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



October 25[edit]

Softcombing (Kuzhicombing), The Most Systematic Software Reverse Engineering Method[edit]

I wrote an article on "softcombing" and tried to put the article in Wikipedia. I could not find references. So the article is going to be discarded. How can I get references from the internet? There is a video clipping in YouTube on softcombing. But it is not acceptable to Wikipedia. Do I have to write a book on softcombing? Can someone else give references for me?

George Peter Kuzhikompil (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you invented this technique, then you should know if anything is published on the topic. For this kind of topic, a publication in a peer reviewed academic journal is where to write. But we would also expect that there is more than one writing on the topic to pass the notability criterion. Perhaps it has already been described by another name. By the way the draft is no where near deletion, Normally it would have to be abandoned for 6 months to be chopped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I sounds to me like what people have been doing since year dot in decompilers. You make a list of possible entry points and start disassembling from the first one till you get to a jump putting any new targets into the list as one goes. Rinse repeat. You need to do more though like spotting jump tables and method functions and function addresses passed as parameters for example to sort, and in old code there may even be overwritten code or there may be inline data after a call that the subroutine jumps over. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External Memory[edit]

Why is it that some devices only support a limited amount of external memory? I have two 64GB SD cards, and neither of them works in my phone (Samsung Galaxy SIII mini) or my wearable action camera I use for cycling. They bot have to use a 32GB one. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything needs a software driver! Even the RAM on today's microscopic computer-on-a-chip needs a software driver, as mind-blowing as that is for most people who program computers! Storage devices like SD cards also need software support: the main computer cannot talk to it unless somebody programs in the specific language that the peripheral understands.
In this specific instance, the system doesn't speak the right language - but only for very large SD cards. The most likely culprits are either the file system or the device driver for the SD card interface. It is also possible that the storage configuration is malformed for this device, at a higher level of abstraction. Most probably, your devices do not support the SDXC protocol that is used for most cards with greater than 32 GB. Suffice to say, one or more software pieces are broken, but the exact nature of this problem is difficult to diagnose without deep inspection of the software and hardware on this device. This kind of software work isn't commonly accessible or fixable by nonprofessionals - even when the source-code is available!
As an example of the complexity, you can take a look at a free software implementation of an SD card driver, and try to decipher its inner workings. (I had an easier time finding good documentation and reference code for SD card drivers on Windows than for Linux or Android! And Apple makes a USB mass storage driver (with SD card support) available in source-code form, even though I'm not aware of any iOS devices that have an SD card slot!)
Instead of trying to fix it yourself, a better strategy would be to file a detailed bug report to your hardware vendor, so that they can actually track its occurrence and make a decision to prioritze a fix schedule.
Nimur (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no SDXC protocol. The only difference between SDHC and SDXC is the file system (FAT32 vs exFAT). FAT32 supports volume sizes up to 2 TB at least, so there's no good reason for an SDHC-only device to reject a 64GB card if it's formatted with FAT32 (which is not to say they won't reject it anyway). If those cards are exFAT-formatted, you might even get them to work by reformatting them as FAT32. See this old thread for more.
RAM doesn't have drivers in a conventional sense. Main memory access is too much of a bottleneck to be implemented in software. Memory controllers are programmed by software, but that's nothing new. -- BenRG (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The SD Association (the industry consortium that publishes standards for SD cards) publishes an SDXC standard. In addition to the file system, SDXC also has an entire set of new physical layer specifications, bus protocols, and software abstractions. These are summarized on the SD Association's website. Technical details for this standard are not available unless you join the consortium.
Regarding RAM: if you use any new hardware, it's probably standardized by the JEDEC. For example, the JEDEC standard for DDR3 is available at no cost to the general public: JESD 79-3D. That standard document explains the DDR3 specification for memory, including the mechanical and electrical design, and the standard software abstractions. Chapters 3, 4, and 5, standardize the software control for DDR3 RAM. Intel even published a white-paper showing a portion of their memory software architecture: Intel XMP white-paper, including a cartoon diagram of their software stack on both the MCH and the main CPU. This is but one of many software technology platforms that are common today. Depending on the type of computer and its operating system, those software pieces might appear totally opaque and invisible to the user - you might even choose to call them "hardware" if you don't know how they're programmed or where their software lives. But some of us do enjoy getting up to our elbows in system program software, recreationally and professionally!
Do you simply enjoy being contradictory, BenRG? I don't mind nitpicks - I'm a stickler for detail, and if I am wrong, I always appreciate that somebody corrects me... but when I am not wrong, I don't see why you choose to nitpick anyway. Nimur (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide links (or at least info on how to get) to where the SD Association summarises the differences between SDXC and SDHC? I had a look at the link you provide and I couldn't find any mention of it. Actually all the info I saw supported what BenRG said which also concurs with my understanding of the situation. To be clear, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but if you're going to claim that there is a difference and the difference is mentioned somewhere other than only in details only available under certain conditions, it would be good if you could provide the evidence.

In any case, I won't comment on the rest, but it seems to me that BenRG had a very good point if they were correct and it's a point I myself have mentioned before, possibly somewhere on wikipedia but if not elsewhere. If the only real difference between SDXC and SDHC is the file system and capacity, then there's no particular reason why most SDHC devices can't support a SDXC card formatted with FAT32. Definitely it's known that many devices which only advertise SDHC support have no problem with FAT32 formatted SDXC cards. (To be clear, these devices don't necessarily support SDXC, as they may not be able to work with exFAT. Although some do, so you could say they are apparently compatible even if not officially compatible.)

This isn't to suggest devices can't have problems. Technically since the SDHC standard says the card size must be limited to 32GB, a device could either either not understand or simply refuse to work with such a card (although IIRC last time I checked, the standard also doesn't seem to say it has to). And there may be other reasons relating to the implementation why a device wouldn't work with such a card (e.g. the software was limited to working with 32GB partitions).

And while there have been numerous reports of devices working with SDXC cards despite only officially supporting SDHC, IIRC there have also been reports of some devices which wouldn't even when the card was FAT32 formatted.

It's perhaps also worth considering other factors. I believe some devices seem to have problems with newer high speed cards, e.g. UHS-II. While this is part of both the SDXC and SDHC standard, its introduction postdated the SDHC standard by a while so it's perhaps not so suprising some devices can't handle them (and I think history in many areas has show theoretical backwards compatibility doesn't always translate to practice). I think you're much more likely to get a SDXC card in such a speed, so you're unsurprisingly also likely to encounter problems (although it wouldn't be accurate to say the device doesn't support SDXC cards per se, since technically you can have a SDXC card that's speed class 2.

Incidentally, a significant counterpoint here is SD(SC) and SDHC. SDHC introduced a different way of reporting capacity etc rather than simply using more bits to allow a larger capacity. Therefore it's hardly surprising that a large percentage of SD(SC) devices don't work with SDHC cards. I believe there is some similarity with 4GB SDSC cards in that if you follow the 1.01 version of the standard, there's no reason why you can't have 4GB cards, except that the standard says they're limited to 2GB. (Note that there is an added complexity on that devices only supporting 1.00 may not work with 2GB or 4GB cards. As I understand it, this isn't simply the standard limiting the maximum, but a feature wasn't even implemented yet so there was no reason for devices to be expected to support it.)

Getting back to the OPs original question, even if it turns out BenRG and me are wrong about the standard, I stick by my other claim which was also mentioned by BenRG. Many devices which don't claim SDXC compatibility but only SDHC will have no problem with a FAT32 formatted card. Note an important point here, some devices, even though normally capable of formatting cards, may refuse or otherwise be unable to do so with a exFAT or SDXC card. So if the OP hasn't tried formatting the card in a computer or similar first, they may want to do so and confirm it doesn't work after formatting. (Since Windows refuses to format FAT32 partitions larger than 32GB, the OP will need to find ways how.) The fact that the device is nominally incompatible with SDXC or even the differences between SDXC may not be so important to the OP if their devices can actually work with the card, they just haven't worked out how.

I had a look around. It's difficult to find much since I'm getting a lot of stuff relating to the non mini (which I think official supports SDXC or at least 64GB cards). I did find [1] which may sound disappointing, but if you read the last post it sounds like they may have eventually gotten it working. Some more searching using quotes found [2] and h4wkst3p [3] find other reports of it working in a stock situation. (Unfortunately I still got a lot of junk posts such as people saying it doesn't officially support it so it won't work. Or the S2 which doesn't officially support it either has been tested to work with SDXC cards so it's better than the S III mini despite no evidence the the person has even looked for reports of the S III mini and SDXC cards.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Look at the Simplified SD specification. Chapter 3.6 includes the state machine for card identification. See how the state machine differs for various card types? That means a different set of commands are valid only for certain "types" of card. So, while "XC" refers loosely to capacity, its file system is not the only difference: the cards follow a different initialization sequence, and the controller must support extra capabilities in software and hardware.
Some enthusiasts have made SDXC cards "work" by formatting their file system differently. This is moot: some enthusiasts have powered a Corvette on vegetable oil. Almost anything is possible, but it isn't necessarily always going to work, so it's probably not the right choice for the user, nor is it necessarily good or sustainable long-term damage-free strategy for the machine!
As I mentioned earlier, the best thing that our OP can do is to send a bug-report to his hardware vendor with as many details as possible. Nimur (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That's version 2 of the spec, which predates SDXC. If you look at version 3 (Part A2 Simplified from here), the flowchart box that said "High Capacity Ver.2.00 Card" has been relabeled "SDHC SDXC". There's no logic to distinguish between them. Searching for SDXC in the rest of the spec, I do see one potential source of incompatibility at the host controller level: SDXC cards are allowed to take 500ms for write operations, versus 250ms for SDHC. Normal write times are far shorter, but if a card did occasionally exceed 250ms, it could lead to timeouts and write failures on an older controller. -- BenRG (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Carving XML/SVG files[edit]

I accidentally deleted data on a FAT32 filesystem on a 16GB memory card. It was half full. I need to recover some XML/SVG files from it. The delete was by a rmdir command on non-empty directories, while mounted via ADBFS onto Linux. I unmounted the filesystem immediately and tried Foremost. It recovered many of the files, but it does not recognize the XML/SVG format.

Is there some file carving software that handles XML/SVG files? Otherwise, is it possible to configure Foremost to recover them? Any help is greatly appreciated. --RM — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, October 26, 2014

PhotoRec has file carving for SVG files. It handles general XML files, too. But I don't have any personal experience with the program. --Mark viking (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Can hear my mic from my speakers[edit]

I have a Gold Wireless Stereo Headset (PlayStation 3 & PlayStation 4) I use it on my PC which is ok it says you can on sony's website. When I use a program that uses a mic or could use a mic I can start to hear what is going into my mic. I have a fan behind me and the headset blocks out most of the noise but if I use skype or sony vegas I can hear my mic in my headset. I have tried to fix it in the sound and recording settings (windows 7) and it didnt do anything if I mute my mic on skype I can still hear it but if I mute my mic on the headset the mic noise stops. I really want to fix this it makes talking on skype impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

How to build GRUB2[edit]

I'm currently running Ubuntu 14.10 Minimal from inside a virtual machine. I ran apt-get source grub2 and unzipped the Debian tarball. Inside it, however, there are no makefiles or configuration scripts. How in the world would this build system work? — Melab±1 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Canonical (or whomever maintains the APT repository) provided you when you ran the apt-get source command. But if you get GRUB2 from its official distribution channel - - it comes with a set of scripts that work with autotools. The official documentation also has a link to a tutorial and build instructions from the Linux From Scratch website.
 git clone git://
...and take a look at the conf scripts. If you aren't familiar with GNU autotools, our article is a good introduction.
Nimur (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how easily the GNU version will build though. I might need to make changes to it and all and the APT version doesn't provide a diff file. — Melab±1 03:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You can diff -rq the GNU grub folder and the apt-get grub folder to see the differences. Chances are pretty high that grub itself is no different from mainline. Debian and Ubuntu (and other "distributions") probably provide a complicated variant of the menu.lst configuration (or whatever the equivalent is, now that we've got GRUB2); but there's little reason for them to significantly modify the GRUB source itself. Nimur (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

MS outlook & address book transfer with containing folder integrity[edit]

Is there a way to transfer MS outlook/outlook express and MS addressbook w/o loosing folder integrity? I used to transfer outlook and address book by transferring the containing folder to another computer but folders from the original PC are lost this way.TMCk (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This might help: How to back up and to restore Outlook Express data. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Next time I'll try it with an .csv file instead of wab. Guess that should work :) TMCk (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does Android not use X11[edit]

Why does Android not use X11 for graphics? Is Android's graphics system superior to X11 for mobile devices? --RM — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on X or on modern GUI API's, so this is a pretty ill-informed response, but I think the answer is basically, yes, the new graphics systems are superior. X strikes me as being pretty old and obsolete; if it weren't for graphical Linux I don't think anybody would be seriously using it. More importantly, modern GUIs have lots of must-have bells and whistles -- transparency, whiz-bang animations, etc. -- that I suspect are only reasonably achievable with heavy ingrained support all through the infrastructure.
(I've probably been grossly unfair to X11 in this response, but perhaps my heresy will goad someone who knows into providing the counterargument.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why does Android do anything? Because Google so decrees. To first order, Google has performed a technical evaluation and made decision that X11 is not part of their Android strategy. In this particular instance, some of their justifications are made public; and some of their reasoning must be surmised by observing industry trends at large.
Start by reading the official Android Graphics Design Overview. If you're a little bit more technical, Google hosts an "unofficial" deep-dive presentation on Android Graphics Architecture. Android has taken the approach of encouraging graphical applications to write data directly into a frame buffer. Frame-buffers are wrangled by a very minimalistic compositing architecture, suitable for hardware with severe constraints. This is conducive to hardware acceleration, but it is antithetical to a multi-tasking style "window manager" - and because X11 was structured to encourage multiple simultaneous clients all sharing a small part of a giant frame-buffer, the chief advantages are not useful for these kinds of platforms.
Read about X11. X11 is a protocol - and in order to correctly satisfy that protocol, the display client must necessarily perform some very inefficient bitmap-based operations. In exchange, the work of graphical composition is highly abstracted - it's great for inter-platform operability, because almost all the graphical work is very generalized. It's great for running multiple applications - even if the source-data for several of those operations is provided over a network layer. X11 is terrible for things like memory-efficiency or avoiding expensive deep-copies of redundant data. As a design-decision, think about how often you would want your Android telephone to render graphical application-data from an HP-UX server - and how much performance you'd trade off for that feature!
X11 can run on Android: but X11 doesn't take advantage of modern hardware capabilities.
Even on desktop platforms, many modern operating systems are moving away from X windowing. Most Linux distributions are moving towards Wayland or Mir. OS X has moved to a totally different graphics architecture, to the extent that Xquartz is no longer distributed with the operating system. Other Unix platforms - those few that are left! - are becoming more rare; and they probably continue to run X with Gnome or with some of the more insular window managers; but these platforms rarely get major overhauls - they'll probably stick with whatever worked in 1997, until it becomes cost-prohibitive to replace those dinosaur hardwares that run mission-critical systems. A while back, I toured an air traffic control facility, and those folks were running some kind of SGI workstations with the logos covered by sticker-labels from a major aerospace conglomerate! Full color graphics workstations that will keep ticking for fifty-odd years...
So, I won't say that X11 is dead - but it's widely acknowledged that new graphical systems are using newer software technology that takes advantage of a lot of lessons-learned with regard to platform-portability and hardware optimization.
Nimur (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Readers of Steve's and Nimur's answers, with which I entirely agree, might be struck with a tad of cognitive dissonance - if X is so clunky, how come it's still used? As Steve says, it's chiefly Linux now, and as Nimur says, they're moving away too. But applications on Linux, which run on the X desktop, mostly don't explicitly use X itself any more - which will mean the transition to post-X display management (Wayland, Mir) won't be super hard. In the olden days of Unix(alike) GUI programming, one did write programs which used the X libraries directly, and if one used a (slightly) higher level toolkit library like Xaw/Xt and Xm (motif) one still made X calls too. But programs that work like that are pretty thin on the ground, at least on the Linux desktop. Most are written to more capable toolkits (of which GTK+ and Qt are have between them the lion's share); these toolkits are written to be platform agnostic, which forces them to be complete (that is, programs never have to explicitly call the underlying GUI system - X on Unix, GDI et al on Windows, etc.). They're more than a thin layer over X - they do most of the work themselves. X is lacking in many areas - e.g. its own drawing system is pretty rudimentary, lacking a modern rich drawing toolkit with Porter-Duff, anti-aliasing, and decent font rendering. A modern program like Firefox does the rendering client-side, with Pango/Freetype for text rendering and a library like Cairo for high-quality drawing. They then blit that completed image to the X window wholesale. Video games use another path - they typically write with OpenGL into a buffer given them by the video driver, again with no X calls being made. Right now X still owns the screen and all the input devices, so the bottom surface of toolkits running on X still have to make X calls to pump events, create windows, and blit chunks of display around. The migration to Mir or Wayland removes X from this central role (the Mir or Wayland server will do that instead). An X server will work, but it will be subordinate to the real display server (the way an X server on OS-X or Windows already is), and will survive (for a time, I guess) to support legacy applications and remoting. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Returning old dock appearance in Yosemite[edit]

I Just upgraded to Yosemite. Looks like they fixed the terrible Maverick menu problems! Question: Is there any way to return to the old dock appearance? The new light brown dock is quite a downgrade.-- (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any way to revert to the 3D dock appearance (a la Leopard to Mavericks), however it if is the color you don't like, I believe that is based on a heavily blurred translucency effect on the desktop wallpaper, see samples in the Ars Technica review. --Canley (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Windiff a better diff tool?[edit]

For example, to compare the text as follows

  old text   new text
  --------   --------
  aaa        ccc
  bbb        bbb
  ccc        aaa

it seems that Windiff can find out that "aaa" and "ccc" are swapped and give output similar to this (note that the lines are cross! See this too)

But I have never seen other diff tool can do that. Instead, they output like this

(I don't have Windiff installed on my "Linux" box)

So my questions are:

1. Does Windiff really have that kind of ability?
2. If so, what is the alternative tool for Linux?

Justin545 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I recently discovered Meld,, which has a Windows version which does a far better job than windiff. It is excellent for getting two versions of a file that have diverged slightly back in sync. It is a standard Linux tool. You may want to try it. It passes your test. --NorwegianBlue talk 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC) EDIT: The image you linked to appears to have been created with Meld. --NorwegianBlue talk 19:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the image I linked was created by Meld installed on my own Linux machine. Meld may have better graphical presentation than Windiff, but my concern is the diff algorithm they use. In the case above when the positions of two text blocks are swapped, Windiff seems able to find out two swapped text blocks and correctly show their relation (that is, it could detect text move correctly even if two text blocks are swapped in position). On the other hand, Meld only shows me that the text block is first get deleted and then re-inserted at the other place, which means the diff algorithm Meld uses fail to detect text block move when text blocks are swapped! - Justin545 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comparison of file comparison tools may be helpful. That article says that Meld can detect moved lines, but I wasn't able to coerce it into doing so in a simple test like yours. (edit: I changed the article.) WinMerge does detect moved blocks (if you enable that in the Options dialog), but only by using a different background color for those blocks. It doesn't draw a line to the location in the other file like Windiff does, though I've never found those lines useful since they end up as spaghetti in all but the simplest cases. -- BenRG (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Facebook group and search ?[edit]

what is suggested groups in facebook and how is the suggested groups list created , what is the algorithm behind it .I see that a person whose timeline i am frequently visitng and who was never my friend on fb and do not share any common friend with me that is a member of public but the groups to which that belong are appearing in my suggested groups list how and why is this happening.I have graph search enabled or turned on.Can that person sense somehow directly/indirectly that i am very frequently visiting that guys page whenever i type the first letter of his name in search box on top i am getting his name with profile and pic as suggested searck although he is a member of public in fb terms whats the reason for this and how is it so what is the significance. (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

matrix in latex conflict with packages[edit]

In preparing my presentation I have a problem in writing a matrix Array, tabular are not working gives an error message .I m using the following packages: \usepackage[screen,panelright,gray,paneltoc,sectionbreak]{pdfscreen}%ȱʡ״̬ΪBlue,ѧÊõ±¨¸æÍƼö²ÉÓÃ"gray"¡£ \usepackage{xspace,colortbl} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{CJK} \usepackage{color} \usepackage{times} \usepackage{type1cm} \usepackage{tabls} \usepackage{background} \usepackage{geometry} \usepackage{hyperref} \usepackage[display]{texpower} \usepackage{manfnt} \usepackage{hypbmsec} \usepackage{pause} \usepackage{amssymb, latexcad, lgrind} \usepackage{tikz} \usepackage{amsmath} — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There really isn't enough info here, unless someone happens to have had the exact same problem (unlikely). Please try to give us a complete minimal example of your problem, as described here [4]. Often the process of making the minimal example will help you solve your own problem. If not, then at least it helps us help you. Also you could post the exact error message. You might also try asking this question at If you are getting an error message and the code is not compiling, it could be a package conflict, but it is more likely a syntax error. Pending any more information from you, I'd recommend trying the Beamer_(LaTeX) package for presentations. It plays well with most other packages, but gives completely useless error logs :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a syntax error, and surly a package conflict. Same code works when pasted in an other tex file with different package. I think userpackage CJK, hyperref or background are creating problems. I want to write a some command for matrix which run with these packages . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well you might check into these alternative for 'array' [[5]], or look for alternatives to the package(s) that are causing problems. That's all the help I can give without a minimal example. Good luck! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Any of this do not work, with error message "missing $ inserted a\begin{Vmatrix}". If I use $ sign or \[ , then error message is ,"Extra } or forgotten $\alpha\beta^{*}\\". Also I want to tell u that , the command \begin{figure} do not work.\begin{tikzpicture} goes well, but \Line do not work, but \draw works well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

\begin{figure} should work with every package! So I suspect that that one of your packages is rather badly written. You could consider filing a bug report at CTAN. If you didn't get the package from CTAN, that's a bit of a bad sign at the start. In Beamer, the figure environment is re-defined so that it is not a 'float', so that you can place each figure exactly where you want to (not the normal case for figures in LaTeX). My guess is that your presentation package is re-defining the figure environment in a way that makes it unusable with some of the other packages. If you have a deadline for your presentation, I encourage you to seek alternate packages or simply drop some (e.g. do you really need background images?) in order to get your work to compile. Bug hunting is not as fun as the work you want to present! Anyway, if you post a small complete file that fails (all headers, a few commands, end document), I might be able to help, but not without that. If you do post that, you can type in '{{ping|SemanticMantis}}' to notify me, otherwise I will probably miss it. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank u, I have found the package by creating an other latex file containing only a table and compiling by exluding one one package. The package which is creating problem is \usepackage{colortbl}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Key-agreement protocols not based around Diffie-Hellman[edit]

I've always thought the way the Diffie-Hellman protocol worked was kind of neat, but I'm disappointed to see that most key-agreement protocols, barring the types that use public-key cryptography, are just variations on it. Are there any key-agreement protocols like DH in that each participant has a secret number and a number they exchange not based around DH? — Melab±1 05:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The key exchange article discusses some. (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet don't work, Proxy-server don't respond... help?[edit]

On my laptop, I suddenly can't go on the internet anymore. My connection is just fine, but when I open the Internet explorer, I get "Proxy-Server don't respond" error-message. There's nothing I can do to search for problems or click anything that might work..

I've tried restart the computer a few times, and every time I get a strange error message which I *think* is about the root to the problem. That message also started today.. Translated to English it pretty much reads as follows; "Can't load Sorttbls.nlp or any associated files." Last time I rebooted I also got another error-message that said 'Client.exe' didn't work or couldn't run or something. I don't know what these messages mean but I can only assume they are the root to the internet problems. The laptop otherwise seem to work, after a fashion at least.

Any useful insight here, and any know-hows as to what can be done? (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you use a proxy server? Is anything non-internet related different or not working? This may be of help for sorttbls.nlp, [6]. Have you made any recent changes to your system, had any symptoms of malware, etc.?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had some bad symptoms, yes, but whether they are due to malware, I can't say.. I'm frequently using anti-virus, but today and yesterday I can't run it, it gets stuck on 10%. Coincidence that it happens now? No, it can't be. No real changes to system, computer have crashed many times lately and presented me with the chance to go back to "previous adjustments on the computer" and it hasn't made any difference. I don't think I'm using a proxy, if I have understood the meaning of it correctly. Standard fiber-net provided to the whole street by the same company. Beyond that, I don't have the skills or know-hows on computers to be using any advanced stuff. I open the explorer and browse the net for news etc. and stream football and cycling broadcasts as well as downloading the odd movie or tv-series... that's what I do. I'm a very simple internet user. I suppose the only option is to take the laptop in for repair then. (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can move files onto the malfunctioning machine, via usb, I could try to talk you through some various things you can do - though, depending on the cost to get it fixed, you might be better going that route; then someone is liable if anything goes wrong and you don't have to worry about a detail getting lost in communication. Drop me a line on my talk page if you would like. If not, best of luck, hopefully you'll be up and running soon:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Presuming you are running Windows, try resetting TCP/IP: --  Gadget850 talk 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Largest computer[edit]

At [7] they talk about the new British Meteorological Office computer is going to weigh 140 tons. I'm sure it is quite a bit smaller than the Chinese Tianhe-2 computer though I don't know how much that would weigh, and there might be earlier ones that were physically larger. Some sources talk about the SAGE computers being the biggest, they weighed 250 tons each and there were two of them per centre. So anybody have an idea what was or is the single largest computer? Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How about by power requirement? That would probably be a good proxy for size. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Windows 7 driver installation[edit]

I'm having a problem installing a device driver (Windows 7 64-bit). In Event Viewer, the appropriate message from UserPnP contains an error code of 0xE0000219, No Associated Service. According to Microsoft here, "This error is usually the result of incorrectly editing the .inf file." (which I haven't), and "If you did not edit the .inf file, then contact the vendor of the device for an updated device driver package." (I'm using the latest driver, which has installed successfully on another system). I'm not an expert on INF files, but I've compared the one that doesn't work to another one (from the same manufacturer) that does, and they appear to be identical apart from the hardware ID - in particular, the <Device>_Inst.Services section in both files contains the same value for the AddService key. Does anyone here know what the error message actually means? That is, _what_ is Windows trying to do that hasn't worked, rather than the reason _why_ it hasn't worked? Any help would be most appreciated. Tevildo (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What device are you installing? What is the other OS this is installed on? --  Gadget850 talk 15:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a PXI device. The good system also has Windows 7 64-bit, but an older version of NI-VISA. I've tried taking the bad system back to the version of VISA that's on the good system, but it hasn't fixed the problem. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
On the good system, search the registry for the device name and export all the settings, the import into the problem system. --  Gadget850 talk 17:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That won't work, as the PCI addresses are different between the systems. In any case, it's more important at this stage to track down the source of the error, rather than the solution - if I have to reformat the system, that won't be a major problem, but it would be useful to establish what's going wrong first. Tevildo (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly Absurd Question, Naked Power Supply and Risk[edit]

I preface this with: I know nothing about electronics, beyond how to follow what connects to what and diagrams. So, I had a few vacation days to use and nothing to do, so I bought a bunch of survival horror games, for the holiday (my partner is out of town) and took the week off; of course, my 360's power supply brick fan broke and now overheats and shuts off power every 30 minutes (and ordering a new one takes ten days+). So, I opened it up, cleaned out a bunch of horrid dust from the fan, and anywhere else, and the unit still displays the same behaviour (I get about ten more minutes out of it). So, two questions. 1.) Is it possible the fan doesn't spin at all because the motor burned out from being clogged - or might it just need more cleaning? 2.) If I remove the top part of the case, set it somewhere out of the way, and use a small fan to blow over top of it, will it give off harmful something or anothers, or light on fire, or etc. because the case is missing? I intend to unplug it when I am not using it and never leave it by itself; I'm mainly concerned with the case somehow protecting me from more than touching a live wire, and that it will still overheat anyway. Any help would be appreciated, thank you for indulging what may be a quite stupid question:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My power supply is out in the open (technically, it is mounted to the bottom of my desk, behind the file drawer - similar to my motherboard, also mounted to the bottom of the desk). As long as you don't touch it, drop things on it, spill things on it, etc..., you are fine. The deal is how the power supply monitors the fan. Most power supplies that I've had will not run if they do not detect that the fan is spinning. So, if the fan is not spinning (which means it is dead), the power supply will shut off - even if it is not hot. A fan is cheap. So, it is trivial to pop over to some store that sells them solder a new one in where the old one was. It doesn't have to be the same size and mount in exactly the same spot. You just need the load to show it is spinning. You *could* use a resistor instead to give it load, but it is harder to figure out the ohms and you'd still have to run down to the electronics store and solder the resistor in. So, I suggest just replacing the fan. (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing can possibly go wrong if you solder home-made parts in to the AC-DC supply that powers your expensive computer/console/toy!
This is a great way to:
  • electrocute yourself
  • set fire to your house
  • permanently destroy your expensive computer/console/toy.
If a power cord or PSU becomes damaged in any way, stop using it immediately and contact Xbox Customer Support for a replacement. You already know this. Don't try to "home-brew" a solution. Residential AC/DC power-supplies carry enough energy to kill an adult human.
Without a detailed schematic, and an expert familiar with this specific power supply design, there is no way to know what has gone wrong. Do not try to fix it yourself. Do not try to operate it. It is not clear whether the observed overheating is a cause or a symptom of a more serious problem - like a short-circuit or a damaged high-energy component.
Nimur (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I will wait for the replacement, then - I'm going to give cleaning it one more go, though.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NFC for photography?[edit]

I was in an electronics store today and I noticed several point-and-shoot cameras that are near-field communication (NFC) enabled. I don't understand what NFC brings to cameras as its range is so limited. Any ideas? -- (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

From this web page: There’s also NFC (Near Field Communication), which is starting to be rolled out across more cameras and works on the basis of touching devices together to transfer images. Search engines are awesome. ‑‑Mandruss  20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It saves users the hassle of taking the SD card out of the camera to then transfer them onto their computer. Dismas|(talk) 04:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Facebook groups[edit]

I've taken the liberty of moving this from the Science Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

what is suggested groups in facebook and how is the suggested groups list created , what is the algorithm behind it .I see that a person whose timeline i am frequently visitng and who was never my friend on fb and do not share any common friend with me that is a member of public but the groups to which that belong are appearing in my suggested groups list how and why is this happening.I have graph search enabled or turned on.Can that person sense somehow directly/indirectly that i am very frequently visiting that guys page whenever i type the first letter of his name in search box on top i am getting his name with profile and pic as suggested searck although he is a member of public in fb terms whats the reason for this and how is it so what is the significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Companies like Facebook tend to try to keep those algorithms secret in order to prevent people from trying to game the system for whatever reason. So I doubt we'll have an answer for you on this one. SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand, it works along the lines of the predictive text function on smartphones, so it "learns" the common words you search for and provides those words as the first suggestions for what you are searching for. The person you are searching for will have no idea you are searching for him. As to the suggested groups list, I believe it's based on the groups your friends are a member of, rather than on random groups coming up. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In general, suggestion algorithms on the Internet are based on collaborative filters. You take a population and tell everyone in the population that they like the same thing. For example, if Facebook looks at you and your friends and most of the people like David Hasselhoff, but for some reason you don't, Facebook will suggest that you behave similar to your friends. This is very general though. They can use more complicated rules (but why?). Further, they often use marketing as well. If some new movie is coming out and the producers pay a fee to Facebook, then Facebook will add weight to that movie and suggest it to people. Even without money, Facebook admitted that they purposely skew suggestions just to screw with study people. (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

linux test command: how to negate a composite result[edit]

Hello everyone, if i can use the command test instead of [ i test to use the former. The problem arise with composite expressions. For example if i want to negate
test "a" != "b" && test "a" != "c" && test "a" != "d"
i have no idea of how can i do that. I tried, of course, to write
! test "a" != "b" && test "a" != "c" && test "a" != "d"
or test ! "a" != "b" && test "a" != "c" && test "a" != "d"
but it negates just the first test (as expected).

How can i group and negate the entire result? With the [ version i would just use
[ ! \( "a" != "b" -a "a" != "c" -a "a" != "d" \) ]
or in an equivalent way test ! \( "a" != "b" -a "a" != "c" -a "a" != "d" \) .

I appreciate suggestion of other way to evaluate conditional expression but i would like to ask you if you are kind enough to provide a solution that involves a combination of test one_expression and shell operators (as i wrote at the start, with 3 test commands with && shell operators). Pier4r (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You may find this disgustingly inelegant, but whenever I need to negate a test expression, I just write
if test whatever complicated expression
then : do nothing
else whatever I wanted to do
Steve Summit (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
the || operataor can be used to that end, too: [ ! -e ~/foo.txt ] && echo foo.txt not found can be written as [ -e ~/foo.txt ] || echo foo.txt not found. as to the OP's question, I can't say I understand it Asmrulz (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It is my current solution too (at the end, inelegant or not, it has to work given a certain syntax) (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this isn't helpful, but you should seriously consider using a better programming language if you can. I'm not sure Python has attained ubiquity yet, but I think Perl is available everywhere Bash is these days, and it has much saner syntax and semantics. -- BenRG (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
bash is a shell and as such first and foremost about process control and interactivity. sane syntax alone does not a good shell make if you for example have to set up child processes and redirect file descriptors by hand (imagine doing something like diff <(cd foo; find|sort) <(cd /backup/2014-10-29/foo; find|sort)). I don't know either language, sadly, but if it's anything like (pseudocode and API) x=createProcess("find");x.stdin=...;x.stdout=...;x.workingDir=...;; x.wait(); - well, that's fine as programming goes but one will tire typing that everytime into the interpreter Asmrulz (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If you meant running perl from bash (perl -e 'code') then I agree. some stuff is better done in a real language, but there may be issues with quoting and how to pass variables to that language and getting results back Asmrulz (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, constructing command lines in a language such as Perl often avoids quoting problems, because you have other ways than quotation marks and spaces to delimit things on the line. It does tend to make things more verbose, though. For example, a Perl call like system("commandname", $file1, $file2); will do the right thing no matter what funny characters may be in the two filenames. -- (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
yes i could use a different programming language, but i'm asking exactly because i would like to know if it is just my limited knowledge of the syntax. For me suggesting completely different solution is ok, but are a workaround of the main question (the question can even have the answer "no is not possible", it is nothing bad.) --Pier4r (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As for the original question, I suggest using de Morgan's Laws to rewrite the expression. To negate

  test "a" != "b" && test "a" != "c" && test "a" != "d"

you can just use

  test "a" == "b" || test "a" == "c" || test "a" == "d"

That is, reverse each of the tests and swap "and" for "or". -- (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING: such simple rule works fine for expressions with 'ands' only or with 'ors' only! For complex conditions like
        A and B or C
you may have to consider operators precedence and use some parenthesing to get appropriate meaning of the expression:
        (!A or !B) and !C
--CiaPan (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"And" and "or" don't have a well defined precedence anyway; it varies between languages. In shell programming, && and || have equal precedence and are processed left to right. -- (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep i'm aware of de Morgan's laws, but i wanted to "toggle" the result of the condition with just an operator. Maybe i can write:
  main_test=test "a" != "b" && test "a" != "c" && test "a" != "d" ;
  let main_test_toggled=1^${main_test}
  test ${main_test_toggled} -eq 0
but it is a bit verbose. Pier4r (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a hard time telling what you really want:
  1. What difference do you think there is between test and [ ("With the [ version i would just use")—aside from having to type ] to close the latter?
  2. Doesn't the test ! \( "a" != "b" -a "a" != "c" -a "a" != "d" \) (or the [ version) you provided work?
  3. Why would you want test invoked multiple times rather than once with its operators? (But see below about arbitrary strings; I could also see it if the latter tests involved some expensive shell substitution or so…)
All that said, I do have two answers:
  1. Be careful of complicated expressions if your test data might be arbitrary strings: bash 4.1.5's builtin chokes on parsing [ \( "(" = "(" \) ] (where the quotes are meant to suggest that those arguments might have come from variables), while test 7.4 accepts that but rejects [ \( "(" = ")" \) ] which bash interprets as two nested parenthesizations of the single argument = which, being non-empty, is true. Using fewer than 5 arguments can help in that the parsing is not based so much on keywords: for example, [ "(" = ")" ] is a comparison rather than a parenthesized single-argument test.
  2. You can apply the shell operator ! to a compound command: ! (true && false) or ! { true && false; } (note the semicolon and spaces). --Tardis (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
yep i know that if i ask questions like this preferring some "hard" constraints ("if possible using only this and/or using only that") that mostly make sense only for me, then volunteers that wants to reply are a bit annoyed. When i have to answer questions of this kind i get annoyed too sometimes. I use to pose questions like this because my idea is "i would like to know if it is possible to reach a certain result given those tools" and not "i would like to reach the result with whatever tool set".
Said that. Many thanks for your reply i will test it asap. Pier4r (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: AT&T data throttling[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2014_October_23#AT.26T_behavior. They've just been charged with illegal data throttling, so apparently I'm not the only one they did this to. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. Here's the FTC's public complaint for permanent injunction, and a brief from their webpage, "AT&T Has Misled Millions of Consumers with ‘Unlimited’ Data Promises." Here's AT&T's press release in response. Here's a summary article from Ars Technica, US sues AT&T... Nimur (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The big issue is a semantic one. Does "unlimited" refer to speed as well as quantity. AT&T says no. Unlimited means you can keep getting data, but the speed is not guaranteed. The FTC says yes. Unlimited means that you will keep getting data and the speed will not be decreased if you use too much. I'd like to see how this works so I can sue the seafood restaurant if their unlimited crab legs slows down after the fifth plate. (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

accenture company projects[edit]

what are the current ongoing and nearly in future projets that will be done under accenture in india..i will be highly thankful to you if you can provide me a listing of all projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points, 1) We are not Accenture so it's difficult to answer this. Perhaps there's a website or other source somewhere which lists their projects, but it's probably easier for you to ask them. 2) It's fairly unlikely Accenture will give you a listing of all projects nor can you easily find such a listing. Some may be somewhat secret for a variety of reasons (e.g. non disclosure agreements, competition risks) and aren't something they're going to tell to random people. I presume you aren't senior management of Accenture or you wouldn't be asking here (edit: not that I'm suggesting all senior management would necessarily be allowed to know all projects). It's also likely some near future (as I think you mean) projects are unknown. While most major projects would have some degree of advance planning, it's likely some end up having very little for a variety of reasons such as the project being urgent. In other words, Accenture couldn't tell you about all near future projects even if they were perfectyly willing. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Business Basic, most advanced implementation[edit]

Hello everyone, i was surfing the web and i ended up on this page: , that shows that some complex projects are done with business basic (BB) and then i searched on wikipedia (i love it), ending up on the page The page has a reference to a manual describing the MAI4 business basic dialect, from 1986. Is it possible that since then no one released public documentation describing more advanced version for BB interpreters? For example overcoming the limitation of "every variable should have at maximum 8 chars". In other words, do you know sites where i can find the documentation of more advanced BB interpreter? (the interpreter could be commercial, but at least the documentation could be free, to get an overview of the improvements) Pier4r (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My experience is with the Data General Business Basic language and its clones. As far as I know, the only product in this family still being sold is Transoft's Universal Business Language, which appears to have last been updated in 2013. I didn't find the links in that page particularly useful, but there are useful links at their knowledgebase including a downloadable manual (in the obsolete Windows CHM help file format).-gadfium 21:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As current versions of Windows cannot open CHM files, I've translated the manual to PDF format using an online service. It is available for the next 24 hours at 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, current versions of Windows can open CHM files. -- BenRG (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was confusing CHM with WinHelp. In any case, my 64-bit Windows 7 system could open the CHM file and display the table of contents, but not the content pages themselves.-gadfium 22:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Right-click on the file, and select Properties > Unblock. Tevildo (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that worked.-gadfium 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive of Whatsapp IPAs[edit]

I would like to get a previous version of whatsapp for Iphones.
From where can I download a historical .ipas of previous versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

rotating plane game[edit]

So, it's an old arcade or maybe 8 bit computer game, it's got a plane as the central character, flying over oceans and shooting other planes, I at first thought this may be 1942 or 1943 but they are vertical scrolling only, this plane rotates through 360 degrees as it goes, I guess a bit like Asteroids but with a plane, does anyone know what this is? Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Time Pilot ? -- Finlay McWalterTalk 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

which is best Kurdish search engine?[edit]

which is best Kurdish search engine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry jon (talkcontribs) 13:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Open Directory Project has a category in the Kurdish language (DMOZ - World: Kurdî), although it is not a search engine.
Wavelength (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Google Language Codes - tomihasa has a link to You can click on the keyboard icon to enter search text in Kurdish characters.
Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

An M-language?[edit]

This is a typical Halloween story :-). I've been looking for FORTRAN code to calculate Associated Legendre Polynomials and Spherical Harmonics. There are thousands FORTRAN routines on the web. At one of the sites I found a zip file which I opened in my Ubuntu VM. As a result I got a set of directories that have nothing to do with FORTRAN. Most files have .m extension and the source code appears to be written in some obscure M-language, if I am not mistaken.

I am wondering if anybody knows anything about this language and how to convert it to FORTRAN. My GFortran compiler could not handle the source code files. I hope StuRat will be able to crack the mystery :-)

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The zip file contains a data directory that states it is clearly a MATLAB program. See this for a blog about what is involved in converting MATLAB to FORTRAN. (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It never crossed my mind. I've always thought MatLab online files are always in object code. It is a different tack. Thanks again. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

bash autocomplete disable?[edit]

Every once in a while, perhaps due so something random I accidentally typed, filename autocompletion in bash stops working for me. I hit the tab key, and it just beeps and autocompletes nothing, no matter how much or how little of the fragmentary filename I've typed, no matter if there are 0, 1, or multiple matches. The only way I've found to fix this is to exit and reopen my shell, but this is a nuisance and loses context. Anybody know of a specific mode bash can get in that would do this, and how I can disable or otherwise correct that mode more cleanly? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Which operating system and which bash version? This actually does make a difference: if you're using most Linux, you're probably using the real GNU readline as opposed to BSD's libedit-based readline. You might also be using the bash built-in readline code, as opposed to tab completion provided externally via the readline library. Knowing the version will help narrow the range of possible problems.
OS X contains some kind of GNU GPL readline as part of bash; it provides BSD-licensed libedit for everything else.
In normal use (depending on what you consider "normal"), you might actually be swapping between these two code-paths... that would throw a wrench into rl_complete (tab-completion). Nimur (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It happened to me most recently (i.e. tonight) with "GNU bash, version 4.1.5(1)-release (i486-pc-linux-gnu)", on a Debian "squeeze" system. But I think I've seen it elsewhere, perhaps also on my Mac. (And, as for tonight's bug, I'm kicking myself, because despite intending not to I killed and reopened it, meaning that the failure mode is gone, and I won't be able to immediately test any suggestions y'all may have for me.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Tor at college[edit]

Can my college monitor what I do on tor? I know they can probably see the amount of data that is being transferred same as a normal ISP would see but I was curious if my college would be able to see anything I am doing. I feel like I am being spied on by the college and I want that to change. By being spied on I meant like a personal spying not just a normal NSA kind of spying. Also I live on campus at the dorm, they did not ever have access to my desktop to install software like I hear they do at some colleges.

