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



April 23[edit]


My computer comes with a 350 watt power supply. That seems like an awful high number of watts to be drawing all the time. How does it work? Does it only go to 300 watts when you use it? Also, how many watts does an intel "i5" CPU use? Would a 300 watt power supply be enough for a motherboard (with integrated intel graphics), i5 CPU, and one hard drive?

A PC power supply is a switched-mode power supply, which means it draws more power from the mains when more is drawn from it (unlike a linear regulator, which always draws the max and has to discharge what you don't need as waste heat). Different power supply models aim for varying levels of efficiency - yours will probably be labelled with the standard(s) its manufacturer aims for - see 80 Plus for some examples. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 12:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
List of CPU power dissipation figures lists the power use of many CPU types, including i5s. Your motherboard manual will give the power use of the motherboard itself. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 350W indicates the maximum load that the PSU can support, just like a 1,000 bhp car engine doesn't always produce that amount of power unless the accelerator is full depressed. Over-specifying the PSU won't do any harm, it's just more expensive to buy that needed. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You can look up the manufacturer's datasheets for the specific drive you want, in order to get the max power draw for the drive you're considering. The drive will typically consume most power on spinup, and when it's under full load. To give you some ballpark figures, this Seagate pulls up to about 8W. 5400rpm drives will typically be a little bit less. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 12:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, one needs a power supply to work at about 80% of its rated capacity. Not only do you have the start up current drain but the manufacture expects you to add other hardware at some time. Additions may only add a few watts here and their but it would look bad on them if their machines gave up the ghost as soon as the customers added a scanner, printers, web cam, 3D printer, USB hubs etc. It is like driving your car at max speed all the time – the engine will not last very long. Look no further than rally and racing cars.. one race and the engine's nakered. Electronic components likewise age according to the load placed upon them.--Aspro (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A Power supply unit (computer) need to cover peak loads. Electrolytic capacitors are the limiting factor in the livetime of a PSU. The higher the load and the higher the temperature, the shorter the is livespan. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 23:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The older the capaciors inside the PSU and on the M/B are, the less peak loads can be covered to prevent brownouts, causing repeating of data transfer due checksum errors or malfunction like freezing or bluescreens. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 10:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What type of phone/camera/camcorder was used to record the first YouTube video[edit]

Today is 10 years since Me at the Zoo. I didn't see in the article what was used to take the video. Peter Michner (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


How can I tell how many watts my computer is using from within Windows? I don't want to buy an external watt meter. Thank you

I doubt if your PC can tell you that. The best you could probably do, without a watt meter, is to look at the electrical meter for the house. That should show you the wattage you are using, if it's a digital meter. The old analog meters with spinning dials are a bit harder to use (there you would need to note the position of the dials before and after a fixed period of time and do some math). So, in theory comparing the house wattage with the PC on and off will tell you how much it is using. However, this can be complicated by some devices turning on and off periodically, like refrigerators, air conditioners, and furnace fans. So, you might want to unplug the fridge and turn the thermostat so the A/C and furnace won't run during the test. Don't forget to plug the fridge back in ! StuRat (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are concerned about power use, get a power meter (like Kill-a-Watt). You'd be surprised how many things suck power. My old TV used more power when it turned off than when it was turned on! I replaced it, naturally. I also located a lot of other things that suck too much power and either put them on a power switch (to keep them from sucking electricity when I wasn't using them) or replaced them. For a computer, you can see how much power is used over a period of time and see how it changes from doing something like surfing the web to something else like playing video games. (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Another very approximate way to tell what is using power is what gets hot, since most power eventually ends up turned into heat. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't say that on the Science Desk. They are adamant that ALL power becomes heat. (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that why, the more powerful the politician, the more hot-air they spout? - Just wondering--Aspro (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, by not heat within that particular appliance. Some energy escapes as sound and light and becomes heat somewhere else. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
'Everest Ultimate Edition' software, or latest version. I recall the software doing something to do with 'mw' -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
EUE was replaced by AIDA64. It has a database of power consumption averages for CPUs and GPUs. From that, it estimates power draw over time based on the CPU/GPU configuration it detects in your system. For the money ($40), I'd get a Kill-a-Watt ($20) and get an rather exact measure of power consumption. (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No way. DePending on the load a computer needs more or less energy. The PSU also has a varable efficency pening on age, load and type. You will need to use a wattmeter or monitor the AC input. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Pending"/"pening" = "Depending" ? StuRat (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, thank you. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 07:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The power consumption is exposed through the ACPI bus; this is how laptops read their battery status. There's a Linux programs that will show you the usage [1]; I'm not sure if anyone has written one for MS-Windows, but IIRC, the ACPI bus can be read by user-mode MS-Windows programs.
The API is described here, should you (or anyone else) wish to write a program. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

sound card[edit]

hi all, which card could be better for a sennheisers hd518... an asus xonar dgx or a Sound Blaster Audigy Fx, most part for music

thank you in advance

Does Jenkins run all tests on each commit?[edit]

Does Jenkins run all tests on each commit like Travis CI? WinterWall (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Where can I host one or two documents?[edit]

I would like to put my CV on-line and link to it from Facebook etc. I don't really want to pay for hosting and I don't have a website anymore. What are my options? Hayttom 11:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Dropbox. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I already use Dropbox; it hadn't occurred to me that I could point links to a document there. Thanks. Hayttom 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I used Google Sites to create a web page for my career portfolio. -- Gadget850 talk 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In a sequence diagram, how do you show a subset of non-adjacent participants engage in an abstracted use case?[edit]

In a sequence diagram involving a number of participants (e.g. A, ..., E), how do you show a non-adjacent subset of them (e.g. A, C, & E) engaging in a sub-usecase, which is shown as an abstract block? The goal is to show that A, C, & E are participants, but B & D are not. In this simple example, we can reorder the participants to make A, C, & E to make them adjacent, but that is generally not possible when you have several such abstract blocks involving different subsets of participants. Is there a standard way of identifying the participants of an abstract sub-usecase? What are the common practices? -- (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find an example at present, but I've seen this handled by making e.g. A,C,E one color, while B,D are a different color. Another option is to make the nodes different shapes, e.g. squares vs. circles. Just make sure you include a key/legend, and you should be able to clearly point out sub-groupings without using adjacency. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Statistics : Gaussian bell curve/Normal distribution/Probability density function in pure ANSI C or C++[edit]

While studying density function of normal distribution I got the need to create a program for my embedded device which can solve integrates of : f(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi} } e^{ -\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2} } for solving probabilities in this form :
Proba densite.png and it’s reverts like finding a in \mathbb{P}\left( 20 - a \le X \le 20+ a \right) = 0.95 or in \mathbb{P}\left( X < a \right) = 0.98 with \mathbb{N}\left(20;5\right)

The problem is solving integrates without using primitives is currently beyond of my knowledge and I won’t be able to use standard normal distribution tables the day I will have to solve those simple situations. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Cumulative distribution function of the Normal distribution does not exist as an elementary function. For convenience, we define the normal CDF in terms of "erf" - There will be many options available, but I would start by considering Error_function#Taylor_series. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
erf and erfc = 1 − erf are available in math.h (or cmath). See C mathematical functions. -- BenRG (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
BenRG erfc is complementary function of erf not it’s reverse. And erf/erfl is not present in ANSI C. It is an addition which come with C99. I don’t have a C99 compatible compiler for embedded device. Also I am unable to find a long double version of an erfinv implementation and I don’t have the knowledge to create them. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought they were at least in C++98, but I didn't check. And I missed that you need the inverse.
Boost.Math has erf(c) and erf(c)_inv, with an arbitrary-precision implementation and optimized versions for 80-bit and (for erf only) 128-bit floats, and it's probably sufficiently portable. It's a large dependency, of course. You might be able to extract the relevant bits from boost/math/special_functions/erf.hpp and boost/math/special_functions/detail/erf_inv.hpp.
You could of course solve the inverse problem by successive approximation, using at worst one call of erf per mantissa bit plus a few to find the exponent. -- BenRG (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
BenRG Also my device doesn’t feature a return key on it’s keyboard, that's why I would prefer to use C if possible. Boost seems to rely partially on the UNIX/POSIX API which I can’t use.
I am unable to see how I can use an hypothetical erfinvl function for finding the minimal value a in this kind of inequality \mathbb{P}\left( X > a \right) < 0.028 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That equation is solved by the quantile function, which is given in normal distribution in terms of \operatorname{erf}^{-1}. (What is the relevance of a return key? It certainly doesn't favor C over C++. If you need newlines, and you have a compiler on the device (since otherwise its keyboard wouldn't matter), you could always write a version of tr first to translate your code…) --Tardis (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you looking for a highly precise solution, or just a rough one? Does it matter if the solution is computationally efficient (e.g. will you be iterating this thousands of times), or do you just need it to run occasionally? It is fairly easy to implement crude solutions to this problem that will be accurate to several decimal places but not necessarily exact, but whether that is good enough probably depends on your application. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight Answering your question I don’t need something fast. The device itself is already using FPU emulation, and the code generation is optimized for size over speed. Crude/Slow solutions are perfectly acceptable.
The final precision accuracy does matter for the first six digits. As there are several intermediate steps, I guess higher internal precision is necessary. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
For example Error function#Approximation with elementary functions gives approximation for erf and erfinv in basic functions that are everywhere accurate to three decimal places. As suggested above a Taylor series can give you even better accuracy but will generally require more terms. Dragons flight (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm still a little confused. It looks like OP wants to implement something to evaluate certain expressions and inequalities, but can't use many established packages due to system constraints? Error_function#B.C3.BCrmann_series looks better than the Taylor series approach, and could in principle be implemented from first principles using only arithmetic. If OP can't see how that link will help solve the example problems, someone can probably explain that too- but it's more a question of math than computers at that point. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
SemanticMantis building for my system is like building for an MS-DOS 5.0 PC with an intel 80286 with a broken return key. (I’m using a NEC V30MX with an old ROM-DOS version and special built-in keyboard) 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've used that kind of system, but never had to compile code on it. Do you not have access to operations that can accomplish this?
\operatorname{erf}(x)\approx \frac{2 }{\sqrt{\pi}}\sgn(x)\sqrt{1-e^{-x^2}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}+\frac{31}{200}\,e^{-x^2}-\frac{341}{8000}\,e^{-2\,x^2}\right).
#include <MATH.H>
#include <FLOAT.H>
#define M_2_SQRTPIl	1.128379167095512573896158903121545172L /* 2/sqrt(pi) */
# define M_PIl		3.141592653589793238462643383279502884L /* pi */
inline long double sgn(long double x) {
		return 1.000000000000000000000e+0L;
		return 0.000000000000000000000e+0L;
	return -1.000000000000000000000e+0L;
inline long double erfl(long double x) {
	return M_2_SQRTPIl*sgn(x)*sqrtl(1-expl(-powl(x,2)))*((sqrtl(M_PIl)/2)+((30/200)*expl(-powl(x,2)))-((341/8000)*expl(-2*powl(x,2))));
If you can code that, you can get a reasonably accurate and fast approximation to erf, which will then let you compute the kinds of things that you describe above. In other words, if you can manage to define/implement the right hand side above, then you won't need to depend on a built-in function to integrate Gaussian PDFs/normal distributions. Does that help? If you cannot implement that, can you tell us why not, or what operations you can't perform? (ok, and since I'm trying to help, mind telling us what the bigger goal is here? :) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
SemanticMantis What is sgn()? Again, the only thing I can acess the ANSI C standard library.I don’t know what is sgn, the remaining looks OK. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
sgn is the sign function, which is simply -1, 0, or 1 depending on whether x is negative, zero, or positive respectively. It's probably not part of a standard library but it is trivial to implement with a few conditional statements. Dragons flight (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the compiler I’m using is Borland C++ 4.5.2 which can be downloaded here. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Be careful: 30/200==0 (as do 341/8000 and 0.000000000000000000000e+0L; why not just write "0" in the last case?). --Tardis (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't write that code - someone else must have decided it was better to place their suggestion in with my comment. My understanding is that the OP has some math problems/questions along with the "computer" problems - the example I gave is just one way of getting an elementary expression to approximate erf, other expressions could be derived that use more summands and have coefficients that aren't so close to zero. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight Ok now it lacks the reverse error function which is : \operatorname{erf}^{-1}(x)\approx \sgn(x) \sqrt{\sqrt{\left(\frac{2}{\pi a}+\frac{\ln(1-x^2)}{2}\right)^2 - \frac{\ln(1-x^2)}{a}}
-\left(\frac{2}{\pi a}+\frac{\ln(1-x^2)}{2}\right)} . The problem is I don't understand what does a correspond to. (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Free download and free virus program wmv to mp4, mp4 to wmv[edit]

Is there a program where I can download it without virus and convert the wmv files to mp4 files and mp4 files to wmv files and also convert flv files into mp3 files? Please and thanks.

Probably many, but FFmpeg is the authentic swiss army knife for such transcoding. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Downloadhelper (Firefox AddOn)? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 08:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but those don't help. They are annoying. Anything else?

Your identification (signature) is required, as well as the software type (one using the internet or on using the desktop without using the internet) -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any difference between native support for a feature and a feature being built-in?[edit]

When someone says that PHP has no Unicode native support, or that Erlang has native support for concurrency, does it just mean whether it's integrated or built-in the language or not at all? What if a functionality can only be used after importing a library, is that native support or built-in? --Senteni (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Image file not displaying[edit]

I'm unable to open a '.jpeg' file (a drawing) in '3ds Max 2013' as well as 'AutoCAD LT 2015'. I don't know what to do. Can someone help me please? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can open it with any other program, perhaps you can then export it as a different format which can be read by your intended programs. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I tried to copy and paste, even changed the file 'extension' name, did not work. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You should either be able to open it normally, or using "Import", in any program that supports that file type. If it consistently fails, then I agree that the image is likely corrupt. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe the file is defective (corrupt). -- (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, all the shops are closed right now as its very late, I'll re-scan it tomorrow and recheck it... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I just tried an unscanned '.jpeg' file (a normal drawing image created in PC; a square box) doesn't work... Sad-tpvgames.gif -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

Greek keyboard layouts[edit]

I'm hesitated if this question belongs to here or to WP:RD/L, but I hope here may be a person who knows something about l10n in MS. In Windows OSs why are there several Greek layouts? The list: simply "Greek", "Greek Polytonic" (both expected), but then go something strange: "Greek Latin" (!), which hardly different from the "US international", then "Greek (220)" and "Greek (319)", the both also have Latin variants. I wonder what's the origin and purpose of the last five, especially the Latin ones? I can suggest the "220" and "319" may have come from some Greek standards for Greek typewriters.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, this has to do with whether the keystroke pressed by the user will present to the system software as a character input in Unicode, in Windows-1252, Windows-1253, or ISO 8859-7 character encoding. In Windows, a "keyboard layout" manages not only the physical mapping of key location to character, but also manages text character encoding. Some layouts are only available if certain additional locale-management system components are installed (per the Keyboard Layout FAQ). This is why you may see multiple options that each appear (superficially) to have the same key mappings. Depending on how your software retrieves its text from Microsoft's various text service APIs, your software may receive character inputs at are already transcoded - and hopefully into Unicode! (Refer to the section on software that is IMM/IME "-aware", "-partially-aware", and "unaware" in the Input Method Management FAQ).
To make your life more complicated as an internationalization/localization developer, you also need to be aware that keyboard layouts are elements on "input locale" preferences, which are per-user settings; but keyboard device driver settings are global (affecting all users). If you are developing software for which this distinction matters, you should peruse Microsoft's documentation extensively, and you should try to use Unicode as much as possible at all layers.
Default Input Locales contains a table listing identifier-codes for all five Greek keyboards. What is not documented is the near-infinite number of plausible input locales (i.e., a unique pairing between any one of these keyboard layouts and any one of the hundreds of selectable system languages). For example, you can inform Windows that you intend to use Greek-319 keyboard to type Latin characters in the Afrikaans language and set your region preferences to Iceland - this is a legal, albeit implausible, configuration that appears to work on Windows Vista.
Nimur (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting but hardly answer my questions. I'd like more definite information. For example, it is absolutely known that the "Russian typewriter" layout that have being shipped since Windows 95 is directly derived from the Soviet standard (GOST) for typewriters. Such cannot be said about the Greek variants, as Greek typewriters have had different layouts.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Greek keyboards, but they must have Latin letters on the key caps, and "Greek Latin" layouts must be layouts that use those letters instead of the Greek letters. The three-digit identifiers show up in other countries' layouts, so they aren't a Greek standard. They seem to be keyboard codes from the MS-DOS days—or at least 319 is listed as a Greek keyboard ID here. They may not have been used in new PCs in decades, but keyboard IDs never die, like IANA assigned port numbers. -- BenRG (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Virtually every keyboard outside Latin-alphabeted countries has Latin letters alongside the local script. But your idea about old country codes and obsolete hardware seems legit. Unfortunately, there are hardly found pre-1995 Greek hardware keyboards in Google, I'm not sure how widespread they were and if existed at all then. One of their distinguishing feature must be " on the 2 key instead of @.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Compressing representations of colors[edit]

I have lists of several specific colors, represented in RGB Hexadecimal format. Each list can vary from 3 to about 7 colors. What i want to know is whether there is a simple way to compress the representation of these colors, so that the length of a string for this is both small and easy to convert to the original list of colors.... in either hex or decimal format.

For instance, i have a list that contains the colors Red, Blue, Green, and gray, like so: #FF0000, #00FF00, #0000FF, #999999. One "Easy" way to represent these is to do something like this: "FF0000|00FF00|0000FF|999999". However, this results in a rather long string, that gets much more lengthy when the list contains 7 colors. I am trying to think of ways to mathematically compress this information in a better way, hopefully which can be represented alpha-numerically.

I've thought about using something interesting like base 36, but exact algorithms that would work and be elegant elude me. Does anyone have an idea? Thanks! (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not assign a single letter to each color? That way you would have a choice of 26 colors, or 52 if you use upper and lower case. Or am I misunderstanding what you want?--Shantavira|feed me 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This could work, your solution does something which i was thinking about, which is reducing the number of colors available, in order to shorten the representation of these colors. I was looking at complete preservation of the color though, since this is art... and i wonder if i should keep with that, or maybe only reduce it to 16-bit color depth.

I am trying to use a short string to represent combinations of colors, a "scheme" if you will that would be used on an art piece. Since the customer will not be technical, i dont want them to have to paste to me a huge string of text. The best solution sadly might just be recording down the different schemes and enumerating in a simple way.... eg "Sch1", "Sch2", "Sch3", etc. I was hoping to have the color code tell me the colors themselves instead of looking it up. (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well what is your application if the question is not answered? If You are using an text editor, type Your short codes, use find and replace (CTRL+H) to finish the text file and replace the short codes by the substituted text. Some interpreters allow to skipping of leading zeros, eg. #FF0000, #FF00, #FF, #999999. A reduced number of full colors is used as a color palette in the GIF file format. It usually picks a set of 256 from 16.7 million possible colors per picture. The algorithm of the JPG codec splits the picture into squares of different sizes of pixels and reinterprets the pixels inside the square by string interpolation. See also lossless and lossy compression. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A conversion to base 64 (which can be represented by upper case letters, lower case letters, numbers, and two other symbols) reduces each 6-digit colour down to 4 digits. Using - and / as your symbols will give you a nice looking alphanumeric-ish code (e.g. A8b-4jy9/oL2). 7 colours is going to be lengthy whatever you do, unless you reduce your colour space somehow (you have 16^42 options, which is a long number in any base with a practical number of symbols - at base 94, which is all the character keys on a Br.English keyboard both with and without shift, you'll have a 26 character code, which is a barely readable mash of symbols). MChesterMC (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Autodesk Software file usage for amendments[edit]

Is it possible to use 'Autodesk 3ds Max 2015' 64-bit with 'Autodesk Motion Builder 2014' 64-bit? Does it matter what should be used first? Can I use 'Autodesk 3ds Max 2013' with these using two computers? Is 'Autodesk Motion Builder 2014' required at all? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

a site that uses CAPTCHA[edit]

I was having problems with some software preventing websites using CAPTCHA from working. Now the maker of the software wants me to duplicate the problem while their software has a trace on. But now I don't remember the website that uses CAPTCHA. So, is there a website where I can easily use CAPTCHA? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a CAPTCHA if you try to post content containing an external link and you are not logged on. So you could test by logging off, then posting something like [] to the Sandbox. -- (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - CAPTCHA works there, so the latest version of the software no longer has the problem I experienced. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


April 24[edit]

What came first, the chicks or the chicken?[edit]

What came first, the chicks or the chicken?

Do women lay an evolved egg (which is internal and better protected), or, do chicken lay an evolved ovum (which has its own nutrients, and can be laid anywhere and forgotten about)? What evolved from what? --Llaanngg (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Mammals (including humans) evolved from egg-laying animals, although not specifically from chickens. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed monotremes still lay eggs; only the other mammals evolved vivipary. Note that vivipary has evolved many times in many different groups of organisms, even full-fledged hemotrophic vivipary (i.e. sustenance from the maternal blood supply) in sharks with yolk sac placentas. A cruder example is Limnonectes larvaepartus, a frog that bears tadpoles that apparently eat feces and one another while inside the mother's body. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor correction: from vivipary - "When considering squamate reptiles in particular, there is a correlation between high altitudes or latitudes, colder climates and the frequency of viviparity. " - Viviparous reptiles are a little different than viviparous mammals in terms of the means and mechanisms of reproduction, but they are still considered viviparous. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Modern amniotic vertebrate eggs arose with the amniota 330 million years ago, flying dinosaurs have been around since the Jurrasic, and the land and waterfowl (Galloanseres) have been around since before the K/T event. The genus Gallus has been around since the mid-Pleistocene at least. Since we use the term chick nowadays to refer to all baby birds, they have been around since before the dinosaurs went extinct, the modern domesticated chicken only since the end of the last ice-age, and the hard-shelled egg since the late Carboniferous.

What are the signs that there's a sinkhole beneath the ground you're on?[edit]

Are there telltale signs that there's a sinkhole below the ground you're on or the building you're in? -- (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

watch here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not until it's rather too late, when the ground starts to sink. Sometimes there's enough warning to evacuate before total collapse, sometimes not. To avoid this risk, you'd want to use ground-penetrating radar (dragging a device that looks like a lawn mower back and forth across the surface in a grid pattern), especially if you are in an area with karst topography. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's what happens when you don't realize you are walking on a sinkhole. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at Detection & Warning Signs of Imminent Sinkhole Collapse --Aspro (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
We had a sinkhole forming around a manhole above a sewer. The manhole kept getting lower, and there were holes along the sides going all the way down to the sewer. When we first sounded the alarm, they just patched over the holes with asphalt, but I knew that was no good. Soon enough the holes were even larger. Fortunately, they then repaired it correctly. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

meteorology vs aerology[edit]

What is the difference between meteorology and aerology? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Meteorology is a part of aerology—atmospheric sciences. Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
"Aerology" is an old term that is rarely used any more. It had two main usages. First, it was the U.S. Navy's term for meteorology in general. (The Navy tends to have their own way of doing things.) Second, it was the study of the free atmosphere, above the boundary layer. In the second sense aerology is part of meteorology, not the other way around. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Drilling holes and magma[edit]

If you drill into the Earth deep enough, will you eventually hit magma? Will this work anywhere on the planet? Malamockq (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

One issue is that if you drill toward very hot material, the drill bit stops working - see Kola Superdeep Borehole. Another issue is that rock in the mantle (geology) is not really liquid but "plastic" in nature, and only becomes magma when it moves up enough for the pressure on it to be relieved. In theory, an open borehole would relieve the pressure, so does that make it magma? But you couldn't make an open borehole because the "plastic" rock would push in on it too much to keep it open, I think. (ought to research that further) But if you use "your mind's eye" to scout for "true liquid" under the ground, then there's nothing guaranteed short of the outer core, which is molten iron and hence not really magma either. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If you could drill such a hole, then the magma would cool, thicken, slow, and finally solidify, as it rose through cooler surrounding rock, so I don't think you'd get a volcano, if that's what you meant. A volcano requires a large magma chamber close to the surface, from which it can then erupt. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A practical method is described here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See previous discussion that discussed the challenges of drilling into shallow magma chambers beneath volcanoes. Mikenorton (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Soooo, the answers to the actual questions are yes and yes, in case that wasn't obvious from the above verbiage. I am assuming what the OP really wants to know is is there molten rock under us no matter where we are on earth. See Magma#Migration (magma comes from the mantle or crust of earth). Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Aircraft propeller design[edit]

My traditional idea of a propeller blade is something like this. However, some modern aircraft have propellers that look like this or this, where the angle of the blades looks (to a non-expert) to be hopelessly wrong, more like a paddle-wheel that would drive the aircraft sideways. What is the reason for this change? (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

See Propeller (aeronautics)#Feathering. -- ToE 01:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Even the first photo's props could be feathered, notice the cylindrical escutcheon (or casing if you must) around the root of each blade. That houses the feathering mechanism.Greglocock (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your photos are of a C-130 (or variant thereof); and either a TBM or a Meridian turboprop (I can't tell from this angle). All of these aircraft use a constant-speed propeller: the pitch of the propeller blade varies with power setting in order to keep the rotation speed constant. For more on the theory and practice of these propellers, see the section on transitioning to complex aircraft (Chapter 11) in the Airplane Flying Handbook, or read about constant speed propellers in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Constant speed, variable pitch propellers exist because they enable the engine to operate at a maximally efficient RPM no matter how much power is needed for any specific flight configuration. Conversely, fixed-pitch props waste power - and therefore, fuel - by running the engine in an inefficient configuration (low RPM) when low power is required. In effect, the airfoils (blades) of a fixed-pitch prop are slipping through the air for almost all operating conditions except at one particular peak-efficiency power setting.
Also note that a variable pitch propeller need not be driven by a turbo engine: for example, the Super Decathalon is a piston-powered Citabria whose powerful engine drives a constant speed propeller; the Cessna 182 is a conventional general aviation aircraft whose piston engine drives a constant speed propeller. Constant speed propeller is one among three required elements of a "complex" aircraft, as defined by the FAA: a single-engine land aircraft must have flaps, retractable gear, and a constant speed propeller to qualify as "complex."
Nimur (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The photograph of your traditional idea of a propeller shows a radial, reciprocating engine. The other two photographs show turbine-propeller engines. The former type of engine tends to be much older than turbine-propeller engines. The design standards for aircraft in that era allowed the pilot to manually feather the propeller of an engine that suffered a complete loss of power, even though it was well-known that a "windmilling" propeller on a failed engine generated a very large amount of drag, especially when the aircraft was flying at high speed. The design standards in that era didn't contain any incentive for prompt, automatic feathering of the propeller following an engine failure. In these engines, there is no need for the pilot to feather the propeller when the engine is being shut down at the end of a flight.
The design standards for modern aircraft, and especially those with modern turbine-propeller engines, contain a significant penalty (in terms of payload) for any multi-engine aircraft that relies on the pilot to recognize an engine failure, identify which engine has failed, and then manually feather the propeller on that engine. There is a strong incentive for designers to equip the engine and its propeller with sensors and pumps to automatically coarsen the pitch or feather the propeller whenever the engine is delivering less power than it should. Pilot action is not required for these propellers to feather at any stage of flight, including the end of a flight when the engine is being shut down. As a consequence, the propellers on these engines feather automatically whenever the engine is shut down. Even when one of these engines is installed on a single-engine aircraft, the automatic pitch-coarsening and feathering functions are retained. The two photographs you have supplied of turbine-propeller aircraft show aircraft that are stationary on the ground with their propeller blades in the position they automatically move to whenever the engines are shut down. Dolphin (t) 06:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bum hair[edit]


I am curious about why evolution has decided to keep hair on our anal region. I can't imagine it serving any particularly useful service, and it certainly has a detrimental affect in terms of cleanliness.

I've read stuff like The Ancestor's Tale, and have a reasonable lay-person's perspective on evolution.

I know that most seemingly-inexplicable traits (massive antlers, peacock tails, etc) are down to sexual selection, and that it's often best to assume sex-sel plays a role. But I can't see how that affects our bottoms.

I can understand how apes-humans lost their hair, and that keeping hair on our heads and beard makes some sense (heat-loss, usually exposed). I can understand that perhaps hair on genitals might be an indicator of sexual maturity (back to that oh-so-common evolutionary reason, sexual selection).

But I cannot imagine any survival-of-the-fittest logic in our keeping hairy bums.

Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talkcontribs) 08:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My layman's understanding is that things don't have to be useful to be selected for, they just have to be "not detrimental enough" to be selected against, so maybe it's the case here. And hygienic conditions were bad as they were for 99% of human history (as a species) anyway, so what's a little hair in the bum Asmrulz (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You are assuming that evolution has stopped. Perhaps it has not. In thousands of years, we might have totally bald bottoms, or masses of fibrous keratin threads sprouting from every follicle!DrChrissy (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it most surely hasn't stopped, but I don't see where in my post I assume that it has Asmrulz (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My post was directed at the original question, not yours.DrChrissy (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you indented incorrectly. Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Matt Deres Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to the correct way of indenting - rather than just leaving a rather terse, negative, not-very-friendly message.DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You indent one more tab than section you are replying to. So, if you were replying to the original post, which was not indented, you would use a single tab indent. If you don't do this, it gets very confusing, but you can always explicitly list the name of the person you are responding to. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There's really very little hair in the area compared to relatively recent ancestors - and remember, for many species like fruit flies that have a vastly shorter generation time and much more change at the genetic level, the actual physical changes over mere millions of years seen amount to much less, maybe a dark spot on the wing. Getting rid of hair near the anus requires an enhancer (genetics) that is exquisitely well-programmed to stop all induction of hairs in that region, while allowing hairs where they are needed. Such things take considerable design, all done in random steps, to make enough sites for transcription factors, etc. to process this logic, which starts off with quantitative differences in level and activity, into something approaching an absolute cutoff.
But also, I am not convinced the hairs there are a net negative, though I can only engage in rampant speculation. Remember for example that hairs are associated with a sebum production and distribution mechanism that might lubricate surfaces that slide against one another. They might disrupt caking of feces, though I doubt human ancestors put up with that anyway; or the sensation of feces twirling around on the hairs might have made the ancestors clean themselves... who knows? We only know evolution didn't find it to be a huge problem, i.e. there was not a very strong selection coefficient favoring changes that reduced the hairiness. Wnt (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be that the hair acts as a dry lubricant, easing the friction of running/walking. Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect it's a pleiotropic effect, it is probably a side effect of the fact that the person has lots of body hair for some reason. That, or it's meant as a place to keep your dingleberries. It's certainly not a universal trait. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
(Prior to streaking in front of the police) Hyde: "I'm going to write 'I hate the fuzz ' on my ass !"
Fez: "If you hate the fuzz on your ass, why don't you just shave it off ?" - That '70s show - StuRat (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dying from eating too many eggs[edit]

I heard of someone that died from eating too many eggs. But the description of how they died sounded odd. They described the person dying suddenly while sitting in a chair without any signs of pain or distress and with their eyes still open at the time of death. If someone died of eating too many eggs wouldn't this have been preceded by a heart attack and the victim clutching their chest? Malamockq (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he just happened to be eating eggs when he was stricken. I recall when Mama Cass died, it was alleged she had choked on a sandwich, but it turned out she just happened to be eating one at the time she had her fatal heart attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean a diet chronically too high in eggs, possibly leading to a cholesterol overdose ? Or do you mean dying from an acute binge of too many eggs at one time ? If so, if they were eaten with salt, then that could cause high blood pressure and a stroke, if they had sodium sensitive hypertension. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there is a memorable scene in the 1967 prison film Cool Hand Luke, where the title character played by the great Paul Newman wins a prison bet by eating 50 hard boiled eggs in an hour. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Diet chronically too high is what is alleged. He was a father of 3, not some college frat boy eating tons of eggs on a dare. Malamockq (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It still sounds more like a silent stroke (or likely a series, leading to the fatal event) than a heart attack. As you noted, a heart attack can kill quickly, but not instantly. Somebody dying of a heart attack would be expected to show signs of distress (although the symptoms are more vague in women). But a severe stroke or related event could potentially kill instantly. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but what they really should do is come up with separate guidelines for LDL and HDL cholesterol, along with recommendations that foods should be explicitly labeled to show how much of each they contain. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Um, someone with some actual legitimate knowledge about this (i.e. not me) should probably comment, but I really doubt that it matters much how much LDL or HDL cholesterol you eat. The point of the new recommendations is that they're no longer convinced that total cholesterol in diet really has much to do with serum cholesterol, so much less would one expect (from my naive perspective anyway) that serum HDL and LDL would be separately correlated with their dietary intake.
As I understand it, and again I invite comment from some genuine expert, the reason that HDL is counted as "good cholesterol" is that, when the body wants to remove cholesterol from the arteries and recycle it into the steroid reserve in the liver, it does that by attaching it to high-density proteins. So the HDL that you see is (or has more chance to be) cholesterol moving in the right direction, whereas LDL is likely to be moving in the wrong direction. I don't see any reason to think that that's connected with the HDL or LDL in the food you eat. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent studies also show the recommended 1500-2300 mg salt recommendation may do more harm than good.
As for just dropping dead, this happened with my great aunt. She and my aunt were talking in the living room, my aunt went to pour a cup of tea, when she came back 30 seconds later my great aunt looked like she had fallen asleep, but shortly thereafter fell over and was declared dead on the scene. No autopsy was done, given she was in her 90's. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be genetic differences in those with sodium sensitive hypertension which makes excess sodium more dangerous for them (including me). StuRat (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am certainly not advising people to act against medical advice. The various articles I have seen mention people with kidney and specific metabolic problems as exceptions. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, people don't necessarily "clutch their chest" during a heart attack. Often, they just collapse. My wife's co-worker died of a heart attack at work. He was walking down the hall passed her, and just fell down in a heap mid-step. He made no obvious signs of distress until he just up and died. That someone was eating eggs, and then just died, does not mean the one caused the other. See Correlation does not imply causation and Post hoc ergo propter hoc for some understanding why people make such errors in understanding. --Jayron32 14:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the size of the right ventricle indeed equals to the left ventricle size?[edit]

In our article ventricle is written: "The right ventricle is equal in size to that of the left ventricle, and contains roughly 85 millilitres (3 imp fl oz; 3 US fl oz) in the adult.". While in another wiki (echopedia) if i'm not mistaken it seems that the left ventricle is bigger (look at this: 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The relative sizes can vary. Also note that the interior and exterior volumes are not always proportional. See left ventricular hypertrophy, for example. Although if both articles purport to list the normal healthy values, this may not apply. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
But why should not they have the same volume? They have to pump the same volume of blood. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The right part only has to pump the blood through the lungs which happens at low resistance and hence requires low pressure. The left part has to pump the blood to the rest of the body, and unless you live a sedentary lifestyle this requires on average more effort for the heart. So, the left part tends to be larger than the right part, especially in athletes. Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
In the link that mention above, we can find apparently that in normal values of heart, the left ventricle is the bigger. So the sentence on our article needs citation q source. (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
In the following article is written that "The right and left ventricles differ greatly in their size". So till now, there's a mistake in our article. [2] (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Before getting to the comparison, lets be clear of about the terminology:
  • Firstly, in literature ventricular volumes refers to inner volumes of the chambers, which are useful by themsleves, and required to calculate the diagnostically important parameters of ejection fraction and stroke volumes.
  • Secondly, it doesn't make sense to talk of ventricular volume without indicating whether one is talking about end-diastolic (ED) or end-systolic (ES) volume. So the sentence in the wikipedia article is almost meaningless as currently written (though it perhaps refers to end-systolic volume).
  • Thirdly, the original question and many of the responders are not clear about whether they are referring to the ventricular volume or the ventricular mass. The latter refers to the muscle mass of the two ventricles, and for reasons mentioned above, LV mass is significantly greater than RV mass.
Now coming to the question of volumes: The volumes of the two ventricles are indeed very much comparable, with RV volumes at both ES and ED being slightly larger; see this paper using MRI and and this paper using CT (ignore the abstract of the second paper which has some errors, and see Tables 1 and 2 instead).
Caveats: given the difficulty in measure in vivo volumes; dependence on the exact imaging modality and technique used; and large population variation, take the numbers cited in any of these papers with a pinch of salt; don't treat them as "true" measurement of ventricular volumes; and don't directly compare numbers obtained using different techniques unless you really know what you are doing and the adjustments that need to be made. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's make it easier, if you take a heart of dead, which of the ventricles is the bigger? (I mean to the inner space) (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The internal ventricle volumes are roughly the same in a healthy person, having it otherwise would make no sense at all, as they are in the same circulation. What is causing the confusion is that the left ventricle is far larger on the outside, as the muscle layer surrounding is is far thicker. Fgf10 (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


I have just finished this book, and in it, the author states that "Gaiduchenko suggested that...the high levels of N15 isotopes in human bone suggested that horses, very low in N15, were not eaten frequently. Foods derived from cattle and sheep, significantly higher in N15 than horses, probably composed most of the diet". My question is, why would the level of N15 be higher in cattle and sheep than in horses? Is it something to do with the fact cattle and sheep are ruminants? My googling didn't really get me anywhere.

As a side question, I found the book rather heavy on archaeology, and just a little light on PIE filling. Is there a decent, comprehensive layman's book on the Proto-Indo-European language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BbBrock (talkcontribs) 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article Isotopic signatures states "The ratio of N15/N14 tends to increase with trophic level, such that herbivores have higher nitrogen isotope values than plants, and carnivores have higher nitrogen isotope values than herbivores". This statement is uncited at the moment, but this paper has some experimental results and references to some theoretical bases for it. It would seem that this is an area where research is still ongoing. Tevildo (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I would suspect that the difference lies in the fact that cattle and sheep are ruminants, and digest plant fiber differently compared to horses, while horses are neither ruminants, nor closely related. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Mallory's In Search of the Europeans gives a broad overview fit for a layman, although he focuses a lot on where they came from. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson IV is recommended, but I haven't read it. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (Oxford Linguistics)Nov 9, 2006 by J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams is an encylopedic source, a must have if you really want to study deeply. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, Third Edition by Calvert Watkins is much more compact, and focuses mainly on PIE vocabulary found natively or by borrowing into english. It starts with a good sketch of the peoples, and weighs 1/8th of Mallory and Adams. There are many other texts. A good beginning work on linguistics in general is Anthony Burgess's A Mouthful of Air. It assumes very little prior knowledge, and maybe some grade-school familiarity with one or two languages besides English. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses, and Medeis, thanks too for the suggestions. I will order the Fortson and Burgess books to start with. BbBrock (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Should you be interested, I can give more specific recommendations based on your specific interests, BbBrock, much available online, or which I can email you at some point. Burgess is helpful because he introduces the IPA painlessly, which is the door to the rest of linguistics, once you've got a grasp on it. You should also explore all our articles on PIE, historical linguistics and the related articles that interest you. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@BbBrock: The general issue is isotope fractionation in living organisms. Δ13C is one famous example, but most organisms end up preferentially incorporating some isotopes compared to others. Δ15N is what you're asking about, but that article is unfortunately a very short stub. Isotopic_signature also has some info. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

surface temperature versus satellite measurements[edit]

Is this true about the big difference in surface temperature measurements and satellite readings? What is the explanation for the difference and what is the consequence? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which then must be processed using various assumptions and corrections to make inferences about temperature. Thus it's not surprising that satellite "measurements" of temperature disagree depending on who is doing the processing, and that they also disagree with the surface temperature measurements. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and the radiance depends on the emissivity of the surface. In other words, a barren dry landscape under a clear night sky will cool down far more than an area that has vegetation. During the day one has to take into account reflectance also. During the night, clouds cause some radiance to be reflected back down to the surface again. There are many variables to take into account. So, as knowledge of remote sensing accumulates, adjustments are made to make them more accurate.--Aspro (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind we only have satellite data for say 35 years, and is a reasonably good global estimate of whatever it is they measure, although coverage of the poles has more errors than the bulk of it. We have surface temperature measurements going back perhaps 130 years to 160 years with some sort of steadily increasing accuracy, but they are subject to all sorts of sampling error in their own right, and again coverage of the poles and other places is dodgy. As such they are both /estimates/, not measurements, of global surface temperature. I believe that in the small time period where they overlap, the trend is roughly similar, a rise from 1980- 1998, followed by a plateau from 1998 to 2014. There's various bumps and valleys in that trend, but that's the gist of it. For instance here's a comparison between HADCRUT4, a thermometer based global surface temperature estimate, and RSS, a satellite based global surface temperature estimate, both averaged over 4 years.:hadcrut vs rss If we had a longer satellite record we could see whether the difference in trend between the two is just short term effects or actually significant. If it is significant then one or other or both will need to be corrected. I chose 4 years for no reason in particular, play around with it and see what difference it makes. Greglocock (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
We have an article on the author of the blog entry, Christopher Booker. I would want to see some scientific reliable sources before placing too much weight on what he says. Also the Global Warming Policy Foundation he refers to is... well, we must be civil here, so I shall hold my tongue. (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hilarious to see an anonymous ad hominem attack in response to an objective question. Here's a graph that demonstrates that whatever the satellite is estimating and whatever the surface temperature people are estimating, they pretty much agree on 48 month moving average trends over the last 35 years. HADCRUT3 offset against RSS. Greglocock (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. If replotted using a 12-month moving average RSS tends to have wider swings than HADCRUT3, i.e. here. Also the point made by 88.x is relevant: Booker is not a scientist, and GWPF is not a scientific organization (the "P" in GWPF stands for "policy"). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Not many journalists are scientists, Booker's job is to write stuff in newspapers. The people leading and conducting the investigation need to be scientists and statisticians, not journalists, the people who write about it in newspapers can be journalists. Greglocock (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not consider it inappropriate to point out that there are people and organizations with long established biases and agendas. Or expect them to provide evidence in support of their claims that contradict the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. There are professional conspiracy theorists out there; read the articles linked above and decide for yourself if describing these people as such is an "attack". The history of how these people have been conducting their business is a perfectly valid data point on their credibility.
For myself, I find it hilarious that you take a potshot at me on the basis of my anonymity while accusing me of an ad hominem attack. Pot/kettle, &cetera. (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll spell it slowly for you, pointing out that someone is making an ad hom comment, by making an ad hom comment, is an example of irony. Perhaps I should have added a smiley emoticon to make it even more obvious. Greglocock (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyway to get back to the main point of this investigation, it isn't satellite vs surface thermometers, the main investigation is into the on-going adjustments to the historical and present day surface temperature record. Greglocock (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The OP asked specifically about "the big difference in surface temperature measurements and satellite readings." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As to that I think I've demonstrated the differences are essentially tiny in a time frame of 4 years or longer, for the mere 35 years for which comparisons are available. But the referenced article is to do with corrections to the long term surface record, not satellite vs surface.Greglocock (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, we have several different reconstructions of the surface temperature record, including the unified approach of the BEST team, and they all agree quite well. I don't expect anything useful from the GWPF, although I'm surprised they got Pielke in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The OPs question has clearly been shown to be invalid, and is based on a politically motivated falsehood. Just move on. Fgf10 (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I must have missed something, in what way is the OP's question invalid? We are talking about science here, not religion.Greglocock (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The question is valid. Plot HADCrut3 vs. HADCrut4 and the trends are the same but there are variations. To me, HADcrut4 looks warmer and flatter than HADCrut3. The interesting thing about scientific data is always that when it gives you the answer you are looking for, it's fine. When it doesn't, the data is usually what's scrutinized first. We are in an interesting time of a "hiatus" in measured surface temperature with a rather constant increase in CO2 - this has caused both ends of GW debaters to scrutinize methods of measuring global warming and we now have two rather extreme camps of "there is no GW" and "there is no hiatus." There are all sorts of theories ranging from normal variation to volcanic activity to incorrect surface temperature measurement/integration (especially polar undercount) to trade winds to stratospheric water vapor to sunspots to stadium waves to deep ocean warming to ENSO. None of them are independent variables. There are lots of nifty correlations that are only understood as correlations. --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

Rollerball & Ballpoint mechanical differences--any?[edit]

From my reading of the articles for rollerball and ballpoint pens, it sounds like as far as the physical parts of the pen are concerned, there isn't a difference, and that the difference is in the quality of the ink, with ballpoint ink being thicker and rollerball ink being more watery. But am I wrong? Ignoring everything about the ink, is there a common constant mechanical/parts difference between ballpoints and rollerballs? (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollerball pen and ballpoint pen are the articles in question. It sounds like the oil-based ink in traditional ballpoint pens makes for a better lubricant, allowing a larger ball. The gel used in some rollerball pens seems to be an inadequate lubricant, resulting in skipping even with the smaller ball. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

Parrots and chillies (probably about the 15th question on this topic)...[edit]

So, it's fairly common knowledge that (most?) parrots have a natural tolerance for the capsaicin in chilli peppers - and a parrot can eat something like a habanero, the seeds, placenta and all, without the slightest apparent distress.

What I was curious about this time though - was how high this tolerance actually goes. Would a parrot be able to eat one of the superhot chillies, with a heat in the range of the millions of Scovilles? I've heard it said that parrots are immune to capsaicin, but OTOH, some people have said that it just affects them somewhat less than humans. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole question is closely related to the evolution of mutualisms between birds and plants, e.g. frugivory, zoochory, and seed dispersal. It's not just parrots - virtually all birds have virtually no aversion to capsaicin, at least compared to mammals. The idea goes like this, speaking teleologically as not-quite-correct short hand: Plant species usually "want" their seeds to be dispersed, to deal with environmental heterogeneity and uncertain growing conditions, as well as to get a better mix of mates in sexual reproduction. Mammalian digestive tracts tend to be more damaging to seeds than bird digestive tracts. So, some plant species deal with the problem by adaptation to tougher seed coats that can survive passing through a mammal. Others, like piper_(genus) Capsicum, forego the resistant seed, and instead try to make sure only birds eat their seeds, so that they will survive the easier digestive tract. This way, dispersal is more likely than without a mammal deterrent, and it is also farther ranging, giving plenty of selective pressure to plants that can make compounds that mammals avoid and birds don't mind. Of course modern artificial selection and breeding programs have made things like the ghost pepper, which probably wouldn't have evolved so hot on its own. But that's all just context and background.
As to your actual questions - I think capsaicin is mostly invisible to the bird taste receptors. Here's a few scholarly papers that relate to the topic, I might be able to find better references tomorrow [3] [4]. Here's an interesting one that discusses behavioral effects of capsaicin on birds- when injected subcutaneously... [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, capsaicin binds to vanilloid receptors, specifically one called TRPV1. This paper [6] says:
"In contrast, chicken TRPV1 is insensitive to capsaicin (Jordt and Julius, 2002)"
This paper [7] says:
"Interestingly, birds have a TRPV1 ortholog even though they do not seem to taste 'hot' sensation when they eat hot peppers."
-- But now I'm out of my element. My slightly-educated-guess is that the bird TRPV1 ortholog just doesn't accept capsaicin, so it's not really a an issue of "tolerance" as we normally think of it - the birds just don't notice any burning in the first place, for the evolutionary reasons I outlined above. @Wnt: might be able to fill in some more detail on the biochem stuff. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dolphin rape[edit]

So I've watched a video which claimed that Dolphins were dragging decoy humans with tracking devices into caves when they decide to drag it underwater with their penis. Could this be a predatory instinct most people call it dolphin rape but I believe it is a predatory technique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopia in a bag (talkcontribs) 07:49, 28 April 2015‎

Rape is a thing that a person can do. Scientists don't usually call any animal behavior "rape". That is a human concept, and when we apply it to animals, we risk being unscientific. I mean sure, bed bugs seem to have a rough time - traumatic insemination may seem sort of like rape to us, but that's the only way they reproduce, and calling it rape is not scientifically valid. The scientific thing to do is just describe the behavior, without ascribing any motive or intent. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


April 22[edit]

Euclid's theorem[edit]

Go to Euclid's theorem. I think it would be interesting if someone could add a proof that uses the fact that ln(0) is negative infinity. In other words, it contains a formula that would show that ln(0) is a finite negative number if there were a finite number of primes. Georgia guy (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Boxed expression in LaTeX[edit]

See what I discovered:

\begin{array}{|c|} \hline EXPRESSION \\ \hline \end{array}

See 'A box' section in Talk:Minkowski's question mark function for some details. :) CiaPan (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm... why doesn't \fbox (or \framebox) work in math mode on WP? I get parse errors when I try it here, but on my home installation, I can use it both within and outside of math mode, and even nest in various ways , e.g. \fbox{$X_{n}^{m} \fbox{foo $X_{m}^{n}$}$} SemanticMantis (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Because wiki math markup is only a fairly small subset of LaTeX. Maybe not even a subset — I'm not at all sure that everything that works in wikimath also works in LaTeX. --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Part of me wonders why it can't be full LaTeX, or why not at least a proper subset, but I suspect the technical details might not be that interesting :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

zeroes of infinite sums[edit]

Can someone refer me to some material on how to find the zeroes of functions that are defined as infinite sums? RJFJR (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any general method. Can you give a little more context? Are you looking for exact solutions, or approximations within some tolerance, or approximations within an arbitrarily small tolerance? Are the sums power series or trigonometric series or something else? --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems like you try to decide Riemann Hypothesis, don't you? HOOTmag (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that you have uniform estimates on the truncation error (e.g., for a uniformly convergence series), you can use the method of bisection to locate individual zeros. In more favorable cases, standard numerical methods like Newton's method can be used, but one needs to be careful that the series converges in an appropriately strong sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A power series can be treated like this. Truncate the series and compute the zeroes of the resulting polynomial by the the Durand-Kerner method. Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
That result is probably not useful for the full series, since analytic functions in general need not have roots at all, such as with the exponential function, nor have a uniform limit for the position of the zeros.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The result is useful when the series converges around a root. Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

I was hoping for an answer like "read chapter 5 of book XYZZY for a general overview". I'm not sure what is knowable. They tell me there is a zero to zeta around .5 + 14.***i (or something) but I don't know how they found it. And when I try to think about finding the zeroes of complex valued functions of a complex argument my intuition gets confused. I think you pointed me in the right direction: I need to go back and look in my old numerical analysis book about how if you truncate the series you can bound how close the zero is. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

For the zeta function specifically, the complex argument of zeta is under control on the critical line, so the problem of finding zeros is effectively reduced to finding zeros of a single real function. See Titchmarsh "The Zeros of the Riemann zeta-function", 1935, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol 151, No 873 pp. 234-255. Parts of that paper are readable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Our Z function and Riemann–Siegel formula and links therein may help, and they cite how people found such zeros. The Z function is rigged to be real on the critical line by the functional equation, so intuition won't get so confused. :-)John Z (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. (I think I need to get out my old text books and review some.) RJFJR (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help estimating the radius of a planet from its gravity[edit]

So I've been trying to figure out a way to estimate certain variables about a planet (primarily its radius) from the force of its gravity, and I seem to be getting it wrong. (And no, this is not a homework problem. Just something I'm trying to figure out / trying to remember from high school physics in my spare time.) Could someone help me out?

So I start out with this standard take on Newton's law of universal gravitation (b stands for the hypothetical Planet B, since that's as good a letter as any):

g_{b} = \frac{GM_{b}}{{r_{b}}^{2}}

Since we know what the planet's g will be, solve for radius:

{r_{b}}^{2} = \frac{GM_{b}}{g_{b}}

Here's where things might be getting dicey -- since this is going to be a rocky planet, like Earth, I assume that its mass and radius will be proportional to Earth's mass and gravity (i.e. if planet is bigger than Earth, its mass will be greater). Meaning:

\frac{M_{b}}{r_{b}} = \frac{M_{e}}{r_{e}}

Solve for Planet B's mass:

M_{b} = \frac{r_{b}M_{e}}{r_{e}}

Then introduce that back into the other equation.

{r_{b}}^{2} = \left(\frac{G}{g_{b}}\right)\left(\frac{r_{b}M_{e}}{r_{e}}\right)

r_{b} = \frac{GM_{e}}{g_{b}r_{e}}

So it looks like it should work. But the calculations don't seem to be working out. Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong here? Thanks. --Brasswatchman (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For planets of the same density (all rocky planets should have roughly the same average density), the mass is proportional to the cube of the radius. That makes a pretty big difference. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It would, wouldn't it? :) Okay. Let's see if I can work out the rest of this, then...
{r_{b}}^{2} = \left(\frac{G}{g_{b}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{e}{r_{b}}^{3}}{{r_{e}}^{3}}\right)
{r_{b}}^{-1} = \frac{GM_{e}}{g_{b}{r_{e}}^{3}}
\frac{1}{r_{b}} = \frac{GM_{e}}{g_{b}{r_{e}}^{3}}
r_{b} = \frac{g_{b}{r_{e}}^{3}}{GM_{e}}
Does that look right? (Numbers at least are looking more in line with what I'd expect.) --Brasswatchman (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, or simpler still  r_b = \frac{g_b}{g_e} r_e. . Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you both. --Brasswatchman (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And while you are at it, if the densities don't match but somehow you have an estimate of the planet's density: r_b = \frac{g_b}{g_e} \cdot \frac{\rho_e}{\rho_b} r_e. Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Measure the gravitational acceleration on the ground (g at r) and on the top of a tall building (g+dg at r+dr). Then the radius of the earth is r = − 2 g dr / dg. Bo Jacoby (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC).

April 23[edit]

I think there might be an error in the Lagrange Multiplier article[edit]

There might be an error in example 2 in the "Lagrange Multiplier" Wikipedia article. The article says that the maximum occurs at (±sqrt(2), 1). This point falls on the circle (x^2 + y^2 = 3) and gives a value x^2 * y = sqrt(2). But the point (sqrt(3/2) , sqrt(3/2)) also meets the constraint and gives a value x^2*y = 1.5. This is larger than sqrt(2). Doesn't this show that the answer given in the example is not a maximum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthurt (talkcontribs) 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You substituted in the values incorrectly. x^2y has value \frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} at your suggested critical point, but at the maximums the function attains the value 2, which is greater than at the point you suggested.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Is 1/0.5/0/0 a universal logic gate?[edit]

Suppose I have a logic gate with the following truth table:

Input 1 Input 2 Output
0 0 1
0 1 1/2
1 0 0
1 1 0

...where "1/2" means randomly either 0 or 1. Would this be universal logic gate like NOR? Do not be silly - what I mean is of course an approximation of one, due to the random element. PretendAuthority (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps a faulty NOR gate. What can we say? 0,1 should map to 0, but in your implementation it sometimes does, sometimes does not. When it does not, it is not acting like a NOR gate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that you have two possibilities:
Input 1 Input 2 Output
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 0
Input 1 Input 2 Output
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 0
The first is a NOR gate, while the second is "NOT Input1". StuRat (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's try to rephrase this more precisely. There are two versions of this that I consider interesting:
  • Is it possible to find a construction in which the output has a probability approaching 1 (as number of gates increases) of being that of a universal gate for each input combination (assuming statistical independence of behaviour of the gates, and with the random entry being probability 0.5 of a 1)?
  • Is it possible to construct a universal gate (e.g. NOR) from a finite number of these gates?
As a start, we can construct an inverter: simply tie input 2 to 0, or tie the two inputs together. This is useful building block. We can use this to form an imperfect OR ("iOR") by inverting the output of an imperfect NOR. Now chain a series of iORs on input 1 with the first input 1 driven by A, and tie every input 2 to B. This produces a truth table, where entries give probability of a 1 (n0: 0 iORs, n1: 1 iOR, etc.):
A B n0 n1 n2 n3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1/2 3/4 7/8
1 0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
We can see that as we add iORs to the chain, the truth table asymptotically approaches that of an OR gate. Remove the last inverter, and we have what could be considered an approximate universal gate, in the sense of my first bullet. So the answer to my first bullet (and thus to the OP's question) is "yes". So now the challenge would be to answer my second bullet. —Quondum 17:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The first question is what the OP wanted to ask. The answer to the second question is obviously negative - suppose you built a circuit which outputs NOR with probability 1. Let f(x) represent the circuit's output for input x in the case that all gates behave as "NOT Input1". f is not NOR (otherwise "NOT Input1" would have been a universal gate), so there is some x for which f(x)\neq\mathrm{NOR}(x). There is a positive probability that the circuit will output f(x) for this input x, contradiction. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Dang. And here I thought that I had a counterexample, but on closer examination, your logic holds. (But until you pointed it out, it wasn't that obvious to me ...) —Quondum 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you've tried to remove one of the answers here. It is considered extremely rude and unacceptable to do so, even if it is a poor answer (as is, in general, removing comments from talk pages). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Understanding the structure of order 16 groups[edit]

So I have been attempting to gain a better understanding of the 14 different groups (up to isomorphism) of order 16 and I am having some difficulties finding ways make sense of their similarities and differences. With the exception of the Alternating group on a 4-element set (A_4), I understand the structure of all groups of orders<16 well enough that I could produce an operation table for them without any references. I am wanting to gain a similar faculty with order 16 groups without resorting to something like rote memorization (which would be devoid of real understanding and kinda defeats the point of learning it for me). What sort of things should I look at beyond what I already have been using? (I have been tackling this problem by so far by using GAP to get an operation table for the group, then I proceed to manually finding the various cycles, identifying which ones are primitive (meaning not a subset of a larger cycle), and then examining how their generators behave when operated together). (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you already familiar with the Sylow theorems? Burnside's_lemma might also help. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what "understanding the structure" means exactly, but this list looks like a good place to start. There are five abelian groups corresponding to the five partitions of 4. There are three non-abelian split extensions of Z8 by Z2: the dihedral, quasidihedral, and M16 groups. Two groups are gotten from the non-abelian groups of order 8 by taking direct products with Z2. There is a unique non-abelian split extension of Z4 by Z4, a split extension of Z2xZ4 by Z2, and a central product of D8 and Z4. Finally, there is the generalized quaternion group of order 16. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've worked out generators and relations for groups of 16 and of order 32. To get to 64 you need more sophisticated techniques than I know about and for 128 you also need a computer. A couple of things I learned though: First, what most textbooks tell you about classifying groups of order 8 (i.e. starting with a large cyclic subgroup) doesn't scale and you need to do something else for order 16. The most important elementary theorem to know is that G/Z can't be cyclic. There is a generalization of this which gives a criterion for which groups are possible G/Z, turns out that not many are. So it's relatively easy to enumerate possible Z's and G/Z's. The next thing is to learn a bit about the machinery of central extensions. This naturally leads to more sophisticated group homology theory but you probably don't need to go that far. Also, learn what you can about Frattini subgroups and their quotients. You will need a bit more linear algebra that they normally teach undergraduates as well, specifically the classification of alternating bilinear forms. As a rule of thumb, every time you multiply the order by 2 the classification problem gets an order of magnitude more difficult. So 16 isn't just a lengthier version of 8, it's more like comparing a symphony with a pop song. (Which makes 32 Wagner's Ring cycle I guess.) --RDBury (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sum of Sine (Not Homework)[edit]

If a, b, c, d, e, f,......, z are in Geometric Progression, then what would be the sum of following series?
1. (Sin x) + (Sin ax) + (Sin bx) + (Sin cx) + ........ + (Sin zx)
2. (Sin x) * (Sin ax) * (Sin bx) * (Sin cx) * ........ * (Sin zx)
(+ denotes addition and * denotes multiplication)
Please, suggest me, if there is any article related to this. -- (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think both diverge for nonzero x. However the first one is somewhat related to the Weierstrass function and is a formal Fourier series. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

Pythagorean theorem generalization[edit]

Draw a tetrahedron whose faces have ratio 3 square units, 4 square units, 5 square units, and 6 square units. Also try different tetrahedrons whose faces have ratio a:b:c:d where a^3 + b^3 + c^3 = d^3. Will tetrahedrons of this kind have any special property?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (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. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a homework question; it's a question I would like to know the answer to. Georgia guy (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You came up with the language "Draw ... Also try" on your own? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the "square" and "^3" (cube) distinction intentional? Or should it have been "^2"? —Quondum 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The ^3 is intentional. The Pythagorean theorem is about triangles where the squares of the lengths of the 2 short sides add up to the square of the length of the longest side. I'm asking you to generalize the theorem to 3 dimensions so that a tetrahedron whose face areas are a quadruple where a^3 + b^3 + c^3 = d^3. Georgia guy (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
De Gua's theorem generalizes the Pythagorean theorem to tetrahedrons, but it involves the square of the areas. -- ToE 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) For those who wish to follow this aside to the possible improvement of a couple of article: while we have Pythagorean theorem#converse, there is no mention in De Gua's theorem whether or not its converse is necessarily true, and there is no mention of Pythagorean quadruple in De Gua's theorem or vice versa. -- ToE 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"3 square units" is the equivalent of 3m^2, rather than 3^2 units, which would be equivlant to 9m, i.e. a "square unit" is a unit of area MChesterMC (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
One generalization of the Pythagorean identity for simplices is the Cauchy-Binet formula, I believe. For right tetrahedra, this says that the sum of the squares of the areas of the faces meeting at the right vertex is equal to the square of the area of the face opposite the vertex. (But this does not involve sums of cubes in any obvious way.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifying three sides uniquely determines a triangle (up to isometry), described as the SSS Postulate in our Triangle#Similarity and congruence. Does specifying the areas of four faces similarly uniquely determine a tetrahedron? -- ToE 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

Steps to calculate G?[edit]

What are the steps to calculate G? I know that first I would do 6.673 × 10 ^ −11 but what then? What does (m/kg)2 mean? And finally, N = Newton right? -SGA314 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Diametric Drive: x & y equals what?[edit]

I have found a formula for a diametric drive from here.

In the equation for the diametric drive, what does x and y equal?

V =  (-m) \begin{bmatrix}\frac {-G}{\sqrt{(x+d)^2 +y^2}} \end{bmatrix}  + ( + m) \begin{bmatrix}\frac {-G}{\sqrt{(x+d)^2 +y^2}} \end{bmatrix}

where :

x = ?
y = ?

Once I get the answer I will add what the x and y variables mean to the formula section. -SGA314 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


April 23[edit]

Louis XV of France and George I of Great Britain[edit]

Was there any pretense on Louis XV of France's part on the fact that he was technically more related to the deceased Queen Anne than George I of Great Britain being a great-grandson of Charles I of England, albeit a Catholic? Obviously no diplomatic claims but pretenses similar to the British kings' claims to France from the Middle Ages.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're counting degrees of kinship, it's five steps from Anne to either Louis (father-sister-daughter-daughter-son) or George (father-father-sister-daughter-son). —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Because I have no life, I made a list of the births and deaths of everyone ahead of Louis. From 1715 Mar 22 (death of the Prince of Piedmont) to 1720 Dec 31 (birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie) there were only three; and during his life there were never more than 18. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that the English claims to the French throne were based in large part on treaty and not purely on succession. Following the Treaty of Troyes, the Plantagenet kings of England were recognized as next in line after the death of Charles VI of France, skipping over his own son. The claim was never formally renounced by treaty, though ultimate victory in the Hundred Years War gave the French throne to the Valois for good. The Plantagenet and their heirs continued to claim the Throne of France until 1801. There never was any treaty or statute which established the Bourbons as legitimate heirs to the Throne of Britain. At no time did Louis XV ever press a claim, nor was he ever considered, even in passing, as far as I know. Following the English Civil War, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, the succession to the British throne was decided purely by Parliamentary statute, and no one pretended otherwise. Parliament did use certain traditional principles, such as primogeniture, in deciding the succession, but it was obvious to all they set the rules, and there was zero chance of them offering the throne to a Catholic French king. --Jayron32 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Three supreme gods[edit]

I've noticed that many religions seem to share a trinity. This includes Christianity, hinduism, and taoism. Is there an underlying reason why many religions have three supreme gods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talkcontribs) 01:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Christianity doesn't have three gods, although some version have 3 manifestations of the same God. And I was under the impression that Hindus have many gods. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Hindu "trinity" is referred to as the Trimurti, but it is just one model among many others. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

HHinduism has many but there are three main gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Taoism doesn't have any gods. Taoism is merely ancestor worship. There are spirits, but no gods. Some people might interpret them as gods, and if they did, there would be thousands of them. Not three. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And the Three Pure Ones are not gods in what way? Also, the OP didn't say "only three gods," they said "three supreme gods." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the OP's responsibility to post a clear, coherent message, although I am pretty sure most of our other recent Calgary, Alberta IP's have been indeffed. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Triple deity.--Shantavira|feed me 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Rule of three extends to a lot of things. There's just something naturally better about that number, but I can't quite explain what. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
I think part of it in this particular case is that there seems to be some sort of "triple goddess" such as Hekate and the Morrigan at least from the early days of Indo-European religion. That being the case, the concept was likely carried over to all the groups the Indo-European diaspora contacted, and some of them probably adapted the idea into their own systems. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
More generally, all stories since the dawn of time have had a beginning, middle and end. ABC is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Works for non-linear things, too. Wherever there's duality (cold/hot, black/white, up/down), there's a point between. That point between is basically humanity; we all view ourselves by looking to either side. "I may not be as strong/rich/smart as Johnny, but at least I'm not as weak/poor/stupid as Janie." So it seems logical that we'd have always ascribed this tendency to higher powers, too.
Less logically, there once was a man who rode a donkey off to see a man God didn't want him to see. So God sent an angel to kill him. The donkey had better vision than the man, and thrice tried to avoid the angel to save the man. And thrice the man beat that donkey to push it forward, as the walls on either side closed in. On the third strike, God let the donkey voice a complaint, and the man essentially said "If I had a sword right now, I'd kill you, you mockful talking ass!" And the donkey said, "I wouldn't kill you."
Of course, that was just the middle part. The rest is less interesting, I find, but still plenty of threes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
Fun Fact: There's a goddess named Trivia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

US Civil War[edit]

What are 'videttes'? Does it mean a reconnaisance team or something? KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 06:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, see Vedette and also 1st Tennessee & Alabama Independent Vidette Cavalry. Nanonic (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

an icebox in the Andes[edit]

Some maps show a rectangle straddling the border of Chile and Argentina, latitude 49°9′30″ – 49°47′22″ south, longitude 72°58′ – 73°37′ west. What is it? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First idea that comes to mind, although it may have nothing to do with it: a protected national park area? (Torres del Paine National Park) Akseli9 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
According to our article on the Chilean province of Última Esperanza, a section of that boundary is disputed. The rectangle may show the area that is in dispute. Marco polo (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also see Southern Patagonian Ice Field#Borderline. The area is officially undefined; both countries have never officially ratified the border in that area. --Jayron32 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Odd that it's shown as a box rather than two dashed lines (like, say, the northern borders of India). —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The box probably defines the unambiguous territorial claims of each country. Outside the box is land that no one disputes; inside the box is an open question. Such boxes appear on the map in other places where borders are or have been disputed. See Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone and Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone and Hala'ib Triangle which are other disputed lands similarly shown. --Jayron32 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes?[edit]

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes? For example, if a film made $100 million on ticket sales at movie theatres, does this mean that overhead and taxes are charged on this revenue? WJetChao (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Our article Hollywood accounting may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This has been a matter of lawsuits when actors or directors have had contracts guaranteeing them a certain amount of the proceeds and then the studio has claimed they actually "lost" money on films that have had scores of millions in ticket sales. I can't think of a specific case at the moment, but I remember this making headlines in the 80's or 90's. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A current case is Richard Dreyfuss v. Disney where the immediate dispute is over which accounting firm/s can be trusted to look at the precious account books.[8] Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is indeed one of the cases I had in mind, and I know there are more. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Religions/denominations which do not disclose membership statistics/number of adherents[edit]

Apart from Christian Science, Christadelphians, and Iglesia ni Cristo, what are other examples of religions or otherwise denominations (I'm interested mainly in Christian ones) which either do not disclose membership statistics or have an official policy of not disclosing them? And among these (apart from Christian Science, which I've already asked about before), what is their reason or possible reason why they do not disclose membership statistics? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ObPersonal, but in my experience (including that of my own spiritual path, Wicca) many religions are not organised in such a way that they could accurately count the number of their adherents with any comprehensiveness. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Scientology is a group which has a very broad internal definition of being a follower. Basically anyone who has ever bought a book or attended a meeting is a Scientologist according to the Church of Scientology, which makes me one for having bought a book 30 years ago. I can also imagine that some Chinese religious groups or groups in the territory of other repressive governments will not keep lists, particularly of names, of their followers, for fear of the list falling in the hands of the government. And, obviously, some of the Mormon polygamist sects, some of whose activities are a violation of law, aren't really interested in having their identities made known to the governments whose laws they are breaking.
And the point above is another very good one. For groups which have no really recognized internal structure, which might include a lot of newer groups (like Falun Gong), there won't be any body with the ability to count or disclose membership. Some of the newer Christian evangelical movements I think also are made up of member groups which have no particular obligation to report membership to, or in some cases specific body to report that information to, and on that basis their numbers are unknown. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
212 is right; there are a lot of independent churches such as my own, Berean Baptist Church in Port Charlotte, Florida, or First Baptist in Englewood, Florida so it would be difficult to get an accurate statistic, for example, of how many Baptists there are in the world, or how many Methodists there are in the world. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Particularly for groups which have a global body which does not include all possible members. The Lutheran World Federation, for instance, does not include the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, among other bodies, so even it's official membership list, which probably won't include those other groups, will be off because of their lack of inclusion. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention there are a lot of people in the world who would identify as Catholic or Baptist but may have not been to church in a long time. In contrast, there may be people whom are members of more than one church, such as snowbirds who may have a church in one area part of the year and another area another part of the year. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Certain individual Christian denominations, with official denominational bodies and other elements of internal structure, still don't or can't release statistics for various reasons. For example, the Church of God of Anderson has no membership (its concept is that salvation makes you a member), so it obviously can't release precise numbers. The intro to our article on it notes that the denomination is happy to estimate the numbers of adherents, but that's quite different from official membership. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought early Christianity operated like that. Adherents used the Ichthys symbol to identify themselves to each other in private. But they tried to avoid being noticed by the Roman (or wherever) authorities, so I doubt they'd have published any demographic data or membership figures, even if they had any. (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Major-General Sir Frederick Hallett[edit]

Can anybody find any details of this person. He was an officer in the British Indian Army and in 1859, was appointed to the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom. That's all I know, otherwise he seems to have fallen through the gaps in the internet. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think that it might be a typo (or another error) in the source. Frederick Hallett isn't named as a member of the Commission in this list, but there is a Major-General Sir Frederick Abbott, formerly of the Indian Army. And indeed he has an article here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well done and many thanks! Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comcast/TWC merger bombs, good or bad for CCV?[edit]

Just heard on Fox News that the merger between Comcast and TWC is not going to go through. Am I alone in thinking this will not be good for Comcast's stock? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow it for yourself. No significant change yet, perhaps because the news was not totally unexpected. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I do watch it because I own it, but I was more or less curious of what a second opinion would render on this because I bought it when the merger was first announced. Then again, I know that no one here is (acting as) a stock broker or stock market expert. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the current academic consensus is that mergers may boost the stock at announcement, but on average create a negative long-term stockholder value (see eg. [9], [10]) So in general buying a stock at the announcement of a merger, is a bad propositions. Of course there are exceptions and you'll find tons of advisers, consultants, bankers etc arguing that this particular merger that they have engineered falls in that category. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 20:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you imagine how noncompetitive an internet monopoly would be? EllenCT (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Is a first professional degree in Juris Doctor equivalent to an advanced bachelor’s degree?[edit]

Juris Doctor is a first professional degree, which explains why it’s not similar to Master’s degree in other disciplines even when they both require the completion of undergraduate coursework. Is first professional degree equivalent to some kind of an advancedItalic text bachelor’s degree? And if yes, does it mean that your undergraduate degree is merely means to get to law school?Rja2015 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, a JD is probably more like a Master's or perhaps Master's Plus degree (that is, between Master's and Doctorate). It is not strictly a terminal degree, but it is also not an undergraduate degree. Legal education in the United States and Law school in the United States covers this a bit. Remember that there's no rule or law requiring a one-to-one correspondence between the certifications in various academic disciplines, and the "Bachelor's-Master's-Doctorate" progression in most academic disciplines does not align well with the Legal and Medical professions, each of which have their own training systems with their own terminology and their own hierarchy. Strictly speaking, there is no undergraduate law degree in the U.S., you get a bachelor's degree in a field related to your desired legal track (i.e. science for patent law, criminal justice for criminal law, accounting for tax law, etc.) and then enter law school. In law school, there would be two tracks: one for professional lawyers, and one for those who wish to study the law academically. For professional lawyers, the J.D. is it. You get your J.D. as the certification that you completed law school. There are no other steps. If you are entering academia, you would get Master of Laws degree or a Doctor of Juridical Science, which are academic and not professional certification. Professional lawyers who wish to become law school professors or legal academics may follow their J.D. (for Academia sake, it would be considered the equivalent of a Master of Laws) and get their Doctor of Juridical Science. --Jayron32 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Some universities offer undergraduate law degrees – Bob Jones University, to my knowledge. These however are not recognised by the AB as adequate for attempting the bar exam. The Bologna Process (Bachelor, Masters, PhD) is commonest most countries in most subjects. The UK uses it for law: Bachelor's in Law, LPC (equivalent to a masters) and then a two year apprenticeship. The US system is adopted to a lesser extent elsewhere, like Canada & Australia. It has its advantages but it doesn't quite slot into the Bologna Process. Whilst it has its advantages, it's much more expensive and leaves a Bachelor's degree rather underused. (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Further: yes, you could say a JD is nearly equivalent to an advanced Bachelor's Degree. In the UK, some law schools offer a two year, graduate Bachelor's degree for students who have already a bachelor's degree in a different subject. Queen's University, Belfast is a good example. Most students do the Bologna Process - three year Bachelor's, and then a Master's equivalent course. They are then an apprentice lawyer. However, if a student already has a Bachelor's degree in a different subject they can enroll in the Master of Legal Science - the same as a Bachelor's degree in law, except it only takes two years instead of three. It only covers substantive law, not the 'practising' bit that would be covered on the LPC. Queen's University also do a Juris Doctor: a degree in Northern Ireland law, but in the Amercian format. That's like an MSL, then a LPC in one. (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

transcribing a musical score from hearing only[edit]

I have limited musical training but a lifelong love of classical music. Recently I started listening in my car to music on a USB. The piece which is always played first when the USB initializes is Adagio in G minor. I just love it. It's seven minutes long, but most of the time I let it play, even though with some fiddling I could run down the song list and interrupt it.

After a while I started to understand the piece more deeply than other music Ive heard a lot of times. I've very much enjoyed coming to understand the structure, picking out the parts (even the viola) and anticipating the most dramatic parts (like the sudden loud da DUM in the middle).

Though this is a lovely piece of music, it also seems to be relatively simple as far as those things go, in part because it is played by a small ensemble. The question is: What level of skill would a musician have to have to transcribe the score from hearing it only (any number of times)? Would those be skills an undergraduate student might have? (I would think not.) What about an experienced musicologist? Another composer? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's potentially something innate; see the bits about Mozart in Miserere (Allegri). Don't know how much training you'd need if this weren't innate. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Some people are no doubt better at it than others, but transcribing music by ear is a fairly basic part of a musician's training, starting with the aural tests in practical music examinations, which in the early grades ask candidates to sing back a short phrase, leading on to recognition of cadences and other chord sequences, and picking out the lower or iner notes of a chord, or the lower part of a phrase in two voices. Other exams may involve transcribing a phrase after a fixed number of hearings. So transcribing a piece such as the Adagio (often wrongly described as being by Albinoni) is perhaps not as much of a feat as it might seem to a layman: it might be hard to reproduce the exact notes in all parts (cheat sheet here), but a musician knows the "grammar" of the music, and so can pick out things like "that's the first half of a minor scale", or "that's a perfect cadence", and make plausible guesses about what's being played; this can be refined by multiple hearings. I would have thought that an undergraduate of a reasonably academic music course would be able to produce a reasonable approximation. Of course the difficulty depends on the complexity of the music: the Adagio is lightly scored, slow-moving and fairly predictable, which helps a lot. Consider this transcription of Art Tatum's playing: at first sight it seems almost miraculous that someone could work out all the notes that are being played, but to some familiar with the idiom it's more a case of picking out patterns rather than just a series of individual notes. As a vague analogy, consider the difference between copying a text in English as opposed to one in a foreign language that you hardly know: both use the same basic ingredients - the alphabet - but for the English text you see past letters and take in whole words and phrases, and so do the job much more easily. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's also a skill musicians pick up passively: that is, without being trained specifically to do it. At Grade 4 violin I could name notes like colours. Play a G, I knew it was a G. When I played the wrong scale in an exam, the examiner repeated which scale he originally requested I play and named the incorrect scale I had actually played. Mind you, a musician's training is critical to doing it properly so that for example you can recognise modulations (key changes) and ignore minor details such as trills. (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you all. The answer seems to be that regardless of formal education it certainly takes a lot of experience in music and or genius. Thanks especially for the link to the Tatum performance both that an the transcription are amazing. --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

New York and Appleton's[edit]

I've just created James McFarlane Mathews, but I need help. (1) How do we normally cite Appleton's when it's just part of a work? Here, I just copied the first and third paragraphs from Appleton's, with changes to make it sound like a Wikipedia article, while the second paragraph is adapted from Scouller's Manual, but written in my own words. In my experience, most stuff taken from these old PD encyclopedias is copied wholesale, without substantial additions from other sources, and simply tagged with {{Appletons}}, but that won't work here because I'm using inline citations. (2) Mathews was involved with New York's "Christian union council" and was the chancellor of the University of New York from 1831 to 1839. Do we have articles on either of these? City University of New York wasn't founded until after Mathews was out of office, and I don't know whether the Christian union council were some informal group or a big-name thing that is or was prominent. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The "University of New York" can be linked to New York University (NYU), which was known as the University of the City of New York for its first several decades. McFarlane was its first chancellor. It would make sense to add his name and link to his bio from the history section of the article on NYU. See the footnote beneath letter 274 in this source. There is also a reference in this book, authored by Mathews himself. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Art object identification[edit]

I have exhausted my web search trying to identify a small art object in my possession. I can't work out how to download the 2 images I have to help with this identification so I will describe it and if you think you can help please email me directly and I will send you the images. Or someone can walk me through the process of downloading my 2 jpegs.

The object is small, approximately 85mm long by 60mm wide. It is shaped in a tear drop and is a shallow dish. It is made from a base metal. The dish side is enameled with gold striations. It predates 1945. I know that because it was gifted to me by a German architect who served in Italy during WW2. That is why I think it is from Italy. There is a makers mark on the bottom. I haven't been able to find that mark to verify its origin. The mark is a 'V' 'N' 'F' astride a bar with 3 branches. I have not been able to find anything that resembles this object in any search I have made. If you think you know what it is and what its purpose was I will send you some images to confirm that.

Thanks Jdb3853 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(Lowercased; Baseball Bugs's joke left as-is -- BenRG (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
See this tutorial on how to upload images online. As a side note: writing in all capital letters on wikipedia, or anywhere online, is considered equivalent to shouting in real life and therefore rude. Try using normal syntax in future posts. Abecedare (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And it's unnecessarily harder to read. —Tamfang (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like the sort of dish that housewives put their rings into before doing the washing up. We have an article on Paolo De Poli who copied the far-eastern method of enamel on copper and since much of his designs was manufactured by VNF that probably nails it. --Aspro (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Could it be a spoon rest: [11] ? Those are used to place a stirring spoon, while cooking, when not in use, so as to not get germs from the counter on the spoon, or food on the counter. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have two thoughts, but both rather depend on size of object. The first is a quaich, used in Scotland to taste whisky from. The second is a tea caddy spoon. The first one should be of the order of 3 - 4 inches across, but the second should only be about 2 inches by 1 inch. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is correct. My apologies for the cap letters. My daughter taught me better! These are the direct image links requested. Do they confirm or deny your ideas?

<> <>Jdb3853 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Great images, I'd say that was far too ornate for any kitchenware. It looks like a trinket dish or a pin dish or a bon-bon dish. More interesting is the maker's mark. You didn't mention that below the mark is MAD NJ which seems to put the maker in New Jersey. My suggestion is that you take it to either an antiques shop or an auction house that deals with antiques and seek their advice, but hopefully somebody here will enlighten you. Richard Avery (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Try googling "vnf enamel" and you'll see several enamel bowls, which are made in Italy, that are in a silimar style to yours. --TrogWoolley (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Instead of "MAD NJ" I read what I assume to be an incomplete stamp saying "MAD(E) IN J(APAN)". That probably means it's not very valuable. (Yes, ancient Japanese artifacts are quite valuable, but more recent trinkets tend to have "MADE IN JAPAN" stamped in English.) As for what it is, looking at the pics I'd guess it's a candy dish. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
All the other VNF enamelware that I found online was made in Italy, so I suspect that some random scratches are making it look like a "J". But I agree, nothing I have found so far has had a sale price much above USD20. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How about a Japanese rip-off of an Italian original ? StuRat (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ihank you for all of your suggestions. I am uploading another image of the makers mark. The timeline wouldn't suggest it is Japanese. I received this gift in 1972. The German Architect that gifted it to me had owned it for some 30 years. Under an oblique light and with a magnifying glass you can better see the makers mark. The image I have uploaded will assist in that. Apologies for the resolution.

<>Jdb3853 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty certain the mark is "Made in Italy". --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dignity, Glory & Honour[edit]

Hi there!
What's the difference between dignity, glory and honour?
Thank you for the discussion!
Calviin 19 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked dictionaries for possible (multiple) translations into your mother tongues (French + German) and read about how some of the concepts behind the words are used in different fields (philosophy, religion, law, everyday speech, ...)? Or could you give some context? Kavod HaBriyot, for example, can mean all three, in a sense. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the point. I want it in a general sense and in many specific senses. So a dictionnary isn't enough good for that and I don't want any traduction for those words.--Calviin 19 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Offering many specific senses of a word is what good dictionaries do; have a look at these: glory, honour, dignity. And if you go to a library with an Oxford English Dictionary it will similarly show many senses, along with sample sentences in English. (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You can have dignity by yourself. Someone else needs to recognize your dignity to honour it. When many people honour you, you have glory. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire and Flintshire historic placenames[edit]

Earl of Chester#Revenues lists various manors that contributed to the income of the earldom in 1714. Two I can't identify are "Medywick" (in Cheshire) and "Vayvol" (in Flintshire). Can anyone fill in these gaps? Thanks. (Incidentally, "Colshil" is now a tiny little place on the A548, which doesn't have its own article - it was obviously much more significant 300 years ago). Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of Cheshire: containing King's Vale-royal entire, Volume 2 by Daniel King, William Smith etc. has a list which has "Farm of the town of Medwick" although I still haven't been able to find it. The same list also has ""Vayvol" which looks like an English version of a Welsh name. No luck with that so far. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference - both this book and our article cite Dodderidge (1714), and the figures are in agreement, if not the names. I don't suppose "Medwick" might be Middlewich? Etymologically it's reasonable, but it's a rather greater change than the other names in question, especially considering it was "Mildestvich" in the Domesday Book, closer to "Middlewich" than "Medwick" is. I'm sure our combined resources will produce something. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the linked work is referring to the reign of King Edward III unless I'm reading it incorrectly. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That's true - I've fixed the date in the article. Tevildo (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Lion in symbolism[edit]

How come lions survived in art and symbolism, and especially in heraldry, long after lions went extinct in Europe? (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a fierce, impressive animal. It was gone from Europe, but that doesn't mean it disappeared from their memory or from traveler's tales. Unicorns and dragons are also found in art and symbolism - and Europeans saw even fewer of them. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Same with two-headed eagles. Having a national symbol be impressive has always been more important than it being common. For example, Ben Franklin wanted to make the wild turkey the national symbol of the US, because it was more common and not as much of a predator. Fortunately, we got the bald eagle instead, even though there are more in Canada than the US. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The many Biblical references to lions may also be a factor. [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
And from the classics - e.g. the Nemean Lion. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
They weren't totally gone just because they weren't in mainland Europe. There was a different species, the Asiatic lion in the Middle East at least as late as the age of the crusades, when Europeans would have seen them fairly often. This is the same period where heraldry really developed. (One European even supposedly had a pet lion while on crusade.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, many royals and aristocrats kept a Menagerie of exotic animals - sometimes including lions. Iapetus (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lions were widespread in North Africa, including coastal areas, until the 20th century; see Barbary lion. Europeans had many ways of learning about them, including a rather extensive traffic in captive lions between North Africa and Europe. Looie496 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Medieval aristocrats maintained private zoos called Menageries which often included exotic animals such as lions. While the average dirt farmer may not have had cause to see a lion, it would not have been impossible for royal and noble Europeans to have seen one, and even perhaps owned one. Charlemagne owned several lions, for example. --Jayron32 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Roman Empire imported lions to Rome for the "games", so they would have been widely known then, and Roman influence spread throughout much of Europe. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

India and Mount Everest[edit]

Does India have a current claim on Mount Everest? If so, why? Hack (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mount Everest is located right on the border between Nepal and China, and that international border passes over the summit. It is a long way from India, and I am unaware of any such claim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
First ascent. India claims Sherpa Tenzing, who made the first ascent in 1953 with Edmund Hillary, was Indian. Akseli9 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, he was born in British India, which at the time included Nepal, (along with Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc.) Seems like splitting hairs. He was born in, and lived a large part of his life in, and was ethnically, Nepalese. --Jayron32 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fighting a border battle on top of the Himalayas could prove entertaining. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that. Fut.Perf. 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That was only 14,000 feet. I'm talking about taking the fight to the top of Everest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Engaging in large scale ground combat operations at a 14,000 foot elevation is very, very difficult. I suspect that more soldiers would be lost to pulmonary edema and frostbite than bullets. At 28,000 feet, it is (though I hestitate to use this word) impossible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Violence and fighting were unthinkable, if not impossible, in such blessed and remote environment, remote from anything that makes wars thinkable. But that was before Mount Everest has now turned into yet another business. To date I think the new record for the highest fight ever, is in 2013 the attack against Ueli Steck at 7000m (23000ft) just below Camp 3, then the mob that almost killed him at 6400m (21000ft). Be patient, considering how increasingly overcrowded and how increasingly disputed are the fixed ropes after Camp 4 and close to the top, I'm confident we will soon hear about our first battle above 8000m... Akseli9 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the disasters of last year and this year, this little industry might have to go on hiatus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
See Siachen conflict. Summary: for years India and Pakistan have been carrying on a military conflict on the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, at an altitude of nearly 20,000 ft. As our article notes, an estimated 97% of casualties have been caused by weather and climate rather than military activity. Looie496 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

Why did the British transport convicts to Australia but not to Canada?[edit]

Why did British make Australia as a prison colony and not Canada? Why didn't they transport the convicts to Newfoundland or other places in Canada instead? (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would think they sent them to the most distant point of the world so they wouldn't return. It would presumably have been far easier for them to arrange transport back from Canada (perhaps as a stowaway) than from Australia. I believe some prisoners were transported to the "colonies" in America, before they had Australia as an option. StuRat (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Think? Presumably? Believe? References are for wimps, apparently. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Canada was already a full-blown colony, see French Canada and Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Besides, it'd've been like threatening someone with the comfy chair. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Transportation to North America occurred for over 150 years before the colonisation of Australia. The article Penal transportation supposes that transportation to North America stopped after the American Revolution because of a fear that transportees might defect. Hack (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we're taught that in America as well, all sorts of disreputable sorts like criminal transportees, Roman Catholics, orphaned indentured servants, the Irish, the Roundheads, the Quakers and debt prisoners. But the whole point is there was no transportation to Australia during that period, so there's no real point in mentioning Canada as some sort of alternative. The loyalists wouldn't have liked it and it would have scared the aristocracy to think they'd lose the rest of NA. As a threat, transportation to North America might have frightened large land owners, to the rest it was a blessing. There are seven times as many Irish in the US than in Ireland, and more Germans and Irish than English. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There are seven times as many Plastic Paddies in the US than in Ireland. There are far fewer actual Irish in the US. Contrary to popular belief, just having a vaguely Irish sounding surname, not having Irish citizenship or generally having ever been anywhere near the place, does not qualify you for being called Irish. I wish you Yanks would give up on that nonsense, it's just plainly insulting. (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The 7X number takes into account percentage of descent. I'd hardly think you would call a person who grew up in Ireland but who had an English mother names, would you? Especially since plastic paddy seems to be a term of british bigotry. Well over a third of Americans claim some Irish ancestry. I suggest you consider a rancorectomy as regards us Yanks, even if we did invade your land and annex a fifth of it. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
And they transported political prisoners from Canada to Australia, see Upper Canada Rebellion#Consequences: execution or transportation and this. Nanonic (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ireland did officially send one ship to Newfoundland.[13] The local government wasn't informed that they were on the way and the town was a bit overwhelmed. Nanonic (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It should be remembered that when the British decided to create a penal settlement in Australia (and later Tasmania) in 1788, there was no European colonization there; in fact no Europeans had visited the place since Captain James Cook had landed at Botany Bay eighteen years earlier. It was a completely crazy plan and it's a wonder that anyone survived the attempt. In contrast, Canada had been settled for almost 200 years by then. Robert Hughes' book The Fatal Shore is highly recommended to understand the whole concept of Australia as a penal colony. --Xuxl (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And actually, they did send prisoners to North America in other capacities as well. See Trustee Georgia, which was founded as a sort of debtor's prison. The large numbers of Scotch-Irish American in the United States mainly arrived because they were shipped there by the British as prisoners from various rebellions and revolts. They had been using the Americas as a place to offload undesirables for some time, the fact that the American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the First Fleet arrived in Australia in 1787 is no coincidence. See First Fleet#History: "British convicts were originally transported to the Thirteen Colonies in North America, but after the American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the newly formed United States refused to accept further convicts." The process of using Australia rather than North America as a penal colony is covered a bit in that article as well. This is an old paper, but it is titled "British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies" and I'm sure it, and other resources, can show how the British used the Americas in this way before the Revolution. --Jayron32 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Many victims of the Highland Clearances were deported to Canada. There may have been a filing system. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
1788, not 1787. But yes, there was a neat dovetailing of events. The British needed a new place to send convicts to, and they had a place going begging since Cook happened, conveniently, to have claimed the eastern part of New Holland as "New South Wales" in 1770. I don't remember reading what their plans for NSW might have been had there not been a need to locate convicts somewhere distant, but that's merely footnote fodder now. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that you don't believe in references, either, Jack. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between stating stuff that's commonly known and easily verifiable, and stating opinions, thoughts, beliefs and presumptions that are the writer's own. Our users are interested in reading things here that at least stand half a chance of being confirmed in a source. When you state what you call a thought, a presumption or a belief, you draw solely on your own cerebral processes, which you elevate to the status of an external published source, while relegating actual published sources to silly things that researchers need not concern themselves with, because good ol' StuRat can put you on the right track quick smart.
If presumptions are your thing, a good presumption to make is that whatever we tell OPs here is food for their further enquiries and research. But how can anyone further research your (or anyone's) thoughts, beliefs and presumptions, without subjecting you to a comprehensive grilling? Would anyone bother to do that? If not, what point was served by your utterances? But if so, would you welcome being treated as a one-man Brains Trust by all comers? If so, fine, but set up your own website, and don't continue to steal ours. If not, don't continue to act as if you were a one-man Brains Trust. Find out who you are, where you stand, what you want, and act accordingly. That may take quite some searching. I'm told the Himalayas are full of gurus who can help you on this glorious spiritual quest. Don't worry, we can manage while you're gone. Bon voyage.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I did include easily verifiable facts, like that the British sent convicts to the American colonies before they sent them to Australia. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You prefaced that with "I believe". Don't you understand that that immediately removes the statement out of the realm of something that at least is asserted as having happened, and into the realm of your personal beliefs? Since we're all anonymous here, why would anyone care what another anonymous person thinks, believes, supposes or assumes? If you think anyone cares, you've got an ego problem, Mr Rat. Personal opinions, assumptions etc have NO STATUS here. They don't belong here. People have been telling you this for years. Why do you persist in ignoring us? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

God, the Devil, Opposite and Equal[edit]

God and the Devil are opposites? In order for two things to be opposites, they must be equal. If they are not equal, then they are not opposites. God and the Devil are not equal. How can God and the Devil be opposites if they are not equal?

Fivult (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a different question from the one above?
In any case, I question all of your premises. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you have a particular mythology in mind? The concepts will be quite different in Daoism, Shinto or pagan circles. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As gods and devils don't exist, they are whatever you believe them to be, as with any other fictional concept. Fgf10 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Dualistic cosmology, Manichaeism, Marcionism, and Devil in Christianity might be useful articles to start with. Tevildo (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream Christian theology is pretty clear that Satan is opposed to God, but is not in any way his equal or equivalent. The idea of a logical 'opposite' of the sort you're discussing is pretty much irrelevant to the philosophies from which early Christian theology derived. Arguably the strong personification of Satan in some veins of Christian thought may derive from the more clearly dualist religion of Zoroastrianism - but that's not certain, nor does Christianity take on that dualistic approach in any developed form. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Not always opposed. The big story in the Book of Job wouldn't have happened if God didn't agree with Satan's idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
Note that saying good (God) is more powerful than evil (the Devil) introduces the Problem of Evil. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As indicated by Teifling and others note here, the premise that they must be "equal" is not correct. The "forces" of good and evil are not Newtonian mechanics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
And this is true of other opposites, as well. Light and darkness, for example. Most of the universe is quite dark, we just happen to be near a star, where light is more common. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In the introduction to The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis argued that Satan is not God's opposite, but Michael's. He almost starts to say that God really isn't bothered by Satan's little temper tantrum. The Great Divorce and some of his other works also begin to imply that it was Satan put himself in time-out, and is the only person responsible for keeping him there.
I can't name any, but there are also some Jewish and Muslim authors who would say that Satan is about as much God's opposite as the prosecuting attorney is the judge's opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Cracked's Stories Everyone Assumes Are In The Bible (But Aren't), "the" Satan/Devil/enemy is a bunch of them, rolled into one because dualism is far simpler, and most folk are the simple sort. Same with the different Marys in entry #2. Too complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses have published the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?, in which chapter 11 ("Why Does God Allow Suffering?") discusses some of these points. Two entities can be mutually opposed in purpose, without being of equal magnitude.
Wavelength (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC) and 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheap vs. expensive cola[edit]

In many Walmart stores in the U.S., the usual price for colas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi is $1.000 to $1.48 per 2 liter bottle, but a competitor bottled by Cobb Beverages USA (labeled only "diet COLA") is sold for $0.68 per 2 liter bottle. These prices have been steady for at least five years, though $1.00 prices for the former companies used to be the rule and are now a very rare exception. The former brands have a large number of shelf slots while the former often receives only one. (Tastes may vary, but in flavor I think the Cobb product is not quite as good as Diet Coke, but better than Diet Pepsi)

This confuses me because it runs counter to the usual capitalism lectures, in which lower-priced competitors are supposed to take over a market. I assume that the expensive brands pay Walmart for shelf space, partially accounting for their greater popularity (some Walmarts have trouble keeping the Cobb brand in stock, though others generally do). They pay a fortune for advertising. I don't know if they pay more for syrup ingredients - I'd suppose so, but how much can it add up to? But is it possible to say for sure - are the expensive brands simply pocketing as much as half the price as profit? Is the cheap brand a loss leader in some bizarre Walmart social experiment?

Are there existing economic theories that adequately model this sort of marketplace? Wnt (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See marketing, brand loyalty, generic brand, etc. Lower priced brands where perceived equivalent by the consumer (the most important word in that whole sentence is perceived) would be preferred. The issue is that, due to marketing, consumers perceive quality differences in the brands, and will pay a premium for what they perceive to be the higher quality brand. Whether or not there is a measurable, actual, or quantifiable difference in quality is irrelevant: The reasoning is marketing creates perception, perception drives behavior. --Jayron32 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Wnt is almost literally comparing apples to oranges in the original question. Apples are cheaper than oranges - why do we still have oranges on the shelves? Because not everybody is interested in eating apples, nor Cobb Cola. Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the OP's contention that they are quite similar, and blind taste tests may confirm this. It's only their successful advertising campaigns that make you think they are radically different things. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is what I was noting above: The public perception is that Coca Cola is a better product than Cobb Cola. So they're willing to pay more for what they perceive is higher quality. It doesn't matter if we've painted an orange to look like the apple and then convinced people they aren't buying oranges. They still want to buy the apple. --Jayron32 16:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also see, Veblen good, the situation where sales of an item actually go up as the price increases, because everyone then assumes it's a better item, based on the price alone. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just my anecdotal experience from working there, a lot of people shop there because that's the cheapest store where you can buy ground beef, shotgun shells, and underwear at the same time. Consumers who pay attention will keep a mental list of what items to get where and go to multiple stores on a shopping trip.
Also anecdotal, but the guy who restocked the Pepsi products told me that the 16 oz bottles (that normally sell for like $1.68) just cost ¢25 at the factory. Between that, the fact that some brand name items sometimes go on half-off sales, and the fact that you can buy a six-pack of the same size bottles (or even slightly larger) for about the same price as two or three individual bottles, I'm completely convinced that brand names (both items and stores) each throw at least a %100 markup. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Here you hit an economic situation where the per unit production cost is low, but they spend lots of money in advertising, so that the profit margin of the company isn't as huge as you might think. So, if it costs them 25¢ to make a bottle, and they sell a few for $1.68, but you have to add a $1.40 to each bottle to cover advertising, then that's a cost of $1.65 per bottle, so they barely make a profit. How can they then afford to have deep sales ? Well, let's say they sell 10 times as many bottles when they go on sale at 50¢ each. The 25¢ per bottle stays the same, but the $1.40 is now spread over ten times as many bottles, so only 14¢ each. Thus they could make more profit that way. On the other hand, if they kept the price that low, then perception of it as a quality item would go down, and so would sales. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In our econ class they talked about Price discrimination. The obvious example is flying first class vs. tourist class. There's not enough difference between the two to justify the exhorbitant rate that first class charges, but those who are willing to pay for a few extra perks will do so. As regards foods, I've often seen claims that the "store brands" are nutritionally identical to the "name" brands, and are often made by the same company. But the theory is that you can sell more of your product if you have different pricing levels. It does not necessarily follow that generics would eventually become the norm. Although if the price differential were as great as it is with first class vs. tourist (or perceived to be), maybe it would. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
However, first class is measurably better than coach. Yes, paying 10x as much for just 50% more room may seem extravagant, but at least there is some real difference, it's not just perception. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've flown first class a couple of times (at someone else's expense), and while it's nice it's not worth the huge markup. But to someone who doesn't care, it might be worth it. And I can tell you from anecdotal experience that name brands taste better than generics, even if they are nutritionally equivalent. Economists also talk about "monopolistic competition", for example the fast-food burger joints. It is alleged that they are all the same. That may be true nutritionally, but they do taste different from each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Fast-food burger joints" aren't nutritionally identical. For example, some have added trans fats, and some don't. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I should have put that in the past tense. When I took economics class, the general public had never heard of "trans fats". The closest they came to such was "hurry on down to Hardee's, where the burgers are broiled, not fried." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Even then there were differences. Remember the old burger chain named Burger Chef ? I used to love them because they had a "top your own burger bar" where I could finally put enough tomatoes on my burger, to make it more healthy. I believe Hardee's continued that practice for some time after they absorbed Burger Chef. But none of them do that any more, AFAIK, leaving me with one anemic slice of tomato on my burger (or maybe two, if I order "extra tomato", when I really want like 5 slices). For me, this means I don't order burgers anymore. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this some weird StuRat thing or is it really like that in the US? I'm fairly sure in NZ, and in fact in a lot of the world, if you wanted 5 slices of tomato you could ask for 5 slices of tomato. The staff may get confused or screw up your order, and in some cases they may charge you unnecessarily high for it, but I'm fairly sure in many burger chains they will be happy to oblige. There may be a limit where they will reject the order, like if you ask for 50 slices, but it's not likely to be 5. Asking for extra tomato probably wouldn't give you fve slices, unless perhaps the normal amount is 3 or 4, but that's fairly understandable and doesn't prevent a specific request. If you really can't make a specific request for 5 slices of tomato that will normally be honoured, that's fairly odd since the US is also the home of the rap drive-thru order. (The US is also the home of tipping, but I understand this isn't common at fastfood chains.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a tanget, but first Class or even business class is certainly very much better than tourist class on many long-distance carriers on international flights. Business class on Ethiad gives you individual semi-compartments with completely lie-flat beds. I've only flown it once, but you (well, I ;-) arrive incredibly more rested than after a night in tourist class. On many national or European flights, on the other hand, the difference is mainly where they hang the curtain in the cabin, and the choice of champagne over coke. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also (on the same tangent, with apologies to the Original Poster), there are sometimes bargains to be found for business class. I have occasionally found business class tickets for less than 150% of the economy ticket. The lounge access, the champagne, and especially the lie-flat seat seemed well worth it.Hayttom (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Exchange member & broker[edit]

What the different between them? -- (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

See Stockbroker and Trader (finance). Historically, on the London Stock Exchange, the broker was the person who dealt with the client, while the traders (stockjobbers) dealt with each other on the exchange floor and determined the share price. However, this hasn't been the case in London since the Big Bang in 1986. Different stock exchanges will have different mechanisms, of course. Tevildo (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that buying a seat on the exchange (and it costs an effload) means you have your stock "listed" and can have sellers on the floor. Being a broker just means you have to do trades through a seller who has the right to trade on the exchange's floor. I'll admit I've not given refs, but I am pretty sure this is correct. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This was the position on the NYSE until 2005. Nowadays, anyone with $40,000 to spare can be a trader. Tevildo (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thank you all. Tevildo,and today? traders are not exchange member because technical we still need a brokerage firm or a private broker for give order to sell and buy.
supposedly it seems work like this: exchange member (sell and buy) --> trader (give order to exchange member) --> broker (find buyers and sellers) --> seller and buyer.
Today seller and buyer can work with broker or exchange member yet many brokerage firms (such as Boutique brokerage) says that they can or can't do brokerage (they mean you can't open an account and give order). Apparently, they should say that they don't deal with trade? not brokerage? more accurately, they even don't work with company\ have "interest" for company.
but why many of this "boutique brokerage" do issue securities? doesn't it mean they work with member exchange?
In other word, today, broker can or can't sell and buy? Does the word become similarly to trade? or he has trades which work with exchange members? (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Armed Policing in England & Wales[edit]

This link here [14] says that in Britain, 42 of 43 forces are armed. (As an aside, I think the link means to refer to Home Office forces in England and Wales, but that's by the by.) Does anyone know which is the remaining force? Thanks. asyndeton talk 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't proving easy to track down. This is the official report from Police Scotland which contains the statement (para 19) - note that the issue is whether or not there's a standing authority from the Chief Constable for certain officers to carry firearms, not whether the force is "armed". Assuming the Police Scotland report is correct, the one remaining Chief Constable only authorizes the issuing of firearms when there's an operational requirement, rather than it being authorized at all times - or, of course, the force could be PSNI, where firearms are authorized by statute rather than requiring the Chief Constable's personal authorization. However, all that's coming up with standard searches are FOI requests, which are all declined under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The answer to your question seems to be "Yes, but they've not made the information public." I'll keep looking. Tevildo (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]


April 22[edit]

What do you call a quantifier/determiner/whatever that takes plural agreement/countable referent?[edit]

One of my pet peeves is when people misuse the word "infinite" as though it meant "infinitely many". We have an article on the infinite monkey theorem, which literally construed seems to be about a single, infinite monkey (that's one scary monkey!).

I have no grammatical objection to, say, putting out this infinite fire would require infinite water, though stylistically I'd probably prefer "an infinite amount of water". But I completely reject "infinite monkeys" used to mean "infinitely many monkeys"; that's just flat wrong. Infinite monkeys are multiple monkeys, each of which is individually infinite.

My question is, what is the linguistic category at issue here? It doesn't seem to quite fit quantifier (linguistics), and determiner seems too broad. Is there a name for a word or phrase that expresses a (possibly vague) number of discrete objects, rather than a quantity of some mass noun? --Trovatore (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Difference between "normality" and "normalcy"?[edit]

I see "normalcy" quite often but I have never used it, I always say and write "normality". My native ENGVAR is South African but I am regularly exposed to many varieties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Normalcy" is usually associated with U.S. President Warren G. Harding and his campaign slogan, "Return to normalcy". The word was hardly used before that. --Xuxl (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) The Wiktionary entry for "normalcy" says "Although sometimes used, normalcy is less common than normality in American English. It is very rarely used in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is frequent in India, however." Eytmonline says that "normalcy" is "Associated since c. 1920 with U.S. president Warren G. Harding and derided as an example of his incompetent speaking style." The OED quotes Harding as saying: "America's present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration." (see also Return to normalcy). Before that the word only seems to have been used in a mathematical sense, as the property of being normal (= at right angles). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So, other than the mathematical term there is no difference in meaning? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The OED cites Fowler: "In BrE normality is the customary term, and normalcy is widely scorned", but perhaps South African English considers the words to be of equal standing. Dbfirs 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, as in BrE, "normalcy" does not natively occur in South African English, but is intruding from other varieties through media exposure. I personally find it quite jarring and as I said earlier I couldn't bring myself to use it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The endings -cy and -ty come from Latin -cia or -tia. The ending -ity comes from -itas. The Latin suffixes both make nouns from adjectives, and there's really nothing dyscromulent with either, although Harding's version is a more modern coinage, hence new & improved. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, "new" often does not equal "improved", but perhaps that's a British way of looking at the world. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, the British also understand irony when they see it at the end of a sentence. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes difficult to identify in written form though, but point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


What's the grammatical term for a measurement word ending in -age that measures something, like mileage or tonnage, to name a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Michner (talkcontribs) 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary's entry on -age [15] suggests appurtenance, see sense 5) here [16]. This would not only apply to words like 'tonnage', but also other words that semantically carry the sense of appertaining [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Is beverage a case of this? Peter Michner (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
One basic fact not mentioned in the appurtenance article is that these words are nouns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The ending -age usually originates from the Latin -aticus. But many such endings have been adopted into English and become linguistically productive, as is the case with mileage and tonnage. See the etymology of outrage. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I have heard nonce coinages with this suffix: I remember hearing set-builders in a theatre talk about "rostrumage" (i.e., how many (or what size of) collapsible rostra were available or would be needed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, and then there's things like cordage and signage (the former through Old French, but the latter is rather modern).SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I once heard a contestant on a TV cooking show explaining a dish, which included "epic prawnage" (I suppose that'd be "shrimpage" to some). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We have prawn in the US, they are just less refined, tend toward hirsutism, and a are bit more prone to pub brawls than attending wine tastings than shrimp are. The "Shrinkage" episode of Seinfled provides the more iconic -age word up here in God's favored nation. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabic transcription request[edit]

What is the Arabic in this image? - It's for Lycée Français MLF de Bahreïn WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

البحرین MLF المدرسة الفرنسیة Omidinist (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hand (skin) texture; back & front[edit]

Is there a difference in skin texture of both sides of a human hand? For example, if one side is rough, is the other side considered the same, methodically? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. It's quite common to have calluses in the palms while the back of the hands are smooth. This happens from many types of manual labor, such as doing landscaping work using a shovel to dig holes. For the reverse, maybe somebody who gets into fist fights a lot but has a desk job ? StuRat (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The palm is thick (even when not calloused) for protection from frequent use and is highly innervated for sensitivity while the skin of the back of the hand is thin and less sensitive. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I knew it. I could feel it too. It’s just the information of Palmistry, they say either (1) ‘skin’ texture or (2) ‘hand’ texture or (3) feel the ‘back’ of the hand, its texture should be either, rough, silky, smooth, hard, coarse skin and so on, three different words in three websites but meaning of rough, silky, smooth, hard, coarse skin and so on are all the same, for each of the three… -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@StuRat and Medeis: Just to clear my thought, when its states 'hand' texture or 'skin' texture, does it mean the 'palm' texture or the 'back' of the hand? Reason for asking, when it means 'palm' texture, it states 'palm' texture... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In that case, "hand texture" must not mean the palms, which leaves the sides of the hands, back of the hands, and fingers and thumbs. StuRat (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
okay, I understand; made me think for a bit though. Thanks Face-smile.svg I hate other websites with informations -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As for people with desk jobs who get in a lot of fist fights, we get scars and broken thumbs and pinkies. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Say I distinguish the two (hand and palm), what about ‘skin’ texture? – All three’s information is the same btw, e.g., rough skin, rough palm, rough hand… -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Palms and fingers have fingerprints which are an adaptation toward grasping not found on the back of the hands, and vestigially on the feet. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
They also have skin, not as similar looking or feeling type as the backside, and could it be either/which side possess the following: soft, very soft, firm, rough, smooth, hard, coarse, scaly, and silky? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ig before gn?[edit]

The Prefix page has the following text for the "iX" type prefix. "ig- (before gn- or n-), il- (before l-), im- (before b-, m-, or p-), in- (before most letters), or ir- (before r-)". My question is about the first part, using ig- in front of gn- . This would create a word starting with iggn, which I don't think there are in english. Does anyone have any ideas on what is meant or should it be changed to simply n- (I'm thinking that "Ignorant" is supposed to be the example here, but it seems a reach.)Naraht (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The text is sloppy. The origin is never from ig-. The prefix is in- which assimilates to i- before roots in gn-. The latter initial 'gn' is very rare in Latin, so in-gnorant > ignorant is the only example I can think of in English. The words unknow-ing ignor-ant and agnos-tic are cognates from English, Latin and Greek, with differing endings and other linguistic assimilations. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's about what I suspected, but I couldn't find refs to back it up. Another example is "ignoble." Since that confusing/incorrect text is used several times at prefix, maybe you could fix it up? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You SOB. I am about to go eat dinner with the widower of my mother's best friend. Could you ping me? I don't have time now and am afraid I'll forget later, SemanticMantis. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Ok, consider this your reminder. I don't trust myself to fix it alone, but I can look over/consult on the changes to wording if you'd like. The simplest change I can see is "i- (before gn-)," I'm not sure if it's correct to say "ig- (before n-)". Another possible example is "ignominy" - but I can't tell if that's ig+nomen or i+gnomen, and if we start with Latin or French or something else to determine which one applies. And saying "ig- before n-" makes it sound like we would expect "*ignecessary" instead of "unnecessary". It really should be fixed though... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm innocent on this matter. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Innocent means unnoxious. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be obnoxious :) . KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 08:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, SM. That article is a mess, the lead has a blatantly false claim and the entire in- section needs to be redone, but I don't have an hour today to spend trying to fix that chart. I have watched it and put a remark on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that some Latin roots starting n- were derived from earlier forms in gn-, and had privatives in ign-, whereas other Latin roots never had a 'g', and their privative started inn-. So certain Latin-derived words in English that start with 'n' take ig- and others take in- (and others un-). You can't tell which by inspection. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I happen to be quite aware of that, which is why I am loathe to spend the time myself correcting the article, when others don't seem to be aware of it: Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Loathe = verb, to despise; Loath = adjective, very unwilling. Common error. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you are actually right, Jack, but since I pronounce it to end the same as breathe, even in the adjectival form; I am loath(e), I spell it that way too. If I rhymed it with both I'd spell it loath, but I don't, so I don't. Do you "insulars" (as opposed to us "continentals") say I am loath to rhyme with "both"? Or is it just a spelling convention? μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we say "loath" to rhyme with "both". Wiktionary: loath gives no alternative pron. But regardless of that, no dictionary worth anything would agree that "loathe" is an accepted spelling of "loath". Wiktionary certainly doesn't, but it does note the common confusion between the two words. It also notes that "loth" is an older version of "loath". Had you written "loth" rather than "loathe", I'd have heaped much praise upon you. As it is, though ... Yoars sinsneerlie.
(PS. Australians are just as much continentals as Americans are. Arguably more so, since we and Antarctica are the only continents that are not joined at the hip to other continents. We used to be called the world's largest island, but since the geocartographological consensus has long been that we're a continental land mass and not an island, that honour has gone to Greenland, assuming it isn't actually two islands with the gap between them being icebound and invisible from above. If climate change continues to do its work, the matter may soon be settled.) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Having bin razed speaking English, I've never found much reason to resort to a dictionary, I just right words I come acrost as I pronounce them. But grammar's a whole nother question. Things like "should of" and "different than" and "I suggest he is warned" really bother me alot. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Latin question[edit]

The Finnish article about Juniperus communis, the common juniper, at fi:Kataja says that juniper is strong and tough wood: it bends but does not break. ("Taipuu muttei katkea" in Finnish). According to the Finnish article, this has given rise to the Finns' reputation as a "junipery people" ("katajainen kansa").

Now this "bends but does not break" reminds me of Paris's motto "Fluctuat nec mergitur" ("It wavers, but it does not sink"). How would one say "It bends but it does not break" in Latin? JIP | Talk 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flectitur nec frangitur would be one way. Deor (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The motif comes from Aesop's fable of the Oak and the Reed. However, I've only found one Latin text of that, which does not use the key phrase directly. La Fontaine renders it in French as 'Je plie, et ne romps pas'; would an apt Latin translation therefore be 'plicat nec rumpitur'? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There is the opposite motto "frangar, non flectar" ("I will break, but I will not bend"). That Italian WP article refers the alliterative juxtaposition to Horace, Livy, Lucan, Ovid, Seneca, and in fact Augustine wrote, in De catechizandis rudibus (On the Catechising of the Uninstructed): "flectamur facile, ne frangamur" ("may we bend easily, lest we be broken") which sort of matches what you are asking. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) <added later> (Sorry, Deor, I totally missed your post) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Gojūon question[edit]

When, in Japanese, you need to order a list of things in romaji, do you use gojuon (as if they were written in kana), or Latin alphabetical order? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If done in Romaji, it would be in alphabetical order. KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 12:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do so many English military terms come from French ?[edit]

Here's a few:

StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In his comments on lieutenant, Michael Quinion says, "Like other military words (army, captain, corporal, sergeant and soldier), lieutenant came into English from Old French after the Norman Conquest." That matches the reason why much English legal lingo is from French—the Normans brought over both their military and their legal systems. Deor (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
German has general from church Latin [18] so the sources for some terms could be multiple. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
English has lots of words from "French", full stop. Not just legal/military. Blame the Normans. Very often when there are two words for the same/similar thing in English, one will be Anglo-Saxon, and one Norman in origin. Fgf10 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but in many of these cases there is no native English (Anglo-Saxon) equivalent. This seems odd. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only the Normans, another wave of French language infusion arrived with the émigrées during the French revolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there has been a steady influx of French into English almost right up to the present, but especially during the centuries between the Norman conquest and the end of the 19th century. The influx of French from about 1400 to about 1900 was not unique to English. In fact, all European languages, including Russian, borrowed heavily from French during this period, because French was the preeminent European language of diplomacy, science, mathematics, cuisine, high culture, and, until at least the Seven Years' War, of military thought. Marco polo (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If somebody tried to make a Wikipedia then, it would have been in French, wouldn't it? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It was the Lingua franca (actually scientific texts were published in Latin before the 18th century, so that would be a strong contender). Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me you did that on purpose;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Made my day! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify/nitpick a bit, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. claims to be "The world's first science journal" [19], and you can read Vol. 1, 1665, in English, e.g. this description of Hook's observations of Jupiter's Great Red Spot here [20]. Of course you are right that many publications were in Latin, but the Royal Society's influence was indeed present before the 18th century, and is part of why English is now the Lingua franca :)SemanticMantis (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely the present hegemony of English is more due to the global political, military, and economic dominance since about 1800 first of Britain then of the United States than to the Royal Society. Marco polo (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I did say "part." And I'd also argue that you can't completely separate the economic dominance for England from their scientific achievements (e.g. Newton's mint certainly had a large impact on English commercial prosperity), but mainly I just wanted to point out that the first peer-reviewed science journal was published in English, and we all have access to some of these fascinating early documents from the Age of Reason :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I was thinking of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in Latin in 1687, which is only 13 years shy of the 18th century. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

For some seriously French military terminology, consult a treatise on fortification. See Banquette, Caponier, Coupure, Chemin de ronde, Enceinte, Lunette, Ravelin, Reduit, Tenaille, Terreplein, Tête-de-pont and Trace italienne. There are others, like Fausse braye that nobody has yet written an article about. I believe that this is due to one Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban whose theories dominated the science of fortification in the West for the best part of two centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

England was conquered by the sort-of-French Normans, who were latter succeeded by the genuinely French Plantaginates. The net result was that for several hundred years, England was ruled by a French-speaking monarchy and aristocracy. Consequently, a lot of French words were introduced, particularly for subjects relating to law, government, warfare, and other things that the ruling classes concerned themselves with. (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabic question[edit]

Hi! What's the Arabic on this page? - It's for Lycée Franco-Libanais Verdun

Also what is the Arabic for "Lycee Abdel Kader" (Abdel Kader High School) on this page?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1) اللیسیه الفرنسیة اللبنانیة - فردان
2) لیسیه عبد القادر Omidinist (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Translation of Italian phrase "meno male"[edit]

How does the Italian phrase "meno male" translate to "thank God", when "meno" means "less" and "male" means "bad"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Male" is a noun. A better translation would be "less evil". It's an idiomatic phrase so a literal translation wouldn't work well. "Thank God" has a more direct equivalent in "Grazie a Dio" or "Grazie al cielo". -- (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
An idiomatic equivalent in English might be "It could've [or could have] been worse". — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
And in the case of "meno male che ..." an acceptable translation would be "it's a good thing that ..." The double negative used in "meno male" can also be heard as a form of litotes (and that article even mentions it as an example). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Basic Grammar[edit]

On the test, there is a question where we have to fill a blank with the word starting with e.

The question went like this:

When I studied at the university, I studied very hard. But a lot of my friends did very little work. Some of us worked hard just e_____ to pass the exam, but others didn't. Fred was one of them. He spent more time drinking in the tea house than in the library.

The answer is *enough* but I'm sure it is wrong. Is it? If it is or is not wrong, why? Is there a better answer starting with the letter e? Please answer soon ><. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone with a Question (talkcontribs) 10:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, you said you're sure "enough" is wrong, but you didn't say why you feel that way. Care to elaborate?―Mandruss  11:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

-uh... I filled the blank in wrong on the test :P, Im hoping to get some help. Also, it doesn't sound right.

The sentence isn't great, but it's clear from here that the answer is intended to be 'enough'. The sentence would be better grammatically/idiomatically if it said 'Some of us worked just hard enough to pass the exam.' - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait.. so there is nothing wrong with the question? It doesn't sound right :/. I know it is the intended answer but there is nothing wrong with it? Isn't just like a special adverb or something? It can be applied to enough? Thanks.

(edit conflict) It sounds okay to my American ears. Like others have said though, it's slightly awkward phrasing idiomatically. If I were to say it, I would say "...worked just hard enough..." though I'd understand it both ways. Dismas|(talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
'hard just enough' is not nearly as idiomatic as 'just hard enough'. The question reads like it may not have been written by a native speaker. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem with "hard just e______" vs "just hard e______" if the word in question is supposed to be enough, but I also see another possible problem, which entails a very different reading of the meaning of the sentence that the questioner might be taking. The narrator says s/he worked very hard, but some friends did not. The next statement is some of us worked hard (so including the narrator, who's previously stated s/he worked very hard as contrasted to friends who didn't), but others, such as Fred, didn't, with an illustrative example of Fred spending all day at the tea house. So, the sentence could go more like "Some of us worked hard [comma missing] just expecting? endeavoring? to pass the exam [implying that even with hard work, no one thought they would ace it], but others didn't." I think it's iffy that was the original intent of the test writer, but maybe that's what's causing "enough" to sound like the wrong answer? some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem goes away if you put a comma after "hard". μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion ends up meaning something different from mine; in my case adding a comma after hard gives: "Some of us worked hard, just enough to pass the exam, but others didn't." This is identical in meaning to "Some of us worked hard (just enough to pass the exam) but others didn't." I'd find it odd if that original comma weren't there, it would indicate the test maker had a poor command of grammar. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

For all its/it's worth[edit]

I've always parsed the above expression as "For all it is worth" (i.e. "it's" is an abbreviation of "it is", and needs an apostrophe). But something I read has caused me to rethink <its> as a possessive pronoun. "The dog was barking for all its worth" could be analogous to "He was running for all his worth".

Is it possible that <its> could be either an abbreviation (with "worth" being an adverb) or a possessive pronoun (with "worth" being a noun), depending on the precise grammatical context, or is the idiom set in stone? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to test it, I searched things like "for all he's worth" and "for all his worth" as well as "for all they're worth" and "for all their worth" in books, and both versions seem to get about the equal magnitude of hits. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the idiom is "set in stone", which is to say that "it is" is the correct usage. I'm not saying "worth" as an adverb is generally incorrect, but that association with the idiom is. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Plasmic Physics, having often seen the expression used in different tenses, e.g. "for all it was worth." Have you tried searching on such variations? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just use logic. If it was an expensive dog that was not supposed to be barking, then the sentence is "The dog was barking, for all it's worth" If the dog was barking at an intruder, the "The dog was barking for all its worth." The first uses worth to mean price, the second uses worth to mean virtue. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In other words, both expressions are right, but they mean different things. -- (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are both possible, but the "for all its worth" expression is the more common, metaphoric/idiomatic one that means "with all its effort". There's also probably a little confusing contamination by for what it's worth meaning "this probably won't help, but I am going to tell you anyway..." μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For all he's worth, she's worth, it's worth. Not his or hers or its.[21]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Per above, it could feasibly be either, but thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The context for each set would be somewhat different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. That's why I mentioned "depending on the precise grammatical context" in my question. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dutch translation help[edit]

I'm going to be uploading and using this image in an article. Can anyone provide a translation of the text shown in the work? Is the artwork from c. 1380 or 1821 or something else? Is Hilmar Johannes Backer the artist? The printer? Something else? (it's not nl:Hilmar Johannes Backer, who was born in 1882).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The text at the top of the image says: "Willem Beuckel / year of death 1397" (note: this date is thought to be incorrect). The text at the bottom means "copy of a painting located in the church windows in Biervliet, the original being somewhat defective already when this copy was made in 1821, due to the breaking of the glass." Below the lower right corner it states "steendr. van H.J. Backer", which probably means "stone print by H.J. Backer". The drawing therefore was made in 1821, and I think the website is wrong in implying that "H.J. Backer" is Hilmar Johannes Backer, or else the names happen to be the same, in which case they're possibly related ("Hilmar" is a very unusual name in the Netherlands). The description on the website states "Willem Beukelszoon, inventor of gibbing, ca. 1380" (i.e. he invented it around 1380). If you want, I can also translate the longer descriptions (under "More Details"), although they don't provide much more information. Nothing on the page indicates when the original glass painting was made (or by whom). - Lindert (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly Lindert. I'll of course provide attribution to you for the translation when I upload to the Commons. This is going to be used in the currently threadbare William Buckels. I didn't even notice the more details section. If I had I could have throw its renderable text into Google Translate (though its translation never comes close to a human's).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not of relevance to the OP, but Hilmar is not very unusual. It's just a regional (Frisian) name. Fgf10 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. - Lindert (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Would lithograph be a better translation than "stone print"? Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was hasty and didn't bother to look up the correct English equivalent, but that's exactly what it means. - Lindert (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The lithographer was Hilmar Johannes Backer (1804-1845). The glass painting (unknown artist) dated from 1661 and was renewed in 1876. --Stuhlsasse (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Arabic question[edit]

Yes check.svg Done Hi! What is the Arabic in these two pictures? and

I ask because I would like to have the Arabic name of the Lycée Franco-Qatarien Voltaire. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation requests: Mexican Spanish to English; IPA needed[edit]

Hello, I'm writing a new article, and while I have many minor details to work out, one I cannot handle on my own: The article is about a Mexican movie from the 70s, that I believe will survive AfD by virtue of having a reference to literary journal criticism that most movie articles on English Wikipedia lack (I think both WP:NOTFILM and WP:GNG have been satisfied).

I'm depressingly Spanish illiterate.

The sandbox article I am developing is at User:Aladdin Sane/sandbox/Roots of Blood.

Three Mexican Spanish areas I'm lacking:

  1. The first sentence needs an IPA pronunciation for "raíces de sangre".
  2. The Title CaSe in Mexican Spanish is unclear: Raíces de sangre, Raíces De Sangre, or Raíces de Sangre? The literary article uses Raíces de Sangre, and the Mexican Academy uses Raíces de sangre. Non-compelling sources use Raíces De Sangre.
  3. Should the article's title be Raíces de (S)angre, or Roots of Blood? (I !vote for the English, as this is English Wikipedia.)

Of course I welcome other criticisms to improve the article. Not that I will accept them in sandbox; I'm sure other editors will improve the article once it is in article main space. I thank you in advance.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If the movie was widely released and known in English by its English name, then the English title is fine. For example, most of Almodóvar's movies have English titles here (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). (This is not a question I can answer with any authority, since it is cinematographic, not linguistic.)
The IPA is [raʼises de ʼsaŋɡɾe] with a broad Latin-American accent. In Spain the c would be [θ], not [s]
Spanish does not use English title capitalization; only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, so Raíces de sangre would be correct.
μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Thank you. This is really what I needed.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to your help, my the article has just gone live on English Wikipedia at Roots of Blood.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll go tear it to shreds check it out for you. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Korean gender terms[edit]

There are two sets of gender terms in Korean, one set based on Chinese - namja and (n)yeoja - and another based on native Korean terms - sanae and gyejip. However, Wiktionary notes that gyejip is now considered "disrespectful or archaic," which might explain why this term could be heard in dramas set in historical times but not in dramas set in the modern day. Yet, the male equivalent, sanae, does not have this same label attached to it by Wiktionary. As such, is it really true that gyejip is now considered "disrespectful or archaic" while sanae is not considered as such? (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The native Korean terms are connected with a traditional and very sexist view of the roles of men and women. The term "gyejip" literally means "stay at home". Another similar term is "jipsaram" (home person): wikt:집사람. --Amble (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

V:C: structure in Proto-Germanic[edit]

I have a question concerning the possible syllable structures in Proto-Germanic. In Old Norse, there are four types: VC, V:C, VC:, and V:C: (f.e. heri, hár, marr, sétt). I know that there is also VC, V:C, and VC: in Proto-Germanic (f.e. abô, līką, blukką). I can't find any V:C: syllables, however. Do they exist and are they just very rare or are they entirely absent? Berdsilo (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


April 22[edit]

A Strange A&E Program[edit]

This is a tall order, I hope someone knows what I'm talking about here. Around 1983 or 1984 I remember seeing a show on Arts & Entertainment Network back in the early days when they were only on for a few hours at night (after Nickelodeon) and on Sundays. Anyway, the show was set in Britain and this man is on his way home from work. He gets stopped by some men in suits and told that he is under some type of arrest, it had a weird name. I don't remember what they called it but it was similar to "censored" or "cashiered" or something like that. Anyway, he goes to some type of police station, is emptying all of his pockets and calls his wife to tell her "I've been [what ever the name of this arrest type was]." The thing that made it weird was that the police were acting like they were very sorry this was happening and the man was acting like this was a routine thing that happened to people. I never saw the end of the show because I think I was called to dinner or something (I was 7 or 8 at the time). Any ideas?? -OberRanks (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe The Prisoner? --McDoobAU93 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like The Prisoner, as he was knocked out by gas in his flat (as shown every episode in the interminable title sequence) rather than being arrested in the street, and didn't have a wife as far as I know. As described it sounds a bit like a variant of Kafka's The Trial (though the protagonist in that was arrested at home, and wasn't married). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Parts of your description sound like the serial Spyship, which fits your time frame, or Dead Head (TV series), which doesn't. But neither fits the entire plot line that you present. It will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with the right show. MarnetteD|Talk 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. It was so long ago, it would incredible to find the actual show. -OberRanks (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Could the word have been censured ? That is a form of punishment. It's not typically accompanied by an arrest, but I suppose there could be a situation where somebody is arrested for some minor crime, but in the end is released with only an admonishment/censure. If the police know in advance this is the likely outcome, that might explain why they are apologetic (feeling that an arrest for such a small crime is unreasonable). StuRat (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps he said "I've been sectioned". Meaning he was being detained due to mental illness under the Mental Health Act 1983 as noted at Powers_of_the_police_in_England_and_Wales#Detention_without_arrest. Obviously, officers can be very sympathetic to the detainees. --Modocc (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nudity in Pics[edit]

If this is not the right forum, my apologies.

I happened to need to look up the band "Semi Precious Weapons." How risqué can you be with the photos that get attached to non-medical entries? I don't know the rules, so I'm not going to edit. But someone w/ Wikipedia might want to check on the 2nd picture. 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Sidume — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual nudity in this photo, though the lady is rather scantily clad
Wikipedia is not censored. And that lady in the photo is not nude, though it may appear that way at low resolution. Further guidelines are at Wikipedia:Offensive_material. You might also be interested in perusing Category:Wikipedia_objectionable_content - there are lots of pages that might be seen as offensive to some people, but are nevertheless part of our Encyclopedic scope. Is the picture in question strictly necessary? I don't know, probably not, but some fans of the band might feel that it gives important information about them. Is it generally offensive? I don't know that either, but I suspect that getting it removed on grounds of offensiveness would be a non-starter. If you want to address content issues in the future, the talk page for the article, (in this case here [22], just click on "talk" at the top of any article) is usually a better place to post. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Mad Men S 5[edit]

Early in season 5, why is Pete Campbell frequently sitting in a high school class while the class watches educational films? Did I miss some part that explains that? Did his advertising firm get hired to make films and he's there for research purposes? Peter Michner (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a high school class - although I can see how it would seem to be one based on the age of the others in the room - rather it was a drivers education class. Pete had grown up in NYC and had never learned how to drive. Even with this class Pete's driving was iffy as is played out later when Bob Benson gets a bit of revenge on him by putting him behind the wheel of a stick shift car at the Chevy headquarters showroom. BTW the film of horrific wrecks that they show in that class is one that I saw in my drivers ed class. MarnetteD|Talk 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

like a virgin[edit]

Hello, there is an error on the page Like a Virgin (song), this song is not in F major, it's in E♭ minor. À la 雞 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for that claim? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but rather that we should only change the article if there is a supporting citation. If you can find a source, then feel free to be WP:BOLD and fix it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The current claim of F major is supported by this ref [23], though the key of that sheet music may or may not be the key that she commonly performs it in. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth the versions here and here seem to be in F/G major. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
And G major has the same key signature as E minor, so that may explain the OP's premise. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Early-mid 2000s web-based puzzles[edit]

I'm frankly shocked that I'm having a hard time figuring this out...

I remember these web-based puzzle games from the early-mid 2000s which took the form of a series of static pages, each with its own puzzle. They were known for being pretty hard and often required diving into the html code, various javascript tricks, references to other websites, a bit of nerd trivia, as well as more traditional puzzle tropes. I remember there being a couple really popular ones and a whole lot of knock-offs/successors. Part of me wants to say there are roots in, but I wouldn't bet much on that.

This is a terrible description, which is probably why I've had a hard time googling. Here's hoping.. :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something listed in our article on puzzlehunt? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It this the kind of thing you mean [24]? Not sure how old it is, but it has all sorts of meta-puzzle tricks, playing with URLs/html, etc. Also maybe this one [25]. I have no idea what these are called, but I recalled that Reddit seemed to like them, so I just googled /reddit hard web puzzle html code/ and these two likely candidates were the second and third hits. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@SemanticMantis: Notpron! That's the one. Thanks! ...Now if I could just figure out #14 :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
14 ? What's the solution to level 2 ? (tried "u" for unlock, "k" for key or kick, up arrow, escape, etc.) StuRat (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
When you mouse over the door handle, it says "The door is closed. Trick it or reach LEVEL3 in a different way! (Address? Where is the hand pointing?" - the hand is pointing to the URL, and you can get to level 3 by replacing "level2.htm" with "level3.htm" - I actually can't stand this format of puzzle, to much "cheating", meta-puzzle, and computery bits for my taste. I vastly prefer this sort of thing [26] (try before you read the solution!), but to each their own :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yea, that is rather "cheating". StuRat (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]


April 23[edit]

Driving age in California, USA[edit]

I remember ten years ago there were a proposed law to delay the driving license age to 18 in California stating that individuals born after the year 1990 would not eligible to get a drivers license until the age 18. Were there a proposal to delay the permit eligibility? Did they plan to delay the permit to 16 or 17. Because at that time some people told me the permit were going to stay the same, just instead they wouldn't receive a drivers license until the age 18. If they did propose to delay the permit is it 16 or is it 17. Is license age still 16 in California, USA?-- (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

See Driver's license in the United States. Dismas|(talk) 01:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In California, if you are under 18, you can get a driver license. But this license has certain restrictions for the first 12 months that you have it (like you can't drive certain hours or people of certain ages, and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:7B01:BB34:9D03:FE46:2D34:D7EF (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

subsides by state goverment[edit]

in INDIA is a state goverment is allowed to give subsides on CHINA agricultural pumps rather then giving subsides on same products produced in india ?

Is there any law to stop it ?

NOTE:- CENTRAL GOVERMENT GIVE SUBSIDES TO STATE GOVERMENT FOR THE LOCAL MANUFACTURERS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Answering this question definitively would require a good knowledge of India's constitution, which I lack. Because India is a federal state, unless the constitution gives the central government the power to restrict this kind of state government spending, then the rules on this kind of subsidy could vary from state to state within India. According to this document, however, "India’s public procurement regime, except for a limited degree of preference for micro and small enterprises/public sector enterprises, maintains non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers." India's National Manufacturing Policy outlines a government policy of promoting domestic manufacturing, but no requirement that government expenditures be limited to domestic manufacturers. So, if the central government has a policy of limiting subsidies to domestic manufacturers, it does not seem that state governments are required to observe those limits. However, as I say, I am not an expert, and for a definitive opinion, you should probably consult an Indian constitutional attorney. Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note in the case where the federal government is giving money to the states, as the OP's final statement seems to imply, then unless this is money the government is required to give, or there's some constitutional issue preventing the government from restricting how money they voluntarily give state governments is spent, then there's a fair chance the government would not need explicit constitutional allowance for them to limited how it's spent. The states could reject the money if they aren't happy with the restrictions, or accept it with the restrictions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What you say makes sense in a case in which the state government is merely distributing a central government subsidy, but this is not clear from the question. To me the question suggests that there is a separate state subsidy program, part or all of which ends up subsidizing pumps made in China. It is plausible that the central government gives states money to support manufacturing within each state, while a state may have a separate program giving money to farmers to help them purchase pumps, some of which end up coming from China. But your scenario is also plausible without further information from the questioner. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

knowing which pages we edited.[edit]

I created an account with Gpavlou in july 2014 and can't find which pages we edited - I want to use this for an assignment as evidence of helping the public (by uploading academic information) can you show me which pages i edited please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:608C:4C03:F800:B495:8EF3:BAEF (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There appears never to have been an account created on the English Wikipedia under the name Gpavlou - and without the name, finding edits is going to be difficult. Can you remember any particular article you edited, and approximately when? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There is one, see Special:Contributions/Gpavlou. Sjö (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops - I must have mistyped or something. Thanks, Sjö. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Who is "we"? You and who else? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the baby chicken come alive when you are boiling the egg?[edit]

Mommey hen sits on the eggs to give them heat to give them life. When you boil the egg it also gets heat. Does that make it come alive for a bit before it boils to death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The eggs we eat are unfertilized, so there is no baby chicken inside (perhaps you noticed that when you broke open the shell). We don't boil baby chickens to death, only lobsters, and only adult lobsters. ―Mandruss  15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
True, although it is possible for a rooster to sneak into the hen house and fertilize an occasional egg, especially on small, organic farms. However, the "baby chicken" is unlikely to make it past an embryo, as it's growth would stop as soon as the egg is taken from the hen and (in the US) refrigerated. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, oysters and clams are most often cooked alive as well. Unless you're eating them at a raw bar, at which point the oysters are merely numb. --Jayron32 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
To be pedantic you missed out crabs, prawns, langoustine, then there are fried ants, locus, scorpions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talkcontribs) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And witchetty bugs. Yum. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And of course octopus.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
For Mr Pseudo-Pedantic Aspro: Locus is what the link says. I think you were meaning locusts. Lesson: If one cannot be exactly, precisely, bone-crunchingly, mind-destroyingly correct in one's pedantry, one may as well not even try, because there's a conga line of people like me, just itching to out-pedant the try-hards. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
People like I may succumb to such temptations, as well. Of course, Jack's usage of the objective case would arguably be acceptable in general, but strict pedantry is vital in this genus of posting. :) Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This genus of posturing, more likely.  :) According to Point 9, "People like you and me should have no problems with grammatical case". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
One should point out that it isn't the heat of the mother that gives them life. It maintains the already-existing life. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That, and yolk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, April 24, 2015 (UTC)
What about balut (food)? The embryo is alive prior to cooking and I'd imagine this is more in line with OP's question. Justin15w (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I needed that. (not)Mandruss  15:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No need for them to develop as far as balut. I have laying hens and a rooster. I know that some of the eggs that I take from the nest boxes are fertilized and would develop if allowed to. Dismas|(talk) 15:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
NB, every time you cook a fresh fruit or vegetable, it is also alive prior to cooking... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, originally Thomas Harris's book was going to be about a girl who grew up on a sweet potato farm, The Silence of the Yams. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Fun Horror Fact: Contrary to popular music, some eggs also bleed. If you find an egg with a beak, best to let it be. Or just quickly bite its head off, if you're a monster. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Beatle finales in America, this invasive female carries mites which eat fly eggs from corpses, clearing room for her own, continuing the good kind of revolution, not the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
It's very likely that any chick inside an egg will be dead anyway, due to being refrigerated for several days before being boiled.KägeTorä - () (もしもし!) 09:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought A) that you lived in the UK and that B) people in the UK don't normally refrigerate their eggs. I have a friend who lived in Ireland for a number of years and she said that many people in that area don't store their eggs in the fridge. Dismas|(talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
While not everyone in the UK always refrigerates their eggs (which, by the way, are not usually kept on refrigerated shelves in the shops/supermarkets), especially if they're going to use them within a few days and/or they have a non-refrigerated but cool larder, most people often do. I don't recall (in half a century) seeing a fridge in the UK that didn't have a door shelf with a row of hemispherical holders for eggs. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Weird, I know what you're talking about in the UK (I'm a Brit, living in Texas) - but here in the USA, I don't think I've ever seen a fridge with those egg-holder dimples - and our eggs are ALWAYS kept refrigerated in supermarkets. SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@SteveBaker: I'm a US'ian and I haven't seen those dimples in fridges since I was a kid (around 30 years ago). So, unless you moved here before that, I wouldn't expect you to have seen them here. Dismas|(talk) 03:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah - I've been here close to 25 that probably pegs the time they went out of style to the 25...30 years ago range. I suspect that with larger refrigerator sizes, it's just easier to dump a carton of eggs into the fridge than it is to take each egg out individually. Also, we've gone from buying eggs in packs of 6 to packs of 12 or 24...and there were never enough little dimples in the door to hold that many. In the UK, people tend to have smaller kitchens with less room for the gargantuan refrigerators we have in the US - so maybe it still makes sense to use otherwise-useless door space for that purpose. SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have an old fridge with, oddly, dimples for 13 eggs. It's labeled "Whirlpool Custom Series". It might very well be that old (I inherited it). StuRat (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In order to hatch, chicken eggs need to be kept at around 99 to 105 degF and with reasonable humidity for 21 days. So unless you leave your eggs out of the refrigerator and live in a hot place with no airconditioning, it's unlikely the chick would survive for long anyhow. Chicks also die if the egg is kept in a vertical position (like it is in a carton of eggs) or if it's not rotated every hour or so. It's REALLY unlikely that an unhatched chick could last more than a day without being cared for properly - and once it's dead, re-warming it wouldn't revive it. But as everyone has already pointed out - eggs intended for human consumption are not fertile - so no chick is involved in the first place. So the answer here is a very clear "No!"...don't worry about it!
If you suspect that there MIGHT be a developed chick inside an egg, you don't need to crack it open to find out...the light of a close-up candle flame is enough to shine through the shell...see Candling for more details. SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Or a narrow beam flashlight/laser pointer. Has to be dark in the room, though. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
They also weigh more with a baby on board, and you can't hear a liquidy sound when you shake it near your ear. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Weigh more? On the face of it, that doesn't strike me as very likely - any weight gain would have to occur very early in the egg-forming process, since the weight isn't going to change once the shell is formed. I'd be glad to be proved wrong though - do you have a source?
I agree that it doesn't seem likely that the egg/chick combo would gain significant weight after it is laid, but it is possible, say if it absorbed moisture from the air. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the science or a source offhand. But I have chickens, and that's how I tell the difference. My mom told me about it long ago. But yeah, not exactly solid reference desk work. Possibly untrue. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
To be clearer, though, I'm not talking about early detection of tiny embryos. I'm talking about not plopping a half-formed fetus into your cake. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
Trying to find a source to back me up, but Googling words like "heavy", "dense" and "egg" overwhelmingly finds results about dense groups of heavy-laying hens, not their eggs. Also a lot about whether eggs are healthy for human hearts (still maybe, it seems). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
According to this blog post, eggs lose mass as they grow, but the transformation from liquid to solid may create a fake heaviness. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, April 25, 2015 (UTC)
The eggshell isn't an impermeable barrier...if it were, then it wouldn't be necessary to control humidity and ensure adequate airflow around eggs in an incubator. Oxygen, CO2 and moisture can pass through the membrane - so the egg could possibly either gain or lose mass over time. SteveBaker (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Aye, but in my case, I'm pretty sure I was being fooled by the moment of inertia. Only pretty sure, because most of it looks like gobbledygook to me, and not the kind I grew up learning. But much more sure than I am about it being a case of ensoulment. Even my mom knows those weigh precisely 21 grams. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

The Little Man in My Fridge[edit]

For some reason the door on my refrigerator no longer turns out the light when it is closed. To help it out, I've had a paperclip taped to the switch to lengthen the switch which assures that the door will turn the light off. Due to the cold and moisture and such, tape wears out every so often. Would Superglue work to hold the paperclip? I'd rather not buy some to find it's not going to work and I'd like to find a more permanent solution. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 12:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to use Epoxy adhesive than superglue. The latter does not like smooth surfaces nor shear, both of which I anticipate would be factors in fixing the Homunculus Fridgidus. The former is expressely a structural adhesive, and you are creating a structure. It will not be affected by the cold & damp. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The obvious question is how you know the light is still on when the door is closed. If you are judging based on when it's almost closed, that's not really good enough. I suggest you put a video camera in there, turn it on, and close the door. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless the fridge is rather new and has LED lighting, you can tell if there is a problem by shutting the door, waiting an hour then opening it and immediately touching the bulb to see if it's hot. But as StuRat says, setting your cellphone to record video and placing it inside the fridge when you close the door may just be easier. If you really have a problem, then unscrewing the bulb might be a good idea until you can get it don't want the heat from the bulb warming up your food (that's potentially dangerous!) and you'd be pushing your electricity bill up - because the bulb uses energy - but much more importantly, the fridge uses MUCH more energy to remove that heat.
If this is a more modern fridge with LED lighting - you may not need to do anything - just let them stay on. LED's don't consume much energy because they are so efficient - and that's because they generate very little waste heat.
The obvious fix is to replace the switch - but if extending the lever on it is a viable work-around then perhaps the only problem is that the screws that hold it in place have worked loose...or perhaps the part of the door that's supposed to push on it is worn or damaged.
If you're quite sure that you just want to lengthen the arm, then I'd recommend a fast-cure two-part epoxy glue - but realize that you'll have to leave the door open for quite some time to give it time to set.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than lengthening the switch, it might be easier to enlarge the cam(?) on the door that pushes it in. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the answers. As far as telling if it's on, it's easy to see at night when all the other lights in the house are out. The door seal has a tendency to glow. And there is a small gap (Maybe 1/32") near the top of the door where I can see the light come through at other times in the day. Dismas|(talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That gap sounds like a problem. I'd expect moisture to form on the gasket and to see a black mold growth there. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any grime that is out of the ordinary. We've been in this house 9 years and it's been here since we moved in, so the gasket is dirty but not moldy. Dismas|(talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
StuRat is right though - that seal is supposed to snap magnetically onto the frame of the fridge to produce an almost airtight seal...if there is an actual gap, then it's REALLY not a good thing - you may not have visible mold there yet (maybe you clean it often enough to remove any superficial buildup) - but you eventually will. Also, if your fridge has a freezer section, the humidity getting inside will cause ice to build up (possibly in places you can't see) - and that reduces the efficiency of your fridge and may also cause it to go into more frequent auto-defrost cycles - which is bad for energy consumption AND for the safety of your food.
However, the plastic that the door seal is made from may be somewhat translucent so it may be that you can see the light without there being an actual gap.
SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(Oh, and the reason the magnetic strip isn't sealing tight is probably that the soft, rubbery plastic of the seal has hardened with age and isn't bending to conform with the door frame very replacing the seals would be a very good idea.) SteveBaker (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like the door isn't fitting properly, a shrunken seal wouldn't normally cause a problem with the light switch. Check the hinges aren't loose first. Because fridge doors are designed to be reversable the hinges should be fairly easy to tighten although you may have to lay it on its side to get to the bottom one.--Ykraps (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the door seal isn't affecting whether the switch works or not - but if it's not sealing right, our OP should consider replacing it. I like the idea of the hinges being loose because that explains both problems - but I think they'd have to be INCREDIBLY loose to affect the operation of the light switch. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Taking a step back, it might be economical to invest in a more modern, energy efficient fridge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it possible the little man in your fridge will be more cooperative if you leave small offerings of caviar, asparagus, sushi, and dark chocolate? μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


My economic activity is currently zero. I don't even receive income support. My bank balance says zero. Does this mean i'm below the underclass? (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No. All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC).
  • See the page guidelines at the top. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As your link states, the underclass is the "lowest possible position in a class hierarchy". Therefore, there is nothing below it. However, also note that your class doesn't immediately change as your income changes. Indeed, many wealthy people may lose millions of dollars in a given year, or even lose all their wealth and go deep into debt. That doesn't automatically move them into the underclass, as friends, relatives, business associates, etc., may well "keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed". One example of this is Kwame Kilpatrick, former criminal mayor of Detroit who pleaded poverty when he claimed he couldn't pay back the citizens of Detroit all the money he stole from them. The court agreed, but then he was found to be living in a mansion, supposedly on money he had borrowed from friends. Well, that was a violation of the settlement, as he was supposed to disclose all income, including that. (He is now in jail, for that and/or other crimes.) StuRat (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You class only partly has something to do with the amount of money you have. and far more with breeding and behaviour. The prototypical example of course being a chav that wins the lottery, they may have lots of money, but behaviourally they'll still be a chav. (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it mathematically and logically possible for a given person (not necessarily the OP specifically) to have zero impact on the economy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I know bugsy! I'm well experienced! Lack of self control, not having enough to satisfy more than the basic needs, satisfication comes from spending the money regardless if it is every single penny...
In OP's case, I think their parents are supporting them... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no way to know that unless the OP comments. I just don't understand how anyone can have no economic impact. I don't think it's possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
O, the effect is drastic if no one's supporting you, things fall down like an avalanche upon the person with responsibilities. Mind is a non-stop mechanism beyond anyone's control, we all have that week side where we can't control certain thing(s) in our life, e.g., babies wear dippers because they don't have control over their 'wee wee'. Though we learn how to control it with age, we can't with some things using our mind... Some learn from their mistakes, some don't, and continue to fail to use their willpower... Don't forget, money buys everything (you have to have that frame of mind and of course the income and the will power). -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Now who can argue with that?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Lykov family. (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting story. The only impact they had on the economy (other than their self-contained "economy") would be when they left their city and the rare occasions when one of them returned to a city. The article doesn't say whether they had internet access. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that this is actually quite an important point. I'm fairly sure under many definitions, if your parents are providing you spending money even if not to your bank account, it's unlikely your economic activity will be considered zero. Even if you don't make any spending decisions yourself, I'm not sure whether your economic activity will be counted as zero if your parents are spending money e.g. your food or housing. This has already been touched on above somewhat, but even outside the UK your class only depends somewhat on how much money you earn. Notably if you are supported by someone else, that support will likely influence your class. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Destructive Scanning Work, Volume 120, Part 16[edit]

Is it that the people paid by Google to do the scanning object to the process? Or is this hacktivisim? Or both? All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC).

I suspect that "Destructive Scanning" refers to Book scanning#Destructive scanning. I don't know how that ended up in place of the actual title, but I seriously doubt it was done maliciously. -- BenRG (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone know what the name of the place is in the United States where 1 in 25 people use ASL as their only form of communication?

Thank you,

Sandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rochester, New York possibly. Dismas|(talk) 23:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Define "place". Besides the Deaf school noted by Dismas in Rochester, there are also places like Gallaudet University. --Jayron32 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Why doesn't the Wikipedia science reference desk come up when I type in "science desk" in the search?[edit]

Why doesn't the Wikipedia science reference desk come up when I typed in "science desk" in the search? Sucklechimp (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason it doesn't work for the other desks. The desks are in the "Wikipedia" namespace. The search doesn't automatically search that namespace, so it doesn't come up in the search results. This is probably so that casual readers of Wikipedia don't get a bunch of policy/guideline results if they search for an article that doesn't exist.
If you want to quickly reach one of the desks, type in "WP:RD/" followed by the correct abbreviation. WP:RD/S will get you Science, WP:RD/M will get you Miscellaneous, WP:RD/MA will get you Math, etc.
And finally, what does Carol Channing have to do with this? Dismas|(talk) 01:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think they came here to ask a question about Carol Channing and then changed their mind at the last minute. ―Mandruss  01:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, they're blocked now, so I guess it doesn't matter. Dismas|(talk) 01:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well at least we got one good edit out of them. ―Mandruss  01:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created appropriate redirects for most of the desks. For RD/C, we already have an article Computer desk about the item of furniture, to which I've added a hatnote. Should Computing Desk redirect directly to RD/C, or to Computer desk? Tevildo (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate it is to redirect across namespaces, but if we're going to do it, I don't think computing desk is a term much used in English at all, unless there was some kind of situation where the desk itself did the computing. Be bold. :) Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Redirects to project space. A rather heterogenous collection, but fairly well-populated. Language reference desk (etc) were already on there, so I'm just filling in the gaps. I've redirected Computing Desk to RD/C. Tevildo (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate it is, either, but it doesn't seem very desirable to introduce the possibility of accidentally throwing a reader into a talk space when they may have no idea what a talk space is. I used Wikipedia for years without any awareness of what was going on beneath the surface. Wikipedia:Community portal has a nice prominent button for Reference Desk near the top, so one needn't know anything about namespaces to get here. ―Mandruss  14:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, anyone who can find "Community Portal" will be able to find the reference desks (and probably Lord Lucan) without assistance. I think it's reasonable to offer some assistance in finding things to users who aren't as familiar with our labyrinthine structure. Tevildo (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Except for the fact that there is a link to Community Portal in the left sidebar of every Wikipedia page, but none for the Refdesks (or Lord Lucan). ―Mandruss  17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll note that although the OP has been blocked, the question is a relevant one. Even if the name of a WP: page doesn't show up in autofill, it should show up as a did you mean WP:EXAMPLE at the top of the search page. I am sure this drives newbies batty, and I still find it frustrating after two decades here. Would this be a matter for the Village Pump? μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Probably. WP:VPR if you can make a specific proposal for change, or WP:VPI if you wish to bat some ideas around first - issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). ―Mandruss  17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Medeis, if you think you have (or anyone has) been here for two decades, that might explain a lot about ... stuff (or things; take your pick). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll be, forever! This is my new friendly (buddy buddy) place... Misc-tpvgames.gif -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pennsylvania watershed.[edit]

Why are there (almost) daily references to the Pennsylvania watershed in your "did you know" section? Today there are multiple references and I, am very puzzled. Why not Wisconsin? Or New South Wales?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This question would be better at WT:DYK. See WP:DYK for the general rules applying to the section. Tevildo (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The answer is "Because people have been recently creating or expanding articles about Pennsylvania bodies of water". There is no other reason anything happens at Wikipedia ever. There is no central authority which decides how we work, what we post where, or where efforts are spent. People show up and random and work on whatever interests them. That's the only reason anything ever happens at Wikipedia. The answer to any question that begins with "Why..." and has the word Wikipedia in it somewhere is always "Because someone decided to do it". --Jayron32 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Pennsylvania is especially cool, See this map, since some of it drains through Lake Erie to the St. Lawrence River, some of it drains through the Ohio River to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, and some of it drains through the Delaware River] to the Atlantic Ocean via the Delaware Bay, while some of it drains into the Susquehanna River and the Potomac River into The Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic. There's even a teensy bit that drains through the Genesee River across New York and into Lake Ontario.
μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Whilