the appropriate links to the various articles concerned. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
For a realistic fictional account of such a quota system, see Alan Sillitoe's short novel Saturday Night and Sunday Morning: our article alludes to it. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And nonfiction writ large: Stakhanovite movement. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Is Moses a Hebrew or a Jew?

Reason for asking:

The Hebrew Bible and Judaism, "He Who Is," "I Am that I Am", and the tetragrammaton YHWH are used as names of God, while Yahweh, and Jehovah are sometimes used in Christianity as vocalizations of YHWH. In Judaism, it is common to refer to God by the titular names Elohim or Adonai, the latter of which is believed by some scholars to descend from the Egyptian Aten. The same holds for Hebrew ‘El’, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton YHWH, in origin the name of an Edomite or Midianite deity, Yahweh. In many translations of the Bible, when the word ‘LORD’ is in all capitals, it signifies that the word represents the tetragrammaton.

According to the Bible, the name of God was used during the lifetime of Adam and Eve, but the Hebrew Bible implies that by the time Moses was born none of mankind still knew the name. In the Book of Exodus, God commands Moses to tell the people that 'I AM' sent him, and this is revered as one of the most important names of God according to Mosaic tradition. Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am’. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘’I am’ has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation". — Exodus 3:13-15

God name in Judaism: The tetragrammaton (Hebrew: יהוה, English: YHWH) is the name for the group of four Hebrew letters which represent the name of God. The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text in the Biblia Hebraica and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Neither vowels nor vowel points were used in ancient Hebrew writings. Some claim the pronunciation of YHWH has been lost, while other authorities say it has not and that it is pronounced ‘Yahweh’. References, such as ‘The New Encyclopædia Britannica’, validate the above by offering additional specifics: Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used a form like Yahweh, and claim that this pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was never really lost. Other Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh. Clement of Alexandria transliterated the tetragrammaton as Ιαου. The above claims were founded upon the understanding that Clement of Alexandria had transliterated YHWH as Ιαουε in Greek, which is pronounced "Yahweh" in English. However, the final -e in the latter form has been shown as having been a later addition. For a more in-depth discussion of this, see the article Yahweh. The original statement commonly translated "I AM" is ‘Ehyeh’ (Hebrew: אהיה), from ‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh’, "I Am that I Am (or will be, ongoing)" and is commonly given as a sacred name for God. Rabbinical interpreters and some scholars have asserted that ‘Yahweh’ is an archaic third person form of ‘hayah’ "to be", which is rendered ‘Ehyeh’ when spoken by God in the first person; critics of this theory note that the proper triconsonantal root would seem to be ‘h-w-h’. Instead of pronouncing YHWH during prayer, Jews say ‘Adonai’ ("Lord"). Halakha requires that secondary rules be placed around the primary law, to reduce the chance that the main law will be broken. As such, it is common religious practice to restrict the use of the word ‘Adonai’ to prayer only. In conversation, many Jewish people, even when not speaking Hebrew, will call God "Hashem", השם, which is Hebrew for "the Name" (this appears in Leviticus 24:11). A common title of God in the Hebrew Bible is ‘Elohim’ (Hebrew: אלהים), as opposed to other titles of God in Judaism. The root ‘Eloah’ אלה is a feminine noun, meaning goddess, also used in poetry and late prose (e.g., the Book of Job) and ending with the masculine plural suffix "-im" ים creating a word that indicates a plurality of both masculine and feminine essences, yet in a singular identity. The Hebrew name of God—El: The word ‘El’ comes from a root word meaning—might, strength, power. Sometimes referring to God and sometimes the mighty when used to refer to the true god of Israel, El is almost always qualified by additional words that further define the meaning that distinguishes Him from false gods. Most religious Jews forbid discarding holy objects, including any document with a name of God written on it. Once written, the name must be preserved indefinitely. This leads to several noteworthy practices:

  • Commonplace materials are written with an intentionally abbreviated form of the name. For instance, a Jewish letter-writer may substitute "G-d" for the name ‘God’. (Note that not all Jews agree that non-Hebrew words like God are covered under the prohibition.)
  • Since the Divine presence (or possibly an appearance of God) can supposedly be called simply by pronouncing His true name correctly, substitute names are used.
  • Copies of the Torah are, like most scriptures, heavily used during worship services, and will eventually become worn out. Since they may not be disposed of in any way, including by burning, they are removed, traditionally to the synagogue attic. See genizah. There they remain until they are buried.
  • All religious texts that include the name of God are buried.

In Exodus 6:3, when Moses first spoke with God, God said, "I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by My NameYHWH." When Moses heard the name of God he realized that since he had a speech impediment as a result of what he called "uncircumcised lips" (Exod. 6:12), he was unable to pronounce it accurately. The Torah further describes the role of Aaron who acted as Moses' mouthpiece and conveyed the name of God distinctly to the Israelites (transcribed as 'YHWH' in Biblical Hebrew). The pronunciation of YHWH is described in Psalms 8.2 by the prophet who wrote, 'Thou hast made babes, infants at the breast sound aloud Thy praise.' Several thousands of years later commentaries additionally suggested that the true pronunciation of this name is composed entirely of vowels, such as the Greek Ιαουε, as they allow the creation of language, thus conveying the absolute infinite potential of God's character. However, this is put into question by the fact that vowels were only distinguished in the time-period by their very absence due to the lack of explicit vowels in the Hebrew script. The resulting substitute made from semivowels and glottals, known as the tetragrammaton, is considered the proper name of God in Judaism, and is not ordinarily permitted to be pronounced aloud, even in prayer. The prohibition on misuse (not use) of this name is the primary subject of the command not to take the name of the Lord in vain. Almost all Orthodox Jews avoid using either Yahweh or Jehovah altogether on the basis that the actual pronunciation of the 'tetragrammaton has been lost in antiquity. Many use the term ‘HaShem’ (The Name) as a euphemism, or they use ‘God or The Lord’ instead.

I don't understand the above sections? The confusion is with the God name(s) with religions.

Also, what comes first?

I understand Hebrew Bible comes first and that would be __________ (Judaism) religion, and Moses is the prophet. Thereafter Christian religion, with which Bible, Old/New testament? And Jesus is the prophet. Thereafter Islam religion, with Qur'an, and Muhammad is the prophet.

Am I right?

Is the whole Bible mixed with the old and the new testament? Is the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament, and Christian Bible the New Testament?

( (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

I don't know why you pasted in all that text, but the best answer is that Moses was an Israelite... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
[ec] See Hebrews, Israelites, Kingdom of Judah, Moses, Tetragrammaton, Hebrew Bible and Biblical canon. It would be easier if you were to tie down your request to a small number of definite questions rather than a more discursive essay. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On Moses: Moses, if he existed, is assumed to have been a Hebrew raised by Egyptians. "Jew" comes from "Judah," one of the twelve Israelite tribes, Israelites being another name for the Hebrews. Since Judah was the largest surviving group, Hebrews in general are often called Jews.
Moses was technically a Levite (a member of the Israelite tribe of Levi), but in modern parlance a Levite would be considered Jewish.
  • On the names of God: A number of competing religions in Moses's time would use the names of various gods in spells, with the belief that having the god's name would grant magic power over the god. In the Bible, one of the ten commandments is to not take the Lord's name in vain. This was meant to keep YHWH's name secret from other religions, to keep them from superstitiously abusing the name. El, related to the Arabic "Allah," means "God," and was used as a title for YHWH among the Hebrews. "El Shaddai" probably meant "God almighty," and was another title. "Adonai" means "Lord," and was again another title. As for which came first, that's a matter of religious perspective. Some Jews and Christians might hold the view that YHWH was God's true and eternal name with the other words being titles, some Christians might hold that all earthly words are just titles for the otherwise unnamable God, and some secular scholars (and perhaps members of Judaism and Christianity) might hold that El, YHWH, Shaddai, and Adonai were originally distinct gods among the Israelites neighbors, with the Yahwist cult absorbing the other gods into their religion through syncretism.
Many Jews and a few Christians interpret the commandment against using God's name in vain to mean that one should avoid even saying or writing divine names or titles, just to avoid any possibility of using it offensively. Many Christians (and a few Jews) instead interpret it to mean that one should not use any divine names or titles as an exclamation or as profanity.
  • On the Bible: What defines the Bible is dependant on what religion you ask. The Christian Bible includes the Old and New Testaments. The Jewish Bible consists of the texts that Christians call the Old Testament, but which Jews call the Tanakh. In other words, the Christian Bible includes the Jesus Bible and a lot of additional material.
Tradition says Moses wrote the Torah, the first five books of the Tanakh. Modern scholarship finds little reason to believe that. The rest of the Tanakh/Old Testament was written by various authors, and consists of a number of individual books.
The Christian Bible starts with the four Gospels, then goes into a few dozen "epistles" (or letters), then ends with the Book of Revelation. Tradition says each Gospel and some of the epistles were written by Jesus's disciples, though modern scholarship says that it would have to have been someone later writing down stuff the disciples might have said. Most of the epistles claim to be written by Paul the Apostle, and modern scholarship is divided as to which ones may or may not have been written by him. Paul did not know the historical Jesus, but converted to Christianity a couple of decades after Jesus's life and claimed to have met Jesus in mystic visions. Paul's writings are one of the main forces responsible for non-Jews converting to Christianity (some were converting before, but Paul made doctrinal claims that made it easier for non-Jews to convert).
The Quran is not included in the Bible, and is considered a separate work. Muslims do hold that the works in the Bible were previous divinely-inspired scriptures, though many Muslims also hold that Christians and Jews have corrupted the Bible (either in its actual text or through misinterpretation) and that only the Quran is correct.
  • On Jesus: Mainstream and traditional Christianity holds that Jesus was more than a prophet, but was none other than God (see Incarnation (Christianity) for more information). This is not like the Hindu belief of avatars, where the avatar is an illusionary person created as a facet of a deity. Mainstream and traditional Christianity holds that Jesus was born when God decided to become human, and that Jesus's personality was God's personality.
Judaism rejects this idea completely, and does to even believe that Jesus was a prophet. Some Jews may think that Jesus was a wise teacher (but not a prophet) whose ideas were misinterpreted, others may think that Jesus was a false prophet. It tends to vary from Jew to Jew.
Islam does believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not God.
  • On Muhammad: Judaism and Christianity do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. Belief in the prophethood of Muhammad is a defining trait of Islam.
Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Also, to answer the question on important texts and founders. Under Judaism, they do not recognize a single "founder" or "prophet" that created their religion. Moses holds high regard because of his role in The Exodus, but others such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (collectively the Patriarchs) hold prominent roles in the "founding" of Judaism (all before Moses), and after Moses, comes important figures such as Joshua (first to take possession of the Holy Land), David and Solomon (as the kings of the Unified Kingdom), etc. Christianity, of course, is founded by Jesus Christ, but Christians do not view Christ as a mere prophet (though the perspective on Jesus is different in other faiths. See Judaism's view of Jesus and Jesus in Islam) but rather as the Son of God, and one of the aspects of God in the Holy Trinity. Of course, the importance of early disciples of Jesus in forming Christianity as a faith (rather than as an offshoot of Judaism), especially Paul the Apostle, should not be underestimated. It may be as useful to call Paul the Apostle the founder of Christianity as Jesus. Islam, of course, recognizes Moses, the Patriarchs, and Jesus as all prophets leading up to Muhammad, who they recognize as the ultimate prophet (in both senses of the word "ultimate"... that is, the last, and the most important). But that view is not shared by either Judaism or Christianity. --Jayron32 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You all are amazing! Thank you all very much; feedbacks are funny, interesting, helpful and appreciative! -- ( (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

  • Quibble with User:Ian.thomson on God and Jesus being of the same "personality" (whether that means personhood or character); the Nicene creed says that they are of the same substance, and Christian trinitarianism holds that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one substance. Were this not the case (different persons), it would by absurd for Jesus to have said on the Cross, Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken Me? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant in a simpler sense that Jesus is not regarded as someone other than God. My post did not identify Jesus with the Father, because it didn't identify God with only the Father (which would be Modalism or Arianism depending on how one handles the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit). The persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, but are not distinct from God. (Otherwise, the Incarnation would be closer to an avatar, a illusionary person that is not truly God).
Also, a number of theologians (such as Meister Eckhart) tend to explain the persons of the Trinity as in terms of an otherwise unknowable God revealing Himself as three persons, the Father being God unknowably transcendent, Jesus being God personal, and the Holy spirit God immanent. That is also where I was deriving the use of "personality." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I said God as shorthand for God the Father. No one says God the Jesus, or God the Holy spirit. I think my intent was pretty clear, as I did say Father later on to bolster my point. Your statement that Jesus's personality was the same as God's can only be right if what you meant was substance. Otherwise you are saying Jesus and the Father who are both God both have the same personhood/personality/character, which they emphatically do not in any mainstream creed. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I have heard people say God the Holy Spirit, and God Jesus (minus the 'the', granted). It's a matter of region, denomination, and even preaching style, but it's possible to hear it. God as only shorthand for the Father borders on Modalism and your intent was not clear.
And please actually read what I write if you're going to respond to it, my last post clearly separated the hypostases of the Trinity from each other, just not from God (after all, if the hypostases of the Trinity are God, then Christianity ceases to be monotheistic and worships four gods: God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit); and I elaborated context by which "personality" in my original was in no way a reference to the hypostases of the Trinity (except perhaps as a reference to Eckhart). To go further, personality is not personhood in itself, it is the expression of that personhood. Going back to Eckhart, the Son is the hypostasis that presents a personality (or "face") for God, where the other hypostases are less comprehensible or at least less tangible.
To be clear, in my posts, where I say "God" without specifying a member of the Trinity, I mean the Godhead, and where I mean the Father, I actually use the word "Father" somewhere. I'm using the word "hypostasis" instead of "person" with reference to the Trinity to avoid further confusion with "personality." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Couple of additional points on the writing of the Bible and the name of God. One widely accepted interpretation is the Documentary hypothesis, which identifies four older hypothetical documents, known as J, E, P and D, as having been edited together to form the Torah or Pentateuch. In J, God's personal name (YHWH) is known from the beginning of the world, but in E it is not, and he is known by the generic term Elohim ("god") until he reveals his name to Moses. As to the pronunciation, it's my understanding that "Yahweh" is a modern reconstruction and is scholars' best estimate as to how it was pronounced. Personal names that incorporate the divine name end in -yahu (the prophet Elijah is "Eliyahu" in Hebrew, or for a more modern example Benjamin Netanyahu). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anabaptist, Baptist, Puritan, and Congregationalists . . .[edit]

Please explain the differences. As far as I know, Puritans are congregationalists and identify themselves as such. Baptists emphasize adult baptism. Anabaptists also emphasize adult baptism, while rejecting infant baptism. So, infant-baptized converts to the Anabaptist tradition would be Anabaptists, because they are literally baptized again. However, what does this say about completely non-Christian converts or converts who have never been baptized because they may have come from a different faith (non-Christian) background? Specifically, what is the difference between the Baptists and Anabaptists? Is there any point with the ana prefix, even though the baptist pretty much covers one core part of their beliefs? (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Anabaptists predate the Baptists by quite a lot. The Anabaptists arose in Continental Europe, as part of the Radical Reformation. The Baptists, on the other hand, descend at least historically from the English Reformation, though spiritually they claim (or some of them claim) to have existed ever since the time of Christ (see Baptist perpetuity, if that comes up blue). I believe that some who hold to the perpetuity theory do claim that the Anabaptists were part of that line. --Trovatore (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Side note — I created the Baptist perpetuity redirect, intending to point it at Baptist successionism, but I goofed and made it a self-redirect. It might have looked like a joke, but no, it was just a mistake. Fixed now. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Baptist perpetuity is actually (no longer) a mainstream belief among Baptists, and was never denomination wide doctrine (the only denomination wide doctrine is really "you should probably get baptized if you're going to join the Baptist church"). It is an extremely outspoken belief of its adherents, though. Also, Baptist descent from Anabaptists is common outside of a belief in Baptist perpetuity, see Baptists#Anabaptist_influence_view. That the first five Baptist churches condemned the Anabaptists is only evidence to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Anabaptists got their name because they protested infant baptism by getting baptized again, not because they believed one had to be baptized as an infant and then again as an adult. Anabaptists are not a single denomination, but a grouping of denominations and sects that practice believer's baptism or "adult baptism" (though the age can be closer to that of confirmation in Catholicism). Baptists could be thought of as a miscellaneous group of Anabaptists who are pretty much only defined by their Anabaptism, while other Anabaptist churches have other defining traits (like the Amish and plain living). Most Anabapists, to my knowledge, historically leaned toward Arminianism instead of Calvinism, with Baptists being somewhat split until the 20th century (the Southern Baptist Convention indirectly and covertly supporting Calvinism over Arminianism).
Congregationalism can refer to a method of church governance (basically limiting the scale to the congregation, and any interaction between congregations being no more than voluntary cooperation), and it can refer to groups of churches that define themselves through such governance. Anabaptist churches, especially Baptist churches, were usually of the congregationalist style of church governance, but did not define themselves as Congregationalists as a denomination.
The Puritans were a number of Protestant movements in early modern England and colonial America that evolved into a number of Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches. They were not especially known for any sort of Anabaptist belief, but were usually Calvinist.
Most Baptist churches I've seen either require baptism to join, or at least some indication of a prior baptism. The church I grew up in actually had a bit of a controversy because a sweet old man who everyone loved couldn't become a deacon because he hadn't been baptised. That didn't stop him from being a better unofficial deacon than some of the folks who were nominated, mind you. The sort of Baptists who claim you have to be baptized to be saved are a rare fringe (sola fidae, not sola aqua), and view baptism as a requirement to be Baptist, but not to be a Christian. More liberal churches (probably my current one) would allow one to skip it entirely (though certainly be happy to baptize a new member or convert). Most other Anabaptist churches would vary from denomination to denomination, but I remember reading that the Amish and Mennonites are very much into baptism in order to join (though again, not to be a Christian).
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Queen Elizabeth II christmas broadcast in 1969.[edit]

Queen Elizabeth II usually goes a christmas speech that is broadcast. In 1969 she did not. There are both official reasons and unofficial ones. Instead of a broadcast a letter was issued.