Also, can someone explain to me how the "darkweb" works? I have heard things about being able to access like the full domain of a website and being able to see ever page but I do not really know how to explore the dark web. Are there any tools that I could use to map out a domain? Sort of like a visual map or in text telling me all the URL's. Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dark web. Use with caution. I hope the college doesn't know that IP address.
You don't need physical access to install software.
Personal spying is the normal NSA kind. What other kind exists? (Nevermind. ELINT.)
If there was a tool for lighting up the world wide dark web, it'd just be the world wide web. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, November 1, 2014 (UTC)


October 26[edit]

Ebola virus hardiness[edit]

How long does the Ebola virus remain infectious outside a living host (bat, human, dog, swine, or other carriers)? Ebola virus disease says that it is highly infectious on the skin of a dead victim, but for how long? The article just says it is infectious on surfaces for "a few hours." How about on things contaminated by fluids from the victim (blood, feces, vomit) on sheets, toilets, clothing, doorhandles? They went through a great effort to remove everything from the apartment of the Dallas victim's family, but if the stuff becomes noninfectious after "a few hours,"why couldn't they have just locked the door for a day or two, rather than destroying all personal belongings, carpets, etc? When sources say the virus is not infectious after so many hours, does that assume it is exposed to fresh and sunshine, while in moist dampness it could persist indefinitely? I know that some bacterial pathogens sporify such as anthrax, and can remain infectious indefinitely. What about viruses? If the infectious potential only persists for "hours" (2, 20, 200?) then why the ritual of cleaning bowling alleys, taking airplanes out of service, and sending in hazmat cleaners to apartments? Is it a legitimate health precaution or "public health theatre"? Edison (talk)

How much do we know for sure about ebola? The story seems to change daily. It reminds me of the early years of the AIDS panic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, health officials have an annoying habit of saying "it can't b spread by X", when they really should say "we haven't yet observed it being spread by X". Now, with a disease that's been around and unchanged for thousands of years, those two are pretty much the same. But in a relatively new and rare disease/strain, you can't just assume that a means of transmission is impossible because you haven't observed it yet. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Your first point is completely untrue. I can virtually guarantee you that no scientist/health official has explicitly said "it can't b [sic] spread by X", and will have said "we haven't yet observed it being spread by X". It's the obnoxious media "simplifying" the accurate wording scientists use for consumption by the ignorant soundbite-expecting public. As a scientist who has had their research misrepresented in the media, I feel this is an important point to make. Fgf10 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with StuRat on this. Saw it myself on TV. An expert said something along the lines that if a victim is not showing signs and symptoms then s/he is not contagious and they can safely carry on with their normal work. There is something called 'theoretical' risk. Here, in the UK, one can only exhume 'known' smallpox victims if one has had a Small Pox vaccination. Likewise, if an archaeologist is exploring a plague pit, then it is understood that there is a 'theoretical' risk of contracting Yersinia pestis. (doctors have a saying: If you hear hoofs... think horses not zebras( the common not the exotic) Meaning: A doctor would not normally consider a patient with a cough as having Yersinia pestis. But if his patient says Oh and by the way, I am an archaeologist and currently working in an old plague pit, the doctor can then switch mode and consider the possibility of plague. This is because medial science does not know exactly how long the causative agents of these two diseases remain viable. The experts on TV where pontificating about thing that they have no scientific evidence for. Yet, perhaps, the allure of appearing on TV, overcame their conservatism and good judgment.--Aspro (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't heard the statement about Ebola that "It can't be spread by X". I did hear the statement about HIV that "It can't be spread by X", in particular to "It can't be spread by insects", when the Belle Glade cluster of HIV infections still isn't explained unless it was a rare case of the virus being spread by mosquitos. Statements that "it can't be spread by X" are more appropriate to varicella or to Y. pestis, with centuries of data, than to Ebola, and by now HIV is somewhere in between. (I think that it can reasonably be said that Ebola can't be spread by mosquitos, because if it could, most of the population in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea would be infected, but no one said that it could be spread by mosquitos. That isn't an argument against effective mosquito control, because malaria is still a serious problem in those countries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I had read that the virus can survive for a couple of hours on a hard, dry surface - up to 24 hours on moist/soft surfaces and an unknown, but definitely much larger, amount of time in human corpses. A lot of the caution involved here is because there are unknowns. This virus is just not that well understood - and there is always the possibility of mutant strains that can break the rules. When you're dealing with something with the ability to become an unstoppable global pandemic with a potential for deaths in the billions, an excess of caution is definitely required.
Viruses are tremendously variable in their capabilities. The HIV virus is incredibly fragile and can hardly exist outside of the human body at all. The classic Tobacco mosaic virus can live for up to nine years on a dessicated plant leaf - and can form essentially inorganic crystals that can survive for decades in a wide range of conditions - it's capable of infecting 120 different plant species in nine distinct families. I'm sure there are examples all along that spectrum.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This virus was first written up years ago. It clearly is of interest in the public health world, and could potentially cost many lives and many billions of dollars economic disruption. It is surprising if no controlled studies were done to furnish reliable answers to obvious questions such as I posed about how authorities can do the minimum disruption to ensure some contaminated apartment, bathroom, school, cruise ship or shopping mall will not be a source of future cases. Overreaction ("public health theatre") to reassure the public seems to be the rule so far in the U.S if the statements about a few hours or 24 hours for the infection potential of fluid deposits is correct. If some animal species is infected in a similar manner to humans (lab rats, or rabbits ideally, or even swine perhaps?) it would seem straightforward to do parametric testing and determine what measures are really necessary when an infected person has deposited his bodily fluids on something. If semen remains infective for weeks after the accepted 21 days, then what about blood? Ebola survivors are welcomed a a curative to transfuse new victims. This seems to be an anomaly. Edison (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The main reason is that "this virus" hasn't been seen before. Every strain of Ebola is potentially a whole new surprise - see Ebola Reston for how surprising they can be. Though the reaction to that potential surprise should not have been first to broadly assure people that casual contact won't spread the virus, then to discount abundant fatalities in Liberian health workers as the result of poverty and ignorance, and only to start freaking out and taking protective measures after a couple of Americans die.
As far as viral stability in general, I think the viral envelope is a consideration. Viruses like HIV and Ebola that have envelopes are actually made up, in part, of a mix of phospholipids from the host's plasma membrane. This means that lipid peroxidation would seem inevitably to be a limitation. (Caveat: there's no literal guarantee that the virus couldn't totally shield itself from oxygen, or work even after the envelope is severely oxidized... I do doubt it though) Without taking time to really dive into the topic I'm only finding possibly-irrelevant references for this though like PMID 18598719, PMID 8686266. Wnt (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Think Wnt is on the right track. 99.9% of the time, clinicians can be assured that each viral infection will follow the same course as the last, but occasionally an un-caricaturist epidemic brakes out, which suggests that a virus strain has mutated. In the fullness of time, maybe will we have a full RNA analysis, so know if this was the case. The point is: when such an un-caricaturist out outbreaks like this occurs, received medical dogma (like we heard at the start of the outbreak) should be replaced with Err , this is unusual. Let's look at this without letting medical dogma cloud our vision. Trouble is, that it appears to me that the individuals that move up from practising healthcare to administrators, loose touch with the reality of diseases. For someone of my age it was only a few decades ago that HIV/AID's was considered to be akin to GPI. Thought to be a psychiatric disorder attributed to the 'immorality of homosexuals'. Then heterosexuals started getting diagnoses with it. By then it had become wide spread and prepubescent children were contracting it from blood transfusions. When the Apollo 11 crew came back, were they not held in quarantine on the precautionary principle? There is only so much money in the pot for healthcare, so shouldn't that money be wisely directed to issues that may pose the greatest threat -by the experts that know , rather than left in the hands of administrators that use political one-upmanship to elevate their status (and financial remunerations)? This is the 21st Century, so let,s have protocols put in place to nip these emerging plagues in the bud. It will be less expensive in the long run.--Aspro (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A thought has just come to me. Air travel is a lot safer to day than in the past. Much of this is because airline pilots have to undergo 'Recertification' [8]. This ensures that they haven't developed any bad habits, haven't forgotten the basic etc. Ie, still competed to be responsible for several hundred passengers (souls; men, women, children, grandparents etc.). Some of the healthcare representatives that I have seen of late on TV are responsible for the well-being of a hell of a lot more people, (millions). Should they not undergo recertification as well? Human kind has (slowly) progressed, by getting rid of the smooth talking pontificators who play politics for all their worth and replacing them with competent specialists. History has show that this is more economic in the long run.--Aspro (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
To identify oneself as an Infectious Diseases physician in the United States, one has to maintain certification - now a continual process of learning modules, practice improvement modules, and in-person examinations. Many adult Infectious Diseases clinicians also maintain certification in Internal Medicine, which requires continual recertification as well. Of course, some are just "pundits", and anyone with an ego (e.g. George Will on the subject of Ebola virus becoming airborne) can do that. -- Scray (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Problem with this type of re-certification. It often requires 'only' oneself to keep up to date with how to prescribe patented medications. Not how to alert you, that a disease is no longer conforming to the accepted epidemiological pattern. Nor what to do when a disease shows it doesn't give two hoots about what you-think-you-know about it!--Aspro (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference between diffusion of vapors and diffusion of gases[edit]

In today's present, it is been obvious that the separate sections of practical physics of thermodynamics thermostatics already had not been scientific perspectives. However, there is been a fundamental difference between the physical phenomena diffusion of vapors and diffusion of gases, so that, is been any significant technical differences between the steam turbine and gas turbine?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no difference between a vapour and a gas, those terms are synonyms. However, technically speaking, steam is not a vapour, but an aerosol. That being said, at the macroscopic scale, steam is equivalent to a vapour, albeit constituted of very large "molecules" (droplets). Since the droplets that from the steam are significantly larger than individual molecules in gas, kinetic friction plays a much more important role when discussing wear and tear on a turbine. The design and operation of the steam turbine would need to compensate for the difference. If steam is heated to above 100°C, it becomes an actual vapour - water vapour. I suspect that most "steam" turbines are actually water vapour turbines. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • More precisely, the word "steam" is used in two different ways. Either it means water vapor or it refers to the aerosol mist formed by water vapor condensing in air. In the context of steam locomotives, steam turbines, and so on, it means water vapor. See here or here, for example.-- (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The term "steam quality" refers to any of a variety of engineering approximations about the percentage of steam that is gaseous water, compared to the percentage that is suspended droplets of water. Nimur (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Did the vapour and gases been homogeneous substance and uniformity of aggregate physical states of matter, that could be considered as the same physical phenomenon?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Did the dynamical kinetics of vapour and gases been the homogeneous dynamical kinetics?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Combining advanced terminology with your level of English is probably not the best choice in this instance. I for one, am completely confused by what you are trying to ask. Try asking with simpler words, then we can try to interpret what you mean to ask. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
... and please don't make your words harder to understand by adding been to every sentence? The present tense (third person) of the English verb "to be" is just "is". Dbfirs 00:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Now, now, we're not here to fix others' grammar to the nth degree. I'm simply trying to help him, help others to interpret for themselves what he is trying to communicate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the physics of thermodynamics and thermostatics studied so, that they had no scientific perspectives. I'm interested in acceptable and unacceptable methods of studying thermodynamics and thermostatics of homogeneous physical environments and their aggregate physical condition.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, you're asking about scientific methodology? I don't know if there is particular which is more applicable to the field of thermodynamics than any other field of science, but try scientific method. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
What is a concrete scientific method of studies did concludes about the homogeneous of the physical environment of gases and vapour?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
What is "Homogeneous of the physical environment"? Dynamic equilibrium? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In what why the diffusion of gases always had become to an explosion of gases and diffusion of vapour always had become to condensation of vapour?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, but I'm abandoning this thread. It is simply too difficult to interpret. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I’m explain this by the physical fact, that the gases and vapour are always had during none homogeneous thermodynamic and thermostatic processes, that is at the basis of the dynamics of vapour and dynamics of gases as well as their statics are always been a different physical phenomena.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Phenomena of physics of gases are always been different from the phenomena of physics of vapour.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I interpret one question to be whether a turbine optimally designed for a vapor (a gas at less than the critical temperature) would also be optimally designed for use with a supercritical fluid. My suspicion is that supercritical fluids are less compressible and this should affect the design, but I know nothing about turbines! Wnt (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

What is the diffrence between Teflon and Plastic"[edit]

I've red in the article "Peripheral venous catheter" the next sentence: Modern catheters consist of synthetic polymers such as teflon (hence the often used term 'Venflon' or 'Cathlon' for these venous catheters). In 1950 they consisted of plastic. Is the teflon isn't kind of plastic? (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of a grey area. "Plastics" are generally considered to be organic molecules - teflon is a carbon-fluorine compound...which is not exactly most people's idea of an "organic" molecule. So I suppose you could argue that teflon is not technically a plastic. However, the word "plastic" and the term "organic" are both somewhat poorly defined, so there is ample room for debate. I agree that the article is a bit vague though - it would have been better if they had specified what kind(s) of plastic were in use in the 1950's. Sadly, the article they reference for this claim is on PubMed, and I don't have an account there to see if the original reference was any more specific. SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the nomenclature is a bit vague. I've tried a bit, and can't find any digital copy of the 1950 article. Most stuff that old isn't digitized yet (if it ever will be). I found this retrospective [9] from 2008, and this review from 1965 [10]. Both articles just say that the needle was sheathed in "plastic." Apparently the original device was known as the "Massa plastic needle" or "Rochester Plastic needle", that might help someone track down details of the material. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE:- got it: from this article, 2005 [11]
So, the originals were PVC, though I suspect several other materials were tried before Teflon became standard. As thanks for finding the info and reference, I hope OP or someone will update the article :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I put in the ref and a link to PVC, but the intro could probably use more re-wording if anyone's interested. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Identification of a naval base structure[edit]

What is that tunnel looking thing[12] in the foreground with the American flag? I've seen similar structures in other naval base photos as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinterWall (talkcontribs) 03:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the white thing? That's the Arizona Memorial. It sits atop the remnants of the ship which the Japanese sunk in 1941. If you mean the rusty cylindrical thing, that's likely part of a smokestack from the ship. Pearl Harbor is rather shallow. The ship's upper structures were removed and the memorial built over top of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, see USS Arizona Memorial. Dismas|(talk) 04:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In that aerial photo, you can see the wreckage of the ship in the shallow, clear water there in Pearl Harbor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, guys.WinterWall (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Light blend modes[edit]

For some reason, I think the sunlight and other light beams use an additive blend mode with the electromagnetic radiation extending it's wavelength nanometres to illuminate light and I don't know where to put the line about the additive blend color on the light, sunlight or something to make it make sense as they have the black parts invisible because of the alpha blending parameter done by electricity being additive and spreads light on the texture shaders to change the brightness and contrast of the objects and the ground to create specularity such as liquid highlights or gloss reflections with the most used reflection method in real life that often uses the camera reflection mapping to convert anything into a reflected image through mirrors. Could somebody give me a clue where to put that line in one of the articles about lights and such illuminating objects with this blending including the X-ray that divides the pixels?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your question, but the answer is probably "no." If your understanding of something starts with "for some reason, I think..." then you should not be inserting that thing into an article. We want Wikipedia to contain reliable, verifiable, sourced information, not speculations and guesses.
Your question seems to "blend" concepts between the physics of light and computer modeling of illumination. These are two different things, and should not be confused. --Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't put it anywhere. If you can point us to some published research on the topic, we might be able to give a more favourable answer. Dbfirs 07:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be using the terminology of computer graphics ("alpha channels", "pixels", "shaders" and "blending") and trying to apply it to the real world. That's a really bad idea! The real world doesn't work remotely like computer graphics do. Graphics are a horrible approximation to the thin slice of reality that humans can actually see, and they don't (generally) simulate anything beyond the red, green and blue frequencies that the human eye is sensitive to, and which common display devices can generate. So we can't answer any of this meaningfully - the question is nonsensical. SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

which is re-usable for another mission: Rockets, Space-Craft or Space Flight?[edit]

Which is re-usable for another mission: Rockets, Space-Craft or Space Flight? & also tell if space-craft has solar panels so how they reach earth safely & re-usable for next mission? i am going to create a wikipedia article about re-usable space-crafts, that's why i am creating this section.

Soyuz Spacecraft has two solar panels.
Soyuz Spacecraft has two solar panels, so while returning earth, how solar panels will get closed

Ram nareshji (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See our article on Reusable launch systems, which already covers this and a fair bit more. As for the solar panels on the Soyuz, they are attached to the service module - the entirety of which is detached before re-entry and left to burn up in the atmosphere. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Only the middle third, the Descent Module, safely returns to Earth.
With Soyuz, not only is the Service Module with the solar panels detached and left to burn up in the atmosphere, but so is the Orbital Module (the round part at the other end). Only the Descent Module, the middle third (29% by length, 43% by mass), is recovered. -- ToE 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The RLV article primarily discusses launch systems and not capsules. My understand is that to date no capsule has ever been reflown.
SpaceX has flown six Dragon cargo capsules so far. Their service module with the solar panels is lost, as described above, but the capsule itself is recovered and, according to SpaceX's website, is considered reusable. To date, however, none have been reused. Discussion on the boards suggest that this is because the design has been evolving, and that NASA, at least for now, prefers the reliability of new capsules.
Last month NASA made awards to Boeing and SpaceX for the CCtCap phase of the Commercial Crew Development program. The award is generally described as up to $4.2 billion to Boeing and up to $2.6 billion to SpaceX, but I think that it is more informative to break that down. Only half of the total award, up to $2.5 billion to Boeing and up to $0.9 billion to SpaceX, was for the actual development and certification. The other half, up to $1.7 Billion to each company, was for up to six operational flights of that company's spacecraft carrying a crew of four. This price is based on the current $70.7 Million per seat being paid to Russia. (I assume that this is just an initial price that NASA is agreeing to pay in order to spur development, and that prices are expected to fall later.) Both the Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX's Dragon V2 are described as reusable, but I have not yet heard whether NASA will be accepting rides in used capsules or will be insisting on new. I don't believe that details of the awards (such as a list milestones for the development phase or requirements for the operational flights) have been publicly released yet. -- ToE 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For the solar panels part: On the space shuttle, the solar panels were built inside the two cargo bay doors which were closed and locked for re-entry. For every other spacecraft that's returned to earth safely, there either weren't any large solar panels (Apollo era and earlier) - or they were jettisoned before re-entry.
One question though: If you know so little about it, why are you even considering writing a Wikipedia article about it?!
SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Solar power was not used on the Space Shuttle orbiters. Per Space Shuttle orbiter#Electrical power, "Electrical power for the orbiter's subsystems was provided by a set of three hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells ...". Hydrazine burning auxiliary power units (APU) were used to generate hydraulic power during ascent and during reentry and landing. They would open the cargo bay doors shortly after reaching orbit, not to expose solar panels, but to expose heat rejection units which radiated excess heat from the onboard systems. -- ToE 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a NASA page detailing the Shuttle's Active Thermal Control System. There were two radiator panes on each side of an orbiter's cargo bay, attached to the doors. The aft two panels were fixed to the doors and could radiate only in only one direction, but the forward radiator panels could, if demanded by the thermal loads, deploy away from the doors and radiate on both sides. In File:Sunrise over Spacelab.jpg from STS-90, the deployed forward port radiator panel is clearly visible. -- ToE 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
X-37B, USAF's mini-shuttle, is a long duration spacecraft which does use solar panels. I don't now how accurate this artist's conception is, but if that is representative of their solar array, they would have to refurl it to stow it in the payload bay. I hope they have a means of jettisoning the array in case the furling mechanism jams. -- ToE 17:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


I encountered this word in a WWII-era memoir. Here in the English Wikipedia it doesn't redirect to anything, while a search here brings up various associations with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Are they exactly synonymous? What would be a suitable redirect for lymphogranulomatosis? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines this term as: "the development of benign or malignant nodular swellings of lymph nodes in various parts of the body; also : a condition characterized by these" - so I'd guess that any such swelling would be described this way - and I presume that Hodgkin's is just one reason that this could happen. So I think a redirect would be a very bad idea. We wouldn't want everyone with swollen lymph nodes to automatically assume that they had Hodgkin's disease. It probably needs an article of it's own...with cross-links between it and Hodgkin's lymphoma. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I just checked some other dictionaries and one said "an infectious granuloma of the lymphatic system. The term is used to identify several inflammatory, granulomatous or sarcomatous disorders, such as Hodgkin's disease, lymphadenoma, lymphadenoma venereum, and sarcoidosis." - so it would DEFINITELY be incorrect to redirect Lymphogranulomatosis to Hodgkin's lymphoma. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Note Lymphogranuloma venereum, which is among the most common conditions with which this term is associated. -- Scray (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
We could create a list article, giving SteveBaker's definition of Lymphogranulomatosis, and a list of the conditions that cause it. CS Miller (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In Russian Lymphogranulomatosis (w:ru:Лимфогранулематоз) = Hodgkin's lymphoma. In German they are also synonymous. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah - but this is the English language Wikipedia - and we can't really base article naming and redirection on the meanings of words in other languages. SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Where User:Ruslik0's point is relevant is at the stage of interwiki linking, especially now that this is handled via Wikidata. A lack of 1:1 correspondence across languages for a Latin medical term indicates the need for caution in attributing nomenclature. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do people do so little to fight volcanoes?[edit]

My understanding is that people in Iceland have frequently fought lava flows, directing them away from inhabited areas. So why do people in Hawaii seem to leave it up to the lava flow to decide which way to go, even where there is no clear indication of which way it will choose? [13] Even beyond this, why don't people drill into volcanoes and try to make artificial vents for lava to be channeled away to uninhabited areas, or even take on magma reservoirs proactively and cool them with lots of water, making use of turbines and condensers to cool and recycle it while not coincidentally making a fortune in geothermal power? I feel like there's this huge assumption of helplessness in the face of a phenomenon that really isn't even very powerful by comparison to the thermal mass humans move in ordinary waterworks. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This USGS page describes the Icelandic attempts to cool and divert lava flows, but also mentions attempts in other places, including Hawaii. This page describes some of the issues with doing things the Icelandic way in Hawaii, specifically the availability of seawater, as very large volumes are required. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question. In the header, I mean. The followup is definitely good, too, but the question alone really made me think. Thanks! All I can offer in return is "Because they're too hot." Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Which volcanoes? There may be things that can be done in some cases to ameliorate the effects of some volcanoes. But the word "volcano" encompasses a wide range of very disparate geological phenomena, and the fact that something could maybe be done for some kinds of volcanoes doesn't mean that anything could be done for others. The Hawaiian type of volcanoes are a peculiar type which isn't necessarily like any other type. Shield volcano covers some of the information on the Hawaiian type: You'll note that the text says "Most of what is currently known about shield volcanic eruptive character has been gleaned from studies done on the volcanoes of Hawaiʻi island, by far the most intensively studied of all shields due to their scientific accessibility;[16] the island lends its name to the slow-moving, effusive eruptions typical of shield volcanism, known as Hawaiian eruptions." You'd have to believe that if Kīlauea is the possibly most studied volcano on earth, someone would have come up with some way to stop ameliorate its effects. It isn't as simple as you seem to make it out to be, as though thousands of vulcanologists had been studying Kīlauea for decades, and to a person they said "You know, we could totally fix this thing, but man, fuck all those Hawaiians" That isn't how it works. The scale and scope of the situation likely makes it beyond the means to fix. --Jayron32 23:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about this myself, watching what's going on in Hawaii. I know the Icelanders were successful at least once using water to freeze a dike to divert the flow away from a town. I'd look into the money and political aspect of it, both, would it threaten other towns if diverted, and is there environmental opposition to "interfering" with nature, or worse, with Pele. ABC tonight showed the authorities were quite happy to build new roads at an emergency pace and build protective barriers to protect electric poles. This shoes that the "all is lost" attitude is not being applied equally. It does not seem irrelevant that the activist native community is a large part of the constituency of the ruling party in the state. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, in this case we're comparing mountains to molehills, almost literally. The Icelandic situation you are talking about is likely the volcano Eldfell on the island Heimaey. Eldfell was a smallish cinder cone which erupted over a few months and put out a TINY fraction of the Lava that Kīlauea puts out. Eldfell is 200 meters tall, and the size of the footprint of that lava flow is probably 1.5 square kilometers. Kīlauea has been erupting more-or-less nonstop for 30 years, it's 1200+ meters tall, and part of a single volcano (including the neighboring calderas of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea) which is many orders of magnitude larger than the Heimaey. Look, Heimaey is about as big as Manhattan south of Central Park. The Big Island of Hawaii (which is basically all the single volcano) is a tad smaller than the state of Connecticut. The ability to save the fishing village on Heimaey in no way relates to the ability to do the same on the Big Island of Hawaii; the scale difference is like swatting a fly versus swatting an eagle. --Jayron32 12:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
We're only talking about this flow Jayron, not plugging the volcano. The facts it is a bigger volcano and has been erupting for 30 years are hardly relevant - it's an engineering project, and whether it might be successful or not (I made no guarantee, that's "above my paygrade"), it's not being tried for one reason - political opposition. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Mikenorton's answer is really helpful; those links might be enough to seed an article on diversion of lava flows. The sources explain that pumping seawater to divert lava is easiest very near the ocean (i.e. to save a harbor) rather than far away, and of course Hawaii has more internal development by far than Iceland. That said, I still can't believe that the sort of people who you see in TV shows about gold digging in Alaska couldn't manage to use half a dozen earth movers to make a trench sufficient to accommodate something like this, backed up by a strong dike with the overflow, at a rate fully equal to the 10-15 yards per hour that the lava flows. Based on the scale of the trees in the foreground, it's just not all that wide and not all that deep either. (Obviously, I'd expect them to work in a number of separate zones for maximum efficiency, and plan completion well before the magma enters!) Wnt (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the volcano. I recall when Mt. St. Helens erupted, and the standard way to "fight" it was to flee - preferably westward, i.e. upwind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As I noted above, apples and oranges here. St. Helens is a Stratovolcano which is a VERY different sort of geologic phenomenon than a Shield volcano. The former explodes. The latter oozes. --Jayron32 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Even so, I don't know why people didn't try to figure out a way to drill into the flank of the stratovolcano ... from a safe bunker, that is ... and release the pent-up gas in some more controlled way. Wnt (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ever stick a needle in an over-inflated balloon? Same deal. --Jayron32 13:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ever stick a needle through the neck of a balloon? You can indeed deflate it slowly and safely. The key would be (obviously) not to create a path out that could plausibly expand to accommodate a full eruption, even assuming other measures you make to limit the outward flow fail. Wnt (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You know what, you go ahead and do all that. The belief that an untrained layperson, who has a sudden "idea", would be better at solving a problem which thousands of experts, who actually understand the principles involved, spend their whole lives studying, is baffling. I'll trust those who actually study volcanoes, thanks, rather than someone who just has an "idea" but lacks the self awareness to understand their own lack of knowledge and ability in this area. I don't know much about volcanoes, but I do know that there are many people who do, and I trust them because they know more than me about this. --Jayron32 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Objective here is to understand why. It is possible that there are good, scientific reasons not to do this. For instance, maybe the magma contains supersaturated gas and tampering with it in any way causes "bumping", though I would find it hard to believe. It is also possible that there are political reasons (public fear) or budget reasons but no scientific reason to discard the possibility of experimenting with such ideas. You have not answered which. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── People have been thinking of ideas to stop or divert lava flows for well over a century. This BBC piece provides a quick overview of the methods that have been tried and the very limited success they have had. Here you can find the topic discussed in context of the current eruption in Hawaii. And if you search Google Scholar, you'll find thousands of scientific papers on the subject. And as to whether the fundamental difficulty is due to science, engineering, or economics, the answer is yes. Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:, the fundamental difference between a volcano like Kīlauea and Mt. St. Helens, is that the magma that forms Mt. St. Helens starts to crystallize and solidify at temperatures and pressures that are still well below the surface. You can imagine that the magma turns to something like glue. Rather than calmly flowing out of the volcano, it seals all of the holes and becomes plugged. Drilling another hole into a volcano like Mt. St. Helens wouldn't make any difference as the magma would rapidly seal it. Even though it is plugged the magma continues to push from behind causing the whole mountain to be raised up. For a mountain like that, the explosion generally comes when persistent increase in elevation leads to a major landslide. The landslide reduces pressure of the magma, causing gas to come out of solution. The expanding gas pushes away the overlying rock, further reducing the pressure and leading to more gas releases, and in almost no time at all half the mountain has been blown away. The glue-like nature of the magma generally prevents small releases of the pressure, so that only big eruptions (those capable of ripping large vents through the overlying rock) end up happening. You might be able to pre-detonate a volcano like Mt. St. Helens by triggering landslides or otherwise blowing large holes in the mountain, but you would have a hard time knowing whether the eruption that you caused was "better" than what would have happened anyway. Drilling small holes generally isn't going to do anything though. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dragons flight:I've seen things about the expanding gas many times... the problem is, I can't make sense out of them. Removing rock reduces pressure causing gas to come out of solution and... increasing pressure beyond what it was??? Why does a reduction in pressure cause an increase in pressure? Unless there's truly supersaturated gas needing only nucleation, how can that happen?
1 Substances become orders of magnitude bigger when gaseous. 2 Even the thinnest, hottest lava is still denser, and much more viscous and harder to swim in than water (though the density probably urges it downhill faster than an organic fluid that viscous), exploding volcano magma is I guess acting like the Boston Marathon bomber's black powder container. Even deep sea nuclear bombs don't have enough power to break containment. 3 Just because bubbles form, doesn't mean they can escape. The viscousness of some magma is silly. 4 A kilo of undissolved magma gas is roughly an order of magnitude bigger than a kilo of room temperature gas. A liter of magma gas bubbles has an order of magnitude more pressure than a liter of air. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Suppose you lined your borehole with excellent insulators, with heating elements embedded to further ensure a fixed temperature is maintained where the magma is fluid. Then could the magma be steadily withdrawn and processed? Wnt (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Gas dissolved in solution is generally stable (unless supersaturated). Large pockets of gas are generally not stable. You remove the overlying pressure, this causes gas to come out of solution and bubbles to form. The bubbles are then buoyant so rock collapses around them allowing the gas to squirt towards the surface. If the gas pocket is large enough, the effort of it flowing towards the surface has enough force to carry away more of the mountain with it. Which in turn removes more pressure and releases more gas. If you have ever held a beach ball or other inflatable object underwater and then released it, then that might convey a bit of the tendency for buoyant gases to push their way out. The pocket of gas doesn't directly create a higher pressure on the mountain, rather the point is that the pocket of gas is both buoyant and mobile which allows it to erupt outward.
If you made your borehole hot enough, and could keep it hot, then presumably you could draw out magma. Not sure how practical it would be though. At the temperatures high enough to get the magma to flow easily, there would be a tendency to start melting the mountain around the bore hole as well, and having some very large thermally insulated borehole seems pretty fantastical. Dragons flight (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of Space Shuttle tile, recalling a famous image of someone holding one in his hand as it glowed cherry red. What's interesting is you're saying that if some magma is withdrawn to maintain constant pressure, the volcano stays stable. But if too much is withdrawn and pressure drops, gas pockets would form and then start working their way out due to intense local pressure from buoyancy. That's a nicely clear explanation (hope I have it right...). Makes me think though that if you could actually detect the gas pocket itself in a volcano near eruption, and directly remove the gas from it... you'd not have to keep the gas hot of course, and the bad effect of reducing the pressure would be directly offset. Unless there's more than one gas pocket. ;) Still, if the gas is the specific thing that takes apart the mountain, I'd think you could relieve it directly. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, Jayron is right with a stratovolcano-you might set one off early to get a huge pyroclastic explosion now, rather than a huger one later. Building dikes to dam lava flows from shield volcanos is an entirely different manner, and it is theoretically possible and has been done, but there is loud political opposition to this by the activist environmentalist and native Hawaiian constituencies of the Democratic party, which runs Hawaii, see the link I gave under Pele above in bold to see what happens when you try even to discuss diverting the flow. The answer to your question is politics. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There's also the problem of liability. A volcano which naturally erupts is an enormously expensive act of nature. A volcano which erupts after I've been mucking about with it is potentially an enormously expensive lawsuit in the making. Anyone hurt or financially damaged by the eruption could easily make the case that I caused the problem and bring all kinds of problems back onto me. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sovereign immunity protects the state and its officials unless there's actual criminal negligence. The answer to Wnt's question is politics. It might be the case that a diversion plan wouldn't work, or would cost significantly more than relocating the residents--but this hasn't been demonstrated. See the linked article as to why they aren't even discussing any concrete plans. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This year in Hawaii they've been experimenting with alternative means of mitigation, including some kind of a multi-layered insulating pen and wrap for existing wooden power and telephone polls, and to get authentic data they can't do any lava flow diversion. That's okay with everyone because very little non-state property is threatened at present, and those who have been threatened have already been paid off for the experiments to proceed. (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to offer, just wanted to say this is an interesting discussion to read. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Medeis has spoken, and decided their opinion is fact. Pay attention people, and stop discussing this. --Onorem (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

highest price of oil per barrel[edit]

what is the highest price of oil per 'barrel' (unit volume) if we take 'oil' to mean the verified oevre in oil of one painter. For example, all of the verified Van Gogh oil prints that are on the market, could be divided by their volume and multiplied by the volume of a barrel of oil, to give the price per barrel of 'van gogh' oil. By this metric which verified painter would have highest price per barrel, and who would it be? (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

this is probably unquantifiable or at least you'll never get a definitive response because many works by the most prominent oily artists go unsold and estimates for those paintings cannot be reliably made...i think that da vinci might be up there though, since he had like 15 paintings with oil or something and they're all widely known and sell for bout a hundred million quid ? also minimalist painters who use oil might be up there too ~Helicopter Llama~ 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Infinite, for any painting that doesn't use oil. The question doesn't make sense because a painting consists of much more than just oil--there's also paper, wood, pigments, dirt, hairs from the paintbrush, etc. The thing that has value is the creativity and authorship behind the painting, not the painting's physical components. -- (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Undefined, if there is no oil. Also, the first painting which is very perfect squares of various colors on a background is worth 8 figures and is analyzed like the Bible or the Mona Lisa. An unestablished artist with proof of making one the next day (filmed a rare tropical aurora behind it), and proof of ignorance of the precedent (160 mph hurricane outside his cave, auroral storm prevented all chance of radio contact), rescued from a desert isle a year later with it will never sell for much. If he had done Jackson Pollack, though.. then jackpot! (If "splatter painting" was not after "perfect squares of various colors" then replace it with a gimmick that is - I'm not sure of the chronology) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Space blanket - contra indication[edit]

I've red in the article "space blanket" in French that the contra indication of "space blanket" is a storm. I don't understand why is that. Before, I thought that the place to use it, it's only in storms and things like this. I'm wonder. (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm reading your question correctly, you're wondering why a space blanket shouldn't be used during a storm. If that's so, it's due to the blanket being coated with a thin film of metal. As metals conduct electricity, it would be a likely place for lightning to strike. Dismas|(talk) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Not the way lightning works. It just traversed miles of air and a tiny bit of mylar isn't going to change it. Pointy or height is what causes high electric fields, not metal. --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Several feet (a couple of meters) of conductive material may not make a difference to where the lightning bolt touches the ground, but it'll make a difference to where the electricity conducts to when it does. Not likely to be a big deal—unless those few feet are the difference between being seriously shocked and not. -- (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source for that contra-indication? I would have expected the blanket to act like a Faraday cage.--Shantavira|feed me 10:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I would expect nothing of the sort. Lightning would simply rip through the mylar. Justin15w (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Plus that 5 to 6 feet tall column of extremely conductive mostly-salty-water might just take the strike first! SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason has to be some other thing. The foil in a space blanket reflects heat from your body back at you, so you lose less heat than you otherwise also traps warm air close to your body to reduce 'wind chill'.
The French article says absolutely nothing beyond that you shouldn't use it in a storm - and it has no references for that claim (which is usually a red flag!) - I couldn't find any such contra-indications in any of the places I searched for "How To" type stuff on storms or space blankets.
At this point, I'd ignore what the French article says - and perhaps re-ask this question on the talk page of the French article...or use the "View history" tab to figure out who added that statement to the article and ask them directly where they got that information from. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this a state?[edit]

In my country, in the USSR-Russia had always assumed that a state is the only the legitimacy of public statutus, so that a private deal which had not disobeying by the public rules is not been a private deal.

Did a state above all things is the legitimacy of private statutus or a state above all things is the legitimacy of public statutus?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

1) This is the science desk. You may want to ask this at The Humanities Desk instead. 2) You seem to be asking about issues related to Power of a sovereign State to regulate Contracts between legal persons who are "private" (not arms of the state), be they persons or corporations. Is that correct? Your English is hard to follow. --Jayron32 12:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You understood me correctly, becouse all notariate (all notaries) in the USSR had always been a public (state)!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In the USSR, a private deal which not had a public (state) approval, that is a private deal which is not been a notarial deal always was formed black market (shadow economy).--Alex Sazonov (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on black market, shadow economy, and handshake deal which may lead you places you are interested in learning about. --Jayron32 16:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Did) the cost of a private deal had be determine a nature of its statutus?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This question does mean, (Did) the cost of a private deal had be determine a nature of statutus of this private deal?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We can assume that in the legal right of Ancient Rome, all private deals between patricians and plebeians and foreigners were never been equal in their legal right and legal economic status, so all private deals between the patricians could be the legal nature of the impossibility of their challengeability. That is why in the USSR all notarially statutus had always been a public (state)!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The main question of state doctrine of right of the USSR, Did a statutus of public (state) right been a statutus of international right?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

state of matter[edit]

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.

Matters exist in solid, liquid or gas state. What is the state of electrons, protons or neutrons? --Diwas Sawid (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This question was asked in two locations. It arguably belongs here, but there are already answers at WP:RDM, so let's continue it there --Jayron32 16:45, 28 October 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.

This question was suggested to be asked here.Is it true that configuration of atoms ( made by elecctron ,proton etc ) determines state?? If so, In what form electron proton lies???Diwas Sawid (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that in nature always be only electrons which in different substances always had a different names!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Converting 5V USB to 12V?[edit]

I'm often annoyed at portable rechargeable consumer electronics (like portable speakers) requiring an AC adaptor to recharge. USB charging seems far more convenient as I'm always going to have a USB recharger nearby for my smartphone (at home, my car, the office). The main response I've gotten back is USB is limited to 5V, while their AC adaptor outputs 12V or 18V or what have you. So what does that mean? If it charged via USB, it would just be very slow? Or does the voltage difference just make it impossible? -- (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not just voltage - it's power. USB provides very little power, and can only provide it at a fixed DC voltage. The power limitation is why the USB port can not be used as a universal charger; the voltage is an engineering detail that could be worked around with existing technology.
Electric power is very simply computed: it is voltage times current. The voltage (by itself) is not necessarily the limiting factor.
USB provides 5 volts, and very limited current: usually, 500 milliamps. This means that USB can not (usually) provide more than 2.5 watts of power.
The amount of power is going to dictate how fast your battery charges; how bright your screen gets; how large an electric motor you can drive.
But there are other details. Power must be provided at a voltage that the device can handle. If the voltage is too low, the device won't even work - whether it's a charger on an appliance. If the voltage is too high, the device may be damaged.
Wasteful energy losses - like heat - are primarily determined by current - so lowering the current usually lowers losses. Consider a power supply that provides 10 watts at 18 volts. (P = V*I), so the device draws a little more than half an ampere. The same amount of power could be delivered by low current at very high voltage - say, a million volts driving ten microamps - but at some point, the voltage levels become unsafe for use around humans. High voltages can cause electrocution; very high voltage electricity can leap across air gaps, zap through wire insulation, and so on. At the opposite extreme, the same amount of power could be delivered by very low voltage and very high current - say, a million amps, driven by 10 microvolts - but resistive heating means that the wires would waste so much energy (as heat) that their insulation catches fire! This is to say nothing of the impracticality of building such a power-supply.
Engineers make trade-offs to make sure that the right amount of power gets to the device, at the correct voltage and current - balancing safety against usability and convenience. A few standards have formed; consumer-devices that are mass-produced are designed to operate within these standards. Engineering practicality means that it is easier, safer, and more efficient to provide higher power using higher voltage than USB can provide. But the power still has to come from somewhere - even if the voltage is converted! Until the device itself needs less power than the USB port can provide, trying to charge it at 5 volts isn't an option. Even if you boosted to 12 volts, you wouldn't get energy for free!
Nimur (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
To recharge a battery, you need a little more voltage than the battery itself much more depends on the battery technology. So you can certainly recharge a typical 1.5 volt AA or AAA cell - or even two or three of them in series - using USB. The current (amperage) limitations of USB will limit the speed that it recharges.
So if you need 12 volts to recharge something, then USB (by itself) won't cut it. There are ways to add some circuitry to increase the voltage from 5v to 12v - but the amount of power available (volts times amps) stays the same, or a little worse. So going up from 5v to 12v would decrease the amps to less than half...possibly much less than half depending on the efficiency of the voltage conversion circuitry. Generally, it's just easier to get a separate charger. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

mixing medicine liquid with another liquid[edit]

what is the reason of the mixing a liquid medicine in another liquid (like saline), while we can inject only the medicine liquid? (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Because medicines are carefully calibrated at certain concentrations. Pharmacodynamics is a tricky thing, and changes to how drugs are formulated and delivered can have large effects on things like their effectiveness and their toxicity. For that reason, procedures and formulas are created, which should always be followed, because the people who created the protocols know what they are doing, and you probably don't. --Jayron32 11:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between syrup and elixir?[edit] (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the articles you already linked, and decide for yourself. --Jayron32 11:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Ocean Water density and temperature[edit]

Water, as I understand it, is one of those weird molecules where the angle between the two hydrogen atoms increases when it freezes. This makes the solid form of water less dense than the liquid form (whence, icebergs float as their volume displaces warmer liquid water more than its own weight - ice is less dense than liquid water). It's also my understanding that the maximum density of water is achieved at about 3°C. The deep oceans are at this nearly constant temperature because anything warmer is less dense and rises and anything colder is less dense and rises so the deep oceans are at maximum density and virtually a constant temperature (and also the reason why at such depths it's a liquid). So does that mean if the ocean cools, there could also be sea level rise especially if a large majority of the ocean were at maximum density when cooling started? Could the volume of water increase by 1/3 if the temperature went from 3°C to 0.01°C? --DHeyward (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fresh water reaches its maximum density around 4°C. But the temperature at maximum density decreases about linearly with increasing salinity. At a salt content of around 25 per mil (2.5%) the temperature of maximum density intercepts the freezing temperature. So, for salinities above 25 per mil water always becomes more dense as temperature decreases. The graph near the bottom of this page shows the relationship.
The mean ocean salinity is about 35 per mil, so sea level always increases with increasing mean ocean temperature. There are a few patches of ocean where salinity is less than 25 per mil (notably the Baltic Sea) but these are only small fractions of the global ocean. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is a good way to identify tablets?[edit]

what is a good way to identify tablets (pills) where I see a lot of kinds of them? Is there any way to identify them according something unique or it can be some tablets are identical and no eazy way to identify them (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the obvious hazards of getting it wrong, the only advice we can give you is that you shouldn't search for advice on such matters from random strangers on the internet. If you are in any doubt as to the identity of a medical substance, don't take it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't take any tablet, but it interests me theoretically. In addition, I'm an EMT so it interests me from this view. (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually had an answer for you until you said you were an EMT. If so, you would already know where to find that information. The police do too. Prescription OD's are common for EMT's and they are trained on how to identify tablets so they know how to respond. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup - if the OP actually is an EMT, there is no way we should be giving advice on such matters - per policy, we don't answer requests for medical advice, and helping out EMTs with things they clearly ought to know already would seem even less advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I'm lying? I'm EMT-B (read here). Why do you think EMTs know to identify tablets? EMTs know CPR mostly and some first aid but no more. (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case you already have access to people who can answer your question. Ask them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. National Institutes of Health has a site where you can input the physical characteristics of pills and it will tell you what they may be.    → Michael J    03:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Micahel. I wish everyone would study from you how to help. (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Google the specifics of the pill and you should be able to come to a consensus quickly. Justin15w (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If you websearch "pill identification" you'll find a variety of tools, but that is indeed a good one. I don't think it is a bad thing for people who get prescriptions filled to routinely look up the pills they get in order to verify there are no mistakes made. I mean, every once in a while you read about some little kid having her prescription bottle filled with methadone or something by accident, and turning up dead, and it just breaks your heart. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I've started seeing prescription bottle labels including a physical description of the drug ("This is a red solution that may be cloudy", "This is a white, round-shaped tablet impronted with [number] on the front", etc.). DMacks (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a book at home (a few years old now) which is a home guide to medicines and drugs, published by the British Medical Association. It has a drug identification section with pictures and descriptions of all the tablets and capsules commonly prescribed in the UK. However, the latest version doesn't seem to have the drug identification section - probably because there are now the online tools that do the job better. To answer the other part of your question, from what I've seen in that book It would appear (although I can't say for certain) that all prescription tablets and capsules are produced in a unique form so they are identifiable by a combination of shape, colour, scoring and often a number stamped on them. Richerman (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OP: Note that the standards determining pill shape, size, color and marking differ from country to country. So if you are really based in Israel as your IP indicates you will need to refer to the applicable national standards, and using the NIH or FDA website could be dangerously misguided! Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


I've taken the liberty of moving this to the computing Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(Unfortunately, the question was asked FIRST on the computing desk and didn't get any responses, so the OP evidently posted it here in the hope of getting an answer. Punting it back to WP:RD/C isn't likely to help much.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Right prefrontal cortex function[edit]

What do Brodmann areas 8-9 and 46 do on the right hemisphere? What might low grey matter volumes in these regions indicate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have articles on all of these:
I would not want to speculate on what low grey matter volumes might indicate. - EronTalk 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't take those descriptions too seriously. Those areas are broadly motor-related, but at a high level -- the level of attention and planning, perhaps. Information about them is rather sketchy. The best known component of that region is the frontal eye fields, usually considered part of area 8. They are capable of eliciting eye movements, and seem to be involved in both covert attention and visual search. Low grey matter volumes in this part of the brain are associated with schizophrenia, which is probably the motive for the question, but it's hard to say what their significance might be. There is some evidence relating them to working memory, but it seems kind of vague to me. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The main property of the electrons[edit]

Did the electrons had an electromagnetic perdurability (constancy), that is the electrons are in different physical environments remain its electromagnetic constant?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Electrons always appear to have the same electric charge from a distance. This amount is called the elementary charge. Even when travelling at close to the speed of light, or deep in a gravitational well the charge will appear to be the same. Though I will say that the Fine-structure constant which depends on this charge, is claimed by some to vary at different places in the universe. I think this is incorrect, and that is remains constant in our Universe.
I thinking, if did the electromagnetic perdurability (constancy) of electron changing, the electron done work (created plasma - plazmiroval), but this work of the electromagnetic potential in the natural nature is not observed, however the electromagnetic plasma in the natural nature is observed, as the work of the electromagnetic potential of the electric current or dynamics of the electric current, but not as the work of the electromagnetic potential of the electron.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think, that electron is always be an elementary charged particle of electromagnetic world, that world retains its static electromagnetic potential as constant, that is the electromagnetic world is always be persistent as a constant , so that the electron had always be electromagnetic perdurability (constancy).--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Electron always retains as a constant properties of its electromagnetic potential, as an elementary charged particle of world of electromagnetic statics!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
All elementary charges in the natural nature had always kept in its natural electromagnetic preservatives, therefore, to extract them from the natural electromagnetic preservatives is always necessary to spend the electromagnetic force, either natural nature itself will be extract them by force of its electromagnetic potential. Since the electron is charged elementary particle of electromagnetic world, so that to extract its force (charge) is always necessary to spend the electromagnetic force.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Any magnetism in natural nature is always been the only one main and basic sign of the presence of electromagnetism.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The powerful in the natural nature is been only an electromagnetic potential.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Given a battery and a device, how can you calculate how long the battery will last?[edit]

If a battery has 50000mAh, and the device needs 5V and 500 milliAmps, will the battery last 100 hours? What if the device required a different amount of Volts, how would it be different? What's the formula for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talkcontribs) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For your first question, it depends on the battery's voltage. Actual energy capacity would be more accurately expressed in watt hours rather than ampere-hours. However, batteries are more or less fixed voltage sources, and so manufacturers g ahead and do the amps = watts / volts conversion, presenting capacity in amp hours with voltage as a fixed given.
So, if you use 50k mAh batteries in a device that draws 500 mA, you would indeed expect 100 hours of battery life. I skip voltage because, presumably, the device is intended for a particular battery configuration at a particular voltage and the batteries in use match that. Note that this holds even in multi-battery configurations: if you have a 6V device that uses 4 AA batteries and draws 100 mA, and you use AA batteries with 1000 mAh capacity, you'll get 10 hours of use. Each battery is only rated for 1000 mAh at 1.5 volts, but when placed in series, you've got either 4000 mAh at 1.5 V or 1000 mAh at 6 V (or whatever other conversion factor you like, per W = V * A). — Lomn 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. Theoretically, the battery in question should last 100 hours. However, there are no firm standards for rating battery capacity. Some manufacturers rate useful life only (down to some minimum voltage), while others will rate capacity for a complete discharge to 0V. Your device might need a minimum voltage to function, which would also affect the amount of useful energy you can draw from the battery. If this is for a practical application, you might want to consider doing some tests and derating your battery based on the results. Mihaister (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Does driving behind semi trucks increase gas mileage?[edit]


Yes, but it's also extremely dangerous. Please see Drafting_(aerodynamics)#Tailgating_and_hypermiling.--Shantavira|feed me 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There was a compelling demonstration of this done by Mythbusters - the amount of fuel savings is impressive at higher speeds - but the dangers are rather extreme. What may be surprising is that tailgating not only saves the tailgater gas - it also saves it on the truck. SteveBaker (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We also have the article Drafting (aerodynamics).


Combined with below question so we don't get overlapping unnecessary redundancies. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Road sub base & Macadam base[edit]

In highway design, how do engineers decide whether unbound or bound materials should be used for sub base? Is it to do with durability and load? Is macadam generally used in the base course of highways?Clover345 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Cygnus CRS Orb-3[edit]

Why did the rocket explode? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

At this time, the root cause is not known. The most informative report presently available is NASA's press conference from October 28. According to NASA's press office, the FAA is overseeing and Orbital's accident team is currently leading the investigation. It is probable that in the weeks that come, there will be additional independent investigations by NASA, the NTSB, and the State of Virginia. For now, it's not really useful to speculate on the cause: very few facts are available to the public.
The first real data-driven information is not expected to become public for at least a few weeks, and the investigation will probably continue for a lot longer.
Nimur (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's only speculation at this stage - but one "expert" I was listening to on the radio this morning said that this was the first launch with their Antares-130 rocket - which uses circa 1965 ex-Soviet NK-33 motors modified by AeroJet. AeroJet bought 36 mothballed NK-33's for about $1.1 million each. These are really rather weird motors - and their design elements aren't widely used elsewhere, so they are certainly somewhat suspect.
If I were guessing, a 50 year old soviet junker would be the first place I'd look.
SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There's definitely appeal to that conclusion. In fact, in the press briefing, NASA's own "social media" contact mentions that this Russian engine is the number one concern brought to NASA's attention by the general public at large, via Twitter and "social media."
Orbital's flight director addresses this pretty directly: at this time, we do not even know whether the engine was involved in the explosion. There are a lot of parts to a rocket - not just its power plant. It is premature to speculate that the engine was the problem. Given that this answer comes from a literal rocket scientist who has access to data that the outside world does not, I am tempted to suggest that the rampant speculation by the public at large (many of whom are not rocket scientists) ought to be set to the side until we have real facts.
I've built some pretty big rocket engines in my life; I can think of a dozen reasons why a rocket can explode; but I also know that rockets are subject to incredibly extreme environments - structural, chemical, thermodynamic, mechanical, ..., and simple intuition is not a good way to deduce cause-effect relationship. We need to wait for expert analysis of video and telemetry information.
The "general public" is really bad at performing analysis of catastrophic rocket failure. As a perfect example: why did the Challenger explode during STS-51-L? Everybody seems to recall the famous O-ring problem. Everyone also seems to recall Richard Feynman's public demonstration of the O-ring dunked into a glass of ice-water to show how it becomes brittle. Everyone seems to recall that Feynman's dissenting opinion was "the O-rings got brittle when cold, the rocket exploded." Few people have actually read Prof. Feynman's dissent opinion in the appendix of the Rogers Commission report, in which he puts forth the real reason that he believes the disaster took place: because mission-critical facts were obfuscated by the complex social organization structure that surrounded the manned space flight program, a sort of pathology of "group-think" that enabled incorrect and faulty decision-making based on invalid scientific data. In fact, Feynman enumerated more than a dozen engineering defects - the O-ring was only one of many problems he found! - in the Space Transportation System. The general public blames the O-ring, and probably will continue to do so for the rest of recorded history. The details of the rocket-science got lost for the exact reason Feynman explained - a crowd mentality is a terrible way to evaluate factual evidence!
Nimur (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Steve, while this was indeed the first launch of the 130 variant, only the upper stage has changed, the lower stage is unchanged, they've flown the duel NK-33 (AJ-26) setup four times before. That '50 year old Soviet junker' that you so easily dismiss is still a higher preforming kerolox engine than anything the US has ever produced, so I wouldn't dismiss it so rashly. Oxygen rich staged kerolox combustion is something the Russians mastered a long time ago, and is still being used as well on the RD-171 on the Zenit and the RD-180 on the Atlas V (for now, due to be changed). Not to say the engines aren't to blame of course (they had one undergo a RUD on the test stand no too long ago), but until we have data it's all speculation. Fgf10 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
("RUD"=>"rapid unscheduled disassembly"=>BIG EXPLOSION) SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
And "It's only speculation at this stage" were the first six words of my answer! I agree, but still - circumstantial evidence is there: One of these engines did explode during a test back in May, and Space-X's CEO Elon Musk said Antares "honestly sounds like the punch line to a joke." (although I'd be the first to admit that Mr Musk does tend to be a bit aggressive in his statements - and he's hardly in an unbiassed position - but it's also true that he was offered those exact same engines and chose not to buy them). These motors were built in the 1960's for the Russian manned moon mission - all four test launches of that rocket ended in failure (one of which caused the largest accidental explosion in human history!)...but it's not thought that the engine design itself was the problem. The design dates back to the late 1950' these are hardly modern machines - or even classically bullet-proof Russian engineering with a great track-record.
So, yeah - we don't know the cause, and there are a great many other things that it could be...but it's clear that this is a strong candidate. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No.It is not clear. Have to agree with Fgf10 sentiments. Soviet engineers are very conservative. They over- engineer stuff so that reliability is more important than maximum efficiency. During the Second wold war their basic tanks where more reliable, easier to maintain, etc. than the NAZI's high-tech equivalents. This is not a political comment, rather than one coming from an editor that is a qualified engineer. It may have well been an engine failure but as this rocket is still work-in-progress there is in my my mind, no reason at this stage, to single out and speculate, that is was down to one of these old, well tested engines. From the fireworks display, it looked to me as thought the first stage was manually annihilated (for safety reasons) and maybe that was the major cause for the rapid disassembly before it it the ground. Even a few second after launch it would have been traveling fast and its kinetic energy could be sufficient to send in into a populated area unless it was totally dissembled in mid air.--Aspro (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Steve, get your facts straight, the N1 never launched with NK-33s, all the launches used NK-15s. The NK-33s were planned for the never flown N-1F upgraded version. Also, note that the Musk quote was from 2012, before Antares had even flown.
Aspro, the FTS was apparently fired, though the timings are unclear. Best evidence is that is was at or near the ground. The exclusion range is large enough for it to take a considerable time to exit it. Post-accident photos suggest that the impact site is only tens of metres from the pad (which is remarkably intact, by the way).
Generally speaking, the engines are most likely to be the root cause of many failure, as they are necessarily run to very tight tolerances in a very hostile environment. My problem here is that I think the Russian origin of the engines is leading a lot of people to be very keen to blame them first..... Fgf10 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I wondered, because at the moment of the first visible sign of trouble, there were streaks of what I thought could be burning aluminium or magnesium alloy, (possibly made pyrotechnic on the account that it could have been ejected at very high speed by a charge of high explosive attached to it), (by the scale of the rocket they must have been travelling fast to move so far in so few frames). I can't think of any components in the fuel deliver systems that are pyrotechnic ( I am willing to be corrected here). From just googling around in the last few minutes, both this and the SpaceX lift vehicles do seem to have a autonomous self destruct system to knock out further propulsion. Thus, this could have initiated before any visible malfunction could be witnessed. It seem reasonable to think that to destruct the whole contrivance in the air so soon after launch would possible spread the debris over a lager area. Better to let it come down in as large bit as possible. The engines may be Soviet but isn't all the fuel delivery systems non-Soviet? There is a lot more to go wrong there. Also, to get a good telemetry record one needs the engines to be the most reliable part of the whole issue. If they blow apart on the launch pad there is no chance to see how all the other systems perform in flight – how ever short that might be. So as these engines are the widgets which have the longest flight history, I am putting their failure as less probable. Anyway, one failure in five isn't bad for a new rocket. Orbital shares have suddenly had a drop. Maybe this is a good time to buy some of their stock. So in answer to the OP's question: Nobody knows yet!--Aspro (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the high temperature oxygen rich preburner gas, pretty much anything will burn, normal steel will just melts away (coping with the metallurgical side of this is why the Russian rule at kerolox staged combustion, US can't as yet match). So if it's a engine issue, it doesn't need to be aluminium or magnesium. The first stage/tankage is Ukrainian, don't know where the Ukrainian ends and the Soviet starts. Regarding FTS, from the initial NASA/Orbital presser the day of the incident, it was stated that the FTS was activated, from context probably from the ground rather than autonomous, and it was activated approximately 10-12 seconds after launch, coinciding roughly with the vehicle staring to lose altitude. (Working from memory, presser is probably to be found on the NASA website somewhere). The TEL avoidance manoeuvre of the vehicle was probably what caused the vehicle to come down next to the pad, rather than on top of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
High temperature sintered rocket engines, may (in parts) glow bright yellow but once blown always, they don't leave white smoke trails as seen in the video footage. So those bits where not engine fragments.--Aspro (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
About the timing issue, see this discussion Talk:Cygnus CRS Orb-3#Time of explosion. There seems to have been different times reported and it hasn't always been clear what that time referred to. One thing which does not seem to be disputed is the Range Safety Officer initiated the termination. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a photo from NASA's aerial survey of the launch pad, and yes, it shows much less damage than I would have expected.
And here is a article with a good description of the 130 variant of the Antares. -- ToE 16:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a manually-activated destruct order.[14]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that link Bugs, That's was my first thought (see above). However, until the post mortem is released, I am always ready to be corrected.--Aspro (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
For sure. Details will come out over time. And how fitting is it that an object called "Cygnus" took a swan dive?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dose any ampule contain substances which shouldn't meet the air?[edit]

I've heard that the reason medicine are put in the ampules is because these specific medicines should be protected of the air (maybe of the oxygen). That's right? anyway it's really interesting to know why are medicines put just into the ampules. Thank you. (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ampoules are hermetically sealed, thus offering increased protection from air or other contamination compared to other containers such as capped vials. Mihaister (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Air is just great at making things stale, i think the primary mechanism is simple oxidation. Almost ALL medicine, ampule or not, will be hermetically sealed. Most medicine in tablet form comes in blister packs, with cautions to discard any pills whose seal has been prematurely broken.Vespine (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, even food is packed in nitrogen these days, and medicine has been for decades. Oxygen is really very reactive over time, and plays havoc with very many if not most organic molecules and almost any formerly living tissue. (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It's also possible that the ampoule is there to shut out light from the medicine. Lots of chemicals break down when exposed to light. SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

non-orientable matter[edit]

I recently read The Shape of Space by Jeffrey Weeks, an introduction to 2– and 3-manifolds. The last part is about the topology of the Universe, and what kinds of evidence would help us choose among the candidates. (Soon after it was published, the suggestion was raised that the Universe is a Poincaré homology sphere.)

Weeks doesn't discuss the implications, if any, of non-orientability, i.e. the existence of closed paths in space such that a traveler comes back with reversed chirality. I have the impression that such reversal creates antimatter, with consequences I needn't discuss; but it may be that I got that idea only from Doorways in the Sand, which is not a reliable source for physics. So: is there consensus among Real Scientists about what happens to particles on an orientation-reversing path? —Tamfang (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Antimatter particles are not related to their matter counterparts only by a simple inversion of chirality. Among other properties, charge would also have to become inverted. So, a closed path that inverts chirality is not sufficient to create antimatter - irrespective of whether such a closed path can even meaningfully exist in the physical world. (In addition to being a geometric conundrum, such a path implies symmetry-breaking, i.e. violation of several well-established conservation laws - which runs counter to everything we normally observe, at least in ordinary conditions). Nimur (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to find references for this, but as far as I can see, if a theory has both P and CP symmetries (like QED does) then you can pick either one when gluing the space together—the electrons might come back as electrons (P) or positrons (CP). The Standard Model has no P or CP symmetry, so you can't make a Standard-Model Klein-bottle universe at all. However, only the P asymmetry is built into the theory at a deep level. The CP asymmetry is "accidental" and controlled by two continuous parameters. If you set them to zero (which is inconsistent with experiment) or allowed them to vary with position (which could be consistent with experiment), you could probably construct a world where electrons came back as positrons. I don't think they could come back as electrons. -- BenRG (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The symmetries show whether you can have a normal region of space and a reverse region of space that obey the essentially same physical laws. I think it is another step entirely to posit whether one could have a continuous path that connects one such region to an opposite sense region, or more extreme, a closed loop such that a particle could return to the original position with inverted properties. For parity issues, I think it is possible to have such paths if space can be imagined to twist in Mobius / Klein bottle configurations. It is less obvious how you would do that for charge reversal. Perhaps that is a failure of my imagination. To give a simplified example, suppose there exists a straight line from point A to point B, and at point A a particle acts like an electron and if you move the particle to point B it acts like a positron. It would seem like if you measure the electric force on a positive test charge at point A due to such a particle, then at some point on its journey it must exert no force and appear to have no charge. In addition, if charge inversion can be accomplished via closed paths it would also seem that there are issues with energy conservation and other fun things. As I said, maybe it is just a failure of my imagination, but I have trouble figuring out how one could create a sensible looking universe that allowed particles to move from charge to anticharge simply as a result of the path traveled. Dragons flight (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Instead of thinking of physics on a Klein bottle, you can imagine tiling the plane with its fundamental polygon Klein Bottle Folding 1.svg, which gives you a pattern like
where each R is an image of the same world. If there's an electron in one R, there's a lattice of alternating electrons and positrons filling the plane. If transport them up by the lattice distance, you now have positrons where there used to be electrons and vice versa. You can think of this as a single electron coming back to the same place as a positron. Everything is continuous and there's no violation of conservation laws. The positron was always out there at a distance equal to the lattice separation; you could have detected it by its electric field. -- BenRG (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You've drawn pretty image (and kudos on the backwards R), but you haven't really explained what happens at the boundary. When a single particle moves from R to Я what does it experience? What do test charges stationed at R and Я perceive happens to the field if a single electron is moved from R to Я? Maybe there is a way to make sense of those questions. However, also note that the original question was about non-orientable surfaces (e.g. Mobius strips). A lattice of R and Я spaces stitched together isn't actually an example of that. A true non-orientable manifold has closed paths that take travelers from R to Я. The charge analogy would be if you could get in normal spaceship, fly around in some way, and come back to Earth in an antimatter spaceship (from the perspective of people who stayed on Earth). That's the kind of universe that seems particularly primed for weird consequences. Dragons flight (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Try this image: Take a universe mathematically described by a 2-sphere – with two space-like dimensions and no time-like dimension – except that every particle has its antiparticle at the antipodes. This is just a mathematically convenient description for visualization: the particle and its antiparticle at the antipodes are really the same thing at same point in the "real" space, which is half the size of this spherical model. Now when an object travels half-way around the sphere, the antimatter form arrives where it departed from. You'll see that there is no boundary at which the character changes from "electron" to "positron", only that it is one or the other depending on where on the path you look at it from. in this picture, also, any consistent definition of total charge is inherently zero. This universe is actually the real projective plane with a metric: elliptic geometry. The same idea can be extended to our 3+1 dimensions to produce a non-orientable geometry. —Quondum 00:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Quondum's example is better than mine, but to clarify, I was talking about the Klein bottle as a quotient space of the plane. My universe is still a Klein bottle, not a plane—it's just a different way of looking at it. There are no boundaries at which anything special happens. -- BenRG (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@BenRG: Stitching together multiple "fundamental polygons" like you did, without looping them back, produces a plane, not a Klein bottle. You need to specify how you loop them into a Klein bottle still. I suspect you mean to do this via identifying the polygons all as the same polygon. Agreed, this is different from the projective plane. —Quondum 14:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I said they were images, not copies. Although in a deterministic classical world you could just as well think of them as copies, since they'll all evolve in lockstep anyway. This question doesn't need quantum mechanics, so if calling them copies makes the example easier to understand, that's fine. In a quantum world you'd have to also stipulate that random measurement outcomes are the same in all of them. -- BenRG (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I evidently skimmed your description too quickly. —Quondum 18:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: what follows is strictly OR There is CPT symmetry. This is preserved geometrically as well in a four-dimensional non-orientable projective geometry, satisfying de Sitter relativity. The Copenhagen interpretation does not sit comfortably with the time-reversal implied by circumnavigation of the universe, but I expect that aside from layering further counter-intuitive ideas on top of quantum mechanics, this is actually consistent with modern quantum theory. So to answer the original question: following an orientation-reversing closed path (possibly necessarily a non-causal i.e. space-like path) may result in antimatter with time-reversal. But under the Many-worlds interpretation, don't expect to see yourself departing when you arrive, or that entropy considerations present an obstacle. —Quondum 21:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Weeks also doesn't touch on the topology of spacetime as a 4-manifold. Does the asymmetrical metric signature of Minkowski spacetime assure us that it is (topologically) the product of time and a 3-manifold? —Tamfang (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Antisymmetrical" is not a term I'd use in this context. I presume you mean indefinite. No, while the assumption that a 4-manifold has a continuous metric tensor free of singularities (e.g. changes in metric signature), I strongly doubt whether this would produce a constraint to the simple product that I think you mean. In particular, see my counterexample of a non-orientable space above. —Quondum 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
By "asymmetrical" I meant only that one of these things is not like the others. I understood your antipodal example (for spacelike space) before I posted the question; please help me see how it answers this question. —Tamfang (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The antipodal example works almost unchanged with one time and one space dimension. Take the previous sphere, and slice off the top and bottom caps at latitudes ±45° and discard them. At every point we have the usual light cone of special relativity (light travels on great circles tangent to "both" boundaries). As we move along a spacelike path to the antipodes (which is also the point we started from), the future light cone is the original past light cone, and particles are their antiparticles. The boundary is infinitely far, so this manifold is open (unbounded). Topologically this is a punctured projective plane. This is not the trivial product (i.e. trivial bundle) of a space-like manifold with time; it is a Möbius strip (or a four-dimensional analogue when you add the other two spatial dimensions) that flips the direction of time when smoothly travelling along a suitable path. Hence my answer: No, we do not have the assurance you seek (assuming you meant trivial product). —Quondum 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
An afterthought: if you stipulate that the universe be simply connected as well, the conclusion may change, but I see no compelling argument to suggest that it should be so. —Quondum 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


I've been feeling a lot of confusion whenever trying to gather what parity really means in physics. We have chirality (physics), which explains well the difference between chirality and helicity, but not much else. For example, our article on Standard Model (mathematical formulation) explains that the mass of an electron is really the coupling between a left-handed electron and a right-handed electron, which is the antiparticle of a left-handed positron... say what? I'm getting the feeling this has nothing to do with whether the electron in a 1s hydrogen orbital has spin +1/2 or -1/2, but why not... I'm not so clear on. And that's not even getting into weak isospin -- left-handed fermions have a value of 1/2, right-handed fermions have a value of 0 why? My feeling is that this topic is the pons asinorum that is so far doing a great job of guarding the juicy meat of the Standard Model from my comprehension. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's always true in a relativistic quantum field theory that a massive particle X is a coupling between left-handed (=counterclockwise polarized) and right-handed (=clockwise polarized) X fields, and the left-handed (resp. right-handed) X is the antiparticle (CPT dual) of the right-handed (resp. left-handed) anti-X.
In the case of the standard-model fermions, only one of the two polarizations exists. There are no mass couplings because there's nothing to couple to. However, you still have equal numbers of left- and right-handed fields because everything still has a CPT dual, and there are three-way interactions involving the Higgs field, one left-handed fermion field, and one right-handed fermion field. Probably the most important thing to understand is that the left-handed and right-handed fields are not designed to go together. They're a priori unrelated chiral particles that end up stitched together in this Frankensteinian construction at low energy that resembles a massive mirror-symmetric particle. They have different SU(2) and U(1) charges because the Higgs field is charged and the three-way interaction has to conserve charge. -- BenRG (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sunrise or sunset ?[edit]

Just curious - Is it possible to deduce if a photo is of sunrise or of sunset ? What clues (other than the caption of the photo and the metadata :-) ) can we look for to arrive at an answer with reasonable accuracy ? WikiCheng | Talk 09:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think one important difference between sunrise and sunset is the air temperature, which at sunrise tends to be much lower that at sunset. This means that the chances of fog are higher at sunset sunrise. Additionally the temperature of the air may impact its refractive index for certain wavelengths, meaning that some colors are seen more or less depending on temperature. I don't know if this effect is significant enough to be noticeable though. - Lindert (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean "the chances of fog are higher at sunrise" don't you? ... or am I thinking of mist which is much more common at sunrise? Dbfirs 11:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the correction. It goes for both fog and mist, because fog is just dense mist. - Lindert (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Some more suggestions in the archives.--Shantavira|feed me 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Another suggestion not included in the thread linked by Shantivara above, is that if you know the location of the photograph, it might be possible to work out if the camera was pointing east or west. Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Our Sunset article says "Sunset colors are typically more brilliant than sunrise colors, because the evening air contains more particles than morning air."...and provides a bunch of references for that statement. However, the word "typically" is key here. If there are days when the colors aren't more brilliant, then that's only one clue. There are likely to be clues of other kinds - cloud formations might result from warmer daytime weather conditions than nighttime, fog at dawn as the sun starts to evaporate off dew - so there are likely to be other clues there. Yet more things are that in one case you're looking east and the other, west - so you may see other features of the landscape that offer clues, moss grows predominantly on the north side of trees in the northern hemisphere - so if you see moss on the right-hand side of trees in your photograph, then the camera was pointed to the west and it's a sunset. But that assumes you know which hemisphere you're in - which may require more clues such as looking at the species of trees present in the image. Maybe you can see stars in the sky? Maybe you can find a distinctive landmark? There could be any number of clues for a careful observer.
But I doubt that it's possible to do this with 100% certainty - and for sure there is no one, single rule that will get you a high success rate - but by examining all of the evidence, it ought to be nearly always possible with enough effort.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Knowing the location certainly helps - although one has to be careful with such pictures from the parts of Panama where sun rises in the Pacific and sets in the Atlantic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Why ionizate equation of weak base are written as single step.[edit]

The ionizate equation of weak acid, are written as multiple steps: e.g. H2CO3 <--> HCO3- + H+, HCO3- <--> CO32- + H+. But Cu(OH)2 <--> Cu2+ + 2OH-. They both by two steps, acid's are split, base' are not. --Qqqqtgffg (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Because all metal hydroxides are (to the extent that they dissociate) are always strong bases. The difference between a strong acid/base and a weak acid/base is the ratio of particles in solution.
  • For a strong acid/base, there are NO undissociated particles in solution. That is, if you got a really strong magical microscope, and looked at a solution of, say, HCl, you would see essentially zero actual molecules of HCl floating in that solution. You would only find H+ ions and Cl- ions.
  • For a weak acid/base, you would find a mixture of dissociated and undissociated particles in solution. For example, if you had a solution of acetic acid (HC2H3O2) and again looked at it with your super-powerful microscope, you would see mostly HC2H3O2 molecules floating in solution, and only a small amount (about 1 out of every 5000 molecules or so) of them would have broken up into H+ and C2H3O2-.
  • Here's the deal with Cu(OH)2: when you get your super powerful magic microscope, and look at a solution of it, you don't find any undissociated Cu(OH)2 particles in solution All you see are Cu+2 ions and OH- ions. By definition, that means it is NOT a weak base.
  • Now, as a mostly unrelated matter, the Cu(OH)2 is only very slightly soluble in water. If I add a scoop of it to water, most of it settles to the bottom of the container, and very little dissolves. But the only thing that matters with regards to acid/base behavior, is what is in the solution after it dissolves. Solid Cu(OH)2 sitting at the bottom of the container has no effect on the acid/base behavior.
So, we treat Cu(OH)2 as a strong base, and don't do a "step-wise" dissociation because that's how it behaves: whatever is actually in the solution is fully dissociated already, so we don't do a step-wise (or split) dissociation to calculate the concentration, as we have to do with partially dissociated acids and bases. All metal hydroxides are essentially strong bases. Weak bases are usually your nitrogenous bases. Something like hydrazine would be a good example of a weak base which you would need to do a step-wise calculation, a different value for protonating each nitrogen. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fea modelling[edit]

What are the main things to check if your mesh density study for an fea steady state heat transfer model isn't converging? I've checked the dimensions, added load parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a dynamo but what a specific output[edit]

If you have a dynamo or hand crank (or some other form of irregular output, like photo-voltaic) but want a specific output for your charging a battery or an electronic device (which is not a lamp, but something more sensitive, like a computer). How could you filter the irregular output into something that won't damage the receiving device (battery or gizmo)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talkcontribs) 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of simple voltage regulators that will take an irregular DC voltage and turn it into a voltage within some fixed range. The simplest is probably to use a resistor and a zener diodes - which will prevent voltages higher than a certain threshold from passing. (See Zener_diode#Voltage_regulator)...but there are many other possibilities of varying complexity and efficiency. SteveBaker (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly the most effective solution is just to put a big battery in the circuit. Irregular current inputs will keep it charged, and the battery will provide the the constant voltage. A little bit of control circuitry might be necessary, depending on the input, to check that you are not overcharging or gradually draining the battery. Dbfirs 12:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The OP seems to want a regulated DC output from a fluctuating DC input. This avoids the need for a rectifier to transform AC to DC. A diode might still be useful to keep the capacitor or battery from feeding power back to the input device. In addition to the regulator that SteveBaker mentioned, a large capacitor would be helpful to maintain the output voltage when the input voltage dips momentarily. If the input drops for a long time or extremely low, then the battery Dbfirs mentioned would be useful. To design such a power conditioning circuit, you would need to carefully specify the power demands of the device you are powering, as well as the input variations. Then it is a straightforward circuit design problem. Without knowing how the input can vary, you really have no way to select the battery/capacitor etc. If you could avoid the battery it would likely save weight and cost. Photovoltaic panels in many climates have very unpredictable output. I would plan on a battery with a charge controller. If I were powering something with dynamo which had something continuously turning it I would probably skip the battery and use a capacitor based power conditioner to smoth out variations, since it would not be stopping and starting. You could use the solar panel or dynamo to charge the battery integral to a laptop or other electronic device, perhaps with circuitry to avoid overcharge or too-fast charging. Edison (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between stochastic model vs statistical model[edit]

If you are modelling a process, like spread of an epidemic, or stock prices or language, can you say a model is statical but not stochastic, or, the other way round, stochastic, but not statistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talkcontribs) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Stochastic is not the antonym of statistical. Stochastic is the antonym of deterministic. The difference between stochastic and deterministic is thus: if you predict a relationship between some events, that is "If I do X, then Y will happen", the system is deterministic if Y happens 100% of the time, while the system is stochastic if Y happens at no better rate than random chance. For example, picture you are holding a rugby ball (or American football) in your hand: If I let it go, I can predict it will fall towards the ground. The result is deterministic: every time I let the ball go, it goes in exactly the same direction (towards the ground) every time. Now, after it hits the ground, predicting where it will bounce is highly stochastic: the shape of the ball makes it fiendishly difficult to predict where it will bounce. If I dropped it 100 times, 100 times it will fall towards the earth (a deterministic result) but I would expect no way to predict the direction it would bounce (a stochastic result). Both deterministic systems and stochastic systems obey certain rules of statistics. With the football example, for instance, even the stochastic result (the bounce of the ball) will result in a pattern which is statistical in some way: the result of any one bounce is random, but over a large number of results, you'll find the results forming a rough circle around where it lands. This is the same sort of thing, for example that allows us to predict the shape of atomic orbitals: the location of an electron is truly stochastic: there is absolutely no way to predict the location of an electron at any one time, however we can reliably predict the areas around the nucleus we are likely to find electrons. This sort of statistical results from stochastic events is the study of things like chaos theory and quantum mechanics and other studies that deal in predicting the behavior of random systems with what is known as the Law of large numbers. Thus, while the behavior of the price of any one stock, or of the market on any one day may be stochastic, the behavior of the entire market over a long period of time may show predictive patterns. --Jayron32 19:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That description does not quite sound right to me. For one, stochastic and deterministic should not be regarded as antonyms, since a deterministic process may be described as a stochastic process in which the random variables describing the evolution of the system have zero uncertainty. I think the key difference between statistical and stochastic is a nuance: the former describes an outcome, the latter a process. —Quondum 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, confusingly, we can model deterministic processes via stochastic models (and vice versa), and in certain circumstances, that can be quite productive. Nevertheless, "stochastic" is usually considered an antonym to "deterministic" as adjectives referring to the same class of things. Generally, a model cannot be both stochastic and deterministic, nor can some physical process be both. Interestingly, some stochastic processes have certain aspects that are deterministic, the classical example being the brownian bridge. Though we cannot predict with certainty what path will be taken, we know the process will return to zero! We can also show that a simple random walk on the 2D lattice will return to the origin infinitely often. So again, a stochastic process can have some attributes that are not up to chance (well, almost surely, but that's a whole different can of worms :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
We have an article on statistical models, and stochastic models. But I would caution against taking those definitions as absolutely authoritative (remember, WP is not a reliable source!). I can draw a distinction between the two, but the concepts are closely related and researchers in different fields may draw slightly different distinctions. In practice, statistical models are usually about finding a probability distribution that describes some observations. This can be done without any time component In practice, "stochastic model" is usually used for a dynamical systems approach where there is some stochastic component, and, as our article points out, a stochastic process doesusually describe some sort of time evolution of a system. So, something like fitting a general linear model to observed data is a statistical model. Something like a stochastic differential equation or a stochastic difference equation could be used to dynamically model things like stock markets or population growth. There are definitely models that are stochastic but that we would not normally call statistical models. An example might be a simple random walk -- this is a stochastic and dynamic model. It wouldn't exactly be incorrect to say it was a statistical model, but most researchers wouldn't call it that. And that leads to another distinction: statistical models tend to be descriptive, but not necessarily explanatory. The classic example is that shoe size and knowledge have a significant relationship, and would could make a nice statistical model to describe it. However, this only means that adults tend to know more than children. In contrast, stochastic models often attempt to describe a mechanism of action, so that stronger conclusions can be drawn, compared to the "X explained 82% of the variation in Y" that is common of statistical models. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Another note, since Jayron mentioned chaos theory- "Stochastic" came to be used to distinguish a certain kind of variability and indeterminism from other vaguely "random" types of behavior in the 1930s [15]. "Chaos" can also loosely mean "random" in English, but chaos theory of e.g. the logistic map is often called "deterministic chaos" simply to reinforce the point that the variation and unpredictability are not due to stochastic processes. Prior to a few synergistic findings, mathematicians and scientists did not know that such unpredictable behavior could be the result of a deterministic process, and that's why we have a handful of technical terms that all pertain to the loose concept of "randomness". SemanticMantis (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How do 32 electrodes transmit a complex behavior?[edit]

I'd welcome commentary on this article, specifically how a fairly small number of electrodes manage to apparently train a mouse. See also [16], [17], and the target article to improve if you can, prosthetic hippocampus. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 31[edit]

Leclanché cell and Vanadium redox battery[edit]

  1. What is the total chemical equation for both batteries separated into equations at the cathode and the anode e.g.

Negative plate reaction:

Pb(s) + HSO
(aq) → PbSO
(s) + H+
(aq) + 2e

Positive plate reaction:

(s) + HSO
(aq) + 3H+
(aq) + 2ePbSO
(s) + 2H

The total reaction can be written as

Pb(s) + PbO
(s) + 2H
(aq) → 2PbSO
(s) + 2H
(l) (From Lead–acid battery)

2. Is the Vanadium redox battery a fuel cell or secondary battery

Please ping my user using the {{yo}} template when answered Retartist (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Leclanché dry-cell batteries as opposed to the wet cells. Retartist (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Now that it has become possible to predict the smell of a compound ab initio, is it possible to invent a Smelloscope? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nasal Ranger.JPG
You should probably check out Machine olfaction, There have been efforts to build artificial noses - computers that can detect odors. But generally they are only attuned to a particular limited set of smells. But since we have effective spectroscopes, which can analyse just about any chemical - I don't see why a general purpose "smelloscope" shouldn't be possible. SteveBaker (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The image at right is only tangentially relevent...but for some reason I find it hilarious! SteveBaker (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Just clarifying, I'm referring to a machine that generates a smell instead of detecting it. It would be interesting to smell the air on Io (moon) from the comfort of an observatory. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just as soon as we invent a machine to automatically synthesize any conceivable chemical. I think that would have just a few more applications than a smelloscope. (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Therein lies the crux of the recent achievement which I implied with my opening query. It is not necessary to synthesise the exact compound. Recently, a group of researchers tested an algorithm for simulating practically any conceivable odour based on its structural properties. They also invented the white noise equivalent of smell, which cancels out other smells. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Worth remembering that of all the many attempts at Digital scent technology, it's not entirely clear if the problem has been that they weren't able to produce a sufficiently accurate and broad range of scents, or other factors such as a believed lack of interest. It's possible a focused attempt aimed to produce any smells (edit: for exotic purposes like allegedly smelling Io or other stuff a person has little chance of smelling) will have more success, but may be not. Edit: Reading some of the discussion surrounding what you're referring to, I was also reminded of one recent attempt, the oPhone accessory. [18] May be this accessory will have more success than all the other previous attempts, may be not, I don't think it's clear if it does fail, the lack of their support for what is claimed possible by this recent research will be a big factor, except perhaps for the "smell cancellation" idea. In fact, some of the discussion mentions some of the possible reasons for failure, e.g. smell persistance. BTW in case there's any confusion, the team who came up with the algorithm recently appear to be largely unrelated to the Israeli team who came up with the "white noise" concept in 2012. [19] [20] Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


What is the name for the condition whereby too much oxygen in the lungs/blood causes a person to hyperventilate? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity causes dyspnea but it tends to result in coughing instead of hyperventilation. (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Hyperventilation is usually a result of lowered CO2 in the blood, not and increase in oxygen (although taken as a ratio, the end result would be a higher O2/CO2 ratio). The term for this is Hypocapnia. See also Hyperventilating.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong way round - lowered CO2 in the blood can be caused by hyperventilation. "Hyperventilation causes an excessive intake of oxygen and elimination of carbon dioxide and may cause hyperoxygenenation. Hypocapnia and respiratory alkalosis then occur"[21]. Hyperventilation is usually caused by anxiety or some other physiological problems such as raised cranial pressure. There is also iatrogenic hyperventilation caused by overventilating a patient mechanically. Richerman (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. I meant to type "...usually results in...", not " usually a result of...". Thanks for catching that. That's what I get for not using "show preview".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Been there, done that :-) Richerman (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do concrete bridges have slight arches at the bottom[edit]

Why do concrete bridges have slight arches at the bottom like this ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I separated this question from the one above --Lgriot (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The same reason that any bridge has an arch - they allow for transfer of forces to columns that support the span, so that it can bear a load. Though that's one terse sentence, the linked articles are all pretty good, and have tons of relevant information. Of course not all bridges have to have arches, but arches are often a good choice. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and in some cases the arches might not be structurally necessary, but are used to create extra clearance below. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Meteorite impact and electron degeneracy[edit]

When a very large bolide impacts on the Earth (100 km diameter), are the instantaneous pressures generated enough to approach the levels required for electron degeneracy, or does this phenomenon occur only in stars? Such an impact will drive zillions of tonnes of rock several kilometres into zillions of tonnes of rock, with nowhere for anything to flee. The "empty space" normally found around the nuclei must be eliminated. Does the shock wave force the electrons in the silicates into the nuclei of the atoms for a fraction of a second? Extending this line of thought and given a hyperbolic exponential stellathermal rifle of science fiction, with nearly infinite energy and muzzle velocity, is it possible to produce a black hole with a bullet and a planet? Captainbeefart (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that a large impactor could partipate in an incredibly energetic collision event, your extrapolations seem unlikely. We have never observed such an event directly - the closest we have seen is the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy a few years ago.
I suspect that the impactor would dissipate energy much too quickly for it to concentrate at the scales you describe. Collisional impacts cause ablation, thermal heating, and material deformation; all of these are great ways to move energy away from the boundary, quickly, before the energy reaches thermonuclear-scales. On the other hand, if we are hypothesizing any such impactor of arbitrarily-large size... well, our current understanding of stellar formation is essentially this exact process! Massive amounts of matter - mostly free neutral hydrogen - coalesces (in other words, "collides"), and the energy of its own self-gravitation is sufficient to stoke the fires of nuclear fusion!
There is a great review of the scientific state-of-the-art understanding of impact events in Planetary Science. Nimur (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PUJT vs DIAC[edit]

Any ideas why using a PUJT would be preferable to using a DIAC as a triggering device in the 1980s? More specifically why one would want to change a working circuit to use a PUJT (configured for the same triggering voltage) rather than a DIAC?-- (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[See UJT and TRIAC for other relevant articles]. The best device to choose will depend on the application circuit, so it's not really possible to answer this question in the abstract. However, some possible advantages of UJT's are:
  • Cost. Not really an issue for a hobby circuit, but definitely one for industrial applications.
  • Threshold variability. With a UJT, it's possible to control the trigger threshold quite precisely - if the exact trigger level is important, a DIAC might have too variable a threshold voltage to be reliable.
  • Speed. Normally the limiting factor here will be the speed of the TRIAC (or other switching device), but if you have to switch something very quickly (and you want to stay with solid-state devices), a UJT will give you a cleaner edge than a DIAC.
  • Trigger current. Again, not normally an issue with TRIAC circuits, but if you need to dump a lot of gate charge very quickly when the trigger fires, the UJT will give you a higher "on" current than the DIAC.

Tevildo (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Insect overwintering[edit]

There are several articles on WP that discuss "hibernation" as an overwintering strategy for insects. However, the hibernation page says this is specific to endotherms. Can somebody definitively clarify: do insect hibernate? (I do not think so, but again, articles are poorly sourced). Is it correct then to say that they overwinter in diapause? Or should I keep it vague and say "overwinter" or "enter a stage of dormancy"? This is for the article Megachile campanulae. Thanks! Gaff ταλκ 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, "hibernation" as a technical term is reserved for a specific type of metabolic process, and it would technically be wrong to say an insect hibernates. However, as with many scientific terms, "hibernate" is used in English to refer to any number of animals that go dormant over winter. I believe diapause is correct for many temperate insects that "delay in development in response to regularly and recurring periods of adverse environmental conditions." For the Megachile specifically, they overwinter as pupae or prepupae or (pre-pupae) [22], though we don't have articles on the latter. I suppose it's not clear whether the overwintering pupae in your case have delayed development compared to putative mid-summer pupae (do they have multiple generations per season?), but I still think "diapause" is much better than "hibernate," and I would fully support the avoidance of hibernation terminology for insect articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridge supports[edit]

What would happen if you fixed both ends of a bridge so they have no degrees of freedom? Would it just break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "If both ends are provided with fixed bearings, internal stresses are sure to develop in bridge components." Get enough of those internal stresses, and your bridge will break. - EronTalk 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1 oxford bridge of sighs 2012.jpg
We should be careful about what kind of bridge we're discussing here. There are plenty of small arched, stone bridges spanning small rivers and streams that are completely anchored to both banks and have stood for hundreds of years. So the size, materials and design are all factors here. But for sure, something large and made of steel could easily break from thermal expansion alone if it were firmly anchored. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! As Steve correctly points out, there are plenty of counter-examples. Not every bridge will break if the ends are firmly anchored!
Civil engineers (or anyone who studies structures or engineering statics) know that anchoring the ends of a cantilever will change the distribution of static and dynamic forces. If these changes cause a force that exceeds the material's safety limit, the structure will be damaged. If the bridge is intentionally designed to withstand those forces, the structure should not be damaged. It's almost common-sense!
The OP has probably read about suspension bridges - in some of the most famous examples, a suspension bridge is designed such that the support structures that bear the load need to be able to flex. In particular, the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco Bay Bridge are examples where the bridge is specifically designed to "flex." Fixing the end-points would require a stronger suspension, bigger and sturdier towers, and heavier (stronger) catenaries and roadways. Those wouldn't be good engineering trade-offs for these bridges.
However, a bridge can be designed to have strongly anchored ends.
Nimur (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that the local geology is important to answer this Q. If there are earthquakes or if one side is subsiding at a different rate than the other, for example, then flexibility on at least one end support is critical. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Measurement query[edit]

Hello. I would like to know, how much water do you need to dissolve 100g worth of stuff. What’s the sufficient amount (ml)?

( (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

It depends on what the stuff is, and at what temperature. See Solubility and Solubility_table for starters. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Space Vaccum confusion[edit]

What do you mean by ‘space’ is a ‘vaccum’?

( (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

It means that there is an almost complete absence of gas molecules in outer space which is the void beyond the Earth's atmosphere and between all other objects in the universe. see:[23] Richerman (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The word "vacuum" means "empty".[24] The universe as a whole is obviously not empty, but a given reasonable-sized cubic volume in space is very, very close to being literally "empty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 19:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Air (and other gasses) are pulled toward stars and planets by gravity - so the spaces between those bodies has very, very little gas at all. Here on earth, there are around 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of gas in every cubic foot of air, but in the open space out between the stars there are about two atoms in every cubic foot...which is near-enough *nothing*. The "nothing" is what we call a "vacuum". When you encounter so-called vacuums here on earth (like in a vacuum-cleaner), we're really talking about 'partial' vacuums...where there is less gas...but perhaps not much less. The best vacuum made here on earth is still about a million atoms per cubic foot. SteveBaker (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Warnings on prescription labels[edit]

Oftentimes, I will see on a prescription label a warning that says "Do not store this medication in the bathroom." Why is that? The only thing I can think of is that repeated use of the shower causes a lot of moisture and humidity in the bathroom, as opposed to any other room in the house. But, I have no idea if that is the idea behind the warning label. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's about it. Here is some guidance. [25] For any dope-heads out there, ignore the fridge issue. THC is most stable in the freezer or liquid nitrogen--Aspro (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So, I have two follow-up questions. Is the heat, temperature, moisture, and humidity really that significant? I wouldn't think so, but apparently it is? Also, prescription medications come in pretty sturdy containers. Those containers are not strong enough to keep out the moisture and humidity? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
To keep out moisture and humidity you need a Hermetic seal. You haven't been specific about the type of packaging but if you are talking about screw-top containers there is no way you can achieve a perfect seal once it has been opened. The article linked to tells you that during testing "Products are subjected to temperatures and humidity levels within the recommended ranges on the Drug Facts label, and then tested to ensure it continues to meet its product specifications. This provides evidence that the product’s active and other ingredients are stable under storage conditions and that there is no growth of unwanted mold or bacteria" It goes on to say that they are safe and effective when stored according to the ideal conditions listed on the Drug Facts label. The corollary of that is that they are not guaranteed safe and effective if stored outside those parameters. Also, medicines in tablet form are produced from dry ingredients and designed to dissolve when swallowed. Let them get wet and they will lose their structural integrity and break up. As for temperature, the active ingredients have a known shelf-life at room temperature. Increase the temperature and there is more energy available, which increases the speed of the chemical reactions that break them down. Richerman (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I can see you're using your commonsense. There are two parts. The vapour pressure of water is pretty high. Given a chance it will get into anything. The modern blister packs are designed to resist this. However, pharmaceutical companies (as you will know and understand) are not in existence to improve our health. Their duty is to return a profit to their share holders. So they place short shelf -lives on their products to encourage hospitals, health charities, etc to throw out their old stock and buy new. Are we throwing away 'expired' medications too soon?. Temperature also affects the speed at which chemical reactions progress. By the time one gets down to the temperatures of liquid nitrogen, chemical reactions have more or less come to a halt. Likewise, a medications left on the parcel shelf of a car in full sunlight are likely to degrade quickly. It does depend though, on how heat-liable the drug is. For instance, antique arrows tipped with curare still have to be handled with care, many decades after they were made.--Aspro (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell Phones on Cruise Ships[edit]

Please let me know if this question would be better asked at the Computing desk or the Miscellaneous desk. Can someone provide me with information about the technical details behind how mobile phones work on cruise ships? Here is what can be observed. First, the time displayed on the phone when the ship is in port or very close to port is the time of the port. (In Florida, it is EDT. In the Caribbean, it is EST.) Second, when the ship is not near port, the time switches to GMT/UTC. Third, when the ship is close to port, service is sometimes lost. Fourth, when the ship is not near port, service to the United States is available but is poor. My assumption is that when the ship is at sea, it uses satellite connectivity, and the satellite is using UTC. Does the ship have its own cellular antenna? If so, why can't the cellular antenna keep the cell phones on "ship time", that is, the time of the port where the ship is based? Does the ship's own antenna have a feature so that it doesn't provide its own time? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Service varies by cruise line, but it seems many of the big ones use Wireless Maritime Services (WMS), a partnership between AT&T and MTN Satellite Communications. There is a lot of information available on their corporate site. Under "How does your service work", they say:
"Our service operates over a satellite, or “VSAT” connection. Once your ship is at least 12 nautical miles out to sea (or at least 2 nautical miles in EU countries), the WMS network turns on... Once your ship approaches land again and is within 12 nautical miles from shore (or 2 nautical miles in the EU), our service is turned off and your phone will pick up local service. If you are able to pick up local service in the port areas you will be charged a different rate by your carrier then the Cruise Ship Roaming rate. Contact your carrier for pricing and details."
Not sure about the time zone question. - EronTalk 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That answers why service was lost when close to shore but not in port. The WMS was switched off, but the ship wasn't close enough to pick up signal from port. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
As for the time issue, that will vary by cell phone model. Some have their own internal clock, unaffected by location, some get a time signal from the nearest cell tower, and some give you the option to select either mode. Presumably the cruise ship won't change their own clocks as they switch time zones, so it would make sense that they would use UTC, and any cell tower they have on the ship would thus send that out as the time. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
My cell phone picks up a time signal from a tower, which explains the switching between local time and GMT. The ship itself remained on Florida time (EDT) for purposes such as the scheduling of dinner and events, and we relied on the ship's own wake-up call service rather than using the alarm clock feature of the cell phone. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If I wanted to now this I would go to the horses mouth. This Cruise company wants you to tell all your friends about the wonderful time you had ( providing you were sober enough to remember any of it). So email them. Say you had a wonderful time and request they pass your email onto their technical department as your geeky friends are interested in how their cruise ship maintained such good telecom. Phrase it so that the recipient instantly understands that your email needs to be answered by someone with the right technical knowledge and that you will not be fobbed off with waffle. Tech guys tend to be proud of what they have achieved and will no doubt be pleased that someone has bothered to ask.--Aspro (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason of the putting dextrose into the 5W?[edit]

"Half-normal saline (0.45% NaCl), often with "D5" (5% dextrose), contains 77 mEq/L of Na and Cl and 50 g/L dextrose." (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Food through a tiny tube. More on this topic: Glucose in intravenous saline and Saline (medicine) and intravenous sugar solution. Nimur (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the lactate in the Hartman's solution?[edit] (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Chemical compounds[edit]

I have four questions about chemical compounds.

  1. How many natural inorganic compounds are known to humanity?
  2. How many natural organic compounds are known to humanity?
  3. How many synthetic inorganic compounds are known to humanity?
  4. How many synthetic organic compounds are known to humanity?

Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define "known to humanity"? It will be easier to find an answer to a more precise question; for example, "how many compounds are listed with published data in (one of the various) standard IUPAC data handbook(s)?" Nimur (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case, what is the most comprehensive handbook and how many compounds are there for each question, as revised with your wording? (This question has eight parts.)
Wavelength (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC) and 00:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


October 14[edit]

October 24[edit]

What is the name for a number that has 307 zeros[edit]

What is the name for a number that has 307 zeros?-- (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In the short scale, a one followed by 307 zeroes represents ten thousand centillion.
Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, though, that the set of numbers with 307 zeros is infinite (even if we don't count leading or trailing zeros). —Tamfang (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

Number of possible positions of X-puzzle[edit]

In the article 15 puzzle it's said that : The number of possible positions of the 24-puzzle is 25!/2 ≈ 7.76×1024. I don't understand why we divided 25! (the number of the possible combinations) by two. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunsu (talkcontribs) 14:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It mentions earlier that half of the positions cannot be resolved, thus the puzzle cannot be in any of those states, hence, the division by 2.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
At Phoenixia1177 (talk · contribs): Why the puzzle can't be in any of those states? I can imagine that there's a way from A (initial state) that arrive at B (state that can't be resolved). So how to prove that there's not a such way? Hunsu (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
But you can't imagine that, or, at least, not consistently - "can be resolved is transitive" so if state A can be resolved, then any sequence of moves from A leads to another state that can be resolved. The reason for this is, as follows, suppose A can be resolved and B cannot, then if there is a sequence of moves A -> B, that means that we cannot solve the puzzle from B; however, by reversing the moves we have B -> A, from which it can be solved. It cannot be that we can solve and not solve the puzzle from B, thus there can be no A -> B using valid moves. Thus, since we can never reach an unresolvable state, exactly half the states cannot be reached.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
As for how we prove it, there's an invariant. Take the parity of the empty tile's L1-norm and add the parity of the permutation. If you're familiar with these concepts, it's easy to check that this is an invariant. Since half the states have 0 and half have 1, only half be achieved.-- (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
DIY: prove or disprove, that the 3-tile 2×2-puzzle's position
1 3
can be transformed into
1 2
You can do that simply by inspection of all possible tile shifts. --CiaPan (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the following proof of the Collatz Conjecture correct?[edit]

Introduction: The Collatz Conjecture (also known as the 3n+1 Conjecture or the Ulam’s Problem) states that if we start with any positive integer, n, and compute n/2 if n is even, or 3n+1 if n is odd, and processing the new number the same way, the process will eventually generate one. For example, we observe the result of the Collatz process in the following sequence, S’. S7 = {7, 22,11, 34, 17, 52, 26, 13, 40 ,20, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1}.

Proof of the Collatz Conjecture: Suppose there exists a sequence, S’={n0, n1, n2, …} that does not converge to one, or nk ≠ 1 or nsub(k-r) ≠ 2^µ over S’ for all kϵ ℕ where r <k, and r, k, and µ are nonnegative integers, according to the Collatz process.

The Algorithmic Process: From a given positive integer, n, we obtain the maximum positive odd integer, n0 > 7, by repeated division of n by 2. Let n1 = 3n0 + 1 which is a multiple of 2. Therefore, Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2) =1; Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^2 | n1 is a multiple of 2 ) = 1/2; Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^3 | n1 is a multiple of 2^2 ) = 1/2; … ; Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^l1 | n1 is a multiple of 2^(l1-1) ) = 1/2 where l1 = Floor[ln(n1)/ln(2)].

Note: Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^3)= Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^3 | n1 is a multiple of 2^2) * Probability(n1 is a multiple of 2^2)= (1/2)*(1/2)=(1/2)^2

Therefore, we have the Probability(n1 is at least a multiple of 2^2) = Sum[i=0 to l1 – 1, of (1/2)i+1].

Note: Sum[i =0 to ∞, of (1/2)^(i+1)] = 1.

Note: nk = 2^d * odd integer, where odd integer is greater than one for some nonnegative integer, d. Thus, the size of the odd integer varies inversely to size of 2^d. So, if d approaches infinity, the odd integer approaches one. This is forbidden, and thus, the elements of S’ are not allowed to grow without bound.

Next, we compute the partial sequence from n1 to nsub(2+l1) given n0 of S’: n0, n1 = 3n0 + 1, , n2 = n1/2, n3= n1/2^2, …, nsub(1+l1) = n1/2^l1, nsub(2+l1) = 3*(n1/2^l1) + 1 = 3*((3n0 + 1)/2^l1) + 1 = (3^2*n0 + 3)/2^l1 + 1…

Therefore, the Probability(S’ does converge to 1) = 1 - Probability(S’ does not converge to 1) → 1 where

Probability(S’ does not converge to 1) = Product[m=1 to ∞ of Sum(i=0 to lm - 1, of (1/2)^(i+1)] → 0 where lm = Floor[ ln(nsub(m + l1 + l2 + … + lm-1))/ln(2) ] < ∞ and where

Note: nsub(m + l1 + l2 + … + lm-1)= (3^m*n0 + 3^(m-1))/2^(l1 + l2 + … + lm-1) + 1.

Note: l0 = lsub(0) = 0;

So, the expected value S’ converging to 1 from n0 is E[S’ converging to 1 from n0] = n0 * Probability(S’ does converge to 1) → n0.

Note: 'sub' indicates an index of a variable.

Thus, the Collatz Conjecture is true. Thank God! Praise God!

Primesdegold (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)--David Cole,

Are you actually here to contribute to this encyclopedia, or is your goal simply to repeatedly flood this reference desk and article talk pages with your ill-conceived original research? --Kinu t/c 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly blunt, you cannot keep posting bad proofs here - and, at any rate, this is not the venue for proofs, or for their checking. Being an amateur mathematician, myself, I always enjoy helping out another (and I've spent a little time on each of the conjectures you've posted on), if you'd be willing to write in a slightly cleaner, more readable, fashion, you can feel free to post these on my talk page (or I can give you my email - the one listed on my account is one I don't remember). I'd be happy to go through as many as you want and give you what suggestions I can, though my schedule is a little hectic at times. Elsewise, best of luck in your endeavours:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you continue posting bad proofs to the Reference Desk (and your bad proofs have been your only posts except for an equally out-of-place theory on a talk page), you are likely to be blocked from editing. You appear to be either a troll or a crank. Altering the text of your alleged proofs after posting them is not appropriate either. At the Reference Desk, we are very tolerant of eccentric posting compared to elsewhere in Wikipedia, but there are limits to our patience. Do you really want to be banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the commentary at all of the threads started by this user, there appears to be consensus that allowing this editor to continue to post on Wikipedia is of no benefit to this project; he appears to be abusing this reference desk (as well as Talk:Artificial intelligence) as his own soapbox for his original research. For what it's worth, it appears that he's done it before on other sites. I have therefore blocked indefinitely. --Kinu t/c 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

probability/expected value question[edit]

Suppose a car buyer goes to a dealer and rejects an offer with probability P (or accepts it with probability 1-P). Suppose the likelihood of rejection is multiplied by a factor of Z percent each time. So, at the next dealer he rejects it with probability PZ (or accepts it with probability 1-PZ). At the third dealer, he rejects it with probability PZ^2, and so on such that he rejects the offer at dealer N with probability PZ^(N-1)

What's the expected value of how many dealers the buyer visits before buying a car?

I got a series that looks like this:

call x=1-p

S_n = (1-xZ^n)*sum(S_n,0,n-1)

but I have no idea how to take the expected value of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's write the expected value out, just for clarity. I'm going to use r for the initial rejection probability.
The probability of going to (at least) a first dealer is 1
The probability of going to (at least) a second dealer is r
The probability of going to (at least) a third dealer is r × rz
The probability of going to (at least) a fourth dealer is (r × rz) × rz2
... etc
So the expected value = 1 + r + r2z + r3z3 + r4z6 + r5z10 ...
which also equals 1 + r { 1 + rz + (rz)2z + (rz)3z3 + (rz)4z6 + (rz)5z10 ... }
so we can write that s(r, z) = 1 + r s(rz, z)
And now I'll hand over to wiser heads to see if they know of a way that that can be summed. Jheald (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

World Series outcomes[edit]

I am trying to calculate how many possible outcomes there are for a World Series (or any best‑of‑7 series). Now I know there are four values of games won possible: 4‑0, 4‑1, 4‑2, or 4‑3. But what I want to know is how many patterns of wins/losses there are. For example, a 4‑2 series could go WWLLWW or WLWLWW or LWWLWW or etc. I am actually not interested in the actual number — I could list and count them easily enough — but rather in learning the mathematical way to calculate this. There must be a formula or something that could not only be used for a best‑of‑7 but for a series of any length. Thank you.   → Michael J    03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The total number of win/loss patterns from n games is just 2n. If you know that there are k wins out of n games then the number of patterns is Binomial(n, k) (see Binomial coefficient), which is equal to n!/(k!(nk)!), where ! means factorial. For example, 3 wins from 7 games yields 7!/(3!4!) = 5040/(6×24) = 35 patterns. (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No; with a best-of-7 series, you must only count patterns where the team that wins the most games wins the last game. For example, if the series goes to 5 games (4-1) there are just 8 possible patterns: AAABA, AABAA, ABAAA, BAAAA, BBBAB, BBABB, BABBB, ABBBB. So if you know the series is 4-1 with team A winning then there are Binomial(4,1) (more commonly written C(4,1) or 4C1, and pronounced 4-choose-1) ways for the first 4 games to go and then the last game is known. For a 4-1 series with either winner it's 2 times 4C1; for a 4-2 series, 2 times 5C2. In general if the winning team wins m games and the losing team k games, it's (m+k−1)Ck ways for a specific winner and twice that for either winner. So now you have to sum that formula for all possible lengths of the series. For best-of-7, you get 3C0 + 4C1 + 5C2 + 6C3 = 1 + 4 + 10 + 20 = 35 ways for a specific winner or 70 ways for either winner. For a general best-of-n series where n is odd, the winner must win (n+1)/2 games and the loser anywhere from 0 to (n−1)/2. So you evaluate the sum of (n+1)/2 terms, from k=0 to k=(n−1)/2, with the formula (k + (n+1)/2) C k for each term. -- (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Your answer is correct, but so was 86.*'s. There's a simple bijection between ways of winning a World Series and ways of winning exactly four games of seven (⇒: pad with losses; ⇐: strip trailing losses), so the answer is \tbinom74 = 35. For best-k-of-n series, the answer is \tbinom{n}{k}. -- BenRG (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The annoying part is, I knew there was a closed-form formula like that, and still thought 86 had gotten it wrong. Thanks. -- (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gambler's delight[edit]

Hi, a race involves n horses with respective decimal odds x1, x2, ... xn. If 1/x1 + 1/x2 + ... + 1/xn < 1 then a punter can guarantee to make money by betting k/x1 on the first horse, k/x2 on the second, and so on, for any fixed multiple k. My question is whether 1/x1 + 1/x2 + ... + 1/xn < 1 is the only scenario where a betting strategy exists which is certain to make a profit. I feel that it probably is, but if there's an easy way to prove it, I can't see it. (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let x1, ..., xn be odds for which such a strategy exists. Let k1/x1, ..., kn/xn be bets that guarantee a profit. Let k = min(k1, ..., kn) (your minimum possible winnings). Then k > k1/x1 + ... + kn/xn ≥ k/x1 + ... + k/xn, and dividing by k gives 1/x1 + ... + 1/xn < 1. I think that works. -- BenRG (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Neat, thanks! (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Stable distribution question[edit]

First, am I correct in asserting that if I have the characteristic function for a probability distribution with X as a random variable of said distribution, and want the characteristic function of the distribution followed by \frac{X}{n}, I simply take the nth root of the first characteristic function?

Second, if I take a mean average of variables from a stable distribution with \alpha < 1, am I right in thinking that the scale parameter of the distribution of my sample mean increases as I increase the size of my sample? If so, does this mean that my estimate of the distribution mean---of course, the mean doesn't exist, but my estimator for the mean does---gets more variable as I increase the sample size?--Leon (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Equivalence of conditions for a positive operator on complex Hilbert space[edit]


On the page for positive operators, multiple definitions of such an operator are given. In particular it states that requiring a bounded linear operator on a complex Hilbert space to satisfy

\langle Tx,x\rangle is (real and) non-negative for all x

coincides with the notion of self-adjoint elements having a spectrum in the positive reals. I've seen proofs that the \langle Tx,x\rangle \geq 0 condition implies \sigma(T)\subset [0,\infty), but none have been elegant. I also haven't seen a proof of the other direction (but I assume this is true).

Does someone know an elegant proof of this? That is, on a complex Hilbert space, for a bounded linear self-adjoint operator T,

 \langle Tx,x\rangle \geq 0 \iff \sigma(T)\subset [0,\infty)?


Neuroxic (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an elementary proof of this equivalence, but it follows from the spectral theorem (our article seems to be unclear on details, see Rudin's "Functional analysis" for a clearer statement). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Rudin does use spectral theory machinery very nicely. Thanks for the reference, even if it may not be elementary. Neuroxic (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

a polynomial based question[edit]

Let f(x)=x^5+ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d such that f(1)=1,f(2)=2,f(3)=3,f(4)=4, and f(5)=5, then 'd' is equal to which of the following four numbers - A. 100, B. 0, C. -100, D. -120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Kinu t/c 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you misstate/misread the problem? I'm pretty sure this has no solution. -- BenRG (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The answer is -120 (though, your polynomial will be of form x^5 + ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2 + dx + e, and the solution will be for what is here "e"). Here's a hint: if y is a fixed point of a polynomial P, then y is a root of P(x) - x. You are given 5 fixed points, so you know the roots of f(x) - x, from there, it is easy to calculate f(x) - x by multiplying binomials; the rest is straight forward. (Or, for a simpler calculation: observe that adding x does not change the product of the roots of a polynomial, that the constant term is the product of the negative of the roots, and that you know the roots of f - x...)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The answer is E. All of the above (vacuously). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems highly likely the op mis-typed and forgot the first power term - but even going with what is written, your joke doesn't work well, all of the above would not follow vacuously.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not?
If f(x) = x^5+ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+d,\ f(1)=1,\ f(2)=2,\ f(3)=3,\ f(4)=4 and f(5)=5, then d=100,\ d=0,\ d=-100 and d=-120.
The consequent here is of course absurd, but the statement is still true because the antecedent is impossible. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those problems that come up in competitions, where there is a slow and laborious approach and a quick and elegant approach. In this case the slow and laborious approach is to write down and solve 5 simultaneous equations; the quick and elegant approach as pointed out by Phoenixia1177 is to notice that f(x) - x has five obvious roots, and the constant term in f(x) is the product of these roots give or take a sign. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

dividing an exponential curve[edit]

(Note, I moved this question and StuRat's comment here from another desk where I mistakenly posted.)

I’m looking for a formula to find the following values: Given a section of an exponential curve on a cartesian coordinate plane that starts at zero and ends at 23.0, how can I find the y values that correspond to equally spaced points along the x axis? That is, for instance, given points (0, 0), (3.83, y), (7.66, y), (11.49, y)... etc, how can I solve for y? (Note: Although this sounds like homework, it is not. Rather this is part of precomposition for a work of contemporary classical music.) Thanks for your help! I wouldn't know how to start this calculation... -- (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Math Desk would be a better place to ask. I don't quite understand the Q, though. Where to the values you listed come from ? StuRat (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Those values are just an example: 23/6 rounded. -- (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You will need to find the equation for the curve in the form y = f(x). Once you have that equation, just plug in the values of x to find y. If you don't know the equation, some type of curve fitting program would be in order. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, that would be perfect, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing like that easily available. Perhaps with more mathematical knowledge I would know how to find something like that. A simple formula is just y=xn, correct? However, this doesn't include constants that would allow me to find a curve between (0, 0) and (23, y). -- (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are infinitely many such curves, since I am assuming you are looking for an equation of the form of  y = a\ b^x + c; you have specified only two conditions for three unknowns (the system of equations derived from two points is underdetermined), so you will need one more point or some other condition. But what I can say is that c ≠ 0, since bx ≠ 0 for all x (including all complex x) but you have specified a point where y = 0.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jasper. That makes sense. Is there some equivalent of slope for exponential curves that would provide that third condition in addition to the two points? -- (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One would normally only consider curves with c=0 as exponential curves. But supposing it is of that form then practically any extra nugget of information like the slope at the start or a third point would be sufficient. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For the slope or gradient you probably want the derivative of the function. For  y = a\ b^x + c the derivative would be \tfrac{dy}{dx} = a\ b^x \ln(b) evaluating this at x will give you the gradient at that point.--Salix alba (talk): 18:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Condition That Convergent Series of Functions Be Termwise Diff.[edit]

I can't seem to remember how this works: given a series that converges to a differentiable function in a neighborhood, what must it satisfy to be termwise diff in that neighbourhood (as in the derivative is the sum of the derivatives of the terms) ? If it helps you can assume the terms are analytic and real valued. Thank you for any assistance:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, after taking the derivative termwise, the resulting series must still converge (this is evident with the Weierstrass function - try differentiating and integrating and you'll see how integrating each term still results in a convergent series while differentiating doesn't; that wasn't enough to show that the function isn't differentiable, however). This is the only sufficient condition I can think of, although it may be too strong.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply - I realized in the last few minutes of mucking around on paper what the condition is: the derivatives of the partial sums must uniformly converge (assuming the original series converges somewhere). Which, as usual, brings me to a related question: given a series, are there any tools that make determining if it converges uniformly easier? For example, like if the terms are all of a certain kind, or satisfy some property, etc. Something besides working directly from the definition.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is the Weierstrass M-test that is useful in many cases of practical interest. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that is very much the type of thing I was looking for:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the highest known number?[edit]

Venustar84 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't one but maybe Large numbers is of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The smallest positive integer not definable in fewer than twelve words. Well I though I knew what it was but somehow it is now definable in only eleven words. There must be an infinity of numbers definable in eleven or less words ;-) You might be interested in the article Interesting number paradox, I don't know what the current smallest uninteresting number on Wikipeda is. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the smallest positive integer that does not (yet) have its own individual Wikipedia article is 247. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What a brilliant redirect, 247 ≈ 240Face-smile.svg YohanN7 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(The OP already has the right answers above, so I thought I'd share some other info)
I once saw an '8' that was 20 feet tall, but surely some numbers are higher? There are also plenty of numbers on the ISS, which is pretty high. But I suspect the highest numbers are those on Voyager 1, which has just entered interstellar space. You might also be interested in "imaginary numbers" such as twentington [26], which by all accounts is very high. I also suggest reading The Phantom Tollbooth, which includes a whole chapter on an adventure in large/long/high numbers. Further reading on specifying very large numbers here [27] [28]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Graham's number is usually the number that's trotted out when one talks about things like "the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof". That claim is of course disputed, and the situation may have changed since that title was bestowed upon it in 1977, but if you were thinking of a particular number someone at some time had mention to you, whose name has now slipped your mind, that's probably the one you're thinking of. Otherwise the answer is, as mentioned, "there isn't one". -- (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Questions like these are a bit ill-defined. What is a "known" number?
If we say that all positive integers are "known", the answer IP 160.129 gave, "There isn't one", is correct: there is no greatest integer. (Proof: There is an axiom that says, "If n is an integer, n+1 is an integer", and n+1 is greater.)
It gets tricky because in a sense, numbers do not "exist" at all: a long time ago, somebody looked at several similar things (for example, berries) and thought, "They are so similar that I can generalize. For all intents and purposes, they are the same, and I only need to know how many there are. Rather than this berry and that berry and another over there, I'm calling them three berries." That, or something similar, is now known as the concept of numbers. (Nobody knows when that happened[citation needed], but it must have been in prehistoric times.)
In that sense, numbers don't "exist"; they are only abstract concepts. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not universally agreed upon that numbers do not exist; and there was, at least, one group that held that numbers have some form of physical existence (I don't remember what group, nor am I asserting agreement, just saying that your description is not the only legitimate one). I would say that your narrative about berries is describing the discovery of numbers and that the quantity of berries is an instance of the "more real" number that quantifies that quantity - I'm not asserting that I'm right, either, but that it is not a straight forward matter.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. We're into philosophy of math here (and ontology too), but I'll add this for the OP: Belief in the existence of _all_ the integers (or rationals, reals, complex, etc.) relies only on belief in the existence of the empty set, and the concept of set inclusion. Once you have those, you can construct all integers. So rejection of the reality of e.g. '42' is logically equivalent to rejection of either the empty set, or set inclusion... Of course those are abstract concepts that Ouch mentions above, but existence need not be limited to physical instantiation. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:WHAAOE strikes again. MIND = BLOWN. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no single largest number that has been known, but there are several other ways one could take this. For example, we can talk in terms of operations: n! grows large enough that n!20 isn't a meaningful improvement. So, we could, in a sense, rephrase the question as asking about what produces large numbers; Fast-growing hierarchy and Grzegorczyk hierarchy are of interest, in that vein. Looking at "known" in a computational sense, Busy beaver may be of interest - and, from another direction, Church–Kleene ordinal. Ackermann function is also interesting, for size reasons; as is Paris Harrington Theorem. You may be interested in contests to specify large numbers: [29], [30], [31], and, related, loader.c [32], and Rayo's number. This may hold some interest: [33]. Finally, this [34] and the Googology Wiki in general, [35].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
At Mathematical universe hypothesis you can see an example where mathematics is considered if anything more real than the physical world, as opposed to digital physics where computer science is the basis of the universe Lots of people must think their way of thinking is the foundation of all things. ;-) I'm sure I saw a thing once where a person was saying we should consider Mathematics as having maximum finite number. Our brains are finite and the accessible universe is finite, therefore there is a maximum finite number which can be represented in any form within our brains or in the universe. Add one to the number and it can't be represented - just saying 'add one' uses too many more bits of information. Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
While obviously not the largest number that can be expressed, the number of photons in the visible universe is one of the largest numbers corresponding to a count of physical things at approximately 1089. Dragons flight (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A number that not nearly as large as Graham's number but is one of the largest numbers that is the solution to a problem and that was actually computed is the solution to Archimedes' cattle problem. It is larger than the known universe. (There aren't that many cattle, because there aren't that many atoms.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The history of this problem is uncertain, but it is said that Archimedes was annoyed by the pride of the mathematicians of Alexandria and posed the problem as a "malicious riddle". Archimedes, who had invented a form of scientific notation, at least had an idea of the order of magnitude of the solution, although actual solution of the problem requires electronic computers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
From your link -- "The general solution was found in 1880 by A. Amthor. He gave the exact solution using exponentials" -- now, if I can prove the solution to a given problem is exactly e.g. a^b^c^d^e^f^g, then I'd say that I actually solved it, even if I was unable to compute every digit in the base 10 representation. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Catalan number[edit]

Can someone explain Catalan numbers more simplistically than our article does? Why they work the way they do for example. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 08:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This pdf might help you. It explains the connections between various problems whose solutions involve the Catalan numbers, and derives some of the properties of Catalan numbers. A key property is the recurrence relation
C_{n+1} = \sum^{n}_{m=0}C_m C_{n-m}
Gandalf61 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Situations where indeterminate forms are NOT considered indeterminate[edit]

The article indeterminate form says 0 time infinity is indeterminate. However, in the Extended real number line article, it says that for some purposes, 0 times infinity is unambiguously 0, and thus not indeterminate. Can anyone edit the indeterminate form article to make it include situations like these?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to edit. Yes, sometimes it's useful to define 0\times \infty = 0, but not in the context of evaluating limits.-- (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Real Analytic Extension from Closed Nowhere Dense Set and Coefficient Control[edit]

As far as I am aware, given a real valued function f on a CND set of reals, there is an analytic function on the reals that extends it; and given any finite sequence of reals and real a, there is an analytic function that with power series around a so an initial segment of coefficients is the finite sequence. Are both of these true at the same time? That is can we always extend f to an analytic function with any finite sequence it's coeffs. around a point a? More interestingly, and the question I am more curious about: given a real e > 0, natural n, and f on a CND; if I want an analytic F extending f so the first n terms in the expansion around a given point are within e of f(x) for all x in f's domain, is there always such an F? And what constraints are placed on the coefficients of that expansion? The point the series is expanded about can be arbitrary, but it can be assumed in f's domain. If anyone knows an direct results, that would be wonderful; but I'd be more than happy with links to papers considering the matter, or something related to it - I'm not an analyst, not at all, but need something along these lines for what I am working on, just a nice starting point would be wonderful, I can narrow the results to my needs from there (I'm at a loss for how to get started and need to control approximations coming from taylor series in a specific fashion). Thank you for any and all help:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Assume that both the domain of f and f are unbounded; you can even go further and assume that f is increasing and bounded below by x times a constant, if it makes things simpler.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This looks like far too much to hope for. Consider the Principle of Permanence; if your CND set contains an accumulation point, the analytic extension is uniquely determined, so you certainly can't control the power series.-- (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that your first claim is surely false. Define f(1/n) = f(0) = 0 for integer n, and f(2) = 1. This is a definition on a closed nowhere dense set of reals, but it cannot be extended to an analytic function.-- (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right (thanks for pointing that out :-) ). What if we assume that f has no accumulation points?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Chamfer/Conway notaion[edit]

There is not "chamfer" or "chamfered cube" in "Symmetries of Things." Where did Conway define "chamfer"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 中川 宏 (talkcontribs) 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Conway was just using chamfer in its normal sense as a term for sort of shaving off a corner in architecture, cabinet making, road construction, engineering, etc. "Chamfer" is just an English word for cutting off a corner [36], [37], which can be both a noun and a verb. The term is related to the Bevel. For the geometrical sense of "chamfered cube", it is synonymous with Truncation_(geometry). It's an understandable confusion, because many native English speakers don't know the word "chamfer", and many might conclude that it's part of some mathematical nomenclature. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nets of unusal 3D geomertic figures[edit]

Does anyone here have a recomended text on how you draw nets of various 3D figures?

In particular nets for cones, Fustrums and related sections? (I'm having a hard time translating a design of a skirt into flat pattern sections.) 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am having trouble with infinity[edit]

I am having trouble with thinking about infinite number of chances. It is getting to me. If there is a probability P of selecting a particular dress and if I reject dress #1, I look at dress #2.

So if there are infinity number of different model of dresses, then the probability of picking/buying one dress is 1.

But if the probability of picking dress #N is P_N and P_1 = x and P_(N) = P_(N-1) / 10

Then according to my calculations, the the probability of picking/buying one dress is less than 1.

So now I have two possible answers... 1 and less than 1 so I am confused. (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the probability of selecting a dress at each step is p (e.g., it is determined by a random coin toss), the probability of picking a dress after n steps or less is 1-(1-p)^n, which tends to 1 as n tends to infinity (see binomial distribution. I assume something is wrong with your reasoning beginning on the line "But if the probability of picking dress #N...", although I cannot really make sense of what you mean there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That's strange, because infinity is working just fine for me. Have you tried turning it off and then on again? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You wrote, "there is a probability P of selecting a particular dress". It's not clear what you mean here. If you mean, "the probability that I will select a particular dress, given that I am looking at it, is a constant P", then yes, the probability that you will select a dress is 1. On the other hand, if the probability of selecting a given dress under consideration can vary with the dress, then the probability of selecting a dress may be less than 1.
Later, you say P_{n+1} = P_n / 10 and P_1 = x. If you mean for a constant P as discussed above, then a little calculation shows that x = .9. If you redo your calculations with this, you should get 1.-- (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Base-Ten Shortcut[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to teach some mental math shortcuts to elementary students. We've been look at what I've called the "base-ten shortcut:" x + 9 = x + 10 - 1; x + 8 = x + 10 -2. With two digit subtraction, it gets a little hairy (and maybe rendering it useless). I'm not sure how to explain the maths of a problem like 79 - 46, which would become 80 – 50 -1 + 4. Why subtract 1? It would seem that you should add 1 because in the addition version of the shortcut, you must subtract both digits in the ones place. Are there maybe 4 or 8 versions of this that I'm missing? Is there a real name for this shortcut? Thanks, Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 14:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

these tips or stuff similar to it are highlighted in this fancy website which also may be of use to you when teaching. specifically sections on "Aim for 10" and "compensation method", the latter of which recommends that, in a problem like 79 - 46, you need only perform that trick for one of the two numbers..doubt there's a formal name for mathematical shortcuts however ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems kind of silly to use a shortcut for 79 - 46 since there's no borrowing involved. But the reasoning being used is probably 79 - 46 = (80 - 1) - (50 - 4) = 80 - 50 - 1 + 4. The idea might be more useful for something like 76 - 49 = 70 + 6 - (50 - 1) = 70 - 50 + 6 + 1 = 27. Or how about 233 - 89 = 200 + 30 + 3 - (100 - 10 - 1) = 200 - 100 + 30 + 10 + 3 + 1 = 144? --RDBury (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I like that website, HL. Also, thanks for that connection RD, it will help me to activate the students' prior knowledge better. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


October 25[edit]

Hop on - Hop off cruising[edit]

Caliphate after Ottomans[edit]

With recent events bombarding headlines, I got to thinking: after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate, why did no other Muslim nation step in to replace the Caliphate? Why did it take 60 years for a new group to claim one? (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

When the Ottomans conquered Egypt and overthrew the Mamluks in 1517, they disposed of the last lingering ceremonial remnants of the Abbasid caliphate, but the Ottoman rulers did not seriously claim to be caliphs themselves until much later. According to mainstream traditional Sunni legal interpretations, a claim to be caliph is not too credible unless that person rules over most Muslims, or has the allegiance (Bay'ah) of those who rule over most Muslims. AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Did it? Are you sure? Did no one during that time proclaim themselves caliph? How do you know? A guy can proclaim himself caliph to ten followers. The hard thing is not to proclaim yourself Caliph but to be accepted as one. Take a look at Caliphate and you'll notice that even while there was a more or less accepted Caliph for Sunni Islam (the Ottoman ruler) there were here and there parallel caliphs. Now if you're asking why there hasn't been in (more like) 90 years a Caliph recognized by a majority of Sunni the answer is "There still isn't one" because the ISIS so called caliphate for all the noise it is making is far from being recognized by a majority of Sunni. Bear in mind that the issue of the caliphate has always been the number one divisive issue in the history of Islam. After Ali's death the issue of who will be Caliph revolved around one test: force. The legitimacy was acquired through force, force was not acquired through legitimacy. The Ummayi became the recognized caliphate because they beat Ali, they did not beat Ali because they had somehow a better claim of legitimacy. The Abbasi became caliphs because they managed to massacre the Ummayi and again the world of Sunni Islam accepted them because they had prevailed on the battlefield. Even the passage of the caliphate from the Abbasi to the Ottoman ruler was a joke from the strict point of view of legitimacy. But the Ottoman ruler was accepted as Caliph because they were the strongest power in Sunni Islam, and had conquered Egypt after beating the Mamluk, who were the protectors of the Abbasi of Cairo who continued the Abbasi line and the caliphate after the Abbasi Caliph of Baghdad was executed by Hulagu. ISIS is putting the cart before the horse. By so doing they're only doing what tens of would be caliphs have done in the history of Islam. ISIS does not constitute a real change from the situation as it has existed since 1924. Contact Basemetal here 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

First European to set foot on modern-day USA[edit]

Dear Reference Desk-ers,

I have long been bemused at the fame of Christopher Columbus, given (amongst other things) he never set foot on mainland America - instead making 4 trips to the Caribbean. I recently discovered, however, that the Viking landings on America were actually on Greenland. According to our articles, they made some trips further west to either Canada of north-east USA - but we can't say for sure they ever touched USA soil. My question is, do we know when the first European definitely set foot on ground we now call the USA? Or has that been lost to history? (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article European colonization of the Americas suggests that it may have been John Cabot. Columbus, however, did land in Puerto Rico, which is technically US soil. So it depends how technical you want to get.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, Cabot's exact landing location is unknown. If he landed further north (in present-day Canada) instead of in Maine, then it possibly was anonymous Portuguese explorers during missions to map the coast.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 10:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Then again if you believe in the Solutrean hypothesis, the first European to set foot on what is now the USA did so 22,000 years ago.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It is possible, but by no means proven, that the Norse settlement at Vinland may have been further south than Newfoundland, or that traders from Vinland may have sailed and traded further south. See, for example, Maine penny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are concerned only with the contiguous United States (i.e., if you don't count Puerto Rico), probably the earliest known and confirmed modern European explorer was Juan Ponce de León; see Exploration of North America. As Spanish Florida mentions, there may have been earlier Portuguese and Spaniards to set foot on the mainland, and of course it's possible that the Norse sailed as far south as New England. John M Baker (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks all, there is loads of interesting stuff there - and a variety of answers depending on what I count (incidentally, you are right that I don't count Puerto Rico, but I hadn't thought about that before). So the first definite is Juan Leon, but there were almost certainly earlier ones we just can't quite confirm. Will do more reading. (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Decades ago there was a book called They All Discovered America, which discussed a number of possible voyages from Europe to the new world. Brendan the Bold, for example. I don't recall the specifics, and some of it may have been debunked since then. But it was an interesting read. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There's some stuff to peruse at pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. It's all unsubstantiated though. Matt Deres (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the Vikings did make it to North American proper, and not just to Greenland. But their only known settlement was on Newfoundland, and while it's very likely they landed on Labrador, and possible they visited Nova Scotia, we have no reliable way of knowing if they got further south than that. My reading of the relevant sagas is that they might have sailed as far as the Lower New York Bay before turning back, but I don't have a clue if that's right, and certainly not whether they made landfall. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I once saw a documentary saying that Europeans sailed to North America during the last Ice Age. There is considerable evidence that the arrow heads and flint tools were of European origin, as they are very similar to ones used in Europe, and very different from the local arrow heads and flint tools brought from Siberia. I don't have the link, but I'm sure it's possible to find it on YouTube. Also, mitochondrial DNA evidence also suggests that Europeans interbred with native Americans thousands of years ago. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That's the "Solutrean hypothesis", linked above. Like most fringe hypotheses about early contacts, it has a few tantalizing pieces to it, but is largely unsupported and unaccepted. Unfortunately, the mere fact that there's a video "documentary" on it almost certainly means it's bunk. We live in weird times - all the best fiction writers label their stuff "the truth" while the facts sit on a dusty bookshelf. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How much formal logic and mathematics would you have to study if you focused on continental philosophy?[edit]

Based on what I’ve read, and I hope I got it right, continental philosophy is a loose term for the different schools of thought that resist the influence of the analytic tradition. Critical theory, for example, which is also known as anti-positivism in the social sciences, argues for a more qualitative and pragmatic research methodology.

I wonder if I would have a better chance of avoiding mathematics if I would concentrate on a less mainstream school of thought.Casio nuts (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you study the philosophy of Jorge Borges, not only can you avoid mathematics, but mathematics will cease to exist as reality succombs to the hronar encroachment.
In actuality, if you stick to classical, continental European "rational" philosophy, you'll be stuck with a very benign form of mathematics. If you study great philosophers of the 20th century, you'll find that many of them are very mathematical: Bertrand Russell is widely acknowledged as a philosopher, even though he was a mathematician.
Don't avoid mathematics: mathematics is, at its core, structured thought-process. The only alternative is unstructured thought, which can only lead you into the really esoteric, dada-esque philosophies of the 20th century. Ex falso, quod giblets, and all that.
Nimur (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a question from a student about to attend university. You'd do well to contact, or, better speak with the undergraduate advisor or department head and ask what math and logic courses are required at that school. For example, my undergrad university only required Logic 201 (with no prerequisite) for majors and there was no specific requirement of any math in the philosophy major itself, although all undergraduate students of any major were required to take at least a certain level of algebra to graduate. In my case, since I intended to double major in biology, I took AP calculus in high school, and tested out of all math requirements except calculus 202. So I had to take only one math and one logic class to graduate with the double major. It's unlikely that will apply to you if you are only pursuing a philosophy major. But there's no general rule, and no way we can predict your intentions. Bottom line? Inquire at the school you are considering attending. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell: Judaism[edit]

Hello peeps,

I typed in 'Hell in Judaism' it provides 'She'ol' and 'Gehenna'. Is Gehenna Hell? - I'm confused. I read articles a long time ago what stated [guessing] Judaism and Christanity Hell/Hell names are similar or so?

I typed 'Heaven in Judaism', the article does not satisfy my needs. It differs from the kabbalistic Jewish tradition.

I need all in on (kind of) 'Heaven and Hell in Judaism' articles. If there is nothing available such as mentioned, can anybody provide me the links please so that I can study.

( (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Sheol is for good souls and bad. They don't quite "live" there as people, the way they do in Christian Heaven and Hell. I can't quite tell what Gehenna is, but seems to be a place on Earth (for what that's worth). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
A name, came from a place where they burnt trash, including corpse InedibleHulk. Apparently Christians adopted the name or something, well, a lot from Jewish religion... -- ( (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))
(edit conflict)Sheol is the abode of all the dead, including the righteous as well as the unrighteous. It's parallel to the Greek Hades (which is how it was usually translated). Gehenna is where the unrighteous are punished or destroyed at some point (either the day of judgement or upon death). It's more in line with most western conceptions of hell, and was sometimes translated using the Greek Tartarus.
This really only covers up til the second temple period. The medieval period brought a fair amount of diversity, including precarnation and reincarnation, though those views are not necessarily
What I understand of modern views, the typical view is that "heaven" is closeness to God and "hell" distance from God. Non-Jews who don't screw up with the Seven Laws of Noah (especially righteous gentiles) generally don't have too much to worry about. I couldn't begin to speak about standards for Jews, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol. I have not yet got to Tartarus and Hades yet, I’ll get to the ‘greeky’ part soon, good to know that they exist; thanks for mentioning them. Accomplished the ‘reincarnation’ article Ian.thomson, ‘preincarnation’ is not done yet. Regarding reincarnation, does it occur before judgement day or after? Logic stating, can occur in both times. Judgement day doesn’t mean the end of the Earth’s/Yellow Sun’s time, it also means what is stated in eschatology, i.e., when world gets corrupted, new messenger/prophet arrive, re-establish rules and regulations and so on. -- ( (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))
The lover of life's not a sinner, the ending is just a beginner. The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreaming. And on and on and on. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
What, so irrelevant! You do come up with some funny stuff sometimes. Thank you and Ian for keeping Wikipedia interesting! -- ( (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))
Thanks, but it wasn't totally irrelevant. That song's lyrics are rather poignant, at least compared to Belinda Carlisle's. is apparently blacklisted, so I just linked the Wiki page. Check them out if you haven't, or listen to the song (one can't transcribe how great the riffs are.) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Not to discourage Russell: the latter half (especially the last third) is great; the "beginner" feels too much like Ronnie James Dio. Contact Basemetal here 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you mean because it's strange English, think of it like beginner course, not the beginning of another life. Remember, Dio's primarily a teacher, and has the Disciples to prove it. If you're talking about the song, yeah, it builds nicely. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, October 27, 2014 (UTC) -- The text of the Hebrew Bible does not clearly state any doctrine of afterlife punishments or rewards, and some scholars have claimed that the appearance of such doctrines in Judaism of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is ultimately due to Persian influence. The Sadducees, who controlled the Jerusalem temple until the first Jewish revolt, opposed such ideas... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gehenna is the closest to the concept of Christian "Hell" but has many differences. Sheol is closer to Greek "Hades" and is a much older concept in Judaism. Keep in mind that the concept of "Hell" differs within Judaism according to the period of Judaism and the kind of Judaism (Rabbinical or Karaite). Here are some WP links to get you started:
  1. Gehenna#Hebrew Bible
  2. Gehenna#Targums
  3. Gehenna#Extra-Biblical documents
  4. Gehenna#Rabbinical Judaism
  5. Sheol
  6. Sadducees#Beliefs
  7. Pharisees#The afterlife
  8. Afterlife#Judaism
  9. Jewish eschatology#"The world to come"
As to "Heaven" there isn't really such a thing in Judaism that I've ever heard of. In colloquial modern Hebrew "Heaven" or "Paradise" is called "Gan Eden" (when referring to the Christian concept), that is simply the Garden of Eden from where Adam and Eve were thrown out because they disobeyed God (you can watch a reenactement of the original sin here). Other than that I don't know of a place especially designed for the righteous to dwell in until the advent of the world to come. The righteous have a share in the world to come and that's their reward.
Maybe we can consider that in Judaism "Heaven" is simply what the earth will be after the coming of the Messiah. A "Garden of Eden" but on the scale of the whole earth. The earth and all of its ecology will also look very different: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9)
One important difference with the Christian afterlife is that "the righteous of the nations [i.e. righteous non-Jews] have a share in the world to come" as the saying goes, that is will also be brought back to life when the Messiah comes. I don't know precisely what happens with the righteous non-Christians in Christianity but I believe their fate is more problematic but maybe not hopeless if God so decides. I was also told by a Muslim fellow that Islam was more like Judaism than Christianity in that respect but I couldn't find any confirmation of that anywhere in WP.
The links above should be a start. Obviously the subject is complex. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this topic but not completely ignorant either. I just thought I'd look around WP a bit and see if I could find some links. I do hope they help.
Contact Basemetal here 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Good points Basemetal,
Firstly, I'm on 'pay bite as you go' price plan, I can't really watch videos and so on.
Secondly, in Abrahamic religions, they talk about two types of heavens, one after arrival of the 'messiah/judgement day' and one after the 'end of the world/judgement day'. View above what I mentioned to Ian regarding ‘reincarnation’. What you mentioned after the list of articles, sounds to me like the 'messiah/judgement day' concept.
Thirdly, the similarities between Islam and Judaism, the only think I can guess is the number of Gates/place of heavens (7). The concept/feature of each is different... View/click section 5.2 from the contents of Heaven article. Section 3 and 5 from the contents of Jannah article. Hope you get the idea.
Note that what mentioned in Kabbalah Jewish mysticism is similar to ‘Shamayim’.
( (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)), some information about death is in Genesis 2:17; 3:4; 42:38; Job 14:13; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Hebrew text is at the top of the the center column. You can click on the word "Lexicon" above, in order to see the Hebrew words explained.
Wavelength (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC) and 15:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC) and 16:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Face-surprise.svg Thanks wave length Face-crying.svg -- ( (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

October 26[edit]


How can they correctly calculate how many viewers are watching a certain program on TV? Sure, they can know how many TVs watching a certain program, but the number of TV can in no way equal to the number of viewers. Even if they assume each TV on average has 4 viewers (based on a typical household), it wouldn't be accurate neither. There is no guarantee that all 4 views would watch the program at that time. In fact we all we know each TV has at least 1 viewer, so how can they calculate it? (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

See Nielsen ratings. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why do you assume that each TV has at least one viewer. It's not true in my house! Dbfirs 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Audience measurement and (specific to the UK) Appreciation Index. In the UK, they knock on the door of a sample number of homes and ask what the people in your house were watching yesterday, rather like an opinion poll, or at least they used to - I took part in a ratings survey about 10 years ago, Alansplodge (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
They have all sorts of ways of monitoring you electronically from your cable box and other devices wash times and there have been black box data recorders installed in cars without informed consent for years usa today.


who was madeline o'malley and what happened to her at the YANKEE PEDLAR INN????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EFC:5490:D532:B3C5:7BE3:7BC2 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an article on the subject. Where did you run across this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a brief comment in the article on The Innkeepers (film). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sodom and Gomorrah considered from the obvious, down to Earth, atheist view?[edit]

The Sodom and Gomorrah article is written from a religious point of view, which suggests that people have not considered the obvious explanation of what really happened. But perhaps I'm wrong and this view can be found in the literature, if so then I would be interested in that. Clearly, what happened was that at that time there were cities where the people did not live according to religious rules while there were groups of people intent on enforcing such rules. What then typically happens is well known from history, we can even see it in Iraq and Syria today. If you let ISIS enforce its laws on people who are not loyal to them, the outcome will be bleak. If you then let ISIS write up their history then as they evolve into a more moderate group, the original accounts will be modified, the judgement and the actual act of destruction will become divine acts. The victims will be blamed for all the bad things that happened. Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is soapboxing cum hoaxing in the utmost, Satan. Why do you bring ISIS into the discussion? The article is most certainly not written from a religious perspective, although it is about a story recounted in one religious tradition. And you obviously didn't read or ignored the Historicity section of the article you've linked too, which deals extensively with evidence and theories from a non-religious viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Another possibility is that there was a natural disaster, could be a fire, a volcano, earthquake, or a meteor, that destroyed the towns, and that people trying to find an explanation afterwards justified it "because they must have been evil". The reality was probably that the people in S&G were no more evil than the surrounding towns, but there were probably a few incidents there, as anywhere, that could be latched onto after to paint the towns as evil. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
People still practice sodomy from time to time, so there must have been at least a few survivors from Sodom... but when was the last time you heard of someone practicing gamorrahy?  :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Gomorry is just like sodomy, except the other way round :) Contact Basemetal here 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I always assume Gomorry meant donning a giant turtle suit to do the nasty. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What's more common is the view that Sodom and Gomorrah simply didn't exist, and I'd say that was not merely an atheist view, but a secular one. See Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity. Except for a mention by Strabo millennia after the fact (assuming it was there), S&G are only known from religious stories (which were probably Strabo's source). The idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a fit of religious extremism requires:
  • evidence that S&G existed (none present)
  • evidence that they had religious practices different from the rest of the Canaanite population to have lost allies (not likely) or that the Yahwist cult was strong enough to have wiped out the two cities with limited repercussions (not likely until recordable history either)
  • explanation for why the later reconciled Yahwist and Elohist cults would not have just cited herem as justification for destroying the cities
Simpler to point out that there's not even reliable evidence that the two cities existed. Overall, the religious destruction hypothesis tends to read more like projection than examination. It requires fewer assumptions to believe either:
  • they didn't exist, and story is a myth to explain in one fell swoop a couple of naturally blighted spots of land, why the Hebrews did not consider the Moabites allies despite an apparent relationship, and justification for certain religious laws regarding incest; with a fable about treating guests well (echoed throughout the rest of the Tanakh, when Sodom and Gomorrah are condemned not for homosexuality, but ill-treatment of the poor, immigrants, widows, minorities, and so on).
  • they might've existed, were destroyed in a natural disaster, the explanation for the destruction evolved as in the previous theory. There are actually a number of cities in the era that were destroyed by natural disasters relating to leaking deposits of sulfur and natural gas, the issue becomes demonstrating that one of them was the inspiration for Sodom and Gomorrah. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What's the meaning of the initials "S&D" that both StuRat and Ian Thomson are using? They seem to be standing for Sodom and Gomorrah but how? Contact Basemetal here 17:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened with StuRat, but my caffeine hasn't gotten to work yet, and I must've been thrown off by seeing his post. Amending my post. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Mine was a typo, too, now corrected. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he was thinking about B&D and S&M, as I'm sure he often does.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
StuRat as a Detroiter was thinking about Detroit - although as an analogy because of the dust bowl. But if you see that red paint, in High Plains Drifter and read those links exposed by Medeis above, you will see that indeed in the theme there was one "Paint it black". Not: pain in black. --Askedonty (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I think, needs to be understood in the context of two other stories. The first is at the end of the book of Judges, in which a Levite and his concubine stay with a man of Benjamin in Gibeah, and a mob demand the host throw the Levite out so they can rape him, exactly as the people of Sodom demand to do to the angels. The Levite gives them his concubine instead, and they rape her to death. The Levite cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends them to the tribes of Israel to summon them to war against the tribe of Benjamin. The war nearly wipes Benjamin out, so to preserve its existence the Israelites massacre the men of Jabesh Gilead, which had not taken part in the war, and give the women of that town to the surviving Benjaminites as wives so they can rebuild their population. The second related story is in 1 Samuel, where Jabesh Gilead is besieged by an Ammonite king. Saul, who is ploughing his fields in Gibeah when he hears, cuts his plough-oxen into pieces and sends the pieces to the tribes to summon them to war. After an Israelite victory, Saul is acclaimed king.
The two books of Samuel tell how Saul, a Benjaminite, is Israel's first king, but he and his house are eclipsed by the Judahite house of David. After the division of the kingdom in 1 Kings, Benjamin is absorbed into Judah. The Hebrew Bible was mostly written in Judah, and from a Judahite point of view. I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and its related stories, are there to blacken the name of Benjamin and justify its destruction as an independent entity. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Paul the apostle claimed he was from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5). That would seem to indicate that even in Roman times, as late as the 1st c. AD, the distinction between Judah and Benjamin had not yet been lost. Contact Basemetal here 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. How does the story of Sodom and Gommorah "blacken the name of Benjamin", which didn't even exist when they were supposedly destroyed. Benjamin himself hadn't even been born. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Me too. And Sodom and Gomorrah were not even on the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. But maybe (I would guess) Nicknack means that the invention of the Sodom story would make the behavior of the Benjaminites seem even more evil as they would be shown to have behaved like people in that ancient legendary most evil place. To me it's the story of the Levite that seems a bit suspicious. At least the author of the story didn't get his arithmetic right. The concubine should have been cut into eleven pieces: there were thirteen tribes but there's no point sending anything to Benjamin since they would not answer a summons to massacre themselves and you couldn't send anything to the tribe of Levi as the tribe of Levi did not have its own territory but were spread amongst the other tribes. Maybe the author implied that the Levite cut her into twelve pieces, sent out eleven and kept one himself? Contact Basemetal here 15:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There's also in Esther 2:5 the statement that Mordecai (and thus Esther his niece) were of the tribe of Benjamin. That's under the Persians, during the period of the 2nd temple. True the historicity of the book of Esther is zero but the point is that the late author of the book of Esther thought it was credible to attribute a Benjaminite tribal affiliation to a post-Babylonian exile Jewish character. Contact Basemetal here 15:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Benjamin may have still existed in terms of personal ancestry, but it no longer no longer existed as a political entity in Persian or New Testament times - just like the name Cohen still preserves descent from priests, even though there's been no temple for priests to officiate at for nearly 2,000 years. In the divided monarchy period, when the earliest parts of the Bible were probably written, Benjamin was incorporated into Judah, was no longer an independent political entity, and its ruling line had been eclipsed by the ruling line of Judah. All three stories were written after this had happened, mostly by people who served the ruling line of Judah and who wanted to present their rulers as being the good guys. Benjamin had fallen under the sway of Judah, and these stories presented that as being the will of God because of the tribe's wickedness. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(addition) I think the story of the siege of Jabesh Gilead was probably the earliest written of the three, as it presents Saul in an unambiguously heroic light, unlike many of the other stories involving him in the books of Samuel. The story of the Levite and his concubine, echoing the cutting up of the oxen and the two places involved, Gibeah and Jabesh Gilead (also, the Levite came from Ephraim, like Samuel, and his concubine came from Bethlehem, like David), was probably written later to tarnish Saul's deeds and tribe, and then the Sodom and Gomorrah story, showing the same sin being punished by God rather than by human intervention, intensified that. That's my interpretation, anyway. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Another comment, getting back to Count Iblis's original suggestion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by religious extremist Israelites, and later rewritten as an act of God when the Israelites' extremism had calmed down a bit. There are plenty of stories in the early books of the Bible, Joshua in particular but continuing into 2 Kings when Elijah massacres the priests of Baal, of Israelites massacring people with different religious practices, presented as being done according to the will of God. These, if they really happened, are acts of religious extremism to rival anything ISIS have done, and were not rewritten as you suggest the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a tremdendous amount of WP:OR going on here. This is a reference desk. Can we stick to that please?

Count Iblis, I've read your question three times now without being able to find a question. Is there a question you'd like to ask? Your first and second sentences suggest you may be asking the following: "If it is true that Sodom and Gomorroah were really destroyed, what prosaic explanations could be offered for the phenomena described by the Bible as miraculous?" Is that the question? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dweller, I was approaching this from what Nicknack009 wrote above, my question is about published theories that give this sort of an explanation as they are not mentioned in the Wiki article. There are different possible theories as the other answerers have explained in detail above. But my thinking is that given the way people actually behave, one should favor theories that would blame violence on those entities that attempt to impose law and order especially when this is motivated by religion and to reign in "deviant sexual behavior". The history of man doing this sort of thing is not good. Therefore, it should be the favored theory, yet the literature seems to be silent about this. But then it may be that there are actually publications in journals about this that are not easily found. Count Iblis (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, you want material that reflects your personal confusion of extremism for religion rather than what there's evidence for, despite the huge leaps of faith required to reach those conclusions. The Tanakh is full of points where the Hebrews/Israelites brag about breaking even (not even properly winning, just breaking even) in fights with Canaanites or other neighboring tribes just over beign too close or having a slightly rearranged pantheon. They considered it a religious duty to come as close to nuking idolatrous cities as possible. If the Hebrews had wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, they'd've dedicated a whole book to it, and it'd probably still be the most festive Jewish holiday there is (since a lot of them amount to "we survived" rather than "we won"). And yet, there aren't even records among neighboring tribes saying "Hey, watch out for those Hebrews, they mercilessly wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah and are trying to act like they didn't do it."
There's no reason whatsoever for the Israelites to have covered it up. There's also no evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed. There's also plenty of evidence that more than one city in the area was destroyed in a natural disaster involving large and highly flammable deposits of sulfur and natural gas. Occam's razor does not favor your suggestion at all, because it requires almost as much faith as the myth that a couple of angels nuked Sodom. Failing to see that is the sort of bias you'd find in Young Earth Creationists, not level-headed historians. Honestly, it'd be easier to just say "teh bible sux because Sodom and Gomorrah are completely made up and ancient Israel used herem to justify unrelated genocides." Going out of one's way to create a more convoluted accusation that requires ignoring clear evidence to the contrary is not "obvious, down to Earth," it is a Dan Brown-esque conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Count Iblis is on record quite recently as seriously advocating the closure of the WP ref desks, because some external site does it so much better than we do. Any question from anyone with that sort of record, particularly where it has the hallmarks of a soapbox, casts the person's bona fides in a somewhat negative light. Not that he's unwelcome to ask questions here, but his questions really have to be squeaky clean for us not to suspect trollery is on his agenda. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bill Gates' philanthropy partly to keep litigation against Microsoft at bay[edit]

I remember reading, quite a long time ago, that Microsoft/Bill Gates only started donating money to philanthropic causes as means to [unsourced speculation about motivations removed --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)]. Is there any credence to this claim? Matt714 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked for this in Google? And beware of BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well if you look at the history mentioned in Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the roots of the foundation were stated in 1997. One of the sources is the foundation themselves, [38] it's probably impossible to verify the foundations claims that this article [39] started it all. But his first trip to India obviously can be, and can undoutedly be and also dated (I think it's probably [40] but I wasn't able to confirm that). Similarly the formation of the Gates Library Foundation in 23 June 1997 [41] [42]. I also noticed from [43] (while trying to verify the date of the India trip) also mentioned here [44] that they gave money to John Hopkins University in 1997, evidentally 20? May 1997 [45]. These dates are interesting because they were before the start of the DOJ Internet Explorer case which was later in 1997 [46] which lead to the court considering breaking up Microsoft in 2000 United States v. Microsoft Corp. I'm pretty sure at least partially due to the DOJ's prompting throughout the case. (The case itself related to the earlier 1994 settlement, but clearly that didn't force the government to consider stuff in 1997.) The point being, if that was his intention, it seemingly didn't work, at least initially, yet he seemed to expand his efforts. It's true the DOJ did eventually abandon their desire to break up Microsoft and settled the case, to the chargain I believe of at least some of the states involved, but a lot of sources suggest this had much more to do with the new administration's views, e.g. [47] [48] [49]. Note the last source suggests politicial lobbying as having much more of an influence. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
One, they've got more money than they know what to do with. Two, they're not bequeathing it to their kids. Three, they can't take it with them when they go.Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I modified my reply slightly after you reply, but since your reply doesn't seem to relate to much of what I said, hopefully that's not a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
BTW our article on the foundation includes quite a lot of criticism. Some of it relates to Microsoft and of course Bill Gates. It's also not uncommon to hear other criticism relating to IP, Microsoft, Bill Gates views and the foundation e.g. [50]. That also mentions some stuff from 1993, also mentioned here [51]. Yet none of this suggests it was initially at least, only done to ward off govermental involvement. Again, you may not trust Bill Gates view on his involvement, but it's possible some stuff came from even before the foundations being set up, you obviously don't need a foundation for philantrophy. Also, I'm only looking at Bill Gates philantrophy. I expected Microsoft had some involvement too, probably before Bill Gates and as with probably most companies, PR was likely a factor, and as a public company, such philantrophy couldn't just happen according to Bill Gates whims, the fact remains all this was happening before what was probably their most major case with the US government. (And frankly, for all the critism of Bill Gates, few would suggest he's stupid. So even if he were a little naïve, it's difficult to imagine he wouldn't recognise there would be far better ways to try and discourage governmental action in the US, such as the lobbying Microsoft did eventually undertake that I mentioned above. Likely he'd also realise that a lot of money on his part may not be the best solution to try and ward of governmental involvement, regardless of whether as the largest I believe shareholder he did have a lot to benefit.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think it's cheaper to donate $28 billion than go to court. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates that unsourced negativity about living people must be removed on sight, including on project pages such as this. I've done so. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This was a question: "I remember reading, quite a long time ago, that Microsoft/Bill Gates only started donating money to philanthropic causes as means to deter future litigation, particularly from the FTC and other government agencies. Is there any credence to this claim?" for which he asked for reliable sources. He was not stating anything or making any claims. One should be able at the Reference Desk to ask questions and to request sources regarding living people. Or you might as well say that the Reference Desk should never accept questions about living people. That wasn't a BLP violation. Contact Basemetal here 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

Ida Scott's singing teacher[edit]

My googling skills have failed me in my quest to complete the final clue of a crossword. The clue is: "In James Baldwin's novel Another Country (1962), who was Ida Scott's singing teacher?" (5, 5).

What I have so far is S _ _ _ E _ L _ I _ .

Anyone know this? Also, how could I have tracked it down myself knowing only the above letters? Or not knowing any of them? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Steve Ellis". I retrieved it using a Google search of 'Ida Scott's singing teacher "James Baldwin"', which might be slight overkill, but which proved effective. Tevildo (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I found the full text of the book with the following search - "Ida Scott" "singing teacher" "another country". Hack (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work, folks. I did try those sorts of searches but obviously must have missed something. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
When I did that search with the quotation marks, the book was the sole result (YMMV). Hack (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's weird. I always use quotes when my search subject contains common words and the search would otherwise bring up all sorts of irrelevant hits. We're all definitely on the same page here. One day I'll work out what I did wrong. Or maybe I won't. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I know you have it solved now but for future reference, including the word 'crossword' and the name of the paper that you got it out of usually helps in such searches. I used to do the LA Times crossword rather frequently and there are a few sites that provide the answers to the entire puzzle. Dismas|(talk) 05:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but that's one I won't be taking up, I don't think. Using the web to do my own research is a learning experience, but just being told the answer usually isn't. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You said it was the final clue, no? In that case, what's the difference? --NorwegianBlue talk 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was the final clue. I only came here when all the searching I had done proved fruitless. Maybe hard to explain, but in my world view the WP Ref desk is a legitimate research tool, while a site that gives me all the answers to a crossword is not. (Not usually, anyway. Certainly not in the context where the crossword itself is what I'm trying to nut out. Maybe where the crossword is just part of a somewhat larger network of clues, and I'm living in a sort of Dan Brownish weirdo universe, and time is of the essence.) To me, it's analagous to trying to work out some algebra problem in a text book, failing to make headway, and succumbing to the temptation to look up the answer in the back. Unless the answer shows the working out, it's of no value to me, because I need to know how to get there, not just what I find when I get there. (I suppose one could say it's all about the journey, not the destination. Or how if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. That sort of thing.) Notice that I didn't just ask for the answer. I also asked how to find it for myself, and discovered I'd already searched pretty much correctly, but must have made some trifling error. Albeit, not so trifling as to have no effect on the result. Relativity applies even to les petits riens, it seems. See what a rich learning experience this has been for all of us. God bless the WP Ref Desk and all its denizens. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gambling with other people's money[edit]

Scenario A: a van full of bank robbers briefly evades the police. The police are soon able to determine that one of the robbers got out of the van with a bag of stolen money, cashed it in for chips at a local casino, and proceeded to bet it all on #18. The number was 17, so the casino took the money. (The police are obviously suspicious, but cannot prove, that the casino had ties with the organized crime group the robbers were affiliated with; they send the man they find to jail but he won't talk) Assuming a period of time x passes from when the ball drops to when the police approach the casino, can they force the casino to give up the money? (X ranging anywhere from seconds to years)

Scenario B: The manager of the union pension fund was about to go into bankruptcy, so he withdrew a few million from the accounts and flew to Monaco, where he bet it all on black. Happy day, it landed on black! He dutifully returned every penny he "borrowed". A) is he guilty of a crime? B) can the pension fund, knowing that he might well have lost all the money and they'd never have gotten it back, make any claim to his winnings beyond the money he wagered? Wnt (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume A) good faith that you've read the instructions at the top of the page and B) that these are hypothetical situations. With either scenario, there will be quite a few things that can change any answer that we might provide. For the second scenario though, a crime has still been committed whether the money is returned or not. The courts may be lenient on the perpetrator due to the fact that he returned the money but it could have gone badly and the person would have known that it could. Dismas|(talk) 05:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In Scenario A, the casino is not a bona fide purchaser and will probably have to give up the money. In Scenario B, a crime has been committed and the manager will not be allowed to retain the proceeds. The casino will argue that the wager was void, while the pension fund will argue that it should have the winning proceeds. It is not clear who will win this argument. John M Baker (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)>
Interesting answers... but can you list things that would change the answer? And is the casino not a bona fide purchaser because it's gambling, or because you're suggesting they can be proved to have known (or might or should have figured out with some background research on the gambler) that the money is not legitimately obtained? Wnt (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In common law jurisdictions, even those where gambling itself is legal, a gambling contract is not an enforceable contract and does not provide the kind of consideration required for bona fide purchaser status. The situation you describe was analyzed in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd, where a solicitor used stolen funds to gamble at a casino. The casino had to return the funds, although it was allowed to net out the solicitor's (modest) winnings. While that case was in the House of Lords, I expect an American court would have reached the same result. Now, if the solicitor instead had, say, taken an expensive vacation, the money likely would have been irrecoverable; contracts for hotel rooms, dinners, theatre tickets, etc., are fully enforceable. John M Baker (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
U.S. law generally gels with this observation. See 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling § 162. For case law on recovery of gambling losses where the loser had stolen the funds see "Rights of owner of stolen money as against one who won it in gambling transaction from thief", Annotation, 44 A.L.R.2d 1242. An interesting wrinkle to these fact pattern is to ask what happens when the person trying to make recovery is the gambler's spouse, and the money or property lost was either the spouse's, or was community property. This was a minor plot point in a Perry Mason novel, The Case of the Singing Skirt (and it cites the actual case Novo v. Hotel Del Rio, 295 P.2d 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)); see also 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling § 175 (statutory provisions allowing third parties to recover gambling losses). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@John M Baker:, @Mendaliv:: these are some seriously good answers! Since you actually understand the law, could you do me one more favor and update Gambling - I started by creating a section "Asset recovery", copying much of the above answer and adapting the others, but I imagine you could do a lot to improve my text. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Value of French livre in mid-17th century[edit]

I would like to know, in modern terms, the value of the French livre in the period 1625 to 1650. Is there some printed or online table, or an online tool, which can tell me approximately how much 1 livre from that time is worth in today's euros or dollars? Or would this simply be a matter of extrapolating from the gold content of the coins? According to our own articles, in 1640 the Louis d'or was 6.75 grams of 22-carat gold and was valued at 10 livres, so 1 livre would correspond to 0.61875 grams of pure gold. At today's gold prices this would be $24.45 or €19.26. Is this a sensical calculation, or is the reality much more complicated? If so, where can I find a list of typical wages or prices, in livres, from that time period, so that I can put the values in better perspective? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Fr article on the Livre tournois gives the variation in gold content, and has a selection of references that might be worth chasing. If you don't do French, machine translation shouldn't be too confusing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As underlines the following footnote(fr) , the French Livre loses 60% of its value between 1602 and 1709. However Louis XIII in 1640 orders data collected on each species of foreign money, according to 1800's legal and monetary expert Cashier Auguste Bonnet(fr) , because of the need to adjust minting policies against speculation on gold. Here(fr) also some data regarding wages. Revenues seem to be considered relatively stable by historians, although this may perhaps be meant, on the long term: 1950(fr) --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychonaut -- Comparing the gold content of an old currency unit to modern gold prices is "objective" in a way, but also problematic, since modern gold prices can strongly fluctuate over the years for speculative reasons, and since the structure of the economy centuries ago was so different from the structure of today's economy. For example, the price of hiring servants would have been relatively much lower in the 17th century (and keeping servants was necessary in order to have anything approaching a middle-class lifestyle), but many things that are now taken for granted couldn't be purchased at any price back then... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem with converting prices before the Industrial Revolution into present-day terms is that the price of labor has risen dramatically relative to the price of goods and commodities. So, if you do a conversion in terms of average wages, you will get a higher value for the historic price than if you do it in terms of the price of a basket of goods or a commodity such as gold. Which method you use for converting depends on what is more important to compare: the labor value of the money or the goods that it could purchase. Using the goods-value of a historic currency to convert incomes, even rich aristocrats would have had at best modest middle-class incomes in our terms, whereas they employed large staffs and lived lavishly by the standards of their time. Ordinary laborers, on the other hand, would have made less in a year than many people (in developed countries) make in a week, which makes you realize how much more affluent we have become, in terms of stuff. Marco polo (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there some general tables of the value of gold and the value of silver in terms of some benchmarks like a day's hard work, an acre of land, a pound of flour etc., per country and year? If not... wish Wikipedia would make one! Wnt (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Purchasing_power_parity is relevant here. MP is talking about the problems you get using just labor equivalents, though there would also be problems with only using e.g. durable goods. I'm not sure what all goes in to a typical "market basket" used to compute a given PPP conversion, but there will be plenty of info out there for the curious. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This site has lots of ways to compare the current and historical values of the US dollar and pound sterling (UK). It doesn't help you directly, but this site gives the gold value of the livre tournois at various dates. You could check the corresponding value of sterling on a date and use the appropriate conversion tables to current pounds sterling, which you could convert to a present-day currency (using present-day exchange rates for the pound). The problem with this method is that the values (in gold) of labor or various goods in France might have been different from those in Britain on your date, so this is not an exact conversion, but the method will give you an approximation, which is all you can claim with so many variables anyway. Marco polo (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt -- in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information book, there's a reprint of a semi-famous graph by William Playfair, plotting the "Weekly wages of a good mechanic" and the "price of the quarter of wheat" from 1565 to 1821. That graph must be in the public domain now, and so may be on-line, and I'm sure there must be more up-to-date versions of the same general idea... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Aside from everything else, you need to remember that gold has somewhat inflated in the last 400 years, due to lots of gold rushes in the US, Australia, the Witwatersrand, and other places. Even if all else were equal, prices would have risen since then because there's lots more gold in the market. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
All things being equal, if there's more of something on the market then the price of that something tends to go down. So it's certainly not the increase in the total quantity of gold on the market in the past 500 years per se that would cause the value of gold to rise but rather the demand for gold if that increases faster than the quantity of gold available. Contact Basemetal here 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the useful information and links. I see there are many ways to interpret or convert the old value, so I'll have a look at all of them and see which one(s) make the most sense for my purposes. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lion, Falcon and the Wolf/Jackel[edit]

Who knows mythological/religious stories or religions of these animals? Is it possible to provide me short examples of each and links to study if possible.

What I know:

  • Lion, assuming the Egyptians – apparently it’s supposed to address a female – the sphinx… Does this Lion arrive in any other religion/mythology?
  • Falcon what is suppose to be an owl in the greek mythology but Egyptians apparently turned it into falcon or the americans turned it into falcon, what is praised as a falcon in U.S.A. Does this Falcon/Owl arrive in any other religion/mythology?
  • Wolf/Jackel – Who’s this? Apperantely Osirus from Egyptian mythology/religion… Does this wolf/jackel arrive in any other religion/mythology?

( (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

If you go to Lion, it has a section called "Cultural depictions of lions" that can answer some of your questions. You may find similar sections in articles on other animals as well. --Jayron32 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In terms of ancient Egyptian iconography, the jackal was associated with Anubis, the falcon with Horus, and the lion with Sekhmet... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand some of what says here. The Greek owl, the Egyptian falcon, and the American eagle are unrelated symbols. See Eagle#Eagles in culture and Owl#Symbolism and mythology. The Egyptians saw falcons as a symbol of several deities, such as the sky and sun gods Horus and Ra and the war god Montu, because of falcons' aggression and obvious link with the sky. That symbolism behind the falcon appears in the Predynastic Period of Egypt, long before Greek civilization existed. For the significance of lionesses in Egypt, and some of the meaning behind the sphinx, see Eye of Ra and my replies to a reference desk question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 5#How the Uraeus (Cobra) on the Nemes (headress) does it associate with the sphinx?. The jackal represented several Egyptian gods who were linked with the afterlife, including Anubis, Wepwawet, and Khenti-Amentiu. Jackals were not generally a symbol of Osiris, although there's faint evidence that he was depicted as a jackal very early in Egyptian history, when he wasn't clearly distinguished from those other afterlife gods. A. Parrot (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few stories about owls from various North American tribes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys! Also for giving me a summary! -- ( (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Is there a time boundary between a new religious movement and an older religion?[edit]

Is there a time boundary between a new religious movement and an older religion? Where do people generally draw the line? Is time the only factor, and if so, does this mean the so-called NRMs today may become traditional religions centuries from now? (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think if it's around when you're growing up, it counts as being around forever. If it's something you discover after your preconceived notions harden into a foundation, it's new. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Here's a published opinion that doesn't exactly answer your question, but may give some hints. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is a boundary, until a massive group of people start performing satanic activities. Satanic activities as in from petty stuff to big stuff, with one or many others. Then someone comes in the name of God almighty and establishes; a new movement is done either by themself's or by/together with the disciples... -- ( (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
Are you claiming that "a massive group of people .... performing satanic activities" somehow makes a religion "old"? Perhaps you have heard Satanism described as "the old religion", but I don't think this is what the OP was asking. It seems to be a modern Western trait to reject the religion of one's parents and to look for something new. Dbfirs 14:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The OP was in effect asking two questions: (1) Is how long it's been around the only thing that distinguishes a NRM from an ORM? And (2a) If "Yes", how long does it take for a NRM to become an ORM? (2b) If "No", how are they different? The way I interpret Russell's comment that the answer to (1) is "No" and to (2b) that "old" religions appeared out of necessity in reaction to a massive rise in evil in the world. He doesn't really explain what triggers the appearance of NRMs but by contrast maybe he thinks it is based on more superficial reasons. Contact Basemetal here 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant when they scale begans to imbalance over a period of time. Beside Satanism is just like Abrahamic and other religions, since Satan is the cause, why not give him an opportunity? Its God's creation we are discussing about UDbfirs. I don't know whether I answered the question correctly or not, I was quite eager to help, since I received a lot of help from you guys... Sorry! SMocking.gif -- ( (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
There are plenty of Japanese new religions, Vietnam (see Cao Đài and it's see also section), and elsewhere. Many of the west's NRMs are eastern religions that just didn't become as large back east. C.f. ISKCON, which, despite being founded in New York, is pretty much a (not the only) form of traditional Hinduism repackaged for the west.
This work classifies the difference as a matter of how much the religious organization accommodates the host culture (although in some cases, at least from my biased secular Western perspective, it's as much a matter of how much the host culture accommodates the religion). This work mentions off hand "three or four decades," but it could be listing as examples, as elsewhere it discusses what are now mainstream or even traditional religions as being NRMs originally (e.g. the Quakers).
The issue appears to not be time so much as broader acceptance and in broad or narrow a societal context you're studying. The LDS church would definitely qualify as an NRM if studying religion in China, and Taoism a traditional religion for China, but the LDS church is (now) the traditional religion of Utah, and a Taoist movement would be an NRM in Utah. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Have there been attempts to secularize Christianity?[edit]

Far Eastern religio-philosophical traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, can be seen as religion, as philosophy, and as political ideology. Likewise, I am wondering if people have ever made an attempt to secularize Christianity or a branch of it, so that people would just listen to Christian teachings on how to live a decent life for oneself in this world instead of caring or worrying so much about everlasting salvation or eternal damnation. (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well... in some ways the entire point of the "Christian teachings on how to live a decent life" is to achieve salvation. Salvation is the goal of Christianity. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Deists in the 18th century often argued that one could separate Jesus' moral teachings from supernatural claims about him. Thomas Jefferson attempted to produce a rational version of the NT. 19th century writers such as Ernest Renan (who described Jesus as an "incomparable human being") adopted versions of the same approach. Max Muller engaged in debates with Hindu thinkers, notably Protap Chunder Mozoomdar as part of an attempt to rethink Christian theology in the light of Indian Vedantic philosophy. A somewhat different approach was Arthur Drews, who argued that Christianity must accept that it is a form of myth, that the "Christ cult" was sucessful because it was more emotionally and morally satisfying than its rivals. For Drews getting back to Jesus as a man with some good ideas was pointless, rather the mythology of "the idea of a god-man" needed to be expanded. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Link is Jefferson Bible... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There's some overlap of the Ten Commandments and various laws. Googling "this is your God" turns up a lot of dollar bills. Most of them have aliens on them, but they are based on the actual words "In God We Trust". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what the far Eastern religio-philosophical traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, have to do with the question; could you explain a little more, Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, Taoism and Confucianism are sometimes viewed as "religion" and "philosophy". Confucianism has been labelled as a "religion", probably because the seemingly devotional practices of revering and respecting one's ancestors as an expression of filial piety really don't appear to be merely philosophy, so it gets labelled under "religion", even though Chinese ancestral veneration actually predates Confucianism. Yet, Taoism and Confucianism both are well-developed philosophies that have influenced China and the Far East for centuries. I am just wondering if there is a parallel in Christianity, where people embrace Christian philosophy and theology but may or may not engage in devotional practices, but may kiss the statues of saints as a way to give respect or offer prayers to saints, as they were once human beings. (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Christianity is about love, so you could say those in the Crusades who just wanted to travel and fight weren't exactly devoted to the religious part, but would still say the words to indulge themselves before indulging themselves. That reminds me, Vatican City exists. That's about as secular as any religion gets. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
One could argue that this secularisation has already happened for lots of people, especially in countries with a Christian background but with very low active participation these days in religious practices, such as the Scandinavian countries, and my own country, Australia. The social rules on "how to live a decent life" are drawn from Christianity, but hardly anybody goes to church any more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A Charlie Brown Christmas is a strange and popular mix of Jesus' message and Santa's appeal. It's also about that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
See Jefferson Bible, Deism, arguably Unitarian Universalism, etc. --Jayron32 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a WP article on it, but there's a current of modern Christianity sometimes derided as "Christmas and Easter Christianity" or "Wedding and Funeral Christianity" where the participants are basically secular but take part in religious events out of tradition or convenience rather than theological belief. Christian humanism and/or Christian atheism are maybe too formal for what I'm thinking, but may be worth perusing. Matt Deres (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Cultural Christian is what I was thinking of, though that article is basically a placeholder. Having spent a few minutes searching related articles, I must say that there are many different forms of being "not Christian" and/or "not Christian enough". Matt Deres (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few of those also only give God a shout when they're fornicating, coveting or vomiting. Sort of like butt-dialing the cops during a robbery, I imagine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Christianity covers such a broad spectrum of cultures and political views that I don't think it'd really be possible to arrive at a consistent ideology without really just applying a quasi-Christian sheen to an existing cultural and political worldview. Christianity has believers ranging from communists (China even has state-sponsored churches) to a (twice-ironically) named opposite number. Christianity includes the Amish and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The only consistent element among them is the belief that Jesus was (or from the Christian's perspective, is) God and that that's important in some way.
Seeing how the state churches of Denmark and Norway claim at least half of the population as members, while between a third to three-quarters of their populations are degrees of nontheistic, Søren Kierkegaard was prophetic in his claim that mixing church and state only benefits the latter (at best). I suppose the results could be worse.
Still, within Christianity, there are existentialist and humanist currents that place less emphasis on the afterlife or treat it entirely as a moot point (see Karl Barth on Election and Salvation for one particular view), and some theologians (e.g. Paul Tillich, Simone Weil) who (except in the case of Jesus) present God as a non-personal ground-of-being along the lines of the Logos or the Tao (such that Tillich is sometimes confused with an atheist for affirming a God that is beyond existence). There are also a number of Christian individuals who have advocated secularism as a means of carrying out "love thy neighbor," including Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, John Dee, Roger Williams (and a fair amount of historical Baptists), and William Penn (and Quakers in general). Indeed, much of Renaissance interest in Hermeticism was tied to an attempt to synthesize Greco-Roman philosophy, Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism into a common ground to end wars of religion (at least in Europe). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Domesday Survey Map[edit]

Hi, I'm currently completing a university project on the Domesday survey commissioned by William the Conqueror and was wondering if there were maps, which highlight the lands which were defined as 'waste', just to illustrate the Harrying of the North? Thanks in advance --Andrew 22:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE) Domesday website? [Here]. I can't find an obvious way to create a map of Domesday 'waste' land, but there might be a way. You might consider visiting the 'Contact' and/or 'Help' pages for that site.  —I hope this helps, (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, I've sent the director of the project an email, and I've also submitted a freedom of information request to the National archive to see if they have statistics about how much of the land was defined as waste, and in which regions of the country. Thanks again --Andrew 00:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Israeli ministers Mizrahi sephardic 1948[edit]

Besides Eli Yishai, Aryeh Deri, Moshe Kahlon and Shlomo Ben Ami, who were the other ministers that were of Mizrahi and Sephardic origin since 1948, the year Israel became independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There were David Levy, Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz, Yitzhak Mordechai, Ovadia Eli, and probably lots more. WP has lists of Israeli ministers for almost all ministries and since the birth of the state. Just go through the names there and check their biography. For example this is the list of ministers of defense and this is the list of foreign ministers. And there are also lists for deputy ministers for most ministries. Do your homework. You obviously haven't been looking very hard.Contact Basemetal here 02:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Muslims and the Koran[edit]

(1) How many Muslims (as an integer and as a percentage of all Muslims) own a copy of the Koran (either in Arabic or in another language)? (2) How many Muslims (as an integer and as a percentage of all Muslims) have read all the Koran (either in Arabic or in another language)?
Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) and 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean 'practising muslims' only, or do you include 'non-practising muslims'? Do you include those muslims in Africa (and places in Asia) who are unable to read? Not every muslim can speak or read Classical Arabic or even their own language. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 09:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean "people who identify themselves as Muslims". Practice, location, language, and literacy are irrelevant.
Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You should also be aware that many Muslims who do not understand Classical or any other variety of Arabic are trained to be able to 'read' and pronounce aloud the Arabic text of the Koran without having any understanding of what the sounds mean; this is in itself considered meritorious. However, most of them will likely be literate in at least one other language and will likely have read a translation of the Koran into that language. No specific citation available, but this is something I learned from a recent BBC documentary on early Christian texts. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In my second question, I mean "have read ... with understanding (of the words and sentences, even if not necessarily of the accepted religious interpretation)".
Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Panda are Tibetans[edit]

Is there any truth to and other similar argument ([52]) saying the Giant panda is Tibetan? The last habitats of the species does fall in the region of Greater Tibet but historically panda ranged were mainly in the China proper in the river valleys.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is often half true. Pandas are quite Chinese, or panda diplomacy wouldn't work. Some live on the Tibetan plateau, but not as many. Some Chinese people live in Russia or India. Are Chinese people Russian or Indian? Sort of, sometimes. But mostly Chinese. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
I think it would depend on what passport they have applied for. If pandas born in China applied for a passport (and agreed to the one-child policy, rather than their own 'no-child policy, which they seem to currently adhere to), then they would get a Chinese passport, entitling them to Chinese nationality. Please note, that Tibet is politically part of China (according to everyone in the world besides Tibetans and student activists who want to be part of a group so they can feel good with themselves about 'defending' the rights of the people of a territory they have never even been to), so Tibetan pandas would also be of Chinese nationality regardless. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 08:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This of course brings up all of the complex, overlapping, and confusing issues related to nationality and ethnicity. Nationality is usually taken to mean roughly the same thing as citizenship or permanent residence or something similar: a person born and legally subject to the laws of, as well as having the rights accorded to, the state which has political control of said land. In that case, of course, all Tibetans are Chinese nationals. They are not, however, ethnically Chinese, in the sense that "ethnic Chinese" usually refers to Han Chinese, which is the dominant ethnic group within China. Whether or not each ethnic group should also have right to a sovereign state is a touchy subject and one fraught with complex problems. Insofar as some pandas live in Tibet/Xizang then they would be "Tibetan" pandas, but insofar as others live in areas traditionally populated by Han Chinese, they would also be Han Chinese. And all those pandas living within both of those areas also live within the PRC, and so live within the usual understanding of China. --Jayron32 12:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Another case could be made that wild life simply does not possess the aspect of nationality. We could say that the California_tiger_salamander is endemic to California, and California is part of the United States, but it would be weird (if not wrong) to say a tiger salamander was American. It can't vote or own property, or do any of the other things that American citizens have rights to do... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A salamander's rights (such as they are) are laid out in other legislation. Like the Fish and Wildlife Act or Animal Welfare Act of 1966. If she moved to Denmark, those wouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on. But if she stays in Calfifornia, she's an American, dammit! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are so vague, you may as well say salamanders are equal to "all men" in that regard. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
What would you expect ? That's democracy: googling gets 335000 positive hits, only 19300 when typing ( Note that the second gives much more attractive results: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark:Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us ; Why do they hate us? at; Bill Shaxberd Club: Jim's now a Blind Cave Salamander! etc, etc, -- (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's some damn fine investigation. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is that, of course, but we're just playing around with words, rather than getting at the crux of the question. The question could have easily been worded (with no change of meaning, really) "are Pandas endemic to Tibet or to China", the answer being "Yes, No, or it depends on what you mean by Tibet and China". It doesn't change the problem or the answers. But it does make pedants feel superior to others, so there is that... --Jayron32 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it does change the question, and my goal wasn't to be pedantic. Pandas are currently endemic to the land currently controlled by PRC, that is a simple fact confirmed by the maps at giant panda and PRC. That is a question of science. Pandas also live in some lands claimed by some parties to be part of "greater Tibet," and to be fair to OP, deciding what is "Tibet" is a humanities question. When we start talking about nationality, of Tibet or whatever sense of "China", that's outside my ken. So the question is sort of conflating a humanist perspective with the perspective of science (e.g. historical range of species, historical range of governments). To me, the FB page seems to be trying to co-opt science and the range of a species for some political message. I guess my point was that, scientifically speaking, it doesn't make much sense to say "Pandas are Tibetan." And independent of anyone's feelings on these topics, the scientific statement is that species have ranges, not nationalities. Think of it this way, the species does what it does no matter what lines a government may draw. IH is correct to point out that governments and laws do have some effect on an organisms population, but that isn't part of the organism's nature. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Then I guess the nomenclaturists will need to rethink the names of the American green tree frog, the Australian green tree frog, the Burmese python, the Argentine Black and White Tegu, et al. Not to mention the Norwegian Blue parrot. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Those are common names, and not beholden to any of the bodies of scientific naming convention. But your point carries even in to binomial nomenclature, where there are myriad species with e.g. 'virginianus', 'sinensis', and other place-names as their specific epithet. But those are not establishing nationality, or even range. E.g. Odocoileus virginianus, the white-tailed deer, is not in any sense endemic to the state of Virginia (nor was it ever), and it is found currently across huge swaths of the USA. I haven't read up on any rules for place names use as specific epithets recently, but I think the idea is that it connotes a place where the species can be found, and that is all. All I'm pointing out is that "nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country", and hence non-human animals do not have nationalities. To me, "Pandas are Tibetan" sounds like an association of nationality, and that's why I've responded how I have. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that "it connotes a place where the species can be found", what does that say about Strigiphilus garylarsoni? Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If garylarsoni is a place name, I want to go to there :) But seriously, naming after famous people is another reason why scientific names shouldn't be interpreted as containing much literal meaning about the organism (even though sometimes they do). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
All of this shows just how arbitrary national borders are. It is humans who need to carve up the earth, feel superior about being born inside an arbitrary set of lines, and build walls to prevent people born outside those lines from entering "their" country. Pandas don't know or care about national borders. They were living on Earth long before the first country existed, and if they're not driven to extinction, they'll be here long after the borders are redrawn. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times West Side Plant[edit]

Apparently in 1959 the New York Times built a building called the "West Side Plant" in Manhattan near the Hudson River. Gay Talese mentions it in his book on the Times. I gather that at one point they considered moving all their offices there, but in fact they made rather limited use of it, and I believe it was eventually demolished.

I've marked it with a note in Commons:File:THE WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK. THE NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN REGION IS ONE THE MOST CONGESTED URBAN... - NARA - 555742.jpg, where it is visible from a sign on the building. Can anyone work out (from the photo or otherwise) exactly where this was? I can't find an address online anywhere, and either (likely) the terrain has changed so much that I can't make sense of it from Google Earth or (less likely) I'm looking in totally the wrong place. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was at 40°46′31″N 73°59′18″W / 40.7754°N 73.9884°W / 40.7754; -73.9884. As you can see, the large apartment complex on the left side of the photo is still standing between 66th and 70th streets, and the group of low-rise apartment buildings behind the plant in the photo are those bounded by 61st and 64th streets and West End and Amsterdam (10th) avenues. (The building immediately behind it is clearly identifiable as this one.) Deor (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! You got it! - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Account registry of Louis XIII's household[edit]

I am looking for a list of the court expenditures of Louis XIII, and in particular a list of the pensions paid to courtiers. (The exact year doesn't matter to me.) I gather from scattered references in genealogical books (e.g, Thomas J. Laforest's Our French-Canadian Ancestors, Vol. 5, p. 104) that the household account registries have been published or archived somewhere. I did locate an online copy of Griselle's 1912 book État de la maison du roi Louis XIII, which is an exhaustive list of courtiers, but almost without exception it doesn't list any pensions. Can anyone help, or suggest where I could look? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

An Inventaire du registre « États d’officiers des Maisons des rois Louis XIII, Louis XIV et Louis XV, des Maisons des reines, etc. (1638-1725) is available, that's giving access to views of the original documents, through the Gallica archives website. I keep looking for more analytic and directly readable data. --Askedonty (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty impressive! Yes, it looks like the information I seek is contained there, though it is exceedingly difficult to extract. If you find a more accessible list, in digitized text, which simply maps names of people (or their positions) to their annual pensions, please let me know. It would be nice to simply search, for example, for "André Du Chesne" and find that he received 2400 livres as Royal Geographer, or for "Royal Historiographer" and find that the position was occupied by Jean Puget de la Serre who received 2000 écus. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following extract of Economie et finances sous l'Ancien Regime/ Guide chercheur(fr) describes what is what and which have been lost, or destroyed in the various archives. The royal household account registry Secrétariat d’État de la Maison du Roi is considered as a relatively small department before the reign of King Louis XIV, unfortunately, destruction des comptes de la monarchie pendant la Révolution or "accounts destroyed during the French Revolution" shows losses relative to the Louis XIII era, namely: Ecuries du Roi, 1598-1634, 117 vol., Officiers de la Maison du Roi, 1598-1634, 92 vol., Gages des secrétaires du Roi, 1629-1718, 45 vol. 1. It must be stated that accidental fires had already cost several important pieces of various parts of the archives of the state during the monarchy (L’incendie de 1737...) --Askedonty (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I see—so the data I'm looking for might not exist any more, or at least not compiled in one place. Thanks for the information. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I hoped I could locate a kind of compilation like you were asking for, I know some must exist but I'm not able to find one in free access. Some of the missing data would have been compiled from other sources, like often, private correspondences. Those directories could not be exhaustive however, there so are many functions in the Royal house ( WP:Fr Maison du roi; the corresponding English article is similar only a bit less detailed ). The following tables could be useful to you perhaps : [53]. (It's an edition 1789) --Askedonty (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

third largest diplomatic mission[edit]

U.S.A. has the largest diplomatic network and France has the second largest. Who has the third largest diplomatic network? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you find the data about the US and France? Contact Basemetal here 02:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Some clarifications would be good here. A network consists of many missions. Are you asking about the relative sizes of missions (as per your header) or of networks (as per the text of your question). If it's about missions, the "size" of a mission can be measured in at least two ways I can think of. Are you asking about the number of people there, or the physical area of the land on which the building(s) are located? If the question is about networks, are you asking about the number of missions in each network or the total number of people involved in each network? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well according to the article "List of diplomatic missions of France", the last sentence of the paragraph says "..France has the world's second largest diplomatic network, second to the network of the United States." Yes, I am talking about diplomatic missions, meaning who has the largest numbers of embassies or high commissions in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The user who added that information to the article (w/o source; presumably he simply counted the number of embassies) is the creator of the article namely an editor going by the username of Kransky. He's still active. Why don't you ask him? If you get an answer please come back here and update us. Note that a question regarding the contents of a specific article can also be asked on that article's talk page. Contact Basemetal here 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
PS To leave a message for that user go to his talk page. Alternatively you can ping him like I'm doing now: @Kransky: We've been mentioning you. He'll be notified he's been mentioned on this page, will come here, will see what's going on and may give us an answer if he so chooses. Contact Basemetal here 23:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You might not get a reply from Kransky, or at least a speedy reply — he's made just three edits this month, five in the last six months, and fourteen since the beginning of 2013. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
And his global contributions are these. You can see he's got a Commons account (last edit 2011!) and a Wikiquote account (last edit 2007!). Oh well. I gave it my best shot. Could he have non-SUL accounts besides these? I believe he's Russian so he may have an account on the Russian WP. But I think I'll stop here. @OP: I tried my best to help you. If you really must know you still may count the number of embassies for various "List of diplomatic missions of ..." articles. If you intend to do that I'd suggest you check these first: List of diplomatic missions of Russia, List of diplomatic missions of Germany, List of diplomatic missions of China, List of diplomatic missions of Japan, List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, List of diplomatic missions of the European Union, before you go on to check say List of diplomatic missions of Liechtenstein. But you will not know for sure you've got the right answer until you check all of them. Contact Basemetal here 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Given the foregoing, this might result in something. No harm trying. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, as you guessed, it is likely that the claim in the article is based upon the "Total numbers of embassies" that a country has, by which measure (see link here) US is on the top with 172; France second with 154; and, UK and Germany a joint third with 149. However that is data from 2000 and, as Jack pointed out above, there are different ways of measuring the size of diplomatic missions/network. So the claim needs to be at least clarified and ideally updated with more recent numbers.

PS: I am also not sure whether the numbers I quote above corresponds to embassies in the country, or of the country although its possible that those two numbers match in any case (anyone know for certain?) Abecedare (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems they may not: compare List of diplomatic missions of Liechtenstein and List of diplomatic missions in Liechtenstein. Contact Basemetal here 03:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That confirms that the numbers need not match and leaves open the question as to what the numbers quoted in the excel sheet I linked to, mean exactly. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The Holy See sees even more than the Five Eyes through its missions. Technically, more about religion, but if you know how to spread God's word and hear back from him, you can do the same for a Pope. Or a Cardinal. Or a Bishop. Anyone really. Who knows what they confess in those booths? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

ISIS recruits[edit]

Does ISIS have any female fighters on the front lines? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They have Al' Khansaa and Umm al' Rayan. Not sure if they meet whatever the definition of "front line" is in a war like this, but they're for quashing rebellion within the territory, rather than expanding it. Sort of like police. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
These "stupid little girls" didn't quite make the team. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
See also ISIS Is Actively Recruiting Female Fighters To Brutalize Other Women. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If life were as simple and direct as Business Insider's headlines, all the "other women" would sign up for ISIS, and there'd be nobody left to brutalize. Except a "significantly escalated" ISIS, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Social class just prior to the Communist era in China?[edit]

What was the social class hierarchy prior to the Communist era in China? Specifically, what did it mean to be a writing teacher who owned farmland? What about a restaurant owner? (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The class system in China was in flux during the early 20th century. Are you referring to the (20th century) period immediately prior to the Communist victory in 1949? Or are you referring to the imperial era that preceded it? During the imperial era, a landowner who taught writing would have been a member of the landed gentry, the class with the highest social status, though there was wide variation in wealth and status within that class. A restaurant owner was a kind of merchant. In imperial China, merchants were officially the class with one of the lowest statuses (below that of peasants but above that of slaves), though in practice, wealthy merchants lived more comfortable lives and received more deferential treatment than peasants. The owner of an ordinary restaurant, though, would probably not have been wealthy and would have had low status. The Republic of China (1912–1949) had a more capitalistic and commercial orientation, and merchants, including even small merchants such as restaurant owners, gained in status relative to peasants. At the same time, the landed gentry tended to decline in status, especially if they were not owners of large amounts of land. As is the case in most capitalist societies, status in the Republican era tended to correlate more with wealth or connection to wealth than with occupation or family of origin. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to the early part of the 20th century. From the turn of the century to the rise of the Communist party. What would be the status of a writing teacher who owns farmland but may hire workers to farm the land during the Republican era? How common, during the Republican era, would a teacher-landowner's child marry a restaurant owner's child, and both children live in the city, doing unskilled labor? (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact, it would have been illegal for the child of the landed gentry to marry a merchant's child under imperial law. After the Xinhai Revolution of 1912, the law prohibiting marriage between classes remained on the books, but it was not always enforced. Freedom of marriage was not enshrined in the law until the passage of a new family law in the Republic in 1931. Basically, at least before the 1930s, it would have been unlikely and surprising for a child of the landed gentry to marry the child of a restaurant owner. However, if the restaurant owner's income were greater than that of the teacher, then the marriage, though of questionable legality, might have taken place. The teacher might feel uncomfortable about his child marrying into a petty merchant family, but declining gentry might consider trading status for money in a marriage. That said, of course love knows no laws, and the child of the landed gentry might find a way to marry the person he or she loved without concern for the law or parental approval. Such an action would have been exceptional and somewhat scandalous in China at that time, however. As for the likelihood that the newlyweds would do unskilled labor, again, this would be surprising and somewhat scandalous in the eyes of at least the landed gentry. It would be unlikely unless the child of the landed gentry had married surreptitiously and without parental approval and either 1) the restaurant owner had little income and could not offer his child an opportunity better than unskilled work or 2) the child of the restaurant owner also defied his or her parent's wishes and both newlyweds were cut off from their families. Basically, the scenario you propose would be unusual and bordering on scandalous in the social context you mention, at least before the 1930s. The manual labor part is hard to imagine after 1931 unless one or both families had low incomes and/or the newlyweds married against their parents' wishes at a time when few Chinese would do such a thing. Marco polo (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure literacy and the teaching profession were limited to the landed gentry? I do remember reading that people from all social classes could take the imperial examinations. Also, the peasant families, in contrast to their European counterparts, were not bound to the land. Perhaps, some rural families could have owned a patch of land and, if they were literate, used their knowledge to teach or record family trees. As far as I know, my paternal grandparents are described by my father to be urban factory workers who met after they lived in the city for a while. My father's paternal grandfather owned land in the countryside and was a teacher by trade. My father's maternal grandfather was a restaurant owner in the city. My father has personal anecdotes of going to his father's side of the family, the rural country, on holidays, so his father was probably on good terms with his family. It's also my father's rural side of the family that keeps a family tree by male descent. My father showed me a picture of the family tree, and I noticed that I was on there too. My mother's side of the family is even stranger. My maternal grandmother, my mother's mother, attended medical school and practiced modern medicine, and my maternal grandfather was the director of a company. My maternal grandmother's brother and his son also practiced medicine and were the first to come to the United States. What's the likelihood that a family would have educated a daughter? What was the likelihood of Chinese women practicing medicine in the 1950s and 1960s? (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but Imperial_examination seems like it has some useful info. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we've set off on the wrong foot here. "Owned land" is not necessarily the same as "landed gentry". There are many possible scenarios because early 20th century China was a society in flux: ancient families found themselves penniless refugees while Chairman Mao went from working as a peasant to being de facto president. It's very possible that your grandfather was a teacher in some kind of public school who supplemented his unreliable income with a small piece of farmland (not working it himself but hiring labour or bringing in relatives). The family tree might well have been something that the whole village recorded communally, so it says your grandfather was a least a peasant but not much more. Your mother's side, I agree, sounds exceptional. One avenue worth exploring: does your family have a Christian heritage? That would make this story more likely: your paternal grandfather working in a missonary school; a Christian family would have been far more likely to educate your maternal grandmother in the early 20th century. The Communists (for different reasons) have also promoted women's education and in the 1950s and '60s,it would have been quite common to have female doctors on the Mainland. Any details of dates would reduce the amount of guesswork. And if you'd like to get a feel for social change in this era, then why not start by reading Fortress Besieged? Matt's talk 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of any Christians in the family. The Communists promoting women's education in the 1950s and 60s would be more plausible, because my grandmother presumably was educated and worked during that time period. (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talmudic (?) quotation[edit]

I've been trying to track down the source of a particular sentence that has been running through my head:

A truth that does not bring peace is not the truth.

I first heard or read it a few years ago, definitely either in conversation with a rabbi or while studying Judaism. I thought it was a quotation from the Talmud, and I seem to have connected it in my memory to Ketuboth 16b, which concerns a debate over whether or not it is morally permissible to tell a woman (specifically, a bride on her wedding day) that she is beautiful if one does not really think she is beautiful. I may have the particular context wrong, but I am close to certain that it is a saying from a Jewish legal text of some kind. That doesn't exactly narrow it down, I know, but I know we have some well-read scholars of Judaism here, and any help would be appreciated. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas, "truth" and "peace" are all too common words, if not so commonly found together in the world. Might try this strategy: find a likely scriptural inspiration for quote and work scholarly indexes. Possibly derived from the sense (one without other folly, e.g., contradiction) of Psalm 85? That (stub) article says, "Verse 8 is the fifth verse of Hoshia Et Amecha from Pesukei Dezimra. (ref:) The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 64." If not there, Ps. 85 - or another apropos Biblical verse - might still help in using other scriptural indexes to presumed Talmudic sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Second thoughts: My first reading conflates two hierarchical terms; your quote valorizes peace over truth. That sense of the priority of peace over truth is caught in this gloss of Genesis 50:16-17:
On the basis of this, a rabbi in the Talmud ruled that "it is permissible for a person to modify a statement in the interest of peace." Another rabbi maintained that one was required to do so (b. Yebam. 65b). The brothers' lie is defensible because of the good relations it enured - a result that Jacob, on a plain-sense reading, surely desired.
The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford (2004), p.100
With that as at least one likely Talmudic source for variations on the theme (and note, that Yevamot deals with your recalled context of marriage), I'll leave it to others who have access to the texts. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Architectural terminology[edit]

Herrington Bethel Church.jpg

What do you call the little structure at the front of the roofline? It's the wrong shape for a cupola, and I don't know if it has bells in it, so I'm hesitant to call it a belfry. It's seemingly not used for getting a good view of things (this church was built in the wilderness in the woods, so they couldn't have seen very far away), so not a belvedere, and it's rather too tiny for a turret. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It fits one of the pictures in the cupola article, and might be used for the same purpose, ventilation. However, you might be best off to write to that church and ask them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the congregation's seemingly defunct; it was Methodist, and it's not listed in the church finder for, which lists several churches in the surrounding countryside. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Calling it a cupola in the newly expanded article that I was working on. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I just have to wonder, does someone own that property? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In Ohio, as of ±10 years ago (when my church was trying to get rid of a piece of property), our lawyer told our minister that when a property owner no longer wanted to own a cemetery, the owner may transfer it to the township trustees, and the township trustees were obliged to take it; perhaps the local Annual Conference just gave it to Augusta Township. I tried and failed to find a GIS page, at which presumably I'd be able to find the owner. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Architecturally, this looks like a cupola, that is the outer shell is a cupola. Cupolas can be used for different purposes, such as a belfry, widow's walk, etc. Churches often used them for ventilation and the shutters on this one lend some evidence for that. --Mark viking (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
They can also be called "roof turrets". A few people tend to refuse to calling them cupolas unless meaning the structure named so in the railroads, because cupola was originally meaning a round structure, such as that which can be seen on the top of many of the various Capitol buildings.--Askedonty (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there is no one true definition here. Some sources require cupolas to have domed roofs, others don't. --Mark viking (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I used to go to a school with a structure identical to that and was told it was a belfry, even though there was no bell in it.--TammyMoet (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This website (which sells the things) calls them "Cupolas (Roof Turrets)", so either term seems to be acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I would imagine that it was originally intended to house a bell, hence the louvres to let the sound out. Following that link, we have an image of a 19th century school building in London, with the caption "Louvered cupola bell house". Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fiction story ID[edit]

There was a fiction book story (the author was possibly American), in which the duration of the sunrise gradually shortened with each day by a fraction of a second, the day duration decreases and then various nasty beings start to appear. No clues other than that. Any suggestions? Brandmeistertalk 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A Deepness in the Sky has a kind of strobelight sun, but there the blink-rate gradually decreases... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


October 24[edit]

V & W[edit]

I have just been watching an episode of QI, and they were talking about speakers of (other) Germanic languages mixing up 'v' and 'w' when speaking English. I spend a lot of time with speakers of Germanic languages (job, friends, etc.) and I have noticed this phenomenon many, many times. I thought it was just something that the particular people I was mixing with had a problem with. "Vere is the willage?" ("Where is the village?") would be an example. The program has confirmed for me that this is common. Why would this happen? Has anybody here also experienced it? I am not making fun of Germanic speakers, but I just find it quite interesting. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 05:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is hypercorrection. —Kusma (t·c) 05:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
German does not have a /w/ sound (although /ʋ/ is an allophone of /v/ in some dialects). Therefore it is likely that these speakers can't differentiate between /w/ and /v/, perceiving them to be the same sound. See also: Free variation.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably it's not so much that they strictly cannot perceive the difference, but the difference is not very salient to them, as one of the sounds has no function in German (or other Germanic languages, don't know what it's like there). Plus, the letter "w" regularly has the [v] pronunciation in German, and many easily recognizable cognates / translation equivalents have this letter in both languages, but are pronounced with [v] in German and [w] in English. Fut.Perf. 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the case, Germans unconsciously tend to pronounce the letter like in their own language. For example, I believe, Russians have less problems as first "w" is not associated with anything in Russian and second "w" is usually transliterated as у "u", so if they say in Russian Uol Strit (Wall Street), they'd rather say in English [wol] or [u̯ol].--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker of German (NSG) and have wondered myself. I don't think that "the difference is not very salient to them". You can test this by asking a native speaker of English to make a /w/–/v/ mistake while saying something. Ask an NSG if they noticed anything odd. I expect that even an NSG with only basic knowledge of English will immediately spot the mistake, and will have no problem producing the sounds in isolation, yet the same NSG will make /w/–/v/ mistakes hirself when xi speaks. I think this has little to do with perception; it's about phonotactics and articulation. It occurs in people who lack training in the production of sequences of many alien sounds in a row. Within a sentence, you have to twist your tongue to quickly switch from [v] to [ɹ] to [w]. The required brain-muscle coordination takes some getting used to. "The difference is not very salient to them" (or even "They perceive them to be the same sound") may instead explain mergers such as met–mat. Not sure if some of us even merge bed–bad–bet–bat to [bɛt]; I guess bad would get a long vowel and all others a short one with many speakers of German English. (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my response was written rather hastily and late at night. The three responses above are much better. I was thinking more in terms of a monoglot, but the OP's question is specifically about English as foreign language. As says, even with basic instruction, /w/ and /v/ would consciously be perceived as different sounds in isolation (although I still maintain maybe not as different phonemes by some speakers). Also speakers of languages/dialects where /ʋ/ is an allophone of /v/ may be using /ʋ/ for /w/ (i.e. "ʋillage") and we, as native English speakers not accustomed to /ʋ/ are hearing it as /w/.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
How do Germans say "Volkswagen"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
In German? [ˈfɔlksˌva:ɡən]. Written "v" is normallyf [f] in native words, though [v] in some loanwords. Fut.Perf. 14:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. So would an actual German sayin English "Vhere is ze willage?" or would it be more likely "Vhere is ze fillage?" (Or however they would approximate our "th" sound). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't do the "v" -> [f] thing as in your "fillage". The thing is, this works more on the spoken than the written level, and the phoneme distinction between /v/ and /f/ is quite solid in German, so we wouldn't confuse those sounds when we hear them in English. [v] and [w] are confusable because they aren't a phoneme contrast in German; [f] doesn't play into that. Fut.Perf. 14:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We do have final devoicing, however, so (ha)ve becomes [(hɛ)f]. Wiss vawious welatet ent unwelatet changess, "Where is the village?" might become some-sing like [wɛɐ̯ ʔɪs zə ˈwɪlətʃʷ]. (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you heff me rollink on ze floor. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
While keeping a final [ŋ] as such is hard to master for some nationalities, I'd think that Germans are good at not turning it to [ŋk], because they have it too. --Theurgist (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but maybe Medeis pronounces rolliŋg not rolliŋ and he thought "Germans final devoice" so... :) But No but there are places in the US where final ŋ is pronounced ŋg are there not? Contact Basemetal here 03:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, my use of rollink was a mishypercorrection. But they do say Lɔŋg Island in parts of Long Island, especially among Jewish and Italian residents of Nassau County, which borders Queens. See Lawn Guyland. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I was assuming as much :) Maybe it's clearer with "No but". And thanks for that link. I'll have a lot of fun chasing the ŋg in the speech of the people listed in the Notable speakers section. This requires paying attention as not all of them have that in their speech. Contact Basemetal here 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(Undisembiggening, since this is no longer joking) I have never in 3 decades heard Lawn Guyland in NYC, although I did meet a girl in corporate training from Long Island (Nassu County, NY) and originally from Queens who had the [ŋg] and in college I knew two girls from Nassau County who suffered from [ŋg]. (of course I spend 99% of my time in Manhattan or the Bronx, and this is likely a Brookly/Queens thing.) I can't say as I've ever actually heard it on Seinfeld, but the woman who Jerry and Elaine mocked for saying "You hafta see the bay-bee" typifies the accent, although it may be an actor's affectation. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This one? Contact Basemetal here 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the mother does say, "Why did it take so long for you..." but (1) it's not prevocalic, so it's hard to judge, and (2) the accent is hugely exaggerated and probably affected. In any case, one gets the idea. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
English speakers are also known to switch v for f. Example: the proper pronunciation of "have to" is "hav-too", but when speaking rapidly, it often comes out "haftuh". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That example is a special case of phonetic assimilation that occurs because the sequence is so frequent. Native English speakers never turn "I have two hands" into "I hafta hands". This is more like the process that has created "would'ja" from woulld you. 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry: What are 'Germanic speakers'? It seems everyone immediately interpreted this as being 'German speakers' and the 'Shadow Tiger' who OPed and presumably knows what he meant seems to agree. But to me, if anything, 'Germanic speakers' would be speakers of Germanic languages, which also includes Gothic, English, Old Norse, Yiddish and so on. How many people use 'Germanic speakers' to mean 'German speakers'? Contact Basemetal here 15:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant speakers of modern Germanic languages, such as German, Swedish, Icelandic, etc. There are not many native speakers of Gothic or Old Norse these days.... And why would I 'seem to agree', considering I hadn't written an answer to the responses yet? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 18:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. You're right. Note that in my book English is also a Germanic language so English speakers would also be Germanic speakers. Obviously you excluded those. That and the fact that all the responses concentrated on German made me wonder if there was some terminology somewhere I was unaware of. Contact Basemetal here 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed my original post, just for you. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"W" in English and "W" in other West Germanic languages are in a certain sense false friends, for English preserved the old sound /w/ from thousand years ago, whereas German and Yiddish shifted the sound from /w/ to /v/, Dutch to /ʋ/ or /β/ and so on, but both retained the spelling "W" (see for example Low German and Dutch de:Waterkant). The speakers of the other West Germanic languages with English as a second or third language will pronounce the letter "W" as in their mother tongues. This might result in /v/here is the /v/illage. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This reminds me of how those blasted Cockneys do similar things. Indeed, old Cockney speech once did confuse /w/ for /v/ (as is still seen today in Bermuda), just as they foolishly confuse /θ/ for /f/ and /ð/ for /v/. And, if I do recall, some Cockneys also final devoice, producing such phrases as "Vas/Das qui' sumfink, innit?" I wonder if this has to do with the stark immigration to London, or rather to a general process of linguistic simplification. Hmm... Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We Germans are certainly guilty as charged of this kind of hypercorrection, but German w is for many speakers more like a labiodental approximant [ʋ] than a fricative [v], so the confusion is understandable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

Why are "who" and "where" swapped in German?[edit]

I'm German, and I've always wondered why the meanings of "wo" and "wer" are swapped in English. If you want to ask for a place, you'll say "Where is ...?" in English and "Wo ist ...?" in German. If you want to ask for a person, in English it's "Who's ...?" and "Wer ist...?" in German. Why is this? --U-Bahnfreund (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (CEST)

I was going to mention that perhaps it's German that's swapped, not English. But then I saw that you'd written it that way in the title. So I'm just going to mention that "where" is "var" in Swedish, "waar" in Dutch, "hvor" in Norwegian etc., while the translations of "who" seem to differ between most languages in the family. There's an arcaic word "ho" in Swedish though, that translates to "who". / (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd reckon that it's German that has it backwards, not English. Plus, you have to keep in mind, in many senses it is German that is unconservative linguistically, not English. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Kluge's etymological dictionary, the forms of the personal question pronoun all go back to proto-Germanic forms with a final inflection *-z (Engl. who < OE hwā < G. *hwaz; German wer < G. hwiz), ultimately cognate with the IE. *-s (cf. Latin quis). The change of the Germanic z consonant into r is regular in West Germanic; why it was instead lost in English, I couldn't say off the top of my hat. The locative question, in conrast, had an actual *-r already in Germanic, so in this case r got preserved in English but lost in German (and again, I couldn't say why). Fut.Perf. 15:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
See also wo and wer. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise -- Germanic -z in absolute word-final position normally disappears in the line of development leading to Old English, so Germanic *hwaz becoming OE hwa does not require any special explanation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The extent of rhotacism in the West Germanic languages differs between three groups which seem to have been differentiating at the time the sound change (s>)z>r was occurring. English and Dutch have who and where and wie and waar, as opposed to the German wer and wo.
The West Germanic people were divided into three tribes in early classic times; the Ingvaeonic who are the ancestors of the Anglo-Frisians, the Istvaeonic, who are the ancestors of the Franks and modern Dutch, and the Irminonic, who were the ancestors of the High Germans. (This is a grand over-simplification, see Old English and its Closest Relatives for an overview.)
The Irminones tended to preserve and generalize the 'r' forms, while 's' or 0 was generalized in Ingvaeonic. For example I was is Ich war in German. Another example is "to lose" This had an original alternation between an s form in the present and an r form in the past participle; the -en ending made the s sound intervocalic, which meant a change to z, then to r. In English, the ess form became generalized in both present and past. In German the verb (with a strengthening prefix) became verlieren (pres) verloren (past). Modern Dutch preserves the alternation, verliezen, verloren. Nevertheless, English does preserve a hint of the variation in the archaic adjective forlorn which came from the old but now lost rhotic past participle. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
English "was" vs. "were" is Verner's law variation, which has been levelled out in German, but allowed to persist in English, where "to be" has become a kind of super-irregular verb... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
As I am sure you know, Verner's law applies to pre-proto-Germanic, nor Western Germanic, nor English. BY '"generalize" I was alluding to analogical change. I am afraid our being this technical may scare the young'ns. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I know just enough about linguistics to avoid the Dunning–Kruger effect, and I can tell you I find this terrifying.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

French p[edit]

Regional handwriting variation

>The French way of writing this character has a half-way ascender as the vertical extension of the descender, which also does not complete the bowl at the bottom.

I would like to see an illustration of this, as I can’t really imagine this in my head. -- (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some images: [54], [55]. (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Those two examples don't use the half-ascender, though. Here's one that does. The first line of the body text (third line altogether) reads "Je profite du jour de la". You see this style of P again in "Je me porte toujours" in the bottom line on the left, and in "petite nièce qui vousp" near the end of the text. On the other hand, in the signature the bowl of the P is closed. -- (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not just French. I've seen this (even more extremely) in hand-written legal documents in the US in at least a chunk of the 19th century. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I remember being taught to write a lowercase p that way when writing in cursive in English. I thought it was standard in cursive writing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I was taught to write cursive p's like that back in the 1960s, it's not just French. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Besides in English, where does PIE *w survive as [w] in any modern Indo-European language?[edit]

The phoneme *w of the Proto-Indo-European language has changed to /v/ or another phoneme in almost all modern PIE languages. This applies to Romance, where Latin V (originally pronounced /w/] has universally become /v/. It applies to all varieties of Modern Germanic of which I am aware, save English, where "water" is almost identical to the reconstructed form. It had changed to /f/ I believe in Goidelic (not sure in Brithonic and was lost in Greek, except for certain now extinct dialects. In all standard national Slavic languages it is /v/. I am not sure about Armenian or the Indo-Aryan languages, although the reflex is written as 'v' in Sanskrit.

The reason I ask is because in the one class I took on standard Russian, I compared some of m dialectal differences, and it occurred that in (my version) of the Rusyn language the supposed /v/ of Slavic had three reflexes: [v], [w] and [f]. Dva "two" and tvoy "thy" had the [v] allophone, word finally, as in Lviv, it has the devoiced [f] allophone, but in other cases, such as čerweny "red" and zdrawy "healthy" (both of which trace back to PIE *w, the [w] allophone is present. The -ovat' verb suffix of Russian is -[owati] in Rusyn, and there are many other examples, but I am not sure they are not recent developments.

In any case, my question is, are there other surviving Indo-European dialects which retain a [w] allophone descended from the PIE *w phoneme? (I am not interested in cases like the Polish ł where a secondary [w] sound has evolved from a different source. Thanks μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If I do recall correctly, in some dialects of Dutch, "w" is /w/. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That is correct, particularly in Surinamese Dutch (and sometimes in Flemish and dialects in the south of the Netherlands). In Standard Dutch, /w/ is also used for "w", but only in the middle of words (e.g. in "duwen"), while initial "w" is pronounced /ʋ/ (e.g. in "water"). - Lindert (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Lindert or User:Tharthan, can you comment on walvis ("whale") in Standard Dutch and/or vs Flemish? μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think that "duwen" necessarily counts as a continuation from PIE, though. The proto-Germanic form is þūhijaną, which probably indicates a lengthening of the stem vowel or an excrescent glide between adjacent vowels as in isiZulu. However, wiktionary says "water" is /wa:tər/ in Belgium, which is unequivocal.
Any others? μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
How about modern IA? First, was Sanskrit v (व) bilabial or labiodental? I don't think one can rely on modern Indian pronunciations of Sanskrit as those have been contaminated by the vernaculars, so the answer depends I guess on the interpretation of the ancient phonetic treatises. So what's the scholarly consensus? Skt. v: bilabial or labiodental? Next, I saw that in most cases Skt. v turns into something like v (Hindi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Punjabi, Sinhalese) or something like b (Bengali, Oriya, Assamese). Couldn't find anything about Marathi. Now Nepali and Kashmiri do seem to have a real w (it's not completely clear because the articles do not use the IPA). So are Nepali and Kashmiri w really bilabial? And are they reflexes of Skt. v? Contact Basemetal here 02:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Nepali phonology indicates [w] is an allophone of /u/, which would not indicate descent from a cognate of Sanskrit /v/. The Kashmiri article indicates the presence of /w/ but gives no examples. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We-ell, Sanskrit /v/ and /u/ are themselves descended from allophones... —Tamfang (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To pick a nit: there are no "modern PIE languages"; PIE is Proto-Indo-European, the common ancestor. You mean "modern IE languages". —Tamfang (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have fixed the section title but I left the error in place elsewhere so your comment doesn't seem odd. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless you are saying /u/ and /v/ are allophones of the same phoneme in Sanskrit, Tamfang, your point is not relevant. There is a huge debate over the phonemic or allophonic status of w in PIE. But there is simply no question that w is a phoneme in English, ignoring /hw/ for simplicity sake. There's the question of transcription. The words knowing and going may be described as having non-syllabic u off-glides, and the words written two and clawing do not have any remnants of /w/ in them. But there's no question that words like worm and vermis are reflexes of a sound that existed in PIE and which survives in English.
The survival of /w/ in "sweet" and Sp. suave and other Western Romance languages might indicate a retention of /w/ after initial /s/, but I am not sure if this is not just a learnèd borrowing from Latin suavis/suave into those languages as it is in English. The fact that it is not souave in French probably indicates something. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

KageTora had put this in the wrong section. I copied it here where it belongs. I hope that's ok. Contact Basemetal here 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

KageTora's edit starts here:

Has anyone considered Romanian? This is just a question, as I have not researched it yet. I would guess the /w/ changed to /v/ as per Italian, but I have not checked. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It has just done it again. I have clicked on the edit for this section only, and it has given me three sections. Naturally, I would edit at the bottom of the edit window, so this is why my edits are appearing two sections down from here. Must be a problem with Wikipedia. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure you did not click the 'Edit' for section 'October 26' by mistake. That 'Edit' is right above the 'Edit' for this section which is the first subsection of 'October 26'? In the history your edits look like edits of the 'October 26' section not of this subsection. Contact Basemetal here 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I do the edit the date mistake a lot.
Yes, I think I was confused by the very long title of this section. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Romanian phonology indicates /w/ is not a consonant phoneme but that it is a part of glides like soare < Latin sol "sun", and in borrowings like "western" for the film genre. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me as if PIE /w/ is likely to survive in Kashmiri and perhaps other Dardic languages based on entries in this dictionary. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I spent twenty minutes with that site, Marco polo but came up with nothing helpful. Can you give specific examples? For example, oduru, meaning wet, seems aweful close to water, hydor, but it has no indicated initial w. I know from some Indian speakers that short o and e get on-glides, so you hear the "wofficial yeconomic figures". I am not sure what language that was, however. And I doubt it was Kashmiri. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
At least some dialects of Hindi and, I believe, Punjabi, do have the sound generally transilterated as 'v' pronounced as a 'w' (but as a bilabial fricative). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at entries such as "wanjĕr", meaning lameness, crippledness, which looks like a reflex of "u̯ā-" or "u̯en-", meaning "to wound". Others are "war", meaning "twisting" ("u̯er-": bend, turn, warp, wrap) and "wôwuru", meaning "weaver" (u̯ebh-: weave), though this last example would suggest—and the evidence from the glossary supports this—that IE /w/u̯/ and /bh/ collapsed at some point into a single phoneme /w/, which later differentiated allphonically into /v/ before front vowels and /w/ before back vowels. It looks as though some of those vowels have since dropped out, so that /v/ and /w/ are now phonemic in Kashmiri, but either of them may derive from either IE /w/ or /bh/. I have not studied this thoroughly, though, nor have I found a source discussion IE correspondences in Dardic, so I could be wrong. Marco polo (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The reflexes of *wen-, *wer-, and *webh- seem pretty definitive, as long as we can assume the unlikely w>v>w development never happened. Thanks, MP. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No one's answered about v in Skt.! Florian? If Skt. v was generally more like [v] (when Dardic diverged from the rest of Old IA) then we would have w > v > w wouldn't we? But why is it that w > v is common while v > w so unusual? Contact Basemetal here 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sanskrit is not proto-Indic. It is an archaic dialect artificially polished from whose vulgar version only some Indic (and not the Dardic) languages are descended. In stands in a similar position to Classical Latin, which is not the same as the Vulgar Latin from which Romance descended, or better yet, Church Slavonic, which was a very archaic dialect of South Slavonic; i.e., close enough to proto-Slavonic to be a stand in for it, but not the ancestor of East or West Slavonic, and somewhat close to Balto-Slavic but definitely not equal to it. That doesn't answer whether w>v>w happened or not, unfortunately. Here we'd need a source to quote and I have only the most General surveys, basically Comrie's World's Major Languages would probably be the best, source I have, and totally inadequate. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Shiksha indicates that v was indeed labiodental, but that is the Classical Sanskrit pronunciation; it was by a time (ca. 400 BC at the earliest) when the vernaculars were already in the Middle Indic stage, so I wouldn't count on Vedic by ca. 1250 BC or even 1500 BC to have been pronounced the same. Mitanni Indic probably still had [w]. That said, since Sanskrit is not a modern Indo-European language in any shape or form, it's irrelevant for the question.
Certain Slavic languages (Slovenian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, I think) retain [w] as a syllable-final allophone of /v/. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Duh, Brythonic does retain /w/ where it wasn't converted into /gw/. It's often suspected that the areal contact influence of Brythonic kept Middle English from converting [w] to [v] (and from losing /ʍ/ and the interdentals), given that even the North Germanic languages participated in that change, so geographical isolation alone can't explain it (especially considering that English was never isolated from continental influences in the first place: there are Dutch loans, for example).
Apart from that, the replacement w > v (or occasionally b, as in outlying Bavarian dialects south of the Alps) has been virtually universal in Europe and also Indo-European Asia, even affecting some non-Indo-European languages such as Finnish. This change, the lengthening of vowels in open syllables, and to a lesser extent the loss of interdentals (not in the western and southern periphery of Europe, although Goidelic was also affected), possibly due to Latin/Romance influence, belong (in the realm of phonology) to the main typological (Standard Average European) traits and changes typifying Europe as an areal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Armenian is often neglected – while it apparently hasn't preserved [w] as such anywhere, either, and (usually?) turned it into /v/ too, it has frequently turned it into /g/ instead (at least word-initially).
Medeis: Per Dardic languages#Classification, Asko Parpola believes that Vedic is the Indic dialect that the Dardic languages descend from! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As for v > w, I wouldn't rule it out too quickly. Something like this might have happened in Gaelic (broad bh apparently went [vˠ] > [w], although the point of departure could have been [βˠ]). But I'd have to ask Martin Kümmel, for example, who has worked on sound change typology.
As for Goidelic, it appears to have gone [w] > [v] > [f], so isn't a counter-example, either. The development [w] > [gw] (> [g]) may appear surprising if you do not realise that [w] really has two constrictions, a bilabial and a velar one, so it's more like [ɰβ̞], which is close to [ɣʷ]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of "wilderness variation"[edit]

I could not understand the meaning of "wilderness variation" in the following sentence, by the way is the sentence grammatical?
"For the activities of trekking and wilderness variation Kuppad Jubbal is an extremely important pavilion." Thanks. Vineet Chaitanya (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, the sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Can you provide us a link to the page where this was used? Or is it not on the web? Is Kuppad Jubbal a person's name? Because a pavilion is a building, not something that a person can be. Dismas|(talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Googling it suggests it's a site in the Himalayas. The sentence might just be a poor translation. A pavilion can be a shelter. Maybe they were trying to convey the idea of a pleasant place to be. The "variation" part might be a misspelling of "vacation" or maybe they're trying to convey the idea of a diversion from routine living. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Just a guess; it could be that "pavilion" should actually have been "arena". I see such "wrong synonym choice" errors quite often in translations of highly idiomatic language. I found Jubbal, it's in Himanchal Pradesh India, but no luck with Kuppad. The topic appears to be wilderness tourism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if pavilion should be alpine hut so wilderness variation could be something like instead of a tent you stay in a house. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Could "variation" be intended to mean "diversion"? In any case it can be neither Indian English nor an attempt at translating a standard phrase in an Indian language as Vineet would have recognized those. Maybe it's just somebody's isolated clumsy coinage directly into English. But if the thing this odd phrase "wilderness variation" is intended to refer to is a standard activity offered at that place then one should eventually be able to figure out what was meant. Contact Basemetal here 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might have been meant to be "wilderness diversity", but that's not an activity. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, almost certainly this should be: "For the activities of trekking and wilderness variation [diversity,] Kuppad Jubbal is an extremely important pavilion park." See images. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
One could still keep 'activities': "For the activities of [such as] trekking and [for] wilderness variation [diversity] etc." What would 'wilderness diversity' be? 'Wildlife diversity'? A diversity of landscape? Contact Basemetal here 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Presumably wildlife diversity was meant, but wilderness diversity can make sense, if wilderness is "ecological". μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"Variation" could simply be a typo or bad OCR of "vacation". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes Baseball Bugs had already made that suggestion which is tempting because it seems to require the smallest amount of deletion. But I still tend to go with Medeis's suggestion, I don't know why. In any case 'pavilion' can't stand as it is as it doesn't look like Kuppad Jubbal is just a 'pavilion'.Contact Basemetal here 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is much more likely this is a bad mechanical translation than a spellcheck error. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all the contributorsVineet Chaitanya (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Indian names with "shit"[edit]

Anyone who goes to WP:UAA will be familiar with DeltaQuadBot's frequent comment of "Many names contain the string "shit" especially names from India". In Indian names, what function does "shit" fulfill? Is it a common word in one or more languages that's incorporated into names (comparable to English "son" or "smith"), or is it just a sound cluster that happened to end up in several common names? And in what language(s) is this a common name, i.e. from what language backgrounds do these names originate? Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but there's a clear difference between Shitole and shithole. Words like "malady" and "maladjustment" probably sound shitty in Hindi, though "mala" alone doesn't mean much in our language. Pure coincidence, I'd guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Pune City isn't all it's cracked up to be, either. Has a Shitō-ryū school, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Dikshit varied as "Dixit". I wonder if Anurag Dikshit has ever considered altering both his names. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
‹x› for /kṣ/ is defensible on two grounds: Sanskrit /s/ becomes /ṣ/ after most consonants; and I believe there are words with /kṣ/ that have Greek cognates with ‹ξ› (xi), though I don't remember any. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Partial and tentative answer: Shit (शित = ʃɪt̪ not a homonym for the English word) was a rishi in Vishwamitra's clan. So my guess is that the many/most/all of the Indian last names that end in -shit/-xit are those of Brahmins who (nominally) trace the paternal lineage to the rishi. And if this etymology is right, then the language of origin would be Sanskrit, although only a miniscule minority of the people with those surnames nowadays will know the language. It is so difficult to google for this in English, that I cannot really confirm my informed guess; so take it with a pinch of salt. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility: -it (ɪt̪) is also used as a suffix in Hini/Sanskrit to form an adjective, ie Q-it = having the quality Q, or one who has been Q. So Indian names ending with -shit could just be be instances of the 'Q' ending in consonant sh. This is the more likely etymology, at least for first names ending in -shit. Abecedare (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone considered Romanian? This is just a question, as I have not researched it yet. I would guess the /w/ changed to /v/ as per Italian, but I have not checked. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you're in the wrong section. I'll copy it where it belongs. I hope that's ok. Contact Basemetal here 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This has happened a few times. I press the right 'edit' button, but end up in the wrong section. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

To comma or not to comma[edit]

I'm generally pretty good with punctuation, but I'm torn on this one:

The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority, respectively.


The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority respectively.

Which reads better? Those are two pairs of "principles," each being upheld by a separate party. Since this is for publication I changed the "principles" listed, as I don't want anything on a popular website to set off an automatic plagiarism checker, but the sentence structure is the same. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • First, you haven't provided us with a complete sentence, so no answer on punctuation is possible. Second, you should be saying something like "upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and upholding the principles of tyranny and authority, respectively" μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't think the subordinate clause's context was ambiguous enough to make any difference punctuation-wise. Updated now, anyway. The "principles of... principles of" formulation is the way I originally had it, but it seemed quite wordy. Thanks for the reply! Evan (talk|contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Or "upholding the principles, respectively, of A and B, and C and D". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that might be less cluttered. Might sleep on this one. Thanks! Evan (talk|contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest "respectively upholding the principles of A and B and of C and D". No commas needed at all within that construction. (The second "of" eliminates any ambiguity in the grouping of "and".) -- (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That might work wonderfully, but not if the sentence starts, The difference between classical liberalism and Prussianism is... That's why I said a full sentence is not an option, we have to have one to answer any such question. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What am I missing? It looks like a complete sentence to me. Has a subject, a predicate, and a gerundial clause (or maybe it's a participial clause). I vote very strongly for option 1. --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the fact that Evanh2008 improperly went back and changed his original question without indicating he had done so, making nonsense of every answer, which original you can see here:

I'm generally pretty good with punctuation, but I'm torn on this one:

upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority, respectively


upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and tyranny and authority respectively

Which reads better? Those are two pairs of "principles," each being upheld by a separate party. Since this is for publication I changed the "principles" listed, as I don't want anything on a popular website to set off an automatic plagiarism checker, but the sentence structure is the same. Evan (talk|contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So "Updated now, anyway" is "improperly" not noting that I had changed it? I can see the cause of the confusion, but it wasn't improper, and I did note it. Evan (talk|contribs) 14:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It would have been fine if you had put the new matter [in square brackets] or italics and said, material in brackets added [signature with new time stamp], otherwise there's no way for anyone to notice what was updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not just write the sentence more clearly to begin with? e.g., "The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack, who upholds the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy, who upholds the principles of tyranny and authority." rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Another alternative The conflict is a result of the differing value systems of Jack and Amy, Jack upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy those of tyranny and authority. The first version (from the original question) is punctuated better, but the problem is that the wording is less than clear to begin with, because with 'and' occurring three times it's hard to match 'respectively' with the right construction. Peter Grey (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  •, your suggestion "respectively upholding the principles of A and B and of C and D" seems neat, but I'm troubled by the distance between "respectively" and its subjects. That word always pertains to multiple items or groups of items, and should be located immediately adjacent to those items. The items in this case are "A and B" and "C and D", but there are 4 words between them and "respectively", and this makes for lack of certainty. Eliminating as many commas as possible is not something to be overly concerned about. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I like commas fine, but not when an alternative expression without commas would do the job better. "Respectively" always relates at least two groups of items: in the sentence in question, "Jack and Amy" and the expression we're abbreviating to "of A and B and (of) C and D". In my draft "respectively" is immediately adjacent to one of them, namely "Jack and Amy". I think that's a better choice because the short expression "Jack and Amy" has no substructure and we don't need to use commas to show how a one-word adverb relates to it. But of course "better" is a matter of opinion. -- (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I already said respectively "always pertains to multiple items or groups of items". And it refers back to previously mentioned multiple items, which in this case are "Jack and Amy". The two groups of items in this case are (1) A and B, and (2) C and D, and the word "respectively" belongs adjacent to them, not adjacent to "Jack and Amy". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd make it more like "...Jack, upholding the principles of individuality and free thought, and Amy, upholding the principles of tyranny and authority." —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange Translation (presumably from Hausa)[edit]

"My dad was a pastor; Boko Haram went to our house and killed him. They also shot my mum in the stomach; they gave her 2,000 Naira ($12) to have the bullet."

Who exactly is receiving the bullet at the end of all this? Are they paying her to give the bullet back (which is now useless), or are they paying her an additional fee for the 'privilege' of shooting her, so to speak? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain the last 'they' still refers to Boko Haram? Couldn't that last 'they' stand for something like 'the authorities' or some other undefined 'they'? Maybe the whole sentence means something like: "My dad was a pastor. BH went to our house and killed him. BH also shot my mum in the stomach. She was given 2000 Naira to have the bullet [taken out]." Is there any chance that could be what's intended? For the others, for context, this is the source. See what you can do with that. Contact Basemetal here 04:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why any authorities would pay to operate on someone, even for forensic reasons, but here is the original article. The actual sentence is below the 6th picture. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 04:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant maybe given her mum money so her mum could pay the doctor to have the bullet extracted. Don't know. Just trying to make sense of this. The idea that BH pays people to shoot them is even harder to understand but who knows. Strange country. Note I'd already given a link to the BBC page in my answer but thanks. Contact Basemetal here 05:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You hadn't given the link. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it myself. You added it after I gave the link. Just a quick look at the page's edit history would reveal that. But thanks for 'doubling-up' for me. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 06:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters but the edit where I gave the link is older than the edit where you have the link by 3 minutes. Contact Basemetal here 06:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry about that. You must have put it in while I was typing, then. For some reason, recently, we are not getting so many edit conflicts. They still happen sometimes, but I've noticed that I can write an answer in, and then when I save, someone else has already written an answer. Previously that would cause an edit conflict. Something must have been changed. Anyway, as I say, thanks for putting the link in, and taking the time to find it. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no idea about Hausa, but give and take are often the same word, more like "exchange" in many languages. (PIE *ghabh beocmes "have" in Latin and "give" in English.) So it may mean they charged her $12 for the bullet. That article's cartoon depiction of Boko Haram as some sort of cool star-wars type desert warriors has got to be the most disgusting thing I have seen in months. μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Word Query 2[edit]


Need help from hot women and awesome men again!

Non-manipulated/unmanipulated: The internet says both are acceptable, but Ms Word & Wikipedia rejects unmanipulated (creates red wavy line underneath).

Bit: How shall I say, “the mother kept on bitting her child”. The word ‘bitting’ creates red wavy line underneath it in MS word & Wikipedia.

Mediumship: Wikipedians type the word ‘mediumship’ in their article(s), make sense in a way. MS Word & Wikipedia rejects the word (creates red wavy line underneath). Who shall I believe?

Ofcourse: Creates red wavy line underneath it. Note: Some dictionaries do elaborate this word.

What do you peeps suggest I do/use?

( (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

I've never heard of either "non-manipulated" or "unmanipulated".
The present participle of "to bite" is "biting", not "bitting".
"Mediumship" is a legitimate word.
There's no such word as "ofcourse"; someone has mistyped the 2-word expression "of course". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are troubled by these questions, you should consult an actual print dictionary. The presence of a word on the Internet indicates only that a million monkeys typing will generate the word, and says little about how those monkeys should spell the word if they wish to be thought literate. MS Word's built-in dictionary is no substitute for a real dictionary. The fact that Wikipedia does't contain an article on a given word (which is all that a red link means in Wikipedia) doesn't necessarily indicate whether that word is spelled correctly or not.
In any case, "bitting" is not the correct spelling in the sentence you give, it should be "biting." "Ofcourse" is not a standard English word; you want to use "Of course."
For your other questions, a good dictionary should help you with an answer. "Mediumship" appears in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which will also tell you that the first known occurrence of the word was in 1856. You won't find as straightforward an answer on the question of "unmanipulated" vs. "non-manipulated", as these are compounds. Experience suggests that both words are used, and which is used may be a question of style or emphasis. I believe "unmanipulated" is more common. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
When he says that Wikipedia "creates [a] red wavy line underneath", he doesn't mean that the word itself is a redlink. He's talking about the automatic spellcheck property of Internet Explorer (or perhaps some other browser) which puts a wavy red line under a misspelled word in the WP text box. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I'm afraid that here you'll only find awesome women and hot men :-(. 1. Unmanipulated isn't in most of the dictionaries, so use non-manipulated. 2. Biting is using your teeth to eat food or hurt a person. Bitting is putting a bit into the mouth of a horse. Bitting could also be something to do with a computer key. I think you probably mean "biting" although we hope that mothers don't keep on dong that to their children. 3. Mediumship is the condition of being a medium. If that's what you mean, it's fine. 4. Ofcourse is a misspelling. Should be "of course", two separate words. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have access to a good paper dictionary, there are some available free on-line, including our sister project Wiktionary. Dbfirs 07:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean 'The mother kept on hitting her child'?Widneymanor (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Good one Widneymanor, you just made everyone look like donuts, including myself. Yes bitting as in ‘knocking the f _ _ _ out!’ Not as in ‘biting an apple’.
I thought the same about the unmanipulated/non-manipulated word Nunh-huh, I guess I have to go with what Itsmejudith mentioned since it goes with the sentence I'm trying to use it with. Received votes by you two in other words for the word 'non-manipulated'.
I’ll check out the Wiktionary Dbfirs thanks.
Realistically guys, I do need live advice, what I am/have received from all of you; more than one point of view and so on. It filters the CO2 in my brain. Some of the words I mentioned, I have checked or was aware from before, just filtering the air in my brain to be honest.
Last confusion to clear for this topic, 'Of course' meaning 'of the hook/direction', I'm looking for the word 'Ofcourse' as in 'certainly'. JackofOz mentioned someone mistyped, I saw it in a dictionary (hard copy){when I was young} once, I can't find it anymore anywhere. They use to use it in books too. I also read it when I was young. Now a days, in between 12 years the word has changed from 'ofcourse to 'of course'. Thats why I asked.
( (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC))
If you ever saw "ofcourse" in a dictionary, then please immediately burn that dictionary, as it's worth more to you as a fire starter than as any help with words. I dispute that "they use to use it in books" and "the word has changed from ofcourse to of course". That is just not the case. If you can prove me wrong, I will pay you a large amount of money. Same with "alot" and "incase" - no such words. Why there's this epidemic of concatenating these and other two-word expressions into one word formulations, escapes me.
Now, on top of that, you're confusing "of" and "off". When you say Of course meaning of the hook/direction, what you really mean is Off course meaning off the hook/direction. It's analogous to The apple has fallen off the table, not of the table. I thought of "off course" when I replied above, but I decided not to mention it as I thought it would confuse matters. Little did I realise that someone's grey matter was already confused.  :) 'Ofcourse' as in 'certainly' is indeed spelt "of course". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And how dare people write horrible contractions like "altogether" and "although" and "inside". --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If I may pedantically correct your spelling, you should have written:
An d ho w da re pe ople wri te hor rib le con tract ions li ke "altogether" an d "although" an d "inside"?
T he quest ion ma rk a t t he e nd i s man da to ry. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol. I've also had issues in the past with the two new words you mentioned. Thank you for making me understand the difference too. Kind regards. -- ( (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
If you believe The Philosophy of Time Travel, there are Manipulated Dead (which can travel through the Fourth Dimensional Construct) and Manipulated Living (which cannot). The only one not manipulated by God is the Living Receiver, though he is manipulated by the Manipulated. So that might explain why "unmanipulated" or "non-manipulated" are not words for people. Perhaps "godly" is a synonym. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Lol. -- ( (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Sentence correction[edit]

Does these sentences below make sense?

  • bla bla... This acknowledgement acquired by the age of 7/8.
  • “if it is rightfully his” or “If it is righteously his", then he could use.

( (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

Both could conceivably be clauses of a sentence, given the right context, but neither is actually a sentence the first is not a sentence, and neither of the two options under the second bullet are intelligible without further clarification. "If it is rightfully his, then he could use" is technically a grammatically complete sentence, but it is effectively meaningless, since we don't know what the "it" referred to is, and the verb "use" has no object. Evan (talk|contribs) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Russell: It definitely would be a good idea to present whole sentences. It's easier to answer such questions in context. In the meantime: "This acknowledg(e)ment acquired by the age of 7 or 8..." could conceivably be part of a grammatical sentence although an acknowledg(e)ment is more usually 'received' or 'given' than 'acquired'. "If it is rightfully his ... then he could use ..." seems ok. But not normally "If it is righteously his...". I've never heard that something could 'righteously' belong to someone. At least you'd have to stretch the language. Contact Basemetal here 18:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I know the meanings, I wanted to mean "he gained/understood the complete knowledge fully which was provided by them", in the shortest way since the one's who were teaching were aforementioned in the paragraph. Maybe I'll just write, "He acquired the knowledge what was taught by the age of 7 or 8", instead of making things complicated. -- ( (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
Acknowledgement had a meaning closer to "recognition" than "knowledge". "The knowledge acquired by the age of 8" would seem to convey your point much more accurately. MChesterMC (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MChesterMC! -- ( (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
If the two examples are unconnected, "righteously his" is acceptable when uttered by either a '60s hippie or a priest. Otherwise, "rightfully" is the way to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm talking about angels and devils, I guess it enters the priest category. Beside Whatever is considered 'old' English. I'm quite into old English. I think they use to speak formally and in a clever way, not like nowadays where we've mixed with foreigners so much that we've began to talk half broken English or so called modern English.
I'm quite into 'old' English words and sentences. Any idea how I can improve in regards to this matter? I am currently reading a lot nowadays, which improved 10% of my knowledge, e.g., saith, hadth, ye, thee, thy. -- ( (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
For old English (as opposed to Middle English and Old English) you might read Shakespeare and the 1611 version of the bible (called the King James, or Authorised version). It's "hath" by the way, not "hadth". These old words should not be used in modern English unless you intend to sound archaic. (Also, just to help, and not intending to "nit-pick", the past participle of the verb "to begin" is begun; "began" is the simple past. Some native speakers of English get confused by this irregular verb. ) Dbfirs 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article saying hadth. I don't know where it is now and I can't really look for it now.
And when you are correcting my English Dbfirs, I'm more than grateful, appreciate it & happy. Thank you. -- ( (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
No, "hadth" is not a word in the English language. It does not appear in Wikipedia except as a foreign name and a typing error. It does not appear in Wiktionary, nor even in the biggest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Dbfirs 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Could be a typing error. I'll post it if I come across it again. -- ( (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

@Basemetal: @Evan: I'll insert a full sentence next time. Thanks guys. I think I'm clear for now and had a little more understanding. -- ( (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC))



Does anyone knows what it means? It is used mainly to call a Muslim priest, quite common in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. -- ( (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

First off, Muslims would generally deny that they have "priests" in any sense of those with a special sacramental or sacrificial role, or privileged to participate in religious rituals denied to the ordinary believer. However, in Arabic حضور means "presence", if that's relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The people who deny, they don't have common sense. Its the same thing in every religion but with different title. They all do similar work one way or the other, e.g., Praying together, seeking advice's and so on. -- ( (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
This is really not the place to debate theological concepts at length, but unfortunately for you, there is a significant difference between such roles as prayer leader, pastoral counselor, interpreter of religious law etc., vs. the most specific and significant definitions of the word "priest"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Huzur or Huzoor (Dev. हुज़ूर) may be used in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan as an equivalent to 'Sir' or 'Lord'. It ulimately comes from Arabic ḥuḍūr حضور which means 'presence' as AnonMoos mentioned. Note that, even though it comes from Arabic, its use is not restricted to Muslims or to address Muslims. But conceivably some Muslim dignitaries are customarily addressed that way in the area. They don't have to be the equivalent of Christian 'priests'. Russell may have used that term loosely anyway. It's true that there aren't priests in Islam but I've heard Sunni muslims accuse the Shi'i of having a 'clergy' "like the Christians". Contact Basemetal here 18:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A piece of trivia regarding the ḍād, the sound ض‎ in the middle of حضور ḥuḍūr: in classical Arabic it was a very peculiar sound, so special to Arabic that Arab grammarians referred to Arabic as "the language of the ḍād" لـغـة الـضـاد "lughat al-ḍād" (you can also find "lugatu l-ḍād" from sticklers for grammar, the final vowel u being the mark of the subject, and of course the l is assimilated to the following ḍ: the pronunciation is actually "lughat aḍ-ḍād" or "lugatu ḍ-ḍād"). That sound seems to have turned into z in Farsi and then Hindi/Urdu that got most of its Arabic through Farsi. Hence what you see above. In modern Arabic that sound is mostly a voiced counterpart to ṭāʼ ط, but that wasn't its original pronunciation (which was not preserved anywhere not even when reading the Qur'an). You can read all about it in article Ḍād. Contact Basemetal here 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The sounds of ض and ظ merged in spoken Arabic dialects centuries ago, and are now only kept apart in tajwid or tajwid-influenced pronunciations. I don't know anything about Farsi or Urdu other than what's in the articles in The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5), but that source indicates that both Arabic ض and ظ appear as [z] in both languages, and I wouldn't have expected something else... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I kind of know its called 'Sir' but didn't know it was called 'Lord', I've done a bit of research before posting. One issue with the countries aforementioned, they speak Arabic language without knowing the meaning; not fluently, just the Qur'anic bits and during prayer (Salah), and while reading the Qur'an. They have adopted many words what means something but they define in other ways. Huzur/Huzoor what is truely pronounced in Arabic 'Hudur' in this sense, they mean particularly a religious person who's competent in teaching Qur'an or a person from the mosque.
About the 'd' to 'z', I know what you mean, usually 'Fadr' & 'Dhuhr' (Morning and afternoon Salah) is classified as 'Fazr' & 'Zuhr' in the countries aforementioned. I think 'd' is the formal one!
Thanks guys, I guess I have to, slightly, work my way round in this matter. -- ( (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
Any idea why the 1st Imam (Hudur) is Obese, 2nd Imam (Hudur) is fat, and the 3rd one is a twig? It's common worldwide. -- ( (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
No. Why? Contact Basemetal here 10:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wondering because its a common thing in most mosques. -- ( (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC))


What does this mean?

Love…The other. This “…” is conjoined with the left and right word. Many Wikipedia articles use sentences like this. (Ignore the words I mentioned to define the question) -- ( (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC))

See Ellipsis. Deor (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Different people's usage varies regarding whether an ellipsis has spaces before and/or after. For Wikipedia's style guide on the subject, see WP:MOS#Ellipses ("ellipses" is the plural of "ellipsis") and specifically the subsection on "function and implementation". -- (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! -- ( (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Soviet Rally Cry[edit]

I have a PC wargame set in Stalingrad in WW2. At the beginning of each turn, forces on both sides attempt to 'rally' by throwing two dice. If the dice are successful, they rally, and each side has their own distinctive rally cry. The Russian one sounds like they are shouting 'Huzzah!' or something, which is bizarre for me, as Russian does not have an 'h'. Can anyone guess what it might be? Not sure if this is relevant, but in the game, the soldiers on both sides speak English, but with accents relevant to their nationalities (German, Romanian, Hungarian, and Russian). Maybe this 'huzzah' is an English word I am not familiar with. Also, it's is definitely a 'z' or 's' in the middle, and not 'hurrah'. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've not played the game, so I don't know what the Russians are saying, but we do have an article (Huzzah) on the English exclamation. Deor (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is amazing... Thanks, Deor! I owe you a pint. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Triple Ura!
And as you can see by clicking on the interwiki link there, the Russian equivalent is Ура! ("Ura!"). — Kpalion(talk) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually did know that, because in most of my games, the soldiers speak their native languages. This is why I was confused about 'huzzah'. Thanks, anyway. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

près des matières incandescentes[edit]

I've red in the article "space blanket" in french the next phrase, but I don't know France so I would like to get a translation of one term. I've tried Google translation but the translation was non understood. I understand only the first one (storms) and the last one (shock): Contre-indications[modifier | modifier le code] Cette couverture ne doit pas être utilisée : en cas d'orage près des matières incandescentes lors de l'utilisation d'un défibrillateur automatique (D.A.). Thank you149.78.224.210 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

note The page op refers to is this one.~Helicopter Llama~ 00:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"This blanket should not be used during a thunderstorm near incandescent materials while using an automatic defibrillator." Marco polo (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No. The article says this blanket should not be used EITHER during a thunderstorm OR near incandescent materials OR while using an automatic defibrillator! Contact Basemetal here 03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Note that the original poster's transcription has dropped the punctuation: in the article they are three separate bullet points, so Basemetal is clearly right. -- (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
And I wonder if "matières incandescentes" is not an error for "matières inflammables", i.e. "flammable materials". What would "incandescent materials" be anyway in this context? Hot lava? Molten iron? What "incandescent materials" are likely to be found in (say) a hospital room next to a space blanket? Like I said: use all this very cautiously. Contact Basemetal here 04:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Incredibly specific circumstances. If one of those three situations were to be absent, it would be fine, I presume? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. The article does not say those three cases are the only circumstances where they shouldn't be used. It just lists three circumstances (contributed by an editor like you and me) where it is not advisable to use them. If the OP were to ask here: "In what circumstances is it not safe to use those so called space blankets?" I even wonder if we would be entitled to answer. And even if we are I would strongly advise him not to rely on our answers but to contact the maker of the blanket he intends to use.Contact Basemetal here 03:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was actually referring to Marco Polo's translation. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I know. I noticed. Too late. Face-angel.svg No but I thought it was worth keeping the general warning. But maybe not. People should know by now. Contact Basemetal here 21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Steady on, folks: Marco was simply sticking to Wikipedia's policy of "No OR".--Shirt58 (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Face-smile.svg
As I read it, they're talking about use at a campsite or disaster site. They aren't concerned about the blanket setting fire to something else (it won't get that hot), but about damage to the blanket if you put it next to your fire, lantern, etc.; so what it means is "incandescing materials", i.e. things that are very hot. (The other two hazards are because it's electrically conductive and can transmit a shock.) -- (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for transcription of Korean text[edit]

Hi! What is the Korean text in  ? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for transcription still in Korean, for a romanization, or for a translation?

  • 좌석도면은 승객명단과 생존자 진술에 의해 작성되었음 -- Seating diagram created in accordance with passenger manifest and survivor statements
  • 11명 사망자의 좌석 위치는 비행 중 좌석 변경으로 인해 표기 되지 않았음 -- Seat locations for 11 fatalities not shown because of seat changes during flight
--Amble (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Re-posted to Commons:User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster#Korean_and_Chinese_translations_for so the text may be applied to File:Seatmap of Air China Flight 129 (ko).svg - If you know any other things that should be corrected, please let me know! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]



What do you mean by ? Many other words have it too. For now, I can only say, mainly Godly words. -- ( (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC))

The brief article Modifier letter right half ring, regarding the symbol, may be of interest to you. That particular symbol, I think, is common in Hebrew, Arabic, and other related languages, to denote a glottal stop. El (deity) lists it with that character as well ? ~Helicopter Llama~ 12:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah you are right. I'll view through the links you posted. Thanks. -- ( (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
The symbol in this section's title (‘), however, is Modifier letter left half ring which is used in Arabic and some pronunciations of Hebrew to transliterate Ayin, the voiced pharyngeal fricative ([ʕ]). These two symbols are often confused by those unfamiliar with their use.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Postnominal determiner in English[edit]

I read somewhere that in English determiners occur before a noun. However, in phrases like "chapter 1", "channel 3", and "love potion number 9", I think the postnominal cardinal numbers act as determiners. I did a web search on postnominal determiners; the hits didn't seem to be about English.

Is it correct to think of the numbers in my example phrases as postnominal determiners? If so, would it be a correct articulation of the syntax in English to say that pre- and postnominal determiners cannot be used together?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers are not really determiners. Determiners are words that indicate a quality or quantity of a noun and that can be used in the same way with different nouns. The numbers in your examples don't work that way. Instead, they are part of specific proper names. (For that reason, they should be capitalized.) They are examples of a pattern of English proper name formation consisting of a general term followed by a more specific term. Other examples would be "Chef Chandler", "President Obama", "River Thames", "HMS Pinafore", and so on. And in fact, you can use (prenominal) determiners with proper names of this kind. For example, you could ask "Do you mean this Chapter 1 or that Chapter 1?" Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, maybe "love potion number 9" is different, but the other two of my examples are (intended to be) generic nouns. Although "Channel 3" could mean a particular broadcasting station, in my example "channel 3" is the third frequency on a certain frequency plan. I'm thinking that "XXX N" is equivalent to "the N-th XXX", and since "the" and cardinal numbers are both determiners (examples of central and postdeterminers), postnominal cardinal numbers should be considered determiners too. Is that reasoning somehow flawed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Am I alone in wondering how well Love Potions 1–8 worked? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't know about Love Potions No. 1 through 7, but according to this reference, No. 8 worked spellbindingly well. -- (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Those probably are determiners. They are a form of cardinal number, as you suggest. They may be an exceptional case in English. However, it still is not true that prenominal determiners can't be used with these. You could ask "Is it the channel 3 in this frequency plan or in that one?" Of course, articles are determiners. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteers required[edit]


I'm looking for a re-writer(s), someone who possesses impeccable English writing skills. Is this the right place? (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Try looking in the small ads in your local area for a copywriter or copyeditor. Craigslist might be a place to start. --Viennese Waltz 14:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently living in a so called 'third world' country, beside, I'm looking for volunteers. Thanks for the name of the website, looks useful. -- ( (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
Amazon Mechanical Turk. But you do have to offer some payment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
If this is for improving Wikipedia, then it is appropriate to ask WP for help. You could ask on the talk pages for specific articles, or at the relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject. If it is a personal project, we certainly won't re-write or edit the whole thing, but often on the language desks we comment and correct a few short sentences for users. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a reference desk. Not the right place for this kind of query. If you want to address the WP community maybe the Teahouse is a better place but again searching for volunteers would only be appropriate if the project has something to do with WP. On the other hand there might be Internet forums out there where you may find volunteers for help on a non-WP project. To find such forums you could post a question at the Computing Reference Desk. Contact Basemetal here 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
surprised no one has mentioned the WP:GOCE yet, that's definitely an "impeccable" resource ~Helicopter Llama~ 22:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Alveolar ridge vs. alveolar process[edit]

What's the difference? Or is it basically the same region in the mouth? Well, the process is a bone, the ridge is more like the "dam" formed by the bone, right? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Chinese (?) translation request[edit]

What's this say?

Hi, can anyone tell me what the characters in this image say? I know there is a bunch of symbolic uses of the mantis in some Chinese culture, but all WP seems to say is that the Chinese Mantis is an inspiration for Northern_Praying_Mantis_(martial_art). Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not quite mistaken, it's just the same three characters given also as our gloss at the beginning of the Northern Praying Mantis (martial art) article: 螳螂拳, Pinyin: tāngláng quán [56] Fut.Perf. 15:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Aha! I actually considered that, but my character recognition ability is very poor. Barring any serious dispute, I think that's it. Thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Any mistakes in the Korean in this image?[edit]

If any Korean-speaking Wikipedians are interested...

Please compare everything in Korean in File:Seatmap of Air China Flight 129 (ko).svg (except the Korean in the box since that content was originally in Korean) and check if it is a proper translation of File:Seatmap of Air China Flight 129 (en).svg

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I know enough Korean to be dangerous, so it would be great if a native speaker can chime in. In case they don't, though, here are my comments:
  • "중국 국제 항공" would usually be written without spaces as "중국국제항공".
  • "flight 129" should be "129편" instead of "비행 129".
  • "바상구부" looks as though it should be "비상구".
  • I would have expected "날개 비상구" rather than "날개 부분의 ..." for overwing exits, but I'm not certain what term is actually used.
  • I can only guess whether "첫째승무원", etc. is the right way to count flight attendants.
Hopefully we'll have comments from someone more authoritative! --Amble (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ø versus œ (ö) in Swedish IPA[edit]

I proposed a change to Help:IPA_for_Swedish_and_Norwegian on the talk page for the article, regarding English equivalents, but I don't have the expertise to make the change myself.

Currently the article says that ø has no usage in English, while œ is pronounced as the vowel in "burn". As a native speaker of Swedish (Gothenburg dialect) I don't think this makes much sense. The two vowels are quite similar, and I usually don't make any distinction between them. There are also large differences between Swedish dialects that makes it harder to define exactly how they're supposed to be pronounced. I propose that the two different symbols are kept, but both are explained with the English words "girl" or "burn".

I don't know if the right place to discuss is this page or said talk page. (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There actually is a difference between those vowels in IPA, but not one that you could easily clarify with examples from English. The problem with using examples like "girl" or "burn" to illustrate these vowels is that the quality of those vowels varies quite a bit across English. In rhotic American English varieties, it is hard to separate the vowel from its R coloring, which isn't really a distinct consonant. In non-rhotic American and British varieties, the quality of those vowels varies regionally. Even within my own (largely non-rhotic American) region, there is variation by subregion and generation in the quality of the vowel. I think it really may be best to illustrate these vowels with reference to German or French words with a standard pronunciation. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence understanding problem[edit]


Please read the following two sentences.

According to the team, the universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old, and contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Also, the Hubble constant was measured to be 67.80 ± 0.77 (km/s)/Mpc.

Is the Hubble constant saying that the universe is 67.80 ± 0.77 (km/s)/Mpc old? If so, "(km/s)/Mpc" doesn't make sense.

I don't understand?

( (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

What do you the highlighted bits mean?

This scenario is generally considered to be the most likely,[citation needed] as it occurs if the universe continues expanding as it has been. Over a time scale on the order of 1014years or less, existing stars burn out, stars cease to be created, and the universe goes dark.[34],§IID. Over a much longer time scale in the eras following this, the galaxy evaporates as the stellar remnants comprising it escape into space, and black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation.[34], §III, §IVG. In some grand unified theories, proton decay after at least 1034 years will convert the remaining interstellar gas and stellar remnants into leptons (such as positrons and electrons) and photons. Some positrons and electrons will then recombine into photons.[34], §IV, §VF. In this case, the universe has reached a high-entropy state consisting of a bath of particles and low-energy radiation. It is not known however whether it eventually achieves thermodynamic equilibrium.[34], §VIB, VID.

( (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

With regard to your second question, the symbol § stands for "section", so those notes are identifying the sections of the article cited in footnote 34 that contain the information. It appears to me that the first parts are roman numerals, so §IID would be Section 2D, §IVG would be Section 4G, and so forth. (For the benefit of other potential respondents, the article from which's passages are taken is Chronology of the universe.) Deor (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the first question: No, Hubble's constant is not a measure of the age of the universe; it's a constant used in estimating the rate at which objects are receding from one another as a result of the expansion of the universe. "(km/s)/Mpc" means "kilometers per second per megaparsec". The current estimate of the age of the universe is given in the first sentence you quoted: 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years. (Any physicists here are welcome to correct anything I may have bollixed up in this explanation. I'm definitely not a physicist.) Deor (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) On the first question, the Hubble constant is a measure of how fast the universe is expanding; the units are "Rate of expansion per distance from the observer". That is, for a given distance from you (the observer) the objects that distance away seem to be all receding at a constant rate, and the rate of expansion increases steadily with increasing distance. The unit itself measures the rate of expansion in kilometers per second (or km/s), and the distance from the observer is measured in Megaparsecs, or Mpc (where a Megaparsec is a million parsecs), so the unit for the constant is "Kilometers per second per megaparsec" or "(km/s)/Mpc". What the constant is saying is that for an object 1 megaparsec away, it appears to be receding from you at a speed of 67.80 km/s. For objects 2 megaparsecs away, they would recede at twice that speed, and so on. --Jayron32 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


October 24[edit]


Is there a BBC website where I can buy DVDs of British comedies like Last of Summer Wine and other shows in NTSC format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine collection, from the BBC America shop. The About page states that "Our DVDs are in Region 1 format and are compatible with DVD players purchased in the U.S. and Canada." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

mild rebel[edit]

Back when I regularly watched Comedy Central, so about 1988–97, there was a nerdy-looking standup who said things like: "I live on the edge! Today I drank milk from a carton that expired yesterday. You can't stop me! I'll take you down with me!" What was his name? —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a Jerry Seinfeld routine? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't say it isn't (my acquaintance with Seinfeld's works being limited), but he's not the one I remember delivering it. Fred something, maybe? —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Fred Armisen is pretty nerdy, but a bit later. Maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
Armisen is the quintessential hipster, not nerd. and yeah, too late. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I lost track of the difference long ago. I'll take your word for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Nerds are people who are socially awkward because of their innate personality traits. Hipsters are people who pretend to be socially awkward to make themselves seem better than you. --Jayron32 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
What is it when a truly awkward nerd decides this makes them cooler than you? Asperger's syndrome seems to be a fashionable label lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Don't know (I was a Comedy Network guy), but it reminds me of Weird Al's "Young, Dumb and Ugly". Those badasses didn't just drink from the carton, they kept their library books till they're way overdue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is a Jerry Seinfeld routine. He's done it at least once at the end of one of the Seinfeld episodes. I'm not a Seinfeld expert, but if someone here is, they can confirm what I'm saying. It's got all the watermarks of Seinfeld as well, good clean humor with a neurotic edge that tackles a mundane topic. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Google doesn't give us a direct hit, but this ancient SDMB thread and this nearly-as-ancient thread from another forum feature contributions from people who are apparently familiar with the routine in question. Perhaps their words might prove useful in tying down the exact origin? Tevildo (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tamfang: That's Fred Stoller (100% sure). Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Following the link to his site, yes, that's the face I remember. Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another song....[edit]

Does anyone recognize this song? My lyrics search was not helpful, but sounds like Zeds Dead. Brandmeistertalk 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it may be a mix of two songs. The last bit is "Shiver" by Lucy Rose [57], but the earlier part doesn't sound like the same song. --Viennese Waltz 20:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Electroconvulsive therapy in Homeland[edit]

In the finale of series one, was Claire Danes really being subjected to the pulses or was that just acting? I tried searching but to no avail. Any help given is much appreciated! (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It was acting. No actor would undergo such treatment for real. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the world's most dedicated Method actor. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Frances Farmer did. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about ECT being filmed as part of the making of a film. --Viennese Waltz 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, guys (we did wonder about method acting after watching it). And maybe that's why Frances wanted revenge on Seattle. (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Young Frankenstein aspect ratio[edit]

We got the DVD of Young Frankenstein a few days ago. I saw it in the theater when it came out, and several times since. The Internet Movie Database says that it is in 1:1.85 aspect ratio. The DVD is in something close that ratio, probably 1.78 (16:9). But the outtakes and deleted scenes are in 4:3.

I remember at the time that they were using the same type of film that was used in the days of the original Frankenstein movies, which would have been 4:3. So was the film originally cropped from 4:3 to 1.85, or was it cropped for the DVD? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Now my memory might be faulty on this but it wasn't the same film or cameras as was used in the 30's. Brook's did try to recreate the filming techniques and he bound all of the equipment in Frankenstein's laboratory that had been used in James Whale's films. I saw it three or four time when it came out in '64 '74 and it was always in the 1:1.85 aspect ration. That has also been used on the DVD and bluray releases (I wonder how many more formats will they make me buy before I go ten toes up :-)) that I have owned. Both the DVD and bluray have a "making of" documentary and the bluray includes a pop up notes feature so you might see if there is any info in those. As I say I am going from memory so other editors my find info that will show my post to be in error. Enjoy your Halloween week Bubba73. MarnetteD|Talk 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It came out in '74, but Brooks said that they did use the same type of film, etc. That would have been 4:3. I can't remember the aspect ratio when I saw it originally, but if it is 1.85, then they must have cropped it originally. It is still great photography. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
D'oh - Thanks for the correction. I fixed my butterfingers typing. Amazing to note that Blazing Saddles was released earlier that year. Lots of laughs then and now. I now realize that you did listen to Mel's commentary so that takes care of that as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't listened to the commentary on the DVD we just got - I just remember what I heard years ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
"Brook's"? Is this the director formerly known as Mel? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Most 1.85 aspect movies throughout the celluloid era were filmed with 1.37:1 frames, with the extra space either matted out during filming (hard matte) or during projection (soft matte). See Matte (filmmaking)#Mattes and widescreen filming. In many cases of soft matting the top and bottom of the frame were never meant to be seen (and might have visible boom mics and such), but in other cases the film was deliberately composed to look good either cropped or uncropped (open matte). That would have been the most logical way to film Young Frankenstein, as a compromise between historical accuracy and the need for a widescreen version for some theaters. If this page is to be believed, there was an open-matte laserdisc release of the film. On the other hand, IMDB used to say its intended aspect was 1.37:1, but now doesn't even mention 1.37:1 for some reason. -- BenRG (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the info @BenRG:. It is good to learn this - especially since I grew older through these technology changes but was unaware of them. I appreciate the time you took to explain this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw it in a theater when it came out, again when it was re-released, and also at a college campus movie. It seems to me that it might have been 1.37, but I really can't place much confidence in my memory. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
When Snow White was re-released in the late 1980's, they cropped it (or butchered it) from the intended 1.37 to something like 1.85. I think the reason is that people expected widescreen or that many projectionists wouldn't know how to project it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



F. MARTIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The singer is played by Rita Cadillac. If you mean the first song in this scene, it's titled "Mon gars" (My Boy) and was originally written for Das Boot by the movie's composer Klaus Doldinger. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

Name of film[edit]

Can someone please help me find the name of a film. It was a Tyler Perry film. One of the stars was Kathy Bates. Also, Robin Givens had a significant role. The basic plot was something along the lines of this: there was a husband and wife; the wife worked in a very upscale construction company headquarters; the husband was a blue collar type (construction worker); the wife seemed embarrassed by and ashamed of the husband; the wife has an affair with the head of the construction company; everyone at the office knows about the affair; the husband is the last to know; eventually, the husband finds out about the affair. The wife thinks that her boss (with whom she is having the affair) will leave his wife; at the end of the film, he tells her that he will not. The boss also tries to get the Board of Directors to remove his mother (Kathy Bates) from the Board. Kathy Bates maneuvers the Board so that she is not removed, but her son is. Those are some of the details. It was a 2-hour movie, but I only came in after the first hour had passed. This film was shown on Lifetime Channel on Sunday, October 26, 2014, from 9 to 11 pm. In the TV Guide, the name of the film was listed as Tyler Perry's Good Deeds. However, when I looked up the Wikipedia article for that film, the plot description sounds nothing at all like the film I just finished watching. And it also does not list Kathy Bates or Robin Givens in the cast. Does anyone have any idea what's going on? Maybe the Lifetime Channel was going to show Good Deeds, but eventually substituted it with a different Tyler Perry film? Does anyone know the name of the film I have described? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

IMDB's collaboration search gave me The Family That Preys when I searched for Tyler Perry and Robin Givens. Dismas|(talk) 06:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's it! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Release of The Endless River[edit]

Can someone explain the release of Pink Floyd's new album, The Endless River, to me? According to the official site, the album will come in four editions: vinyl, CD, CD+DVD, CD+Blu-ray. I'm in the US and want the deluxe edition with DVD (I don't have a Blu-ray player).

The way I'm reading the chart at the bottom of our article, it seems to say that there will only be a digital release of the deluxe edition in the US. But this seems strange for at least two reasons. A) I doubt that PF would not release the album in the States in a physical version since it would make quite a bit of money. And B) it's available on Amazon.

So can someone explain these seeming contradictions? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 01:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't explain them, but do note that the corresponding footnoted reference (a link to iTunes) merely confirms Nov 10 as the Deluxe edition's expected date of release for downloading on that site. I saw no reference stating that this is or will be the only means of purchasing it in the US. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's classical song[edit]

several years ago I heard a song of Michael Jackson, unfortunately I can't remember the song right now, but I remember that it had a classical theme, like songs in the WWII era. (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Heal the World"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Another guess is his cover of "Smile", a song from the thirties (lyrics from the fifties), lush strings and all ... ---Sluzzelin talk 10:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck[edit]

It's well known that Scrooge McDuck is a Scottish immigrant to the USA. The first coin he ever earned, the famous Number One Dime, is an American dime, yet he earned it when he still lived in Scotland. At least Don Rosa has made a contrived explanation how Scrooge earned an American coin in Scotland. Was all this known and set right from the beginning, when Carl Barks first introduced Scrooge? Or was he invented as having been born in the USA first, where his first ever coin being an American dime would be natural? And if so, when and why did he become Scottish? JIP | Talk 19:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

While Scrooge has always been of Scottish descent, right back to the first story (where Scrooge was the owner of an old Scottish castle he had inherited), Barks never addressed where he was born. It was Rosa who made him a Scottish immigrant. John M Baker (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Correction: Right back to the second story. John M Baker (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I felt it a bit odd that Scrooge would have been mentioned as having inherited a castle in Scotland in Christmas on Bear Mountain, as I have read that story, and don't remember any mention of Scotland or a castle. But the second story The Old Castle's Secret clearly mentions them. This raises another question: Barks originally invented Scrooge as a one-time-only character, but the good reception he got for the character caused him to keep using him, and now he's one of the most central characters in the Duck universe. Did Barks have any idea about Scrooge's nationality when he made the first story? It's a bit unfortunate we can't just ask him, as he's already dead. JIP | Talk 19:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There is an easy way to check: Was Scrooge's stereotypically Scottish surname, McDuck, used in Christmas on Bear Mountain? I don't have a copy handy (it's somewhere in the house, but I can't narrow it down more than that), but perhaps someone else can check. John M Baker (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It was. -- BenRG (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reign TV series music (possibly)[edit]

What music is playing in the background? It's a trailer for the Russian run of Reign, but the series' soundtrack list looks quite long. Thanx in advance. Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

list of american television series[edit]

please could someone sort this list, some series are ended but listed here as current. the following are a few examples, there could be more: hawthorne, glee, fringe, true jackson, warehouse 13

also, revenge is listed as finished in 2014, but it is current - it has not been cancelled yet

thanks Jane Jashca (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Convenience link: List of American television series. Dismas|(talk) 08:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jane, I suggest that you be bold and fix it! That is the Wikipedia way. You seem to already have a lot of knowledge and interest in the topic, and that makes you one of the best people to do the job. If you need help in editing, you can ask here or at WP:HELP. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, Jane, the talk page of that article would have been the best place to raise this issue. Use the "talk" tab at the top of any article you want to talk about or ask questions about. This Entertainment Reference Desk is where you come to to ask entertainment-related questions where your own searches have not produced the answers you've been looking for. We won't necessarily give you the answer, but we will endeavour to find an online site or external source that does contain the answer. That's why it's called a Reference Desk. Best wishes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

name that naughty retro song[edit]

Awhile ago I heard a recent song in the style (more or less) of "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy". All I remember of the words is that "panties drop" occurs many times. I think the performer had a Spanish name. Is that enough clues? —Tamfang (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Candyman"? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wait, the answer to your question (the sentence ending in a question mark) is: I hope so. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Homer Simpson[edit]

What is the ancestry of Homer Simpson and how many strands of hair are on the top of his head? --Miexloep (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the biography section of this for the answer to the first part of your question. I don't know if the number of hairs is mentioned or not. Someone else may be able to get that one for you. MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming you could search for pictures of Homer. You can count the strands on his head yourself. --Jayron32 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I counted two strands of hair on Homer. --Miexloep (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think it is tricky @Miexloep:. There are two on top but the bit of hair that goes from ear to ear around the back of his head and looks like a series of M's (as in Matt G) might count as one or it might be more. I can't remember if I've ever read a definitive number. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The Stonecutter oath includes a penalty of having the head "plucked of all but three hairs". Matt Deres (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I remember his M falling or being plucked off (or both) as a single hair, but can't remember the episode(s) or context(s) offhand. Three seems about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
I definitely remember an amazed Milhouse's eyebrows falling off. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
Here's his evolutionary history. Even his greatest grandfather was yellow. Not sure how canonical this is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate news[edit]

Hi All,

We are having troublein particular link,which people keep on editing ,we need a exact ,reliable information and genuinine info,but in a day ,many times people used to change it ,pls tell what can ebe donte for this issue or to stop it.

Due to certain uneducated or i would say fraud person is keep on editing and putting wrong info .

Please do take actions or step to prevent this malicious or suspicious activity.

Thanks, Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So if you need reliable information about something, you should look elsewhere. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that is both a strength and a weakness. There are ways to protect specific articles from vandalism, but I don't know how to start that process. Perhaps someone else can point you in the right direction. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to fix a seemingly simple closing ref error in there, but failed miserably. Good thing this isn't the Wikipedia:Help Desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the various ref errors, but it was not easy; the whole article really needs an overhaul. I've no idea what's going on with those numbered lists. Matt Deres (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


October 25[edit]


Does the pendant in this necklace look like a leaf or a upside down tear drop? And how would you describe this necklace in these 2 photos? I'm only asking because I'm making necklaces with my mental health worker. Venustar84 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The pendant in the first photo (unclear even on enlarging) appears to be the same as the second. As the pendant is similar to a bead, I referred to this online Glossary of Bead Shapes. The shape in the second photo clearly resembles an upside-down teardrop or pear shape, characterized as puffed and smooth-surfaced. I haven't found the significance of an upside-down drop, which possibly might appear in a general lexicon of tribal adornment or fan site for Gabrielle (Xena: Warrior Princess). The third photo appears to be the same necklace without the pendant, which might be part of a story line relating to the necklace and pendant, or perhaps the wardrobe or continuity staff missed this detail. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I say it is a leaf. I found other pics of replicas. Here and here. The other one I found here. I would call the second necklace two oval beads and one round in middle all metal with relief designs. Image search with "metal bead" comes up with a lot of similar stuff. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate answer[edit]

what is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Life? Procreation.
The Universe? Immortality.
Everything? Truth /or 42 ;)
- #HalSiduri...
42. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just 42, though the question might need reformulating ... Dbfirs 16:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's probable that to do so would take eons. I'm not sure OP is willing to wait that long. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's OK, we have all the time in the universe and the Infinite Improbability Drive. Dbfirs 17:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the question of life, the universe, and everything? The OP has asked a question about the answer to an unspecified question. What question? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, like the OP said.Sjö (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we've all assumed that the question was a joke (so we should have smalled our replies) but perhaps the OP wants an answer in the real universe rather than Douglas Adams's fictional universe. If so, then the question should be split between the Science desk (for scientific answers such as Quantum gravity) and the Humanities desk (for religious answers such as Jesus). Other answers are possible, of course. Dbfirs 13:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is there an actual question within "the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To be or not to be? Where is the question? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
By itself it's a bit amgibuous. But Piglet Hamlet goes on to elaborate. Nowadays he might say "To be a stand-up guy? Or not?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I never knew why he had to be such a drama queen about it. Talking to himself in early modern English and talking about suffering 'slings and arrows', etc., which even in those days were essentially obsolete weaponry. Why didn't he just go to the medicine cabinet, eat all the paracetomol and drink a bottle of whiskey and end it all, thereby saving every teenager from the agony of having to read this weak-minded man's soliloquy? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And why didn't the whale just eat all of Captain Ahab prior to the events in Moby-Dick, thereby saving etc. etc. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That's different. That book had a whole bunch of hidden messages in it. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 23:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Which could just as well have stayed hidden. But no matter what, as the book progressed I was more and more rooting for the whale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I can understand that. Fluffy little cuddly toy whales are lovely when you get them from the souvenir shop, but they can be vicious when you are up close to a real one. Anyway, they make good sashimi. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 03:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Ultimate Warrior generally had no idea what the question was, but it never stopped him from answering emphatically. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Taking the question as an actual question rather than something from a work of fiction, we're actually faced with the same issue that Deep thought got into in the fictional universe. We aren't told what the actual question is. We can guess at some likely questions, like "Why is there life in the universe?" or "What is the purpose of life?" or "What is the purpose of the universe?" - but there are a very large number of possible questions that this request might refer to...and we simply don't know which question we're supposed to be answering. Douglas Adams simply points out that if you don't know what the question is, then any answer is as good as any other - so why not '42'. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't know that there is life in the universe, or that there is a significant distinction between life and non-life. This may be one more example of us thinking of ourselves as special. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
At least we have selves. Without them, acting selflessly wouldn't make us look cool to others. Life is the stuff that cares about other life. Stones are stones, that much is certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
Good news, everyone! It was in the protons of a frog on a log in latest (for me) episode of Futurama, a work of fiction. It looked like the period at the end of a sentence. But if you look closer, it's all fairly clear. There are no more questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
I honestly always thought that more likely mathematical answers to "the question"" would be (in order of decreasing likelihood) 0, 1, i, e, or π. Not that I have any particular reason for thinking so. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Euler's identity is a particular reason for thinking so. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Whatever the question is, it's something that a computer will have to figure out, because we're dumb. Once we have that answer, we'll want to know how the computer figured it out. At the root, there will either be a one or a zero, because binary is dumb. Absolutely true or absolutely false. No question, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
But because all of existence is interconnected, every entity, whether 'living' or 'non-living' equates to every other entity, so that would mean that 0 = 1, and vice-versa. There is no duality, only reality. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 06:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Synchronistically, today I heard an hour-long radio interview with DNA that was first broadcast in 2000. That was 14 years ago, and 14 is one-third of 42. How spooky is that! -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am rather more spooked by the fact that the DNA had learned in some way to speak English..... KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 08:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I rather suspect that's what we're for. We make machines to perform calculations, DNA makes people to speak. MChesterMC (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I share your suspicions (and some of your DNA). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
I think we're getting a little beyond the scope of the question. There is supposedly a question and it supposedly has an answer. Can we please try to stay on topic? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It might help you to know that Douglas Adams' middle name is Noel. SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that path has been tried and so it may seem like the way to go. Me, I'd rather be found trying something new. Whoa yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
How about "Be excellent to each other... And party on!" --Jayron32 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. To the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies and dickheads. They'll all adore you and think you're a righteous dude. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

The Euro[edit]

As I sit here with an Irish Euro that I received in my childhood, I wonder...

What is the purpose of the Euro?

Whilst it makes sense to be used in some countries (and, for sake of argument, I'll include Ireland as one of those countries, due to its previous currency not being all that individually culturally-marking) it doesn't make sense to replace all of the individual currencies of Europe with this bland "Euro" concept. This isn't the Roman Empire here; everyone does not need to use the same currency.

Why would anyone wish to throw away their cultural currencies and replace them with a lone, generic currency?

I understand the reasons behind the adoption of the Euro in countries like Germany, where the historic currency was failing, but shouldn't that be a temporary thing? Y'know, where the historic currency is reintroduced after everything is stable again.

Or... is that the ultimate goal of the Euro; to be temporary?

I highly doubt that either way, because by the time such a point of return to the original currency could be reached, no one would really remember the original currency anyways. By that point, all would be lost.

So, might someone with more knowledge on this subject be able to clear some of this up for me?

Thanks in advance! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See Euro, Customs union, Currency conversion, accounting cost, devaluation, economic efficiency and economic integration. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me correct some erroneous assumptions, though. First, the German currency was anything but failing when the euro was introduced. It was widely considered the most solid and stable of European currencies. In fact, German public opinion was largely opposed to replacing the German currency (the mark) with the euro. The government pushed it through because German businesspeople wanted it. Second, the euro is not meant to be temporary. It is meant to be the permanent currency of the European Union. As for the reasons behind the adoption of the euro, see the article on the currency that Medeis linked. Regarding your question about why people would "throw away their cultural currencies", in fact, there was reluctance among the public in some European nations with long traditions of sovereignty, such as France, the Netherlands, and Germany, about giving up their historic currencies. (This was less true in Ireland, where many saw the pound (or punt) as a legacy of British domination.) But it was not, generally, "the people" of those countries who decided to adopt the euro; rather it was economic and political elites who did so, generally on the basis of cold, rational arguments (again see Euro), which, however, overlooked one key feature missing from the Eurozone but shared by the world's most successful currencies, an oversight that is directly responsible for the Eurozone crisis. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to note, the Euro was not a novel idea. You can see at Currency union, there are several multinational currencies which predate the Euro by decades. What makes the Euro somewhat unique is that states retained a greater degree of fiscal independence vis-a-vis its member nations. But other (mainly 3rd world/developing nations) have regional currencies which have been in use for almost half a century or longer by now. --Jayron32 16:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Marco polo Then that's madling! What kind of sheisty, corrupt suits would do such a thing? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Latin Monetary Union, Scandinavian Monetary Union - it's not a new idea. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

dividing an exponential curve[edit]

(Question moved to WP:RD/MA by OP. Apologies for the mistake everyone!)


I've independently invented a simple coffee recipe, for which I would like to know whether there is a precedent. A long black, with a half-teaspoon powdered cocoa, and a pinch of smoked paprika. I've found plenty of references to a spice rub for meats, but no reference for a beverage which approximates this recipe. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any links, or such, but as a frequent coffee drinker, I think I've tried mixing at least a hundred different things in with my coffee, or with the grounds - from cayenne to orange rinds to just weird stuff, some good, some bad. I can't say if anything tried what you did, but I imagine that unless you are doing something absolutely outlandish, it's been done, probably by many. --(add a few more things, actually, and it sounds a lot like how a friend tried approximating raktajino for a DS9 party we had...) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I was about wondering whether that particular combination or something similar, is sufficiently popular to have earned a itself a name, like "Cacao Caffè Messicano", or a place on menu. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that that exact combination has, but I'm sure there are related ones. Aleppo Souk and Moctezuma from [58] sound similar, there's also [59] and [60], this [61], and this [62]. I'm sure that if we had an index of all the various coffee houses and restaurants, we could find something even closer.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, these are great. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't milk a key ingredient of all mochaccino variants? While we're on the topic of Hungarian, what is that voiceless phoneme created in the same way as "sh", but performed with the central part of the tongue instead? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My understanding was that mocha was just coffee and cocoa, while mochaccino would be milky capuccino with chocolate. (The link disagrees.) I used a Polish orthography since it is the most convenient I know with which to convey Rusyn, and ths sz is to indicate what is sh in English. Spanish has an ess-like phoneme, between English ess and esh. Perhaps that's the Hungarian sound you're referring to? In any case, Polish and Hungarian mean different sounds by sz. IPA for paprikasz the way my mother (who cooks it is ['paprikaʃ) with the arr as in the single flapped /r/, not the English /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ and the stops all unaspirated, with /k/ approaching /g/. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone name any films from England or any foreign films that don't have a North American distributor?[edit]

For example The_King's_Speech is a UK-based film but IMDB lists under company credits it lists The_Weinstein_Company and Anchor_Bay_Entertainment companies affiliated with it which are North-American based. Venustar84 (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Film festivals are generally full of films made by small production teams who are desperately seeking a distributor - so I would imagine that any of a very large number of them would have this problem and are only able to get their movies shown to limited audiences negotiated on a theatre-by-theatre basis. I don't have time to go and search - but I'd bet that if you looked through films shown in small film festivals you'd find plenty without distributors of any kind. SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Foreign? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
To North America, it seems from the header. And presumably she means films you can find somewhat distributed within it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Complimentary hotels on connecting flights/delays[edit]

Is there any obligation for airlines to provide complimentary hotels for connecting flights with long layovers? Hack (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How long are you laid over and what airline? I work in the hotel industry and am by an international airport, I have yet to see anything indicating that airlines are compelled to (by law, or other) - it seems to be their discretion, so it would needs be handled on a case by case basis of which airline and where.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Nine hours on Etihad at Abu Dhabi. My travel agent is suggesting the airline will provide a hotel voucher at the transit desk. I'm interested to see if this is an industry-wide thing or something unique to Etihad. Hack (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the best I could find [63]; it appears some airlines have stopped, so it is not the case for every airline.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm guessing my deal must be a special deal coinciding with Etihad's recent arrival in my city. Hack (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Many years ago (1993) on Malaysian Airlines, flying from HK to the UK, we had a stop in Kuala Lumpur, but the plane arrived late because of a late take-off on account of a typhoon in HK, so we were offered a free room in a hotel, as well as some spending money to have a night out in the city. I thought this was a pretty cool deal, but unfortunately they scheduled another flight for us..... KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 07:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I got stuck at ATL one night because my first flight came in after my connecting flight had left. The airline gave me a voucher to use on a room for the night, but I had to actually ask for it, and if I recall correctly it was only for like $40. I opted to hang out in the airport all night, which in retrospect was kind of dumb. I'm not sure what, if anything, the airline's legal obligation would be, but I imagine it's pretty limited, and subject to a number of laws. US domestic flights are probably mostly governed by federal law, while international flights probably involve some treaty obligations as well. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We receive a lot of vouchers at my hotel; though, I don't know of any strong obligation to issue them - and they don't always. Sometimes they issue "discount" vouchers that can be used at hotels to get a room cheaper than usual, but still at the traveler's expense. I'm sure the specific airlines have their own policies that they go off of, rather than some law; this indicates as much, [64].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I and my father did get a free night at a hotel near the airport when our flight from Helsinki to Reykjavík was delayed an entire day because the airplane's engines broke down and they could only get a new airplane the next morning. The only bad thing was that the flight was so early that we had to wake up at 02:30 AM, but it was still better than having to drive home and then back to the airport in the middle of the night. JIP | Talk 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


I guess as a secondary question, inspired by some of the responses above and personal experience, what would be the obligation of an airline where a delay has occurred causing a passenger to miss a connecting flight a) on the same ticket or b) on separate tickets? 08:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In general I would guess "none at all". As an example, EasyJet doesn't even guarantee connections between its own flights: see para 3.16 of its Terms and Conditions: "We do not guarantee or accept liability for missed onward carriage on a subsequent Flight or on the flights of other carriers" (though as a matter of goodwill they may try to help out people who are affected). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
That kinda doesn't surprise me. It seems like every few Thanksgivings you see pictures of hundreds of stranded passengers sleeping on cots at O'Hare. Even if there were hotel rooms for all those people, I can't imagine how much it would cost the airlines to pay for them. In fact, that situation itself suggests to me that state and federal law wouldn't want to guarantee anything. The solvency of the entire industry could hang in the balance. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Would the answer depend on whether it was a "legacy" carrier or a discount carrier? Hack (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It has to do with length of delay and the specific issues - I've seen vouchered passengers from about every airline that exists. There are plenty of times throughout the year where an airline will be looking for a 100 rooms, etc. Usually it is during summer, not winter, that we see the most; when everyone is stranded, they tend to do less, when it is a specific issue with a specific flight, they tend to. The latter case is more specifically "their fault", whereas snow is not something they control (as opposed to a messed up engine, etc.)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In terms of airline policy, maybe. But I think in general it's more likely to differ by airline, and possibly even by case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Air France paid for a hotel room when we missed a flight - in this case we had a joint train ticket/plane ticket, and the train to the airport was delayed so we missed the flight. The hotel was in the middle of nowhere (it wasn't actually in Paris, of course - I don't think it was even in Roissy), but hey, it was free. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Air France is bound by the EU rules on missed connections and flights. If (the departure is from an EU airport), OR (arrival is to an EU airport, AND the carrier is EU-based), then you can claim compensation CAA (UK) advice. Low-cost carriers claim that the tickets are bought separately, not as a through-ticket, and thus they don't have to help you if they make you miss your second flight. I don't know if this has been legally challenged or not. CS Miller (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In my recent experience, airlines are much more forthcoming when replying to social media than they are to phone calls or emails. Hack (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's because with phone calls and emails, no one can hear you scream. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


In icc division 3 2014 match of usa vs nepal is abandoned due to rain.usa ha made 204 run..should nepal chase same target or usa will play whole innings again?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwas Sawid (talkcontribs) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We are sorry, but we can't make predictions here, or offer opinions. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
He's not asking for a prediction or an opinion, he's asking for clarification on the rules in that particular situation. The English is not perfect ("should" is incorrect), but it was pretty obvious to me, and should also have been so to you. --Viennese Waltz 08:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the match was abandoned on Monday without the minimum number of overs being bowled to constitute a completed match, it has started anew. The rules determining this are laid out in the playing conditions for the tournament, eg, see Section 12 in these playing conditions for a similar level tournament. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The specific playing conditions for this tournament are here. Hack (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

How accurate and trustworthy are online iq tests?[edit]

How accurate and trustworthy are online iq tests?Whereismylunch (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's some dispute over how accurate they are in general, not to mention online versions. See Intelligence quotient#Reliability and validity. Dismas|(talk) 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"der IQ Test ist zu 100% kostenlos." You get what you pay for. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
What InedibleHulk wrote means the IQ test is 100% free of charge. And I shall add that they probably are as reliable as any tests done on-line that should be done off-line, including eye tests, ink blot tests, practical driving tests and helicobacter pylori tests. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if there are IQ tests which are only 50% free of charge.
Some browsers seem to have a hidden easter egg IQ test. You have to press [F4] while holding the [Alt] key down to start it. Good luck. ;) - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It opens up my System Preferences. One of the perks of drinking at the Genius Bar. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Very funny. Well-known trick for closing someone's browser. Anyway, IQ tests are only good at telling you how good you are at taking IQ tests. It means nothing. If you do lots of them, you begin to see a pattern in them, but by then, you have wasted your time doing lots of IQ tests and learned nothing about reality or how to use this new-found 'knowledge'. I randomly get 146 or 129 or whatever each time I try them just for fun, then always get given the option to pay for a randomly generated in-depth analysis of my score and answers which would be delivered to me by download immediately (the reason I know it's randomly generated). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 08:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"Automatically generated" or "computer-generated" or "automatically collated" is not necessarily the same thing as "randomly generated"—I would expect someone with a 146 IQ to know that! In this case, it's still likely worthless (mysterious online test methodology, poorly-controlled test conditions, etc.), but at least in principle it is possible to extract additional information about an individual's aptitudes beyond a single IQ score.
It could be argued that the various subscales are actually more informative – because they are more specific about what they assess – than a rather nebulously-derived final "IQ" number. Look at Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, for instance. Yes, it cranks out an IQ, but it's an amalgam of subscores based on tests of more-specific types of reasoning, knowledge, and abilities. The online tests could hypothetically (and unreliably, as noted) do something similar and then charge you for access to the report of your subscores and some boilerplate 'interpretation' associated with each subscore band. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, 'randomly generated' may have been the wrong turn of phrase. Perhaps, 'automatically generated' may have been more appropriate. The thing I was trying to point out was that these analyses are based on a 'one-size-fits-all' principle, rather than being individually analyzed by a biological, sentient being, preferably of the same species as the one performing the test. Also, these tests tend to be very culture-centric (not a word, but you know what it means). For example, ask the Piraha people which number is the odd one out from 32, 56, 81, and 98, and they will not have a clue what you are talking about, because their language only includes the numbers 1, 2, and another which roughly translates as 'more than two'. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 15:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Since most IQ tests are multiple-choice and have no time limit, I don't see why an online version should produce any significant difference than a paper-and-pencil test. The accuracy of paper and pencil tests is tough to determine because the only definition of "IQ" is "the score you get on an IQ test" - so there is really no way to check the absolute accuracy because they are by definition 100% accurate.
However, we should be careful to distinguish between accuracy and repeatability. Certainly if the same person keeps taking the same exact kinds of test over and over, they'll get better at it - and the whole point of "IQ" is that it's some kind of innate ability that shouldn't be something that gets better with practice. With different tests of the same general 'genre', you'd expect some degree of random variability just from chance alone, because there is a good chance of a guess turning out to be the correct answer by pure luck. So even someone with severe mental deficiency could (in principle) get a perfect score from pure chance alone.
One very serious issue with IQ tests is at the upper end of the scale. Extremely smart people start to see more subtle reasons for choosing a particular answer than the person who framed the question - and thereby fail to get the "official" answer, even though their answer is perfectly valid. "What is the next number in this series: 1,3,5,7,9...?" - most people say, oh, these are just the odd numbers - so the next one is '11' - but the super-genius mathematician immediately realizes that there are an infinite number of possible solutions to this question and from a logical/mathematical perspective, no single solution is 'preferred' to any of the others. Such a person might know that '15' is the next in the sequence of palindromic binary numbers: 1,3,5,7,9,15 - and '20' would be the next Colombian number after '9'. So now we can see multiple possible answers, all of equal logical/mathematical validity and are left trying to second-guess which of them is the one that a person with lesser IQ (but who is still sufficiently smart to be employed to write IQ tests for a living) would have been most likely to have come up with. In this case, it's fairly obvious that '11' is the intended answer...but can you always figure that out? For the super-intelligent, IQ tests are not about measuring IQ so much as measuring how able you are to mimic the thought processes of a less intelligent person.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The terms of art for some of the concepts discussed by Steve and others above are:
  • Repeatability or Test-retest reliability: This is pretty easy to assess experimentally, and it is trivial to construct tests that score high on this measure (eg a single-item test "1+1=" will almost have almost perfect test-retest reliability)
  • Construct validity ie the question whether IQ measures intelligence (whatever that means). A matter of big dispute.
  • Content validity ie the question whether IQ tests can be universally used for people from different cultural/educational backgrounds. AFAIK no one even tries to argue that IQ tests are not culturally-biased anymore, although people still use them assuming that they are good enough if the population of interest is homogeneous enough.
To go back to the OP's question: Theoretically online IQ tests can be as "reliable" as paper-IQ tests, though in practice I suspect that most of the the online tests are administered by sham operators, which makes the results they offer very suspect. As for "accuracy" (ie validity): there are several concerns with the validity of IQ tests as measures of intelligence so, irrespective of how the test is administered, one needs to interpret the scores with care. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That goes back to the problem that we don't have a definition for "intelligence" anyway. So we're trying to measure something that we can't define...unsurprisingly, that results in controversy. IMHO, it's best not to even suggest that "IQ" scores and "intelligence" are necessarily related. The question is whether IQ is a measure of something useful. For example, it's known that the amount of a person's earnings is nicely correlated with their IQ score. That being the case, one can usefully use the IQ test to estimate future earnings capability...or for a potential employer - whether someone is likely to be able to hold down a higher paying job as a back-up measure following a job interview.
If you can show that the IQ score correlates with other measurable outcomes - then it's a useful tool to provide indicators of those future outcomes...and the word "Intelligence" doesn't even need to enter the conversation.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
IQ isn't an exact thing, it depends. The online test may give a result that is reasonably much he same as a paid one with not too much extra variation but you'd want some reviews that recommend it. I'd guess most of them are there to get some extra money from you somehow. Do it if it gives you a bit of fun but not otherwise. I once tried out an aptitude test which the company was offering to everyone and basically it said I was unsuitable for my work which I as doing very well and quite happily thank you. So you can guess how much credence I have in such tests in general. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the word for...[edit]

...the following activity: one attempts to make a sound like a continuous 'mmmm' through one's shut lips, and uses one's finger to sort of strum the lips up and down, in course of which action the sound is distorted. Is there any word for this at all? In any language? :) --Ouro (blah blah) 07:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This may be one of those universal "things" for which there is no set name. Yahoo Answers has come up with a list of names for this, as has ask.metafilter but I'm having a hard time finding any universal term for the behavior. "Lip Strumming" has some strength, but it isn't anything like universal. --Jayron32 12:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is funny - everyone knows what it is, but no one knows what it's called. It turns up in classic 1940s cartoons, typically when someone has been driven to near-insanity due to another characters antics. So that thing had probably been around a lot longer than that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
When tobacco ads were on TV and radio, children might do a humor bit of saying "hey now" (then the lip strum) then Sold American!" as an imitation of the tobacco auctioneer in Lucky Strike ads. See [65] Edison (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The most famous of those guys in popular culture was L.A. "Speed" Riggs, who advertisted Luckies on both radio and TV. That ad is funny, talking about cigarettes that are "round, firm, fully packed", a slogan which Daffy Duck used as a double-entendre in Book Revue.[66]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a reasonably well known expression for this in Norwegian (at least if you hum a melody while mmmm'ing). It's called "Spille på slurva" (20000 google hits when searched quoted with, which Google helpfully translates to "Play on the sloppy". ("Slurve" is a verb which means being sloppy. Otherwise, the translation is ok. The word is used grammatically as a feminine noun in the expression). I have no idea about the etymology of "slurva" here. There's a children's song called "Kan du spille på slurva?", which alternates between singing and playing on the "sloppy". Maybe the word was just made up for the song. --NorwegianBlue talk 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The verb twiddle is probably not completely off the mark, though twiddle would tend to connote the idle playing with the lips, rather than expressly trying to produce a sound. While not definitive, a couple of Youtube videos [ here] and [ here] use twiddle in this way. Some search results here corroborate, but again, nothing really authoritative. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I generally lump it in with "Raspberries" (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

States of matter.[edit]

Matters exist in solid, liquid or gas state. What is the state of electrons, protons or neutrons?Diwas Sawid (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Diwas sawid october 28

I've moved your question to the end and given it a title. The three "normal" states of matter (solid, liquid and gas) are determined by the configuration of the atoms and molecules. A mix of electrons, protons and neutrons not arranged into atoms is called plasma. Dbfirs 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It means electrons , proton ,neutron lies in plasma state???what is plasma state then??[[Diwash User:Diwas Sawid|Diwas Sawid]] (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

See our article that I linked to above. Most plasmas also contain ions of gas, but essentially a plasma state has particles interacting without the usual atomic and molecular structure. If you need a more technical answer, including an explanation of a Bose–Einstein condensate, you might try posting your question on the Science desk. Dbfirs 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I understood the question as being what "state" those particles are in themselves, as in whether a proton is a solid, a liquid or a gas. My understanding is that the concept of a state of matter doesn't really have meaning at this level of physics. Or at least not in the everyday sense of solid, liquid and gas. Anyway, this question probably belongs at the Science desk. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the state depends on how the individual electrons, protons and neutrons are bound together (or not bound in the case of plasma). Perhaps I misunderstood what was being asked. Dbfirs 15:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A state of matter is a property of matter that is a bulk property: it only exists in huge groups of particles. A single atom of any material is not a solid, liquid, or gas. It is just a single atom. Billions of atoms exist in solid, liquid, or gas forms. But it's a nonsensical question to consider a single atom and ask what state that atom is in. Likewise, there is never a collection of billions of protons all in close proximity. The situation never exists, so asking whether "protons" are solid, liquid or gas makes no sense: there is no "billions of protons collected in one place" that we could look at and decide what state of matter it is. The same is true for electrons and neutrons, at least in the case of normal matter. There are a couple of "edge" cases; arguably an acidic solution contains solvated protons in the aqueous phase. Likewise, there are things known as electrides that you can think of as solvated electrons in aqueous phase. And there's the situation with neutronium, which I guess would be like a solid or a liquid, depending on whether or not it flowed. But all of those are either weird, or contentious ways to think about the situation. To answer the OP's question as simply as possible: The question makes no sense, because protons, neutrons, and electrons don't exist in large aggregations of particles The only way phases of matter makes sense is to consider the behavior of such aggregations. --Jayron32 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but for someone who didn't have that understanding, to ask a question that results in that understanding is not nonsensical but is a perfectly legitimate and valid thing to do. The question had a false premise, but that's hardly unprecedented around here. It's not the OP's fault for not knowing that the solid/liquid/gas split doesn't apply at the single atom level. Now he knows that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, which is why I corrected the false premise. Are you honestly suggesting that when someone asks a question with a false premise, we're supposed to pretend that the false premise is correct and not fix the misconception? I'm baffled by your objection to my answer... Is my correction of the false premise factually incorrect? --Jayron32 11:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. You hit the nail on the head. But the hammer might have been a tad too heavy. I'm a little over-sensitive at the moment because of external events (and I'm in no position to be lecturing anyone about over-reacting), but the fact remains there are ways of telling an OP that his question has a false premise that don't involve describing it as "nonsensical". Most people would take that as a reflection on themselves. Indeed, the OP did take issue with that word, below. You followed that up with "the question makes no sense", and in bold. It was overkill, Jayron. The OP is clearly not a native speaker, but no allowance seems to have been made for that. Had I been the OP, I think I'd have been somewhat offended for daring to ask my question, and I'd be thinking twice about coming back here. We have a welcoming culture here, and we wouldn't want anyone to feel that way. That is the sum total of my concern here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
At standard temperature, pressure, they are considered to be gasses. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 ? Do you mean that a glass of tap water sitting on a kitchen bench is composed of trillions of tiny gasses? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to three pure substances composed entirely of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify that? I don't really know what you're referring to. The topic is about the properties of individual particles, not about substances composed of such particles. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Clarify what? I don't see what I left out of the explanation I gave about what I'm referring to. Where does it say that the topic is what you suppose it is to be. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. You started out with "they are considered to be gasses". I didn't know what "they" was, until you mentioned "three pure substances composed entirely of protons, neutrons, and electrons". Can you give me an example of such a substance? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That is why I'm confused by your request for clarification - they are one of a kind. To me, it is akin to asking for an example of helium gas. Nothing else besides helium itself is helium, one of the reasons why it is defined as one of the elements in the first place. Likewise, only a proton gas is a proton gas. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not being deliberately obtuse, but I'm struggling to connect that with the OP's question. What would be the chemical composition of the proton gas you refer to? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The only way that the OP's question makes sense, is if they are enquiring about systems of those particles, rather than the individual particles. The chemical composition of a proton gas would be H+
exactly as the name implies. I expect such a gas to be colourless, and much lower density than helium at STP, and extremely oxidizing, to the point of being uncontainable without the use of an electromagnetic containment field. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Colour me incredulous, but I find it impossible to believe the OP had any such entity in mind. Jayron has already disabused the OP of the idea that individual particles belong to the solid/gas/liquid paradigm, and that makes at least two of us who understood that that misconception was at the root of the question. No wonder I had trouble following your line of argument. It's fine to add more accurate information, as long as you make it clear where you're going and what you're talking about.
Remember, this question should have been at the Science desk, but it is where it is, the Miscellaneous desk, and there's a different dramatis personae here. Maybe there's a lesson there: If a question is posted to what is clearly the wrong desk, we shouldn't just leave it in place and try to wing it, but move it to where it will have the best chance of being seen by the full set of people best qualified to answer it (that includes you and Jayron, no doubt), and won't attract queries from lay persons like me. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
"A rose by any other name..." H+
simply refers to a proton, nothing more, nothing less, which is exactly what the OP had in mind. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be possible to generate dilute proton and electron gases by x-ray irradiation, followed by separation, and trapping, using a time-sensitive modified Crookes' tube assembly. A dilute neutron gas can be generated by using a linear accelerator and cooling down the neutrons by directing them through a moderator. Containing a neutron gas, however is impossible precisely because of neutrons' neutrality. There is no known way to contain thermal neutrons once they are created, because they go where they please, they can't care less about ion traps or the walls of a containment vessel. They tend to react with most materials to produce instant radioactive waste which just makes things a whole lot more dangerous, otherwise they just diffuse throughout the material to escape on the other side, to do damage elsewhere. ...Which is why neutrons are generally not isolated in a bulk form, but instead generated in situ. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
PS, plasma is not a continuation the series solid, liquid, gas. It is a sub-state, meaning that it can exist as either a solid, liquid, or gas. What primary constitutes a plasma, is the presence of ions which are free to move in response to electromagnetic fields. A metal is an example of a solid plasma, an ionic liquid is an example of a liquid plasma, and a flame is an example of a more conventional gaseous plasma. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you all.I was not asking non sense question.It was just my queriosity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwas Sawid (talkcontribs) 01:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I wanted to clear up the term "plasma". A "plasma" is an electrically neutral collection of charged atoms, molecules and electrons. Normally we think of a plasma as a gas that has charged particles. Example would be an Argon plasma that has Ar+ atoms where an electron has been stripped off and and equal number of Ar+ and e- particles exist (this particular plasma can be created with RF energy in a partial vacuum). Diffusion and velocity differences between electrons and the argon ions create various effects similar to what happens when a P/N junction is created. There's the neutral plasma and a space charge region where the diffusive drift is counteracted by the electric field. Note that P/N junctions are also electrically neutral. The sun is an example of an electrically neutral plasma with various ions of helium and hydrogen. I don't think a neutron would qualify as being in a "plasma" state as it has no charge to begin with. It would be part of deuterium, tritium or Helium isotopes that were charged by having an electron removed. The simplest plasma is a hydrogen plasma with an equal amount of electrons and protons. That plasma is the most common in the universe when Helium and Hydrogen isotopes are mixed in (all the neutrons are bound to protons). --DHeyward (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question whether neutrons can exist unbound in a plasma. I guess they wouldn't last long as independent particles. I agree that, for plasmas found on Earth, neutrons will normally be bound in ions. As explained above, "hydrogen plasma" (excluding deuterium and tritium) is just an equal mixture of interacting electrons and protons not bound in atoms. Dbfirs 09:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(Thanks, PP, for your explanation about neutrons added above. This confirms what I thought.) Dbfirs 11:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Obama, wiki-bio[edit]

Article text, section CAREER. Earnings. Text quote: On 2006 income tax return "her" salary $273,618, "his" salary $157,082; she on BOD $51,200. That's $481,900 out of a stated $991,296. What is the income source for the $509,396 that was undocumented?

Article heading: Michelle Obama a lawyer. I've read elsewhere that Mrs. Obama surrendered her license to practice law. Though she has a law degree would this not be the credentialing alone to be identified as a "lawyer?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are you seeing her 1040? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a paraphrase from Michelle Obama#Career. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on her income, but the article and references show that Ms. Obama did not surrender her license. She changed her status to "inactive". This means that she is not currently practicing law. This is a common enough thing for lawyers to do if they aren't going to be actively practicing law for a while. as it typically reduces their annual licence fees and any requirements for continuing professional education. (Requirements etc. vary by jurisdiction.) So she is still a lawyer, just not a currently practicing lawyer. (See here and here for more info.) - EronTalk 17:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The article you're citing says that the Obamas' total income included not only the figures you quote, but income from investments and royalties from books; that doesn't seem particularly unusual. The citation for the sentence is a dead link though, so I couldn't tell you any further breakdown that it might have contained. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The numbers from our article that the OP quoted are for their 2006 income tax return. More information is at Barack Obama#Family and personal life: "Their 2009 tax return showed a household income of $5.5 million—up from about $4.2 million in 2007 and $1.6 million in 2005—mostly from sales of his books." -- ToE 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Time zones at the shore[edit]

Looking at this map, I noticed several areas where a time zone boundary appears to coincide with a shoreline – the northern and western coasts of France, the coasts of Argentina and Uruguay, most of the West African coast, etc. In these places, does the time really change the moment I step from a pier onto a boat, or does the national time include, say, the 12 nautical miles of a country's territorial waters? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

See Nautical time and Time zone#Nautical time zones. The legal boundary appears to be the territorial limit, though in practice ships aren't obliged to change clocks as they cross - nautical time is really only important for radio communications and the like, where an agreed standard is essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Since each country is able to pass laws to define the time zone it wishes to use - and can presumably enforce those laws within it's territorial's hard to see how the legal boundary could be anything other than the territorial limit. International law might say something different - but it's kinda irrelevant when a coastguard officer arrests you for entering their waters without appropriate lighting for that time of day because you're operating in a different time zone than that country chooses to impose. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Peugeot Ads from 1970s to 1999[edit]

Is there a website that shows advertising posters of the following Peugeot vehicles:

  • Peugeot 104 3-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 104 4-door saloon
  • Peugeot 104 5-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 106 3-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 106 5-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 204 2-door convertible
  • Peugeot 204 2-door coupe
  • Peugeot 204 2-door van
  • Peugeot 204 4-door estate or station wagon in North America
  • Peugeot 204 4-door sedan
  • Peugeot 205 2-door convertible
  • Peugeot 205 3-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 205 5-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 206 2-door coupe
  • Peugeot 206 3-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 206 4-door sedan or saloon
  • Peugeot 206 5-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 206 5-door station wagon
  • Peugeot 304 2-door convertible
  • Peugeot 304 2-door coupe
  • Peugeot 304 2-door van (fourgonette)
  • Peugeot 304 4-door estate or station wagon
  • Peugeot 304 4-door saloon or sedan
  • Peugeot 305 3-door panel van
  • Peugeot 305 4-door sedan
  • Peugeot 305 5-door station wagon
  • Peugeot 309 3-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 309 5-door hatchback
  • Peugeot 404 2-door convertible
  • Peugeot 404 2-door coupe
  • Peugeot 404 2-door coupe utility (pickup)
  • Peugeot 404 4-door saloon
  • Peugeot 404 5-door station wagon or estate
  • Peugeot 405 4-door saloon or sedan
  • Peugeot 405 5-door station wagon or estate
  • Peugeot 406 2-door coupe
  • Peugeot 406 4-door sedan or saloon
  • Peugeot 406 5-door station wagon estate and
  • Peugeot 505 4-door saloon or sedan
  • Peugeot 505 5-door station wagon or estate
  • Peugeot 604 4-door saloon or sedan
  • Peugeot 605 4-door sedan or saloon
  • Peugeot J7 van

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sorting your list and putting it in a more readable format. —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I could not find a website dedicated to this so I simply googled "old peugeot adverts" and clicked "Images". Plenty of hits. (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merchant Marines[edit]

Can you find any information on the last "full masted" (?) ship to sail around Cape horn?

My Grandfather, Roland Van Kavelaar, was in the Dutch Merchant Marines. I remember him saying that he was on the last full masted ship to sail around Cape Horn and am interested in any information you can find about that last ship that sailed around the Cape.

I don't know if this will be helpful to know, but he was conscripted into the U.S. military - I think it was the Coast Guard - during World War II, so he must have become a U.S. Merchant Marine at some point.

Thank you, Carol Nordmeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

According to our Cape Horn article, the last commercial sailing ship to round it was the four-masted barque, Pamir, a German Flying P-Liner, in 1949. I don't know if this fits in with your time-scale. Note that merchant ships signed on sailors for each voyage, experience being more important than nationality. By the way, my grandfather rounded the Horn several times under sail at the turn of the 20th century, once taking 52 days to pass between the Atlantic and Pacific (or maybe the other way about, I can't remember). Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Nitpick, but contrary to the usual American usage, the 'van' in Dutch names should not be capitalised. Fgf10 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Pamir was an impressive vessel, and larger than most proper ships, but as a barque, she does not count as a fully rigged ship. A fully rigged ship carries square sails on all masts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Quite right, but the OP asked about the last "full masted ship" which I took to mean all-sail propulsion. I haven't been able to find a source for when the last "fully rigged ship" rounded the Horn, but I suspect that it would have been considerably earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In German (and I suspect in Dutch), a "Vollmast" (full mast) is a mast with square sails, so I think a "full masted ship" would be a "full ship". But your interpretation is certainly reasonable. As far as I know, Pamir had no connection with the Dutch merchant navy. Maybe the OP can recall some extra information? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone know where I might be able to buy this type of duster? Joneleth (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A few questions that might help you get better answers: how close does it have to be? Are you using it for a costume or real-life purposes? What country are you in? Here's a costume coat that's somewhat similar [67], and here's a real coat [68]. There will be huge differences in quality and price between costume and "real" versions. I'm not sure if Dresden's duster was leather or not, but here's an Amazon search for /leather duster/ [69]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Harry Dresden frequently referred to his duster as being leather, though Joneleth will have to go to considerable effort to add all the protective spells :-). {The poster formerly known as (currently reading Ghost Story)} (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The best place to ask would probably be a tack shop/equestrian supplier. If it's not hanging on a rack, they'll know somebody who sells them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutorial Etiquette in Cafes[edit]

Tomorrow I'm giving a private language tutorial in central London and I'll meet the student in a cafe, so we'll have to get drinks. What is the etiquette for buying drinks in this scenario? Should I buy myself a drink, charge my usual tuition fee and leave the student to decide for himself whether or not he's buying his own drink? Matt's talk 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The general rule is that the host should provide the refreshment, so the answer will depend on which of you is the host - in other words, which of you suggested that you should meet at the cafe? If it was the student, then it's not unreasonable to wait for them to offer you a coffee - if it was you, then you definitely should offer them one. That being said, the student is your customer (as well as your guest), and I'm sure the price of a coffee is a reasonable sum to invest in encouraging them to continue to engage your services. Tevildo (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would arrange before with with the proprietor of of said café (cafe makes it sound so down-market) to set up a tab were 'you' can meet and greet each student with a beverage of his/her choice. Then collect the aggregated receipt and claim the cost back on tax as 'hospitality'. You had best run this by your accountant to find out what is tax deductible for your line of employment. If you are self- employed this should make things easier. 'Tomorrow' is a little too late to think about these things. Is this your very first private language tutorial ? If you told your students to rondevu at this café they expect the tutorial experience to start there. Suddenly finding they have to buy their own coffee may set them against you from the start. As you will doing this tomorrow, suffer the possible financial lose. Get the proprietor to put all purchases on one receipt and hope that your your accountant can claim it back. Next time you might be able to add it to the fee if that does not work. Just like your students, it will be a learning experiance for you too. Good luck with tomorrow, although I'm sure you don't need it.--Aspro (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This may not be applicable to you but I include it just to show there are many ways that a good accountant can make the rich richer.corporate hospitality--Aspro (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, you could point out to the proprietor of café (unless it Starbucks or som'it) that an empty café does not look inviting to passers by. But if you fill it up with your students it 'WILL' entourage more patrons to walk in (sound positive and confident). Then ask for a 30% discount on all purchases. He may well laugh and ask what have you been smoking this morning?. Yet who knows, he may beat you down to no more than a 10 percent discount, which is ten percent more than if you didn’t try. If you're going self-employed you'll need to become astute as to the many ways of saving the pennies. You have already learnt one of them – namely, getting free advice from Wikipedia ;-)--Aspro (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If this were happening at your own place of business...and you offered them a soda from your fridge - I don't think you'd expect them to pay. Similarly, if you went to someones house to teach, then you'd expect them to make the offer. The problem is that you're on neutral territory. I'd say that the person who suggested meeting in this place ought to be the one who pays - because the other person is being (in effect) forced to pay something that they didn't necessarily want. If you'd chosen to meet someplace horribly expensive, I think it would be more clear that the horrendous expense would be this is all a matter of degree. SteveBaker (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't get that anyone would be "forced" to pay anything, Steve. If a certain student doesn't want a coffee, nobody would be forcing one down their throats. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone, for the free advice. Independent cafés in Mayfair are rather expensive and have no difficulty filling tables, so I'm not sure many of these strategies will work. I will certainly keep the receipt for tax purposes though. Matt's talk 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Be bold, ask for a discount anyway. It will be a learning experience. It could broaden your outlook beyond your own specialty, which you can then benefit from in the future. Do you think Bill Gates just concentrated on programming? (OK, OK, before anyone else corrects me; He was just a very mediocre but keen amateur, who then had to employ people with the proper skills which he lacked).--Aspro (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Finally Matt's: Don't keep us dangling on tenter hooks. Report back on how your sessions/tutorial/lessons went.--Aspro (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

CF-18s sent to Middle East[edit]

Canada, where I live, is sending a group of CF-18 fighter jets to fight ISIS in the Middle East. How do the planes get to the Middle East? Do they fly them across the Atlantic with extra fuel pods under the wings?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The CF-18s are refueled via aerial refueling, typically by an Airbus CC-150 Polaris or similar aircraft. The RCAF also uses CC-130 for tactical refueling in theatre; see for example. - EronTalk 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article Transatlantic flight says that Newfoundland to the Azores is 1,900 km. The CF-18 has a ferry range of 3,330 km so would in theory be able to do this without air to air refuelling. Going via Iceland might involve shorter hops. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There's not much on the net about this. I found "An airbridge with daily flights spanning 10,100 kilometres from CFB Trenton to Kuwait should get rolling soon..." [70] which suggests that they may fly direct. The force includes "One CC-150T Polaris air-to-air refueller..." [71] although the same article suggests that they will actually be stopping off first at Bagotville, Quebec. Alansplodge (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 31[edit]

England's grey areas[edit]

Google Maps shows two large unidentified grey areas, one west of London, the other north of Leeds. What are they? Military? ‑‑Mandruss  06:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What are the coordinates? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Approx centers --- west of London 51.427, -1.543 --- north of Leeds 54.209, -2.171 ‑‑Mandruss  07:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Both areas seem to coincide partially with the footprints of some Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Unfortunately it appears that Google doesn't provide a Key to their map colours. Nanonic (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears the western area could be the North Wessex Downs and the northern is the Yorkshire Dales (from looking at the map here. Nanonic (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither area shows grey for me, all details are visible. One is near Chilton Foliat in Wiltshire, the other is near Hubberholme in North Yorkshire. Richard Avery (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Stanford Training Area is a closed military area and Google is shading it red.[72] They've got the boundary wrong though, it's the area with the boundary marked "danger area" (surrounded dotted red if you zoom out a level) in the Ordnance Survey map.[73] Thincat (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I noticed the overlap with North Wessex Downs AONB, but as mentioned above it's not a very good overlap. And the northern area is even worse, judging by the map in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I also wondered why there aren't a lot more grey areas, if those are AONBs. In the U.S., equivalent areas such as national parks and national forests are in green, and military areas such as White Sands Missile Range are in grey. That's why I thought these might be military areas, such as perhaps restricted flight areas. I can't explain why Richard Avery doesn't see the grey, if he is using Google Maps. I see the grey in both the old and the new versions of Google Maps. ‑‑Mandruss  09:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Nanonic is correct. If you enter your coordinates in GeoLocator, and then switch back and forth between the Google map and the Open Street Map, the same areas that are tinted gray in Google are tinted green in OSM and labeled "North Wessex Downs AONB" and "Yorkshire Dales National Park". Why Google has Yorkshire Dales gray rather than green (like Lake District NP and North York Moors NP, for instance) is not clear to me. Deor (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that if there are ony two 'grey areas' on the aerial view of England, the map must have been put together on a rare day of exceptionally and unusually fine weather here in England :) KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This forum thread seems to suggest that the colour code in Google maps depends on which local provider gave Google permission to use their maps. So, don't expect consistency. If you could track down the source of the maps, you might get a better answer. The identification as the two AONBs seems to be correct. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)