Can anyone tell me how this address was issued? and when exactly it went out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is referred to at Royal Christmas Message with links to more information here and here. The reasons seem to have been that with the investiture of the Prince of Wales and a related documentary, she didn't want the Royals to be overexposed. (If only she had known...) As to when it was issued, the links don't say so I'd assume it was distributed to media on Christmas. - EronTalk 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The text of the letter is here should you be curious. As to its distribution, the text of the Christmas Broadcast is nowadays sent to news organisations in advance, with an embargo on its release until 9 am GMT on Christmas morning. There was a bit of a fuss in 1992 when a newspaper divulged the contents early - see 1992: Queen's Christmas speech leaked. I suspect that similar arrangements were in place in 1969, but I couldn't find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Inside the United Nations headquarters in recent years before the renovation[edit]

Does any body know an internet site were pics of the interior of the United Nations headquarters building are shown right before the renovation? They say, it looked very bad till renovation but I hardly find any pics as evidences. -- (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Which parts? This is an image of the Delegate's Lounge in 2003. This is how it looked in 2013 after renovation. - EronTalk 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Many sections, particularly the underground, the security council, general assembly hall. I also would like to know if there are video documentaries available. -- (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
so, the most important parts. -- (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Kind of additional[edit]

How is actually the infrastructural state of the UN locations in Geneva and Vienna, respectively? Have they also undergone a major renovation in the last 10 years like the headquarters in New York? -- (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Vienna International Centre has had renovations in the past few years to remove asbestos from the building. That work is more or less completed now and there are no other major works planned. Regarding the Palace of Nations, major renovation is planned, see [26]. --Viennese Waltz 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Women on boats[edit]

Before modern times, did any society regularly put women in boats or ships? I haven't heard of a single female fisherman, explorer, or crew member from ancient times, but almost every island of any size was populated by prehistoric people, presumably by boat. What were the women doing on boats? -- (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Artemisia I of Caria, queen of Halicarnassus, Caria & Kos led 5 ships at the Battle of Artemisium and the Battle of Salamis.
Sleigh (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium. And there were plenty of women pirates, blast ye. Noah's womenfolk? But it was just for a three-hour tour, a three-hour tour. But then the weather started getting rough .... Clarityfiend (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously prehistoric women traveled by boat or ship; otherwise human communities would have been confined to the mainland until historic times, and we know that's not true. We can't know what women were doing on board in prehistoric times, but cross-culturally, the gender division of labor tends to assign to women roles such as food preparation and child care. There is no reason why they wouldn't have done those things on board during a migration. In ancient historic times, there are exceptions such as the ones Clarityfiend has noted above, but there are also ancient records of women as passengers on seafaring vessels, and that was probably the most common role of women on ships. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Here a few links about the history of maritime women [27] [28] [29], though these are mostly from a Western perspective. Of course e.g the Polynesians must have had many women on board as they sailed around the Pacific, as you suggest. Another thing women would have probably played a large role in was making Fishing_nets. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, a distinction that the OP is missing is the difference between "having existed" and "having been recorded". Unfortunately, past societies did not grant women roles of power and significance, nor did they necessarily think that the actions of women were as important to record as those of men. It doesn't mean those women didn't exist. In the case of travelling by boat; it must first be noted as an uncontroversial historical fact that women were less likely than men to hold prominent roles in maritime travel (such as as ships captains); it is also an uncontroversial historical fact that women tended to be in other roles that the men who were writing things down tended not to think was worth noting. (the facts themselves are not in dispute, that is. The notion that women should be treated differently than men SHOULD be controversial. Gender equality is a goal any civilized person seeks; noting the existence of past inequality does not deny that goal) It doesn't mean that women never got on boats, however. --Jayron32 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) It's not that ancient, but I remember reading that some ships of the Spanish Armada carried a few noblemen who basically just came along for the ride, and that some of them brought their wives and/or mistresses. I've also just found this, which says "A large number of women started following their sailor-husbands to sea, and in the British navy during the eighteenth century, a few women even joined their husbands on battleships." Another point to consider is that in ancient times the women may not have been thought worth mentioning. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There are also the various "sea gypsy" peoples of Southeast Asia, all of whom live or lived on boats, including women. In many of these groups, women traditionally took part in fishing. It is likely that this is an ancient tradition. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


September 25[edit]

Mother-in-law suite synonym ?[edit]

I heard a word used for this I didn't recognize, like "casina". (A mother-in-law suite, for those who don't know, is a bedroom and bathroom, separated from the rest of the house, so as to create a minimum disturbance to the remainder of the household when you murder your mother-in-law there.) StuRat (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Commonly called a "granny flat". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it wasn't the word "cocina" which is Spanish for "kitchen"? It is cognate with the French and English word "cuisine". --Jayron32 00:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • wikt:casina means a "little house" in Italian, so it wouldn't be quite a bad choice to name a small flat annexed to another dwelling. Fut.Perf. 06:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • What looks like "little house" doesn't always mean that. In Welsh "ty bach" means toilet (little house is usually "ty bychan"). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In one of Simon Raven's books (offhand can't recall which, but would have been in the Alms for Oblivion sequence) one of the characters (Daniel Mond, if memory serves) stays in a casino in the grounds of a Venetian pallazzo. It was a small lodge, much like what we would nowadays call a granny flat in Britain.
Here in the U.S. Northeast, it's usually called an "in-law apartment" or "in-law unit". I've never heard it called a "suite", but StuRat lives in the Midwest, and that could be a regional difference. Marco polo (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"Suite" seems like the logical name for it, since it's just like the master suite, except for it's location and intended occupants. Or do you not call the master bedroom and attached master bathroom a suite either ? StuRat (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems we have a ready-built self-contained article. How sweet. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Looks like it was either "casina", meaning "little house" or "casita", as Jack stated. Or maybe the real estate agent conflated the two similar terms and called it "casina" when he meant a "casita". StuRat (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But I bet he or she made it sound wonderful... and really spacious! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic translation[edit]

Can someone please translate this little quote from Alexander Carmichael's notebook: "Clan ioc Aulai a Lochlan, Be siud toiseach ar seorsa".[30] Another transcription gives: Cean ioc Aulai a Lochlan, Be siud Toiseach ar seorsa.[31]--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the first part is supposed to be "Clann mhic Amhlaigh from Lochlann" and then something like "that one yonder was a kind of beginning", but I'm really uncertain of the second part. I know more about Irish than Scottish Gaelic anyway. Maybe one of our Gàidhlig-speaking editors like An Siarach, Akerbeltz, or MacRusgail can help. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's Carmichael's usual idiosyncratic spelling for Clann 'Ic Amhlaigh á Lochlann, b' e siud toiseach ar seòrsa and yes, Aɴɢʀ was close, it means "the Macaulays from Scandinavia, it was them who were the beginning of our kind" Akerbeltz (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Aɴɢʀ. Thanks Akerbeltz.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26[edit]


In Spanish, does state (noun) and statement mean the same thing?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the spanish word for statement "declaración"? I don't see how any of the meanings of the noun "estado" would fit the meaning of "statement".Cfmarenostrum (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. To clarify, I was looking at the financial statements of a company based in a Spanish-speaking country and it said "Estados financiales" or something along those lines (I no longer have the document in front of me). That struck me as odd use of the word because I thought estado meant state.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's more like "financial status"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it is like financial statement (which interlinks to estados financieros on Spanish WP). One of Real Academia Española's dictionary definitions of "estado" reads "Resumen por partidas generales que resulta de las relaciones hechas al por menor, y que ordinariamente se figura en una hoja de papel. Estado de las rentas del vecindario, del ejército" (meaning #7 of "estado" here). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
And the equivalent in French is "états financiers" (fr:États_financiers). --Xuxl (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

'Taking a backseat to....'[edit]

I've just bought a wearable CCTV camera for cycling, and the website said "it takes a backseat to design." What is that supposed to mean? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're quoting the sentence out of context. It actually says "with video quality that takes a backseat to design". This means that the camera sacrifices video quality for its small size and ease of use. --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought it meant, but at 1080p HD it's pretty high quality. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 13:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's good, if the quality is good enough for you. Anyway, that's what they're saying. --Viennese Waltz 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The language question is answered, but I'll add that there are other things aside from resolution that affect video quality. For instance accuracy of color reproduction, ability to capture in low light, the optics of the lens, etc. etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

archaic terms returning to common usage[edit]

Are there examples of terms or senses that became archaic, but eventually returned to common usage? -- (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for being contumelious, but my attempt to excogitate such a list results in a gallimaufry.  — (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
My favorite example is "car", which was an archaic or poetic term until it was revived for railway carriages [32]. --Amble (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I submit "gender" -- c. 1300 it meant a type or class [33]. By 1800, it was barely used. Around 1950 or so it started to mean the social construct in humans, as described by our article gender. This usage is of course aligned with the previous senses, but used as sort of jargon or term of art when restricted to the sociological notion. By 1980 the newer usage really took off, as seen in this Google Ngram [34].
Here's a thread from on the Straight Dope forum where a very similar question is discussed [35]. I suggest that a combination of Etymology Online and Google Ngram viewer (both linked above) will be useful tools for further research and finding more examples through a guess and check method. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
From the strait dope link, "avatar" and "concatenate" seem to be supported by Ngram [36]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe broadcast. It used to be an agricultural term, but was revived in a different context for transmissions of radio and TV programs. Ngrams shows the term in use in the 18th-19th century, dropping out of use in the early 20th, before being revived at about 1920. I would posit that nearly all usage before 1920 was the agricultural term. --Jayron32 16:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Nathan Stubblefield was, coincidentally, a farmer and a 19th century radio experimenter, who has been credited with first using the term "broadcasting" to describe sending out wireless signals for all to receive, as opposed to use for point to point communication. Edison (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In what language? Just English or any language? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There was a plague of such revivals in the early 19th century English-speaking world due to the popularity of Sir Walter Scott. In some cases, Scott was not as good an antiquarian as he flattered himself that he was, so some terms acquired new meanings. The most hilarious of these is minion, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
How so? The french term Les Mignons had already established the term as meaning "sycophantic follower". The English term is nearly a direct transliteration. I think you mean Scott's misunderstanding of henchman to mean "minion" whereas the older meaning of henchman was merely a page or squire. --Jayron32 18:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The English-language use of "minion" pretty blatantly meant "male lover [or at least darling] of king or other powerful male noble", and Scott seems to have been blithely unaware of that one. Your explanation of Les Mignons as being mere sycophantic followers seems pretty euphemistic. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
But were the minions hench? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "albeit" comes to mind. Not sure it ever became truly archaic, but it's now far more often encountered than was once the case. To some people, it's still so new that they've resorted to making up their own pronunciation - the first syllable spoken like Al (as in Al Jolson), rather than like "all". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ngram Viewer seems to support this. Interestingly the revival seem to have started around 1953, the year Fight Fiercely, Harvard was published, but that's probably just coincidence. -- BenRG (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "wireless" ? It originally meant wireless telegraphy using the spark gap to send electromagnetic waves in Morse Code or the like. Now it refers to cell phones. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cable & Wireless plc had a name that went from being antique to cutting-edge in a decade. jnestorius(talk) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Time magazine's "Timespeak" or "Timese" style of the 20s and 30s included "such pseudo-archaisms as atop, afoul, and awry". Variety and others have also ransacked dictionaries and thesauri. Some of these words have become standard, or at least standard-U.S.-journalese, rather than archaic-poetic-twee. jnestorius(talk) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
'Awesome' is a word that comes to mind. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Accent that mixes the r sound and w sound?[edit]

On Sesame Street, there is this cute little bear that can't distinguish the r sound and the w sound. In fact, the r sound is pronounced like the w sound. Is this a real accent somewhere? (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Children often speak that way. Elmer Fudd is a fake speaker, but led me to a real thing called rhotacism (or wotacism, maybe). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
It is found with some adult speakers in England. It is referred to as the r lisp, although I am not sure there is not a better term. It was discussed here a few years back if anyone wants to search the archives. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this it? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_July_24#Stuttering_and_languages -- Zanimum (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not the thread to which I was referring, as I participated in it. It seems to be associated with some upperclass Englishmen and the nobility--Monty Python make fun of it alot. This blog mentions it and calls it weak or gliding /r/.
The one that you recall having participated in was probably this one. There has also been at least one other thread. Deor (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Monty Python note is especially relevant... Sesame writers and cast have created another character who was a thinly veiled tribute, among other things. I can easily imagine David Rudman making use of one of their characterizations. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are some of those other things. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
I've read (probably in Mr Kipling's Army) that officers of one regiment affected r→w in imitation of their Colonel Brabazon (nicknamed Bwab). —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be the Colonel Brabazon of the 4th Hussars who Churchill writes about in My Early Life. Not read Mr Kipling's Army but it sounds like an exceedingly good book. DuncanHill (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You beat me with an answer. If anyone else wants to comment, here's a video clip of him talking. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It is called R-labialization, and is quite common in some accents of southern UK English. For example Jonathan Ross is famous for having this accent. The actual sound isn't exactly the same as "w". Instead, it is more like a "v" sound, with the upper tooth touching the lower lip, and is a voiced consonant. Bluap (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I have this. I've always known it as a form of rhotacism, my upper teeth don't touch my lower lip when I do it (find it hard to imagine saying anything where they would). English, Not at all upper class. Sometimes w's turn into r's too. It's worst when I can see several r's coming up ahead of me in close order. DuncanHill (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's referred to as an articulation disorder nowadays. See this website for example. DuncanHill (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's fairly common in East London where I grew up, where the pronunciation of the letter "R" is very weak anyway. I went to the same school in Leyton as Jonathan Ross - nobody from the upper classes ever crossed the portals of Leyton County High School for Boys. Even so, it's less of an accent than a "speech defect" (old usage) or "articulation disorder" as Duncan rightly says. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing: I have it too, and although I never lived in Leyton (or anywhere in London, being raised peripatetically as a British Army brat), my father was born around there and went to the same school as Alansplodge, but doesn't have it. In the British Army it's sufficiently frequent among commissioned officers that a dismissive nickname for them, "Ruperts", is often pronouced "Wuperts."
Another well-known attendee of Leyton County High School for Boys was Frank Muir, who of course exhibited the condition to a marked degree. Something of a pattern emerging, it would seem. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And interestingly but beside the point, another former pupil was Derek Jacobi who although able to pronounce his "Rs" affected a lisp in I Claudius. Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Punjabi translation help[edit]

Anyone on this board speak Punjabi? One of the candidates for Mayor of Brampton says that another is claiming they are invited to the Brampton Board of Trade's select candidate debate.

I don't read Punjabi, and the article (top article on page 3) isn't copy-able, otherwise I would have thrown it into Google Translate. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Chinese language and gender-neutrality[edit]

In written and spoken Chinese, there is gender-neutrality, and yet, the Chinese family has long been patriarchal, patrilineal, patrifocal, and patrilocal, even before the he/she pronouns were introduced in the modern period. It seems that there is no relationship between gendered language and patriarchy, as some linguistic prescriptivists point out. Yet, there appears to be a correlation between gendered language and patriarchy in the English language. Why? Is the relationship due to culture than grammar? Could it be that, by default, the English word "he" is assumed to carry a masculine meaning, while the Chinese word "ta" is assumed to carry a gender-neutral meaning? How can the English word carry a masculine meaning, when English speakers did use it for all of mankind? How did the English "she" pronoun come about? (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spoken Chinese is indeed completely gender neutral, but written Chinese is only slightly more gender-neutral than English. In any case, why do you say there is a "correlation between gendered language and patriarchy in the English language"? What is "gendered language"?
You can check up the etymology of words with the Online Etymology Dictionary. The entries on he and she are particularly interesting. Apparently, "he" has been the masculine singular pronoun since Old English. The Old English feminine singular pronoun was heo/hio, and the feminine demonstrative pronoun was seo/sio. Due to changes in pronunciation, heo/hio gradually merged with he, and the feminine demonstrative became the feminine singular. That's how the pronoun "she" arose. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Because some people say that non-gender-neutral language in English is "sexist". When I used "gendered language", I really meant non-gender-neutral language. (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note that not only are the currently used pronouns of Mandarin relatively recent in the scheme of the history of the major Chinese topolects, but also the distinction between masculine and feminine "ta" is even more recent in writing. It appears the masculine form was used to encompass both male and female referents original, which could give rise to the argument that implicit sexism or non-gender-neutral perspectives were at play.-- (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What you just said assumes that the 他 was originally masculine, even though it never was. The Chinese word for human is "人". It's not man or woman; it means human. (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what "correlation between gendered language and patriarchy in the English language" could even mean. You can't have a correlation if one of your variables only takes on one value. You need to look at a lot more languages if you want to show a trend (or lack of one). -- BenRG (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The OP's proposed correlation isn't proven--but his/her concept isn't hard to understand. Purely for example purposes, imagine that in pre-21st century English speaking countries, we identify a greater gender imbalance of power (i.e., inequality) in given societies and time periods occurs more prevalently in places/periods which display a greater use (relative to today's usage patterns) of gender-marked words like "huntress," "school mistress" (instead of school teacher), "sculptress," etc. Note languages like Italian and German (especially the latter) style heavily feature such marked forms. But query whether gender imbalance is greater in German speaking societies. -- (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I never proposed a scientific correlation. Maybe I used the wrong word there. But what I meant was that the English language's gendered language is perceived by some people to be sexist or biased, so they prefer and tell others to use gender-neutral wording. (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC) -- Occasionally there can be some interesting connections between linguistic constructions and social attitudes, but I really don't think that there's any simplistic inverse correlation between basic linguistic sex-differentiation and enlightened social attitudes of the type that you are proposing. For that matter, sometimes social attitudes can change a lot faster than linguistic typology. Both the Persian and Finnish languages lack any differentiation of grammatical gender in pronouns and agreement forms, yet relevant social customs and laws are quite a bit different in Finland and Iran. Arabic has a differentiation of grammatical gender not only in 3rd person pronouns, but also in 2nd person pronouns and most 2nd and 3rd person finite inflected verbs (in addition to adjectives and participles), yet there's no radical dichotomy of social customs in Arab vs. Iranian societies (and in fact, there is a significant variation in attitudes across different Arab countries). For that matter, if you compare Finnish and English, Finnish has no gender-differentiation in pronouns (and so no pseudo-generic "he" problem), but on the other hand, until fairly recently Finnish was somewhat rigid in attaching a suffix to many nouns referring to women -- so where in English most "-er" type nouns can refer indifferently to either men or women, in Finnish the corresponding nouns often had to have a suffix attached to refer to specifically to a woman. So which language was then more "sexist"?? P.S. In writing this comment, I stumbled across the Gender neutrality in genderless languages article... AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • THis topic's been beaten to death in the archives, I suggest searching them at the top of the page. English is an Indo-european language, and pre-Indo-European distinguished between active and stative verbs and animate and inanimate nouns. Terms corresponding to he and it existed and applied to living or active objects like fire and water and the sun versus inanimate objects. In the later proto-Indo-European stage, after Hittite, which has no feminine gender, had already become a separate entity, PIE developed a feminine form, distinct from the default animate he form. This basically happened when words ending in -a came to be seen as a class, such as *gwena ("woman, wife, queen) and abstractions in -a. New feminine concord endings for some adjectives (usually those ending in -us and -um in Latin) arose, but many languages still have adjectives and pronouns that differentiate between animate and inanimate, and this explains why the what/who distinction but not a sex distinction in who is almost universal in living Indo-European languages. Hence, it is not that English is patriarchal, "he" is simply the default animate pronoun. It is that somewhere along the line PIE started giving the feminine gender special treatment. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Medeis -- Even if the modern English system goes back to early Indo-European in some respects, a new situation came into existence when arbitrary grammatical gender assigned to nouns, and agreements involving such arbitrary grammatical genders, were abolished in early middle English. From that time forward, English had a so-called "natural gender" system, in which in the great majority of cases the pronouns "he", "she", and "it" were used according to the biological sex (or lack thereof) of what they referred to. This new situation meant that the cases in which "he", "she", and "it" were not used according to biological sex now stood out, and were considered problematic by some even before the rise of modern feminism (see "thon"). By contrast, in early Indo-European, proto-Germanic, proto-West-Germanic, Anglo-Frisian, and Old English, there were a lot of cases constantly occurring all the time in which the use of grammatical gender was discrepant from biological sex, and presumably most people were never bothered by it... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That development has nothing to do with the fact that he had always been the default animate pronoun, and things like curses were always written in the form "let him who disturbs this grave..." without implying females were immune. Nor was he "chosen" at some point to replace a prior default neutral animate. Nor does its continued use in modern English indicate some sort of misogyny. Discussions like this always begin with the premise that writers are sexist, and then latch on to he-as-the-default-animate as a sign of sexism, regardless of the historical truth, or complain about terms like history being sexist in some sort of bizarre pseudoscientific etymologizing.
I am not sure what you meant by thon, User:AnonMoos, is this some pronominal form? Can you give a link? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's generally true that in older and/or heavily inflected Indo-European languages, the masculine is the default animate gender in the singular (not always in the plural). However, in such languages, there are many discrepancies between grammatical gender and biological sex of what is referred to, which are constantly occurring in speech, so that default masculine doesn't really stand out too much against that background. However, in Middle and modern English, the pronouns "he", "she", and "it" are used according to the biological sex of what is referred to in the great majority of cases -- which calls attention to the few cases in which the pronouns are not used according to the biological sex of what they refer to. This includes "she" used for ships and countries etc., as well as the generic masculine.
"Thon" was a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun proposal which was publicized by one Charles Crozat Converse in 1884 (a year not known for the prevalence of feminist political correctness). It was fairly well-known in the United States in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (though not widely used), and worked its way into some mainstream reputable dictionaries of the period (a fairly comprehensive wiktionary entry at )... AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S. It's also very interesting that the 1907 proposal for the Ido language carefully fixed all the "sexist" features of Esperanto, under the guidance of Otto Jespersen, though again 1907 was not particularly a year of pervasive feminist influences, and Jespersen himself does not seem to have been very feminist (at least to judge from "Chapter XIII: The Woman" of his 1921 book Language: Its Nature Development and Origin)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that although children receive the surname from their fathers, married Chinese women don't adopt the husband's surname. Given names in Chinese are all unisex, though some characters are rather associated with females. In Chinese writing, there is the female radical 女, but no radical for males. I don't think "he, she, it" are sexist. My Chinese grandpa doesn't know any foreign language. When I explained the concept of other languages to him, he said it was useful. You would know better who someone refers to because Chinese 他, 她, 它 all sound the same. On the other side, naming Chinese family members is very precise. You differentiate between older/younger siblings, paternal/maternal aunts/uncles/grandparents/cousins/grand-aunts/granduncles, fraternal/sororal nephews/nieces and many more. You would automatically know if an aunt is an aunt due to marriage or if she's your parent's sibling and people even go further and call someone first aunt (oldest aunt), second aunt,... -- (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC) -- To clarify for people who are not familiar with Chinese, Chinese of course has characters for both woman,female and man,male . However, only is commonly used as a visual component in deriving more complex characters... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Surrey accent?[edit]

I was listening to a BBC World Service The Why Factor podcast called "Trees of Life", and at about 1:20 Tony Kirkham, the head of the Arboretum at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, starts speaking with an interesting accent. He pronounces his name as "tonny", curate (verb form of curation) as "kew-raaayt", daily as "deh-li", and tends to drop the final g from words like planting ("plaantin"). From which part of the UK does this accent originate? I note from his Wikipedia article that he studied in Frensham which is in Surrey, but the article does not say where he grew up, nor am I familiar with what a Surrey accent sounds like. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more Lancastrian to me. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, here we are - he grew up in Darwen in Lancs. See this article from the Lancashire Telegraph. DuncanHill (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a lovely-sounding accent, though I suppose that statement may be subjective ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Depends who's using it, too. Here's Dynamite Kid at the peak of his enunciation career. Sort of cool, but not so lovely. Then later, neither cool nor lovely. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
People from Frensham are generally speakers of RP or something posher, but there is a Surrey accent which is rhotic and rather like a Portsmouth accent. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Latin book names[edit]

How should old Latin names for books be presented? Should the names of the works here be abbreviated, or like this? (old revision). Thanks in advance. Jamesx12345 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would go with what the cited source(s) use. Or, if they are commonly known by the shorter title, than that should be okay. I came across something similar concerning German publication titles. I used the short titles in the list with an explanatory footnote {{efn}} for each, and the full title in the footnote, with the citation in the footnote. Anyway, that was my solution, and probably not a proper Wikipedia MoS guideline one, as the following post(s) will explain. (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Old Prussian language[edit]

Old Prussian gods Potrimpo, Peckols and Perkūnas

There is a drawing of an Old Prussian flag exhibiting a sample of script. The sources for the images on Wikimedia Commons are somewhat unclear (compare File:Prussenfürst.JPG). Are these obvious fakes by Simon Grunau or others, or is this a Cyrillic inscription in Old Prussian language? Thunmann suggested the reading Dew Kork supyk s pustitiais ystuk ssus. Is this ancient Cyrillic? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like anything that I'm familiar with, but might have been intended to be in a form of Glagolitic... AnonMoos (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, assuming it has any actual transcription it does not look like Cyrillic or Glagolitic, which is highly symmetrical. The area was Catholic. Before the Christians came they would likely have used some sort of Runic. This appears to me to be a mixture of unlikely symbols meant to appear exotic--but that's OR, so will see if someone can disprove the null hypothesis. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed in detail here [37], it would seem that the script is a hoax invented by Grunau, based loosely on Cyrillic and Greek. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The letters appear to be alchemical symbols and apothecary's units for the most part. --Amble (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to disgree with that. Alchemical symbols almost always show a very obvious symmetry. I see an "A" and an "a" and a lowercase greek ξ here, maybe. There are Runic thetas with handles and pseudo-phis. But there really is nothing Alchemical or Glagolitic, and whit does exist that might be called Cyrillic overlaps with Greek or Latin. There's certainly not a single symbol diagnostic of just one script. One might as well equally call this Old Turkic. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Compare with the symbols in this table File:Alchemytable.jpg and with the ounce and dram symbols in apothecaries' system. Not sure where you get such an idea about symmetry; alchemical symbols are usually based on variations and combinations of letters or symbols for constellations and planets. Some of them are symmetric, others aren't. Jupiter/tin and Saturn/lead don't have any particular symmetry, for exampl.e --Amble (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mc and Mac names[edit]

Still, to this day, I regularly come across surnames starting with Mc and Mac that I've never heard before. The most recent one is McClumph. I assumed that was someone's idea of a joke (no offence to any McClumphs out there), but a search reveals it's legit. Each time I become aware of a new one, I wonder how many others are out there lurking in wait to spring a surprise on me.

So that I can be fully prepared for whatever life throws at me, is there a comprehensive list of all known such names, showing all their variants (e.g. McDonald, MacDonald, Mcdonald, Macdonald, Mc Donald, Mac Donald, M'Donald .....) ? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

McClumph (as well as M'Clumph, MacClumph, etc) is not in the OUP A Dictionary of Surnames, which has pages of Mcs Macs and Mucks. No Lumph or Lump either, nor O'Lumph, nor Clumph nor Clump. So, in answer to your question, probably not. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't answer Jack's question (because it's obviously not comprehensive in its variants), yet for anyone who's interested: List of Scottish Gaelic surnames features MacClumpha and MacLumpha derived from Scottish Gaelic MacIllIomchadha. (Perhaps the helpful people who responded to the question on Alexander Carmichael's Gaelic notes will have something to add ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't think there's anything comprehensive. What bloats Gaelic surnames beyond the reatively small pool of patronymics are the MacGilleX names, i.e. son of the servant of followed by a saint. Which means that many obscure saint's have left behind surnames even if they're barely known as saints. In this case we're talking St Iomchadh, whoever he may have been. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
According to this site, Iomchadh Uallach was the grandson (or possibly great-great-grandson - I'm not sure what the referent of the various "his son" entries on the list is) of Ailill Aulom, King of Munster. Tevildo (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The 2000 US census records surnames borne by more than 100 people; of those, 1896 being with "Mc" and 405 with "Mac" (none with M' FWIW). This includes some false positives, e.g. "Macias", and false negatives, e.g. "Magee"; and by definition less common names missing. jnestorius(talk) 16:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Khmer in Chinese[edit]

Has the Khmer language ever been commonly written in Chinese in recent history? I'm aware of other Indochinese languages being written in Chinese characters, e.g. Chữ nôm, but I wasn't sure about Khmer because it's really not addressed in its article; Khmer alphabet mentions that it was created in the ninth century AD, but it doesn't address Chinese or mention when the current alphabet attained its monopoly for writing the language. This is all related to 孟尼王, which is at RFD as an implausible foreign-language redirect to Sisowath Monivong, King of Cambodia until 1941; I wondered if his name might have been written in Chinese characters by Cambodians at the time. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese are the only living languages I know they used or still use Chinese characters. And the East Asian cultural sphere doesn't include more countries. It's not what you thought. I wonder why there's the page 孟尼王 on the English Wikipedia at all. The current Chinese name is 莫尼旺. 孟尼王 is just an older Chinese transcription, not Khmer. -- (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Any orthography that uses Latin characters is considered fair game for article titles in English Wikipedia, regardless of (a) additional characters (Þórbergur Þórðarson), (b) unfamiliar diacritics (Lưu Thị Diễm Hương), or (c) implausible if not apparently impossible combinations of letters (Benia Chkhikvishvili). But we draw the line at Greek and Cyrillic even though they both satisfy (a); let alone Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hebrew, Arabic and and other entirely non-Latin scripts. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really; we happily create titles such as იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი (Stalin's original name) or 廣東 (original name of Canton Province, China); the issue is that foreign-language titles need to be in a language related to the subject. We keep the two I already mentioned because Stalin was Georgian, and Chinese is spoken/written in Canton Province, but we delete titles such as 孟尼王 because Chinese is apparently irrelevant to the Khmer monarchy. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Those two are redirects. Are there any actual articles with titles that contain no Latin characters (apart from articles about numbers or symbols)? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
How about these: .бг, .бел, .рф, .срб, .укр? --Theurgist (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
But I see your point. Usually the threshold for eligibility of letters/characters for article titles and usage within plain English text is whether they belong to a Latin-based or Latin-derived alphabet (and are encoded in Unicode Latin), even if the letters themselves originate from elsewhere, like Þ. --Theurgist (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my confusion; I thought you were addressing redirects, not titles for freestanding articles. Your description of the situation sounds accurate, but I've never particularly paid attention to that kind of thing, while the WP:FORRED essay describes quite well what we generally do with foreign-language redirects. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the Khmer language has never been written in Chinese or Chinese-derived characters. Of course if you are writing in Chinese about Khmer individuals you must have characters to represent their names but that's also the case if you are writing about Argentinians or South Africans. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird symbols seen in a decoration in Bratislava[edit]

Weird symbols in restaurant 1. Slovak Pub, Bratislava, Slovakia.jpg

I took this picture of some kind of icon or other decoration in restaurant 1. Slovak Pub in Bratislava, Slovakia, in early July. I have no idea what the symbols are in this picture. I think the letters in the scroll at the bottom are some kind of Latin and/or Cyrillic writing, but I have no idea what the symbols at the top are. I don't even know if they are letters or pictograms or signature monograms or arcane alchemical or astrological or religious symbols. Can anyone help? JIP | Talk 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it Glagolitic alphabet and a picture of Saints Cyril and Methodius? DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC
Some of the symbols at the top are certainly Glagolitic, but I can't identify all of them. I think they're rather inexpertly written. The text on the scroll is Cyrillic, I think, though it is possible that it's Greek. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree the top is largely, if not entirely Glagolitic, and suspect some of the symbols are overlapping or in ligature form. The Scroll looks like Latin capitals, with a few Greek or other symbols thrown in, probably for sounds not found in Latin. I cannot positively identify anything on the scroll as in Cyrillic, nor can I segment it into anything Greek, although the theta on the first line screams Greek. A big problem in trying to read things in Byzantine Catholic churches is that they use Greek and Latin letters and have both abbreviation and run-on writing. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The scroll is in Greek. I'm not entirely certain about the first line, which seems to contain abbreviations, but the rest is pretty clear. I read: "Κ[ύρι]ε ὁ Θ[εό]ς ἡμ[ῶν], σῶσον τὸν λαὸν σου καὶ εὐλόγησον τὴν κληρονομίαν σου", a variant of a well-known prayer formula from the orthodox liturgy based on Ps. 28 ("Lord, save thy people and bless thine inheritance"). Fut.Perf. 19:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So, the letters that look like capital G are actually for capital sigma, Σ? μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, normal "lunate sigma", as used often in medieval writing and stylized writing in modern ecclesiastical contexts. Fut.Perf. 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Malba nad vstupem do kostela sv. Cyrila a Metoděje v Bílovicích nad Svitavou.jpg
Duncan and Colin are right: the top is Cyril and Methodius with glagolitic letters. The portraits and letters are both based on this image of the brother saints: [38], [39]. It looks as though the artist was working from a low-resolution version of the original image; they simplified the garb, and supplemented the writing with some creative interpolations and additions. The poses and hairstyles are a match, and you can see how some of the odd letters came about as uncertain readings of the ones in the book. --Amble (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's another version that's clearly based on the same original. This is from a Czech church. It's a more faithful reproduction than the one you found in the pub, but it also has some oddities in the glagolitic writing. --Amble (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Aha. Found the original artwork [40]. It's by the Czech artist Jano_Köhler. In the high-resolution version on that page, you can see that the glagolitic text is a lovingly and carefully written rendition of an appropriate Biblical text, John 1. --Amble (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Is vexsome a real word? Th4n3r (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no entry for it in the OED. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The usual term is "vexatious". The roots "vex" and "-atious" (actually "-ation" + "-ous") are from Latin.[41] he suffix "-some" is from Old English.[42] That might be why there is no "vexsome" in English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It can be found in Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary
Hence Vexsome, adj. grievous, sad.
Rnf. The poor wee lambs, wi' vexsome lays, Ran ithers foul, FRASER Poet. Chimes. (1853) [...]
"Rnf." means Renfrew. The author of Poetic Chimes, Or, Leisure Lays is a John Fraser, but he's not listed among our John Frasers. This one was born August 15, 1812, in Edinburgh. [43]---Sluzzelin talk 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
According to linguistic descriptivism, 'vexsome' is obviously a real word, because you know it, and we understood what it meant. The only people who get too worried about whether a perfectly cromulent work is a 'real' word are proponents of linguistic prescriptivism, and my advice is to ignore them unless they happen to be your teacher, editor or publisher ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Very good, my lord"[edit]

We've all seen it on TV or movies: The lord/lady of the manor pulls a cord to summon a butler, who is then given some instruction. The butler answers "Very good, my lord/lady" and departs.

I've often wondered why they don't say "very well". What is it that's being described as "good"? Is this "very good" in the same class of expressions as "How do you do?", i.e. not meant to be interpreted literally?

Or, why don't they just say "Yes, my lord/lady", as any normal human being would do? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer "Yes, my lord" would imply that the answer "No, my lord" was possible. "Very well, my lord" sounds slightly snarky - perhaps the master has insisted on a particularly loud tie being laid out for him (of course, this would be an exchange with a valet, not a butler) - it expresses disapproval at the same time as compliance. "Very good, my lord" uses good in the sense given by OED "as an exclamation, expressing satisfaction", with the earliest citation for "Very good, my lord" being from Naval Officer by Captain Marryat, 1829. It gives "good-oh" in the same sense. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I take it to mean "Your request is a very good one". Presumably, if the master had requested their golf clubs to play golf on the hilltop during a thunderstorm, the butler would not answer in that way, and instead point out the danger (unless they were eager for a new employer, that is). StuRat (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, but, to use Duncan's analogy, wouldn't "Very good, my lord" imply that the answer "Very bad, my lord" is possible? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Bad" isn't really used as "an exclamation, expressing dissatisfaction" is it? DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. "Good! You've ruined my day!" is far more common than "Bad! You've ruined my day!" KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is, if "very good" is short for "Your request is a very good one" (per StuRat), then couldn't "very bad" be short for "Your request is a very bad one"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
For what it worth. In French we say in the same situation "très bien". The word "bien" is an adverb which, in this case, means graciously and emphasizes acceptance. Could it be a direct translation from French? — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure about the yes-makes-no-possible explanation, but I have a totally OR view: the longer the answer, the more polite it sounds, and so formal answers tend to go for longer forms. "Yes" maybe be perceived too short to be polite enough to a Lord. This is true not only in English, of course, to take another example, in Japanese, the politeness of any sentence is highly correlated to its length and the time it takes to utter it. --Lgriot (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes is the answer to a question. The lord's not asking, he's telling. If the servant presumes he had an option, he's no longer treating the lord as such, and it would be wrong to call him that. "Right away, my Lord" would be much the same, without the ass-kissing subservience. In movies and especially TV, they need to fit as much exposition into what dialogue time they're allotted. I'd rather hear "As you wish", if I were sitting in the lord's chair. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
That could come over as "What a dumb idea; but it's your call, so ...".
That aside, my point is that I can't think of any other context where a request from a person in authority (= a command) to do something would be followed by "Very good". It would sound unnatural, unidiomatic and ungrammatical. So, why is it considered none of those things in the context I refer to in my question? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"If you say so" conveys doubt to me. "As you wish" is blind love. Everything sounds unnatural outside its natural context. Try ending with "over" when you're not on a radio, or "stop" when you're not reading a telegram. Or raising your hand before asking or answering a question. "Sir, yes sir!" would be a pretty weird thing for a butler to shout, staring straight ahead. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

If I may add a reference to all this badinage? I found Origin of “Very Good, Sir!” which quotes the OED, which itself gives this quotation from FRANK MILDMAY or The Naval Officer by CAPTAIN MARRYAT, London 1829 by way of explanation; "He was very particular and captious when not properly addressed. When an order is given by a commanding officer, it is not unusual to say, 'Very good, Sir;' implying that you perfectly understand, and are going cheerfully to obey it. I had adopted this answer, and gave it to his lordship when I received an order from him, saying 'Very good, my lord.'" (The OED references it as "F. Marryat Naval Officer III. iv. 101 " which I wasn't able to find on the Project Gutenberg ebook which is from a later edition and without page numbers, but I'll take their word for it). So it seems to be a naval term. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there any references on how this ties in with "Aye aye, sir"? Not having much experience of naval matters, I can't say which (if either) of the phrases is to be preferred in various situations. And the "Aye aye" article could do with some references... Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As with any employer/employee relationship, it's fine for an employee to say the employer has a very good idea, but outright saying that he has a very bad idea may not promote continued employment. However, there are ways to get the point across, diplomatically, without saying so explicitly. In my previous example of the master who wants to play golf on the hilltop during a thunderstorm, a diplomatic reply might be "May I suggest a game of billiards today, sir, and playing golf tomorrow, when better weather is expected ?". StuRat (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
So, Alansplodge, it was made up by Frederick Marryat, and has since become culturally entrenched. Thanks for that. I bet most butlers would have little or no idea of the origin of the term. Except those who read these pages, of course. For their sakes, I'm glad I asked now. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
We can at least say that it was attested at an early date by Marryat, who helpfully described its meaning (suggesting that it wouldn't be understood by a wider readership), thus ensuring himself an entry in the OED nearly 200 years later. Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]


My mum has a box in her bedroom - it's my old toy box from when I was a kid. She calls it an Ottoman. I've always wondered why she used that word for it. Did the Turkish Empire invent boxes? I don't think so. So, why is it called this? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably a variant of Ottoman (furniture)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec)If the top is padded or has a cushion so that it can be used as a seat it is correct to call it an Ottoman. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not padded, though. As far as I am concerned, it's just an ex-toy box. I have no idea why she is calling it that. Thanks for the link, however. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 10:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as the article says, "many ottomans are hollow and used for storage". So maybe she learned the word by reference to one of those and assumed it included similar but non-padded storage units. As for the word why it's called an ottoman, the OED Online says it derives from 18th-century French and does indeed relate to the Turkish empire; presumably either they did invent the item of furniture or else some 18th-century French people either thought they did (compare List of names for turkeys for a similar example) or pretended, for marketing reasons, that they did. -- (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Trying to get to the bottom of this. France was at war with the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century. That explanation would be like calling a handbag a Nazi or Taliban in today's world. Why would they name a piece of household furniture after an enemy? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Franco-Ottoman alliance... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, a more general point bearing on this question. We are used to 19th to 21st-century "Total Warfare", where we demonize the opposition, and it seems almost inconceivable that we would adopt the fashions, customs or products of an "enemy nation" (although see Lili Marlene).
However, in the 18th Century and earlier, when the concept of the Nation state was still solidifying, warfare was sometimes perceived as a conflict between rulers and their armies (or those of commercial enterprises, see The British East India Company and its substantial army and navy) over questions of geopolitical and economic power, which did not necessarily concern the ordinary civilian populace (as long as they didn't get in the way). Thus it was sometimes possible for private citizens of one country to correspond with and even visit those of another country "at war" with their own for purposes of (what we would call) tourism or scientific co-operation (not to mention spying), or to conduct trade (perhaps via intermediaries). In such circumstances, certain cultural and other aspects of a notional "enemy" might nonetheless become admired and adopted. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
At the turn of the 19th century, there was a fashion for oriental styling; for example, the Royal Pavilion at Brighton is a bizarre mix of Chinese and Moghul décor, see Orientalism, which perhaps explains why they became popular. If it's any consolation, your mother is not alone: Internet retailer also thinks an ottoman is an unpadded chest - see White Ottoman Storage Chest, Toy Chest or Bedding Box Cambridge. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
To me an ottoman is anything that can be used as a foot rest. An unpadded toy chest could be used that way, by placing a cushion on top of it. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Etymology Online, an ottoman was originally a type of low-backed couch.[44] It's not clear how that sense evolved into meaning a footstool or hassock. What the OP describes kind of sounds like a foot locker, or a small trunk. But footrests often serve that purpose too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's funny that the ottoman article cites the running gag of Dick Van Dyke stumbling over it. Played in slow motion, it's a very controlled tumble. At regular speed, it looks like a bad spill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
To me an ottoman has to be padded for use as a seat, and have storage. An Ottoman, on the other hand, should live in oriental splendour eating rahat lakoum. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with some of the above. In my memory an ottoman is a cross between a hassock and a chest. That is, it needs to be both padded and have storage. --Jayron32 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the replies. I think I understand it now. I will just make one further remark. A 'hassock' is a term in my dialect (at least in the old days of UK Empire) meaning a woman's lady parts - being padded and having storage. This made me laugh, sorry. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Best cultural reference is A A Milne.

A bear, however hard he tries,
Grows tubby without exercise.
Our Teddy Bear is short and fat
Which is not to be wondered at;
He gets what exercise he can
By falling off the ottoman,
But generally seems to lack
The energy to clamber back.

I was pleased to know that an ottoman could specifically be a toy-box. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


I have just found out that one of my cousins was born from a different father from my biological uncle. He was adopted. The mother is not a blood relative (though dearly loved). So, he's not my cousin, because we are not even biologically related. What is he? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If your biological uncle has adopted him, first cousin seems like a perfectly acceptable term to describe his familial relation to you. You could add adopted or adoptive to the term if you wished to refer to the precise relationship. It seems to me that words expressing familial relationships like mother, father, aunt, uncle and cousin do not of themselves take account of whether the relationship is one of blood or otherwise. Some signifying adjective or prefix like adoptive, biological or step- needs to be added to express this aspect of the relationship. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Or first cousin by adoption, if you prefer. -- (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether blood relative or adopted, he's your cousin, for practical purposes. If there's a need to get technical, then you can fall back on the details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Siblings question[edit]

Inspired by the above relatives question, I decided to ask another question about relatives. I have a younger half-brother. We have the same mother but different fathers. In turn, he also has a half-brother, who is elder to us both. They have the same father but different mothers. Even though biologically my little brother is only a half-brother and his elder half-brother is no blood relation to me, I like to think of my half-brother as a brother and his half-brother as a half-brother to me. And in family meetings, I don't want to offend anyone, so I call them both simply my brothers. Is there an English term for "half-sibling of a half-sibling with no shared parents", which yet signifies familiarity and closeness? JIP | Talk 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reckon your getting into cultural territory here. My answer is, it depends on where you are and what part of society you're in. I certainly know some situations where the older sibling would simply be called a brother, and others where more precision would be demanded. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) He could be your step-brother? That would be your step-father's son by a woman who is not your mother (where your step-father is the man your mother married who is not your father).
But, in most circumstances, you could just say "brother" and gloss over it without any issues. Kahastok talk 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Step-brother sounds otherwise good, but I don't think of his father as a step-father. Although my parents broke up when I was still a small child, my father never left me, and I am far more affected to him than to my half-brother's (or should that be half-brothers'?) father. JIP | Talk 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It all comes down to whether you're being formal or technical, or if you're expressing the practical, real relationship you have with someone. That is, he may technically be a non-blood-related half-brother of a half-brother, but if your relationship is as if you are brothers, then you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A friend of mine once referred to his "stepfather's son", and I said, "You must not have grown up together with him", and he said "You're right, I didn't; how did you know?" and I said "If you had, you would have called him your stepbrother." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The most difficult thing here is when others are certain of what you should say. It's entirely up to you and the other person directly involved. Whatever you agree on should be fine. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
My half-brother has a half-brother who is my brother and my half-brother has a half-brother who is my half-brother's half-brother. Hope that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My two sons are biologically half-brothers. The elder one has another half-brother, and that half-brother has another half-brother. What that last person's relationship to my kids (or to my impending grand-daughter via my younger son) is, is a very interesting question. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Do the half-half-half-brothers share a recent direct ancestor? Relations are easiest to work out when you figure out which ancestor (grandparent/great-grandparent/etc.) they share in common. If they don't have any recent ancestors in common; if there is no one in that position, they are unrelated. It gets confusing when you try to just work it out abstractly. Map out the genealogy of each kid; find the common link. No link = no relationship. --Jayron32 14:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
True. That's why it's important to make a distinction between the technical and the practical. If your parents adopt a child, you're not blood-related. But as a practical matter, it's still your sibling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Can "base" mean "backing track" in Spanish?[edit]

When you try to Google-translate "backing track" into Spanish you only get "pista de acompañamiento".

Yet you find on YouTube many videos from/for Spanish speakers where the word "base" seems to mean "backing track", e.g. "Base de Batería - Metal" which seems to be a "drum backing track for metal" (and many many many other examples).

So can Spanish "base" mean "backing track"?


Contact Basemetal here 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Base means foundation, but it also means basis and comes across to me as "the foundation of metal drumming" or more colloquially in English, the basics, or basis of metal drumming. The comment says "A drum track so you can practice with the [you tube] channel's videos or use as you like". I have no expertise in music, so it is quite possible basis has some other meaning here, like back track. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My musician informant says it is indeed used that way. Be aware that out of context by itself base does not mean track. "Backing track" would be pista de base.μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Medeis and thank your musician informant for me. At first I thought I'd try the Spanish Reference Desk. But that page hasn't been changed since October 2013. It is dead. It's passed on. That Reference Desk is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life. It rests in peace. It is an ex-Reference Desk. Contact Basemetal here 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No it's not. Unlike the English Wikipedia, the Spanish Wikipedia has just a front-end at the main reference desk pages and actual questions go to week-specific subpages. The current subpage should be es:Wikipedia:Consultas/semana 40 2014 but for some reason, that page hasn't been created yet, so the most recent page is es:Wikipedia:Consultas/semana 39 2014. You are supposed to click the link that says Para hacer una consulta nueva, cliquea aquí to ask a new question. JIP | Talk 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you JIP. I'm glad to hear that. I won't have to go to Bolton for a refund. (Or was it Ipswich?). Since that page is only a front-end it would make sense to not let just any one edit it. That would prevent garbage of the kind you see there accumulating. When I saw that garbage (someone should really clean that up, it gives the wrong impression) and that the history showed the page hadn't been modified in a year I concluded (wrongly) "I'd better get out of here as fast as I can". Now that, thanks to you, I know, I'll go ask the same question (even though, thanks to Medeis, I've already got my answer) just to see what I get and how things work there. Contact Basemetal here 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Now we shall finally know, for the first time in almost half a century, whether Norwegian Blues really pine for the fjords and VOOM. Be sure to tell us if yours does. JIP | Talk 17:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Refunds are had at Notlob. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Text between Chapters[edit]

Is there a particular name for text that is part of a novel but that is inserted BETWEEN chapters rather than being part of a chapter?

I wish I could cite an example of this phenomenon. I'm passing along a question I was asked and could not find an example in the books at hand.

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein's Time Enough For Love has three large main sections, each made up of chapters. Between these sections are little minichapters comprised of aphorisms. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Although an addendum usually comes at the end of a book, I don't think it has to; the word just means something added, so that would do as a general term. A more a specific term would depend on the purpose of the extra text.--Shantavira|feed me 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"Addendum" is not right, it would signal that the inserted text related only to the preceding chapter. I would go with "interlude", borrowing a term from music: "a piece of be inserted between sections of another composition." --Viennese Waltz 08:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Shantavira that the purpose of the inserted text usually determines what it's called, and I agree with Viennese Waltz that interlude is often used in the context of both fiction and nonfiction. A term that I have seen in works of nonfiction but that I don't offhand recall seeing in fiction is excursus. Deor (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Until we get evidence to the contrary, I don't think there is a widely-used and well-known term for this that is agnostic to the amount/type/content of the text. 'Interlude' would probably work ok, but that depends on an analogy that will be lost on some people. To avoid that, I would just use compositional semantics and call it 'interstitial text' - the definition that comes from the components is that it is text that comes between some other primary parts. To be very clear, you could call it 'chapter-interstitial text' SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
CBHA, given the sequential nature of books, how do you know that the text in question is not associated with the following component (chapter, section, part, whatever)? An Epigraph (literature) is .. a phrase, quotation, or poem that is set at the beginning of a document or component. The fact that it is on a separate page doesn't make it not an epigraph. Where an epigraph precedes an entire book, it's very often on a separate page. (Equally, I suppose it could be considered an example of whatever a quotation at the end of a component is called.) If the argument is that it's not related to the subsequent text because there's no obvious relationship to it, I could say that about the majority of epigraphs I've come across. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Jack, I don't think CBHA is talking about epigraphs, but rather about sections of prose that are inserted in a novel outside the sequence of chapters. In a search of my shelves, the first example I happened to find is Christopher Moore's novel Sacré Bleu, in which between chapters 1 and 2 there is a short section (about a page and a quarter) headed "Interlude in Blue #1: Sacré Bleu", between chapters 5 and 6 there is "Interlude in Blue #2: Making the Blue", and so forth. Deor (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the distinction might be that to be "set at the beginning of a ... component" is different than to be "set before the next component." But I did forget about that word, and agree that it is probably fine to use for many examples of interstitial text. I myself often prefer using definite description to names for this sort of thing, though "Epigraph" is defensibly both. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid has main chapters alternating with dialogs.
Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Slovak language question[edit]

Slovak text on a plaque in Bratislava.

In Bratislava, I saw this text on the sidewalk of Pražská street (the sidewalk actually runs several metres above the actual street). What does it say? JIP | Talk 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For convenience to other editors, here is a facsimile of the text.
Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to refer to the reconstruction / refurbishment of a section of highway that was carried out between 1974 and 1977. I think 1/2 is actually I/2, which is State Highway 2 that runs (or ran) through Bratislava. "PRESTAVBA ŠTÁTNEJ CESTY I/2" translates (from Slovak) as "Reconstruction of State I/2". The stuff after the years lists the involved parties - Investing Bratislava as the financer, Dopravoprojekt were design engineers and Doprastav the construction company. - EronTalk 20:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I spotted a couple of omitted and mistaken diacritics in Wavelength's facsimile: INVESTORSKÚ (3rd line), VYŠŠÍ DODÁVATEĽ (6th line). Otherwise it's correct. --Theurgist (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering the age of the plaque, is it actually in Slovak or is it Czech? The article on Czechoslovakia doesn't talk about official languages, but I'd formed the impression that only Czech had that status. -- (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I know a bit of Czech, and the sign is in Slovak. Czech and Slovak had equal status as official languages of Czechoslovakia at the national, federal level. Czech was the official language of the Czech Socialist Republic, and Slovak was the official language of the Slovak Socialist Republic. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. -- (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]


September 25[edit]

Someone like You[edit]

Hi there!
I will have a presentation about the song Someone like You and I haven't understood the role of Dan Wilson in the composition of the song.
Can you help me please?
N'Djamena (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article, in the section titled "Recording and composition", has some explanation on how the two collaborated together. --Jayron32 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Who was the man with who Adele had during eighteen months a relationship which broke up and was the main reason for her to write the song Someone like You?--N'Djamena (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look through the sources at 21 (Adele album) and Someone like You (Adele song), there's information about the relationship. Neither article name the man directly, but they do discuss him and the relationship. If you check the footnotes for the sources, and follow those sources, you may find out more about him. --Jayron32 19:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Fittingly, that at least mentions someone, while No One Like You does not. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

dean ambrose[edit]

hello.just getting in touch to find out if dean ambrose wwe wrestler actually lives in vegas, found out he could live in tampa,florida, so can anyone help me out with this,thanks. so bye for now. Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

His article says he does, sourced to an interview where he presumably says he does. Haven't listened to it myself, but here it is, if you'd like. Lots of wrestlers eventually move to Florida, or at least own a property there. Something about taxes. But more often than not, WWE wrestlers actually live on tour. Buses, hotels, friend's houses, that sort of thing. So if you're looking for him, he'll be somewhere in New Jersey the next couple of days. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Enlisted personnel on Star Trek[edit]

Are there any enlisted people in star fleet? The promotion structure seems odd, and I recognize that all of the main characters are officers, but don't they have any Corporals or Seaman? Who does all the work? I'm thinking in particular of the Next Generation, but it seems true of the entire franchise. Llamabr (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Star Trek characters lists a few people who have the rank crewman, which appears to be a (perhaps the) non-commissioned rank. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
See also Chief Petty Officer Miles O'Brien - EronTalk 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This Trek Wiki has an article on Ranks [45], and also links to all the people who are enlisted across the various incarnations. In addition to "crewman", there seem to be several types of non-commissioned officers. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Mentions are made throughout the different series of people who are in Starfleet who have not attended Starfleet Academy. They suggest at least that the Academy is only necessary if you intend on being an officer. Dismas|(talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Western Stick Fighting[edit]

Dear all.

I am interested in all forms of fencing. I have seen that there are quite a few stick based martial arts in europe, that were used for self defense (Canne de Combat, Jogo do pau etc.). Since I am a layperson, I am unable to judge the efficiency of one of these arts. I am curious which of these arts was not turned into a sport, which can still be used in reality?

Thank you for your answers. All the very best.-- (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We know you are interested in fencing since you ask a question about it every few weeks. While some might be able to answer your questions I would suggest that you search for various chat rooms on the internet like this one. You will find more people who are well versed in the subject there than you will here. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have indeed a very big interest in the art of fencing. My problem is however, that many websites are populated with people who never actually practiced any form of fencing and who get their knowledge from either internet myths or poorly done tv shows. My guess is, that more competent people would be around here, given the quality and empirical information of Wikipedia.-- (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, some of us do have some expertise in some areas, but the lack of expert answers to your previous posts indicates to me that you'd do better at a forum like the one suggested above. I thank you for your vote of confidence in our services, but people do make up stuff here, and there are experts on other fora. Some of them even have ratings for users, so that you can tell with a few clicks if a user is at least respected by their community. Also keep in mind that the 'efficiency' of a martial art is a fairly subjective notion, and we don't do that well at subjective questions here. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

film with goblins[edit]

What was the name of the film where there is this guy, I think his name was ernest ed or ernie and at the end of the film, he kissed the goblin or some creature and that creature explodes into gooey green stuff? I want to watch it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything on this IMDb list look familiar? → [46] - (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My guess is Ernest Scared Stupid. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, This is one. Ernest Scared Stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Entering own information query[edit]

Hi there

I looked through the faqs as much as I could but as I've been putting it off for years I thought I'd ask. I am a fairly established musician, producer and composer who has been active on the Australian music scene for decades. The past 15 years I have run my label Soft Records, on which I've released about 12 titles. The trouble is: Noone seems to have gotten around to writing anything about me, or my label and music on Wikipedia. Q. What is my position re: entering information myself?

Best regards and thank you for your wonderful work

Kevin Purdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nippa59 (talkcontribs) 06:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music). In order to have an article written about you, your music needs to be notable as defined in that article. Also see Wikipedia:COS, which says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article." --Viennese Waltz 07:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Articles for creation is an option to consider. I have seen countless similar queries go past this desk[actually, 'Wikipedia:Help desk'], and the biggest hangup always is finding independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Without those sources, the request will not pass review. Viennese Waltz's links above (and links therein) will provide specific and important details. If (after reading that) you believe that you can provide adequate sources, then give WP:AFC a try; but keep in mind that currently there are 2,763 pending submissions.  —Good luck, ~E: (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC) —Edit:08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Spin Doctor (game)[edit]

About twenty years ago, Mom's computer – a PowerBook 140, I think – had a game called Spin Doctor. You can understand the difficulty in searching for that title! Do you happen to know who published it? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was published in 1993 by the Callisto Corporation, and is still available for the iPhone. See this article. Here is where to get the iPhone version. Tevildo (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
We have an article on the sequel, ClockWerx, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Structure of the musical setting by Henry Lawes of the poem "Go Lovely Rose" by Edmund Waller: a question.[edit]

Note: I mistakenly started by asking this question at the Humanities Reference Desk. This being a question about music it in fact belongs here. I know many people follow both Reference Desks. If you're one of them and you've already seen this question, my apologies. I've blanked the question there and reposted it here.

A question about the analysis of the well-known musical setting of "Go Lovely Rose". Here is the score of the song (at p. 21 of that PDF document). It sets to music the first two stanzas: melody line and unfigured bass. Do you agree with the following? The first half (m. 1 to m. 9) is in A minor. The second half starts in F major (m. 10 to m. 14) and finishes in D minor (m. 15 to m. 17). Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Last paragraph of the early life section of "James Dean" needs some clarification[edit]

I am confused with one of the facts presented in the article relating to James Dean. He died in September of 1955 however in last sentence of the early life section he is stated to have returned to UCLA in 1959 and graduated. "He later returned to UCLA and graduated in 1959." This would not be possible after his death. Am I not understanding this article, or is this a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This was vandalism to the article, which has been corrected. Thanks for picking it up! Tevildo (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually think it was a good faith error, not vandalism.
The text about him graduating in 1959 was added based on this list from UCLA, which includes Dean among "Notable Alumni Actors". Dean is an alumnus of UCLA, having attended as a student, but he is not a graduate. For some reason, he is shown as a member of the class of 1959. I am not sure why that is, but someone interpreted that to mean that he graduated in 1959. (Perhaps he received an honorary diploma? I'm trying to track that down.) - EronTalk 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Just speculation... Is it the James Dean, or just some other person who happened to be named James Dean who graduated in 1959. It is not unfathomable to have multiple people with that name... --Jayron32 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Could be. I mean, the entry on the UCLA list of Notable Alumni Actors is clearly the James Dean - it references his films and notes he is deceased. Maybe another Dean graduated in '59 and there was a glitch when the list was compiled.
I also wondered if 1959 was his class year, i.e. when he would have graduated had he not dropped out to concentrate on his acting. But he entered the undergrad program in 1951, so class of 1959 seems unlikely. Then I wondered if he'd been given an honorary or posthumous degree in 1959, but I couldn't find anything about that either. It's an interesting little mystery. (Or, a boring little typo, I suppose.) - EronTalk 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(Thickening the plot, several of the Notable Alumni Actors who dropped out of UCLA don't have years by their names (e.g. Carol Burnett). So the implication is that, one way or another, James Dean was a member of the UCLA Class of 1959.) - EronTalk 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Donal Logue[edit]

How is Donal Logue's name pronounced?

(Yes, I thought of putting this at RD/L but I thought someone who watches the RD/E desk would likely know who he is and might know off hand.)

Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 03:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[47] -- Finlay McWalterTalk 09:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Dismas|(talk) 10:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who don't want to watch, Donal says his name in the video. The first names sounds like 'Donald' without the final 'd', and his last name rhymes with 'rogue'. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think he pronounces his first name (in that video) with a long 'o' -- as in, rhymes with 'tonal'-- which is how i've heard it pronounced as far back as "Tao of Steve." Subtle difference, maybe, but one can hear the contrast better with how he says 'Donovan.' El duderino (abides) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I heard it the same way. Rhyming with tonal. Or as I thought of it, sounding like the first syllable of "donate". Dismas|(talk) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is why it's best to hear him say it himself :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Another film with Goblins[edit]


Some years ago, a woman appeared on the UK's version of Dragon's Den, and pitched for funds for a feature film, about which I remember nothing other than it involved goblins and that the Dragons were not convinced into investing. Can anyone remind me of the name of the film... and was it ever made? If so, how was it funded?!? --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this one [48]. Edit: and here's the episode [49]. --Viennese Waltz 13:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That's it. Dance of the Goblins was the title. Tyvm --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this Tintin cover image? (Warning: May be offensive)[edit]

(Warning: This material may be offensive. View at your own risk. No sexuality or violence but stereotypical depictions which might be considered as offensive.)

I saw this image on Facebook. The title says "Tintin at Itäkeskus". Now my question is not about the stereotypical depictions but rather the image itself. I think I have read every Tintin album ever officially published and do not remember seeing this image. Is it an official Tintin picture drawn by Hergé or some parody? JIP | Talk 17:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could the title actually mean "Tintin in the Middle East"? As Itäkeskus measn "East centre"? Were you being serious with the warning? DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious the title is a parody. But the actual image looks professional enough to have actually been drawn by Hergé, I just don't know whether it was, that's what I'm asking. I was semi-serious about the warning, but decided to be better safe than sorry and put it in just in case. JIP | Talk 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
But, but it shows bare ankles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see. well, I think the picture is from The Crab with the Golden Claws. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty of fixing your wikilink. The cover of that album is different, so it must have been an inside image of the actual story. I haven't read that album in several years, possibly over a decade, so I didn't remember. I'll have to find a copy and read it again. JIP | Talk 17:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I created a redirect to fix the redlink :) I have got that one (in Swedish) but can't lay my hands on it at the moment. By the way, we call them "books" not "albums". DuncanHill (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's page 40 of the BonnierCarlsen Swedish edition. The picture is full-page. Tintin has just noticed something and rushed off, and Haddock is trying to catch up with him. The version on Facebook to which you linked is slightly cropped, and some of the dishdashes are recoloured. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to a scan of the English version. The illustration is on page 40 here as well. - EronTalk 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

dean ambrose wwe wrestler[edit]

October 1[edit]

Mysterious song[edit]

Hi all. So I was lying out on deck on the Emerald Princess last week, listening to music being played by the DJ, and I made a note of a song that I didn't recognise but which sounded interesting. Unfortunately I have had no luck with lyrics searches, I can't remember the tune, and this is all I have to go on: (Transcribed exactly from the note I made on my tablet...) Look for this song: title might be Might have opened the door to your heart. 80ish, a bit like Dire Straits or Huey Lewis & The News. Any ideas? Cheers Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Pete Townsend: "Let My Love Open the Door" --Jayron32 12:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds likely: I'll give it a listen when I get home from work! Ta. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Whaddaya mean "no luck with lyrics searches"? What kind of searches? The first thing that came back when I Googled "Might have opened the door to your heart" was Pete Townshend's song. Contact Basemetal here 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Really? Oh, that's strange: I thought I had typed exactly that, including the " ", and there were about 7 Google results, none of which actually referred to a song. Sorry, I must have typed one or more of the words wrong. User error! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No. I meant w/o the quotes (" "). If you Google Might have opened the door to your heart (so w/o quotes) you get what I said, a bunch of links for Townshend's songs the first of which is the YouTube video. If you do include the quotes then you still get it but it's a bit harder (it's hidden in an Nth result). My rule of thumb is to not use quotes in Google, counterintuitive as it may seem. What do others think? Contact Basemetal here 14:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I always start without quotes for my first attempt. If I find that the results get false positives at a rate where the good results are getting washed out, I start adding quotes, but usually to phrases rather than the whole search. Had I not been instantly familiar with the OPs song (my brain hit on this one much faster than Google. And I've been singing it in my head all day now, thanks to the OP) I would have started with the un-quoted phrase, then perhaps tried putting quotes around parts I was sure about, such as:
  • Might have opened the "door to your heart"
  • "Might have opened the door" to your heart
  • Might have "opened the door" to your heart
  • Might have "opened the door to your heart"
and variations like that. Quote-marks in searches in Google work BEST when they contain only a few words: the more words you put between the quote marks, eventually the search becomes too specific and a single typo or mistyped word will throw out all the possible good results. In this case, the misheard lyric "might have" (which should have been "my love"), if included in the quoted part of the search, would throw out most of the good hits. Avoiding quote marks as a first attempt is usually best, and then using them sparingly in refinements, is the way to go here. --Jayron32 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


September 26[edit]

Hot vs. cold[edit]

Other things being equal, where would a person survive for longest, in the hottest place on earth (Death Valley, say) or the coldest place on earth (Antarctica, say)? Thanks. --Viennese Waltz 12:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Really question, I'm interested to see responses. I do recall people locked in cars on a hot summer day dying within hours, and on the other end of the spectrum, folks running around in icy places (Antarctic Ice Marathon i think?) wearing only a pair of trouser bc they could self-regulate through meditation; i'm aware of meditation helping increase body temperature in cold conditions but not lowering body temperature in hot conditions so i think a person survive longer in the colder place but i am by no means an authority figure these are just my two cent sorry ~Helicopter Llama~ 13:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how we can answer that question without more information. The requirements to survive in each place are not the same. Do they have any shelter? That would make a huge difference. How much food, water, equipment do they have with them? If other things are equal does that mean they are wearing the same clothes? If so what are they wearing?--Shantavira|feed me 13:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. That's why I said "other things being equal". Why do people have to make simple questions more complicated? Yes, they are wearing normal street clothes which are suitable for a temperate climate – a Hanes T-shirt, a light brown jacket and a pair of chinos from Gap. They have enough food so that they're not going to die of starvation. --Viennese Waltz 13:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a really tough question because, all things being equal, things still aren't really equal. We are talking about how the human body reacts to extremes of heat and cold, and the specific body type would have an impact on that. (E.g. An obese person person could do better in the cold than a skinny person, while the opposite might be true if it were hot.)
Adding to the difficulty, this isn't an area where properly controlled experiments can really be conducted. (Well, at least not by ethical researchers.) When someone is found who has died of hypothermia or hyperthermia, it isn't easy to tell how long they had survived. And if they aren't dead yet but succumb during treatment, it isn't possible to tell how long they would have survived without treatment.
All that said: based on some light reading in the area (including the above two articles plus some cheerful Googling of "death hypothermia", "death hyperthermia", etc.), I'd say our hypothetical Gap-wearing victim would die first in Antarctica. People routinely freeze to death overnight when the temperatures fall below 0C; at Antarctic temperatures with no shelter or warm clothing it would be almost impossible to survive more than a few hours. Conversely, rapid deaths due to heat only seem to occur when victims are in enclosed spaces (especially cars) that reach temperatures higher than even the hottest places on Earth. When people die during heat waves, it seems to take a couple of days. 105C in Death Valley would eventually kill our guy, but if he was reasonably hydrated to start with he'd probably last a few days.
Paradoxically, of course, more people die from heat waves than cold snaps. It is easier to stay warm than it is to cool down, assuming one has some shelter and resources beyond the clothes on one's back. - EronTalk 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Most people will survive longer in the hottest place on earth, which would be either the Sahara Desert or Death Valley. In both places highs of 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) or more are common during the summer. However, both places have quite low humidity, so with plenty of water and salt most healthy adults could survive for a fairly long time. Survival will be aided by maintaining a low level of activity and seeking any shade that may be available. In contrast, the coldest parts of Antarctica get as cold as -90 degrees Celsius (-130 degrees Fahrenheit), and we're assuming that our victim has only a light jacket for protection against hypothermia. Death will follow in short order. John M Baker (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, during the Messinian salinity crisis, when the Strait of Gibraltar was closed and the Mediterranean Sea evaporated except for a few brine lakes, it is thought that temperatures would have got as high as 80 degrees Celsius (176 degrees Fahrenheit). That would have killed quite quickly, perhaps even more quickly than the Antarctic cold. But there is nothing like that on the surface of the earth today. John M Baker (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would it have gotten so hot, User:John M Baker? Because of the increased air pressure? μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
More greenhouse effect would certainly do it, due to more greenhouse gases in the air. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Basically, the earth gets warmer the deeper you go, and the air above it would have been heated by convection.
As I look more closely at our article, I notice that there are no citations in the section on Messinian salinity crisis#Relationship to climate, which seems to be original research, so I don't think I can stand by the specific numbers cited above. However, if anything I suspect that the bottom of what is now the Mediterranean Sea would have been even hotter. The writer of the article based his or her estimates on the dry lapse rate of atmospheric cooling, which is about 10 degrees Celsius per kilometer. However, it's probably more relevant that the geothermal gradient reflects increases of about 25 degrees Celsius per kilometer of depth as you go into the earth. In any case, I feel sure that the desiccated Mediterranean Sea bottom would have been extremely hot. John M Baker (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at PV=nRT where the increased air pressure itself, a mile below sea level, would be hugely influential. The fact the crust is hotter the deeper you dig wouldn't seem relevant, since the crust was not actually duggen, and there would have been plenty of time for it to cool, especially that the evaporation of the mediterranean would have been a coolative process. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The hottest air temps (excluding things like erupting volcanic calderas) on Earth could be survived for hours, while the coldest temps, only minutes, unless the person in the cold area was able to quickly bury himself in snow. If he could do that, then his body heat would warm the surrounding snow to 0°C, and he might be able to survive for hours then, too. Getting air without letting the heat out would be problematic, though. There are devices for that, but he presumably wouldn't have those. The man in the desert might want to remove his clothes and use them for shade, instead. (An exception would be if his clothes were white and he had dark skin, then they might do him more good if he kept them on.) Also, if the man in the desert could find water, he could probably survive indefinitely. Of course, this is no easy task in a desert. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
[citation needed]. Please note that by saying that, I have not said you are wrong. What I am saying is that you need citations or references for claims you make. Even the ones which are correct. --Jayron32 17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

One principle of treating hypothermia victims is that "you aren't dead until you are warm and dead." With that in mind, as long as our man stayed in the Antarctic, he'd be effectively immortal. - EronTalk 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. That only applies to low body temperatures where the body core remains above freezing. Once you are frozen solid, you are dead, as the cells rupture when the ice crystals form. There are some simpler life forms which are able to survive freezing (or apparent freezing), but humans lack their adaptations. Also, even with hypothermia above freezing, the body will still die eventually, if kept cold, since hypothermia only slows the processes leading to death, it doesn't stop them, just like food in the fridge still goes bad, it just takes longer. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
So much for my plans for an icy eternity - EronTalk 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I notice you've chosen to ignore Jayron32's excellent point in response to your previous post. --Viennese Waltz 18:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated on numerous occasions, I'm willing to provide refs for statements which seem difficult to believe, but not for statements I make which are blatantly obvious. I made like a dozen statements in that section, most of which are quite obvious, and I have no intention of wasting my time proving the obvious. If Jayron has a specific claim he wants me to prove, then let him ask. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy says that you need references for facts that are not obvious, or which are likely to be indeed, you don't need to dig out references for every single thing in and article. Moreover, the Ref Deck isn't considered to be an 'article' so reference requirements are not even that strict.

Here's a reference on cold survival: Predicting survival time for cold exposure: "The prediction of survival time (ST) for cold exposure is speculative as reliable controlled data of deep hypothermia are unavailable." They did their best, though, and the abstract goes on to suggest a variety of predicted survival times, e.g. a range of 4 to 15 hours for temperatures from −50° C to −20° C for an average healthy male with two layers of clothing. A survival time of "minutes" in cold weather is far too short unless the person is immersed in cold water. - EronTalk 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's far from the coldest temperature on Earth. According to Lowest temperature recorded on Earth, the lowest recorded temp is -89.2°C, and I suspect that the actual coldest temp is considerably lower, since thermometers aren't very widespread in Antarctica. You also have to consider winds. Antarctica has major winds, and I suspect your link doesn't account for wind at all. The lowest recorded wind chill factor is -124°C: [50] (warning, annoying ads at that site), but again the actual lowest wind chill factor is likely far lower.
So let's just do a back of the envelope extrapolation. If the 30°C degree temp drop from -20°C to -50°C decreases survival time to 4/15ths, and we assume the actual (unrecorded) coldest wind chill to be -140°C, then we need 3 more of those drops to get there. So, 4 hours × (4/15)3 give me less than 5 minutes survival. You're welcome to try your own extrapolation using your own assumptions. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
All that may be true. But I managed to find a link to a reputable source that was actually attempting to answer the question of how long people really can survive in the cold - which as it turns out is a very difficult question to answer. You, claimed, earlier, a survival time of "minutes". No sources I have been able to find bear that out, even accounting for temperatures below -50 and wind chills. The survival range, assuming one is dry and clothed, is in the range of hours, not minutes. (BTW, the study I cited did include wind; I didn't quote it for the sake of brevity. The figures I quoted included wind at 5 km/h. Yes, a light breeze, but far from "not account[ing] for wind at all." If you are going to dismiss my references, do me the courtesy of reading them first.) - EronTalk 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I missed the slight breeze they used, but that wouldn't change the numbers much. I am using refs (yours plus mine), and extrapolating from yours, since yours is wholly inadequate alone. (I got an edit conflict on adding the extrapolation above.) StuRat (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"The actual lowest wind chill factor is likely far lower." See that, that right there? That is you pulling an answer out of thin air. You are basically just making stuff up. So kindly refrain from dismissing other people's references as "wholly inadequate". At least we bother to find them. - EronTalk 23:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the chances that, wherever on Earth the lowest wind chill happened to occur, there just happened to be a weather station at that exact point ? Pretty damned low. But, if you want a more conservative estimate, let's just drop the temp 60°C degrees from your -50°C (plus 5 km/hr), to get 4 hours × (4/15)2, or 17 minutes. And note that declaring the survival time at -50°C to be the same as at the coldest temperature on Earth is "making things up", and doing a profoundly poor job of it, too. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Lucky for me, I never declared that -50 was the coldest temperature on Earth. Nor did I attempt to accurately predict survival time at that hypothetical lowest temperature. I simply quoted, and provided a link to, a scientific study on estimated cold weather survival times. - EronTalk 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You said "A survival time of 'minutes' in cold weather is far too short unless the person is immersed in cold water." Since you were referring to my statement, which was a reply to the OPs Q about the coldest temperature on Earth, you were applying info on -50°C to conclude that my statement on the coldest temp on Earth (at least -124°C wind chill) was wrong. Your study is simply not applicable to my statement, unless you at least attempt to extrapolate from the temps in the study to the actual temps we are talking about. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. Whatever you say. - EronTalk 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
According to our article on Antarctica, temperatures reach a minimum of between −80 °C (−112 °F) and −90 °C (−130 °F) in the interior in winter, with typically moderate winds. So let's say a temperature of −80 °C. According to Eron's source, with two layers of loose clothing (average thickness of 1 mm each) in a 5 km/h wind, survival times are 4.0, 5.6, 8.6, 15.4, and >24 h for −50, −40, −30, −20, and −10° C. So the clothing is more or less comparable to what we are assuming, and perhaps the wind speeds are too, but the temperatures are not as extreme. Note that the drop from -20 to -50° C resulted in a drop in survival times from 15.4 to 4.0 hours. We can assume a further significant drop in survival times as the temperature drops to -80° C. The survival time will certainly be less than 2 hours and might be less than 1 hour. It will, however, be more than just a few minutes. John M Baker (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't use the word "few". And note my source which listed the coldest wind chill as -124°C. Also let's see some math, please.
Let me redo my math using the latest info you provided: 4 hours × (4/15.4)(124-50)/30× (60 mins/hour) = under 9 minutes. Note that this is with the conservative (and dubious) assumption that the coldest recorded wind chill is also the coldest actual windchill. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we just point out that the issue is shelter versus evaporative cooling? Someone with no shelter at -40 degrees is going to freeze to death rather quickly, because their lungs will freeze and cease to function after a few minutes. Adequate shelter will prevent that. Someone unsheltered in Death Valley on the hottest day will die within an hour or two as their core temperature rises. But given a mild low humidity breeze an unlimited supply of water, they will survive indefinitely. With no shelter or water the comments about antarctica being a quicker death are correct. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that extreme cold kills you faster - but our OP is perhaps being a bit generous with the hot side of things. An ungodly amount of heat - but with very little humidity is survivable because sweat evaporation does a great job of cooling us down. However, if you get somewhat less heat - but 100% humidity, then sweat can't evaporate. If the temperature is above body temperature, then wind doesn't help to cool you off either - and can actually make matters worse. So Death Valley may not be the worst case scenario here. Think of someplace both hot and humid. SteveBaker (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Medeis: could you please explain your last comment? How long have I been dead and how is it that I am able to operate semi-normally with lungs that have, apparently, been frozen several times over the last 40 years. Also can you give a reference for the sentence that "Someone with no shelter at -40 degrees is going to freeze to death rather quickly, because their lungs will freeze and cease to function after a few minutes." I've lived in Cambridge Bay for 20 years now and in Ulukhaktok for 19 years before that. The coldest I have experienced was in Ulukhaktok in February 1985 when I recorded a temperature of −49.0 °C (−56.2 °F). I would have also recorded the January, −47.5 °C (−53.5 °F), and March, −45.0 °C (−49.0 °F), as well. Several times a winter I will have to make a 15-20 minute walk to the work site because the road is blocked from a blizzard. At least one of these walks will be at temperatures below -40. And no, I don't wear one of these as I find them annoying and uncomfortable. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I won't. The premise is standing outside in a Haines T-shirt at 40 below. That also assumes you are not a fat Inuit jogging in place. If you can do that walk naked, bully for you, but I am not required or disposed to disprove your magical abilities when exposed skin at that temperature is know to freeze within minutes. Also, for some reason, your ping didn't work, that's the second time I have noticed that recently. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Their lungs will freeze and cease to function after a few minutes"[citation needed]. - EronTalk 06:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The coldest it usually gets here in Detroit is about −20 °C (−4 °F), but that's cold enough to burn my lungs. You must be more tolerant of low temps than me. I do indeed need to wear something like that outfit in our coldest conditions (but the part covering my mouth quickly clogs with ice, so I use a scarf instead, which allows me to move the ice-encrusted part away, several times, before the entire scarf is ice-encrusted). At the temps you describe, I think I'd need to add the intake tube wrapped around my body to preheat air with my body heat before I inhale it. StuRat (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Standing outside or walking around in a t-shirt at 0 °C (32 °F) will kill you never mind the -40, see hypothermia. But -40 will not freeze your lungs, standing or walking. There is a big difference between freezing your lungs and freezing exposed flesh, which can happen quickly wind chill in F and wind chill in C. Unless your lungs are on the outside of your body there is no way that they are going to be exposed to -40 temperature. I never mentioned jogging, just walking, and I have no idea if running would make a difference. So I expect that StuRat is more sensitive to the dryness of the air, which will cause a burning sensation in your lungs. I have no magical abilities to stay warm but you have been one of the more vocal people requesting that statements be backed up with references. Yet now when your statement is questioned you decided that racist ignorant insults are better. Oh and I'm neither fat nor an Inuk. There is a lot of stuff out there on freezing lungs but I'm not sure how relilable they are but this seemed to have the best answer. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean or say that the lungs would freeze solid, but air entering the respiratory passages at a raw 40 below will start causing frostbite (frozen tissue) rather quickly, and breathing trouble will get you in minutes. talk of breathing through scarves and anoraks is not relevant to the OP's specifications, neither is suddenly burying oneself three feet deep for protection. I did strangely enough get that ping a few hours after I posted last night. μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Air entering the respiratory passages at a raw 40 below" will not cause frostbite or frozen tissues in the airway or lungs. But don't take my word for it:
"'Cold air has long been implicated in exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, an asthma-like narrowing of the airways that leads to shortness of breath and coughing... In these cases, though, it's the dryness of the air, not its temperature, that triggers the response,' says John Brannan, a researcher at McMaster University's Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health in Hamilton... 'No matter how cold and dry the outside air is, it will be at body temperature and near 100-per-cent relative humidity by the time it reaches the alveoli in the lungs,' says physiologist Kenneth Rundell."
From "Will I freeze my lungs by exercising outside in the cold?," - EronTalk 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Beef Novgorod style[edit]

On Wednesday, I ate a dish called "Beef Novgorod style" for lunch. It was really good. It was basically a thick, juicy, well done beef steak lightly breaded with rye, covered in a sauce made of sour cream and onions, accompanied by a thick pancake made of slices of garlic potatoes, and a whole roasted garlic. Is this any famous dish or was it invented by the restaurant? JIP | Talk 17:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sour cream gravy and beef dish makes me think of Beef Stroganoff, but the potato pancakes are a unique addition. Such pancakes are well known in Eastern European cuisine. --Jayron32 17:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It was not cut into pieces like Beef Stroganoff, it was a thick slab of well roasted boneless meat like a normal steak. And my choice of words was rather poor, by "potato pancake" I meant a pancake made of slices of potato pressed together to resemble a pancake, not an actual pancake made of ground potato. JIP | Talk 17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If it was a breaded beef steak, that would be a type of schnitzel or escalope or scaloppine. Schnitzel#Russia lists one such Russian dish; no idea if it applies. Wiener Schnitzel is popular in many places, and is the basis for dishes such as country fried steak in the U.S. Sliced potatoes in a pancake form are common in some types of gratin, such as Gratin dauphinois (called "scalloped potatoes" in the U.S.). Our pictures show a more casserole-style version of the dish, but I've had it where it was a single layer of potatoes. I did a search for "beef novgorod" on the internet and found bubkis. But it sounds like a tasty dish. --Jayron32 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that "latkas" is an Eastern European name for potato pancakes, although that may not be quite what you had. (I knew a Yugoslavian family which called them that, back when there was a Yugoslavia.) StuRat (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd always thought that latka was a Polish word but was surprised that a Polish friend didn't know what I was talking about - I think it's Yiddish. The Polish name seems to be placki ziemniaczane.[51] Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Latka redirects to Potato pancake, where I read that "latka" is used by the Jewish community. I can't read Hebrew, so it may also apply to Yiddish and Hebrew speakers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's Yiddish, and it's latke - EronTalk 22:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm ... seems to be more than two Latkas, so I'll rustle up a dab page. Thank you very much. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Another hmmm.... The Jewish Post & News seems to think it's "latka"; see Bloom's lives on it's reputation about Bloom's restaurant in Whitechapel. Perhaps it's a Cockney-Yiddish hybrid. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
OES has it as latke, Forms: Also lutka, lutke, Etymology: Yiddish, < Russian látka a pastry DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to the OP's sounds very much like pommes Anna. --NellieBly (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

create new account[edit]

when Wikipediasends an email link to confirm new email address for notifications, it has a TIMEOUT label which is only about 30 seconds after despatch. This is sometimes TOO SHORT. PLEASE REVIEW option to allow 5 minutes turnaround before link expires. thanks from ptrdxn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrdxn (talkcontribs) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that's even true, if it's too short then how did you manage to create an account? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ptrdxn is referring to the confirmation-of-email-address email. To create a wikimedia (inc. wikipedia) account, you do not need to give an email address. I suspect the best place to ask about this is over at the Village Pump, technical section ---- 10:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if it really was that short - but for sure it's not enough. For my wife's business website, we find that in some cases, email delivery can take up to three hours. One notable way this happens is with Google's gmail - if you enable the option to have it phone/text you when an email arrives. Evidently, their system can only send out those phone/texts at some limited rate (maybe there are specialized phone lines involved or something?) and they don't deliver the email into your in-box until they've kicked off your notification! Bizarre - but a timeout time of even an hour would be too short in some cases. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gibbous moon[edit]

If you do an image search for moon and remove the fictional or non-Luna ones, you'd be struck by the fact that our moon essentially has two phases - full or fingernail. If you narrowed down the search to only moon painting, you see the effect even more clearly. What is it about the gibbous moon that makes people not want to photograph it or draw it? Obviously such images exist, but the ratio is completely out of whack. Is is just harder to draw? Matt Deres (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Images has quite a few of them. If there are fewer than full and crescent, maybe it's just not as interesting to the average citizen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Could this have anything to do with a trademark dispute between the Bee Gees and the American makers of Moon Pie when the former came to the states? μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Gibbous. Of, or pertaining to a Gibb. Moon Pies (and even the mighty Jos Louis) ostensibly had to make do with a generic bearingless wheel sort of shape. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty then. I just wasn't aware there were any Gibbous Moon Pies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Just the way they wanted it. Word is you can still buy them in some states, but you have to show up after the store closes. Don't Forget to Remember. It's a fine line between what the average citizen is aware of and what he's interested in. Did you know you can ask a bakery for things they don't offer? This includes knockoff Moon Pies, of any phase. If you're ever in Canada, there are 1/2 Jos Louis. Fewer than half the calories, but over half the sodium and nine grams more sugar. Go figure. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
If I had to guess (which I do, because I don't know for sure!), I'd speculate that it may be that painting a gibbous moon makes it look like you were trying to paint a full moon and just didn't get the shape quite people prefer to go with either the totally full shape, or just a sliver. SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. The full moon and the crescent moon can be anthropomorphized a bit. There's really nowhere to go with a gibbous moon, which vaguely looks like a lemon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Steve Baker's explanation is exactly what I was thinking. If all you're painting is the moon you can work to show the shadowed portion enough to indicate it's actually a sphere. But if its just part of the background, crescent or full will be better. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does the US use thousands of pounds when talking about trucks?[edit]

The article United States customary units says (of mass) "In the United States, only the ounce, pound and short ton—known in the country simply as the ton—are commonly used...". In Australia (where I grew up) and in Britain (where I live now), if we were talking about a truck, we would say it weighs 20 tons, or it could carry 20 tons, but when I watch American TV programs, they always refer to trucks in terms of "thousands of pounds", so in my example it would be 40,000 pounds. Why is this, given that the ton is used in the US? Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it sounds more impressive? --Jayron32 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The way units are used is really just a matter of custom. From the UK (where lots of us still use imperial units for many things) it seems odd that Americans measure distances on the road in feet rather than yards, milk in quarts rather than pints (though their pints and quarts are smaller than ours) and people's weight in pounds rather than stones. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"Milk in quarts rather than pints"? Doesn't that just depend on how much milk you want? I normally think of milk as being measured in gallons. The smallest quantity I normally buy to keep in the fridge (as opposed to a single-serving container) is a half gallon, and it's always sold as a "half gallon", not "two quarts" or much less "four pints".
But in my elementary-school days, they would sell us single-serving containers of a "half pint". I always thought it was strange that they didn't call it a "cup". But I think our British friends don't use "cups" at all. --Trovatore (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Cups are what we drink tea out of. Milk comes in pints (or litres, but litre bottles are always disappointingly small), I buy four-pint bottles. At primary school we used to get little third-of-a-pint bottles - but remember, British pints are bigger than American ones. Cows produce milk in gallons, but it's sold in pints. Almost nothing comes in quarts. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Custom also includes whether units are mixed or not (whether you give a person's height as 5.75 feet, 69 inches, or 5 feet 9 inches). Using the smaller unit (69 inches) allows for more precision without needing to use fractions or decimals. For vehicle weights, measurements more precise than whole tons are important and the custom happens to be to use pounds rather than mixed tons and pounds. -- (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Weight limit signs for roads and bridges in the U.S. always show tons (or actually T). Trucks are sometimes identified in ton sizes like the deuce and a half. Also there are ton capacity measurement for trucks: Truck_classification#Ton_rating. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure what TV shows Woolley's referring to, but there is the issue of the short ton, the long ton, and the metric ton. Pounds remain pounds, while just hearing the word ton can be ambiguous. μηδείς (talk)
Don't forget the short assay ton, the long assay ton (both of which are different for US and UK and are some small number of grams), the register ton (100 cubic feet), the shipping or freight ton (40 cubic feet) and the displacement ton (35 cubic feet), the water ton (224 british gallons), the ton force, the oil ton (1010 international table calories) and the coal ton (7x109) international table calories), the refrigeration ton (rate of heat extraction required to turn one ton of water into ice), the tnt-ton, the tun (irish, british or US tuns are all different), or the roman ton, the deadweight ton, the dry ton, the harbor ton, the shortweight and longweight tons (not the same as short and long tons), the gross and net tons...<sigh>
The trouble with 'pound' is that it's also a unit of currency - so we Brits tend to avoid using it in situations where it could cause ambiguity between weight and money. Sadly, "pound" isn't immune to the problem with tons...we have the troy pound, the apothecary pound, the avoirdupois pound, various pounds are used in the paper industry to represent density, the roman pound, the romana pound, the arabic silver pound...etc. The pound has also changed in value from it's traditional definition that depended on the local gravitational force to the "international avoirdupois pound" which is defined in terms of the kilogram. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but given the context it is immediately obvious that if you say that a truck weighs 22,000 lbs with cargo, you are not talking about British notes, paper density, or solid gold. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you say it 'weighs 22,000 lbs", then I agree - but if you say "a 22,000 pound truck" then in Britain where a small truck might indeed cost 22,000 UK pounds, that could very easily cause confusion. (Of course, we'd call its "lorry" - but that's an entirely different matter!) SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Specific examples: I watched some episodes of Smash Lab over the weekend. In both the episode where they try to stop a runaway truck with nets and try to prevent a timber truck rollover, both referred to the weight of the truck in thousands of pounds. In the latter episode, they spoke of "6,000 pound logs"; IMO "3 ton logs" would be accurate enough, whether short, long or metric. Besides, I doubt the logs would weight exactly 6,000 since there were clearly varying diameters. Another that springs to mind is the Penn and Teller when Teller lies under the wheel of the truck and is run over. Penn said the trucked weighed 55,000 pounds. I doubt that was accurate to the nearest pound. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Only an issue in an international context like Wikipedia. -- (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a naive assumption. "A 30,000 pound truck" could just mean a really expensive truck in the UK. That would be a genuine source of confusion in a situation like the Smash Lab episode where the announcer is talking about stopping a 30,000 pound truck - is he saying that it's an expensive truck that we don't want to destroy, or a heavy truck that could do some real damage? In the case of the Penn & Teller thing - when someone only specifies the first 2 digits of a long number like that, the general presumption is that it's only being expressed to two significant digits of precision. It's remotely possible that the truck weights exactly 55,000 lbs - but it's very unlikely because if it did weigh that much he'd probably have said "exactly 55,000lbs". Since he didn't, most people are going to assume that he means "between 54,500 and 55,500lbs". But even if he'd said 55,123 lbs, you'd still have to wonder whether it's 55,123 exactly or whether he means "between 55122.5 and 55123.5lbs". It's an unfortunate part of common speech that the error bars in our statements are left open to this kind of interpretation - but for non-scientific uses, it's generally good enough. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • You and Trog have accidentally broken the context of my "international context" comment by inserting yours above it. Medeis claimed that "ton" could be ambiguous (short/long/metric); I responded to that by saying that since the question was specifically about US usage this isn't true: in the US a "ton" is always a short ton unless there is a specific reason to imply otherwise. Similarly, when talking about US usage it's irrelevant if "a 30,000-pound truck" could be ambiguous in the UK. -- (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I'll have to ask my Dad, since he's an engineer and used to work in the dockyards, but the difference between long and short ton did come up often enough when I was in elementary school that I was aware of the concept. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
            • I am advised that within the last two decades my source was hired to rectify a construction project where not taking into account the difference in short and long (not metric) tons as used by various steel suppliers had caused a boiler to fail. According to him the long ton originally came from the weight that would displace 40 cubic feet of seawater, and was still in use when he worked at the shipyards. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is a general phenomenon, i.e. I question your premise. I hear people discuss weight of trucks in tons all the time, and this Ngram supports the notion that "[X] ton truck" is much more common in print than "[X] pound truck" -[52]. We even use tons in our classification of trucks: Truck_classification#Ton_rating -- though of course we've mucked that up to the point where a modern "1/2 ton" pickup truck can carry much more than 1/2 ton. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) EDIT- didn't see Rmhermen had the link first, but the signage (see [53]) does usually say T or 'tons' in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)'s almost as though the "ton" version is a rough description of a type of truck that has only sketchy relation to the actual weight - but people revert to pounds when they are talking about the actual weight. Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
A truck which crashed in Scranton, Pennsylvania was described in newspapers at the time as carrying 15 tons of bananas. Singer Harry Chapin used the more lyrical version of 30,000 Pounds of Bananas.    → Michael J    06:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Ryder Cup[edit]

I seem to remember a Ryder Cup where having already been won, the captains called in the remaining games and called them a draw. Can you tell me which one it was please? Thank you Michael Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the 1969 Ryder Cup, when "America's Jack Nicklaus conceded a missable putt to Britain's Tony Jacklin at the 18th hole in one of the most famous gestures of sportsmanship in all of sport." It's only ended in a tie on one other occasion, see 1989 Ryder Cup. --Viennese Waltz 10:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean at Brookline, where the USA team won and promptly celebrated so much the rest of the matches were abandoned? --TammyMoet (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ship called "The Pirate"?[edit]

Has there ever been a real or fictional ship called The Pirate? This question is resisting my google-fu. --Trovatore (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

USS Pirate - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Also this site lists a few (search by vessel name). --Viennese Waltz 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much (both)! Anyone know any examples in fiction? This came to me in a dream and I'm trying to figure out if it's original. --Trovatore (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
There's almost nothing that's totally original. 2,000 years ago, Caesar was in a hurry, and commanded his slave, "Call me a chariot!" The slave said, "OK... You're a chariot." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, fine, but not really my point. What I'm trying to figure out is whether my dream might have been influenced by some particular piece of fiction that I might have been exposed to. --Trovatore (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It could be a manifestation of something you saw somewhere and then forgot. Or it could be something that your subconscious came up with for whatever reason. Dreams are usually a hodge-podge of stuff that you've experienced and/or thought about, while not necessarily directly resembling those things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, do you have a citation for that Caesar joke? It seems really unlikely, partly because of the impertinence, but mostly because Latin is such a pedantic language. Whatever, I'd love it to be true - can you point me to where it comes from? My quick Googling reveals only one mention of it, about three years ago, on Wikipedia reference desks, by Baseball Bugs... uncited. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The Romans only used chariots for racing and (rarely) for triumphal there is no possible way this could remotely be true...and I completely agree that Latin's more tight control of meaning would not permit the joke to work in that language anyway. So Bugs made it up to try to make a point...what's new? His point is complete B.S anyway - there are vast numbers of things in the world that are "totally original". 99% of what Bugs says here can safely be ignored. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make it up, I quoted Henny Youngman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Henny Youngman was a comedian. Presumably, you're quoting a joke a comedian made up. This is a Reference Desk and this is not the place to mislead people that what you're quoting is true. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
To Dweller: It was very obviously a joke, lighten up. DuncanHill (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That it was a joke was obvious. It wasn't obvious that it wasn't a joke by Julius Caesar. That's all. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thornton Jenkins Hains wrote the novel Mr. Trunnell, Mate of the Ship "Pirate". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PH! --Trovatore (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reference, about 2000 years preceding Caesar's life, from Ecclesiastes: There's nothing new under the sun. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's another one of those "The Bible says it must be true!" kind of things? Like in Leviticus 11:13-19 where it says that bats are birds? Or that you have to be careful not to eat four legged flying insects? Sorry, but no, the bible does not constitute a 'reference' for anything beyond that the bible says it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's undeniably the case that the Bible says the text that it says. Even the most fervent atheist could not deny it. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to start, but it's definitely a misplaced one. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How to mention Wikipedia articles in a book?[edit]


Can you please guide me in a step by step manner how to mention in a book (hard copy) that 'information's were collected from Wikipedia thereafter copied/modified/amended/rewritten words/sentences/paragraphs, combined with the story of the book to make it profound. If more information required in particular topic please view Wikipedia'...?

If I provide URLs of all the articles I mix and match and use, will it be okay? Do I need a time stamp in a book? What and how do I do?...

( (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

The way you cite something depends on what style guide you are following. We have an article Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia that covers many of the popular citation styles. What style a book uses is usually made by agreement between the author, editor and publisher. If those are all you, do whatever you want. Especially in fiction writing, citations are not usually formalized, but authors do sometimes have an acknowledgements section. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding timestamps for articles, there is a 'Cite this page' link for every article that explains how to cite that particular version (under 'Tools' in sidebar, left margin). (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys.

I'm not sure whether a publisher will publish the book SemanticMantis as most of the information’s for the story of the book will be from Wikipedia’s articles to make it profound and so on. I might seek assistance from an editor who rewrites the complete story in their own words; it is unlikely that I will as I am in a financial difficulty. . I can't afford some of the things need to be done e.g., lawyer advises, editors and so on due to my financial situation. I might try to publish the book myself if the publishers reject and therefore I can try my best to save up for the publication…

My English speaking, writings and understandings is not very well either, it can just cover daily life living needs and necessities. I find it extremely difficult to understand Wikipedia articles though love reading them as it is the reason why my English (mostly writing) improved (according to personal acknowledgements), and planning to stay in communication with the Wikipedia volunteers to further develop my English writing and speaking knowledge. I have read through what you defined, I have also read through other documents such as 'copyrights terms and conditions' and so on. Problem is, I needed an example, what I didn't find in Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia, what I hoped would’ve provided; there are information’s what cleared Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia article but I am not sure what to use or how to use…

Anyways, Last question, please view the link:, can you please advise me which one or what to use for a book? Also, if there are multiple articles, e.g.,,,, molested as aforementioned to satisfy my needs, how do I cite in a book, the articles as a whole?

I would be grateful if ColinFine could kindly view the links SemanticMantis provided, since he helped me earlier and due to being aware of the matter. Note: I didn’t seem to find anything in regards to Wikipedia’s ‘terms and conditions’ violation information… One thing I have realised i.e., I won’t have a ‘style’, it is going to be a book in a story mode, just like every other story book (hard copy) found in a bookshelf. Is it mandatory to follow a style guide? I’m assuming ‘not’ as it is nothing but a template.

In regards to ‘acknowledgements’ link article, I’m assuming it’s similar to ‘attribution’ from the WP:REUSE, and both this points to the images (and its text) and not for the texts in the article(s). Also it defines the URLs, the timestamp and so on required to collect from the 'Cite this page'. Am I right?

Oh, I forgot to mention, the story is based on a real life scenes and scenarios, and of afterlife, but sounds imaginative, disbelieving and bogus.

( (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

You should probably use which links directly to the version of the page, or give the title and date/time of the last revision (use the history tab to get it). You can also use with out the title= part, but that will break if the that revision is ever hidden. CS Miller (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Csmiller, I understand what you've stated, I hope you are aware of the Wikipedia's 'terms and conditions' information's, especially the WP:REUSE.
A special contributor advised viewing/clicking 'Cite the page' from the 'Tools' section based on the left reading pane, the Wikipedia 'Logo' pane. To make things easier to understand, please click the following link:
The section:
Bibliographic details for "Hebrews":
  • Page name: Hebrews
  • Author: Wikipedia contributors
  • Publisher: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
  • Date of last revision: 24 September 2014 02:41 UTC
  • Date retrieved: 30 September 2014 18:48 UTC
  • Permanent link:
  • Primary contributors: Revision history statistics
  • Page Version ID: 626847556
I'm assuming this will be sufficient, omitting the latter two highlighted, after reading your feedback. But a problem arises i.e., it will take up a lot of pages in a book in the end... The closest thing I could resemble in from what you mentioned is the 'APA' Style section. I don't have a style/template, I am guessing that it doesn't matter what style I use to layout the contents in the book, as long as I cite Wikipedia appropriately using the 'APA' Style section information I'll be okay. Am I right? What do you suggest?
In regards to the 'view history' tab, looks messy, can you guide me please? What to do?
Anohter thing,
IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.
As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content—please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information.
Does the highlighted section of the 'Important note' apply to me with what I am doing?
The citation doesn't need to be as complete as above. The 'Cite this page' includes various citation styles that you could use, such as Chicago style:
As long as you're consistent, any of the styles are fine. You could simply copy/paste as I did above (and added italics). — Regarding: "Does the highlighted section of the 'Important note' apply to me with what I am doing?" —That depends on what you're doing. For background in a fictional story, that would be fine in most cases. For any claim of historical accuracy (or an 'historical novel'), then, Wikipedia would be considered an inadequate source by most readers. But, for purely fictional fantasy, it would be okay.  —Eric, aka: (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently gathering information's from Wikipedia, learning at the same time. 1) I'll/might mix 'histories', 'ancient histories', 'mythologies' and 'religions' with the story; to make sense of the story, relating to quoted information's basically, or 2) put some of the information's in the foreground, in the middle as well as in the background. Issue with (1) Its a daunting process, time consuming, a risk that publishers might not care to see, regardless of however much I copy/modify/amend/delete bits and bobs. An introduction will be provided in the back cover for a reader to acknowledge the basics, just like every other story books do. There will be other information's provided in the foreground as well as in the background gathered from wikipedia, some might get involved with the story... All the information's collected and gathered i.e., words/sentences/paragraphs will/might be copied/modified/amended/deleted, rewritten to if possible to suit the books needs and necessities. Note: Wikipedia's information will make the story sound half real! - Another risk! Issue with point (2) the book (hard copy) won't sell, especially a publisher won't care to see even if I rewrite bits and bobs.
Do you understand what I'm trying to do Eric ( I have a feeling I didn't understand the foreground and the background statement.
( (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC))

Are desktop home PCs (including its monitor, keyboard, computer case and mouse) exported in containers or a separate compartment in a cargo ship?[edit]

I am curious of desktop home PCs (e.g. a Samsung SyncMaster monitor). Are they exported to various customers around the world in containers or a separate compartment in a ship?

Please answer my question. --Kiel457 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You asked a very similar question a couple of weeks ago, and the answer is the same as it was then. ""As of 2009, approximately 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide is moved by containers stacked on transport ships." So yes, computers shipped in bulk are shipped in containers. Our article Containerization has more details on how and why this is. - EronTalk 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Having worked in both industries I can tell you exactly how they are transported - monitors (and peripheral equipment like mice and keyboards) are usually packaged in boxes. Though "package" or OEM items often come in simpler packaging, they are still generally packaged individually. From there they are palletised like any other freight, wrapped in plastic and then put into containers for shipping. That applies to internationally shipped items, of course. PCs may be constructed locally from internationally imported components, in which case the "shipping" is from the retail store to your house (on the back seat of your car, perhaps). Stlwart111 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The monitor is packaged separately, as the size of the monitor is an option. Most PCs come with the keyboard and mouse in its box. CS Miller (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely - the pre-built ones (Dell, HP, etc) are built and then shipped. If you buy your PC from a shop that builds its own, the keyboard and mouse are options also. Stlwart111 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Beer in Bratislava[edit]

Beer tap at Hotel Taxis, Bratislava, Slovakia.jpg

This picture is of a beer tap at the bar of the hotel where I stayed in Bratislava. The beers cost about 1.10 to 1.20 € per glass, a fifth of the price the cheapest beers cost here in Finland. I tried to order both beers available (the yellow one and the green one), but the barmaid said of one of these (I think it was the yellow one, but I don't remember for sure): "No beer. Lemonade!" Her English wasn't very good, and I don't understand any Slovak whatsoever. So I simply took her word and only ordered the other beer. I understood she was saying that beer wasn't worth ordering, which is strange given that they have it on tap. It couldn't have been that I was already too drunk, as she was happy to serve me a beer of the other kind. What's the idea here? Is one or both of these kinds of beer considered somehow special in Slovakia? Or was it simply the barmaid's personal opinion? In any case, I find it a bit annoying that the staff would refuse to serve a customer what they especially request. JIP | Talk 18:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The tap says these are Staropramen beers. The one on the left, yellow tap, labelled lezak, looks to be a standard lager while the one on the right, green tap, labelled svetly, is a light beer pale lager. She was probably translating "light beer" as "lemonade" or some such. (Either that, or one of the taps was mislabelled and was actually serving some sort of shandy. But that would be just speculation.) - EronTalk 18:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Svetly isn't a light beer, it's 4% which is pretty standard for beers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that; you are correct, it's actually a pale lager. My own damn fault for drinking too many 7%+ microbrews. 4% just seems so... lite. - EronTalk 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they'd run out of the beers on those taps? It often happens in UK pubs that the beer runs out but they still have the pump clips on display, or just don't cover the taps. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think EronMain is probably right and that it was actually Radler, the German word for shandy which is commonly drunk in Slovakia and neighbouring Austria. --Viennese Waltz 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an unlabelled middle tap there, which could have been the Radler. There's only one solution: go back to the bar and try for all three taps. Make sure you let us know how it turns out. - EronTalk 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Lezak is 5% ABV, Svelty is 4%. Radler doesn't exist, but Nealko is 0.5%ABV. All links are to ratebeer ---- CS Miller (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My first guess was also shandy/radler. As for the service, many people would be very upset if they meant to order a beer and instead got a shandy, and she could have just been trying to prevent that unfortunate scenario. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Name of this mountain?[edit]

Cedar Mountain, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.jpg

On the way from Glen Canyon Dam to Grand Canyon on U.S. Highway 89. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you narrow it down a little? How far do you estimate you had gone along the route? Were you still on 89, or were you on 89A? --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this the same mountain? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The image has been renamed at Commons as Cedar Mountain, so it seems that it's Cedar Mountain, Arizona (about which I don't think we have an article), a mesa on the South Rim (I think it's still part of the Coconino Plateau) at 36°3′10″N 111°46′15″W / 36.05278°N 111.77083°W / 36.05278; -111.77083 (could someone please turn that into a geo-location template for me; I have to go out now). -- Finlay McWalterTalk 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Template added, Finlay (and I've tweaked the coordinates a bit to pin down the location on online maps). Deor (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It must be Cedar Mountain. Check this out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I would not have gotten that. Good going, whoever figured it out on Commons.
I'm going to suggest that the photo is not actually taken from Route 89, though — I think the OP misremembered. From Route 89 to Cedar Mountain appears to be more than 15 miles, and the shot was not taken with a telephoto lens (EXIF data says focal length is 18.8 mm). It was probably taken from Route 64. I don't know whether there's a way to raise such issues on Commons and see if the description can be corrected. --Trovatore (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Distances in the desert are confusing, and easy to underestimate. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I also see no reason why that mesa couldn't be 15 miles away from the photographer... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by the pale area (which is present on this photo, and on Bugs' one) which is on the west side of the butte, this photo was taken from Desert View Watchtower or its vicinity. Bar the foreground, compare it with this photo. That is, as Trovatore says, on Route 64. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The Watchtower location is about 3 miles west of the mesa. Given that the canyon rim shows in the photo, I can't where else the photo could be from (closer and you wouldn't see the rim, farther and you'd see more of the canyon and the promontory on which Desert View Watchtower sits). -- Finlay McWalterTalk 15:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 1[edit]

Wikipedia Banning The[edit]

Sunil Karad[edit]

Hello help desk, want to know if my recent article Dr.Sunil Karad is fine, as it has a window popping up about the reference, which i have already mentioned, but the window stating about deletion of content still exists,kindly advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You misspelt Karad's name in the name of the article and your question. You omitted a space after Dr. You'll need to move your article to Sunil Karad.
Sleigh (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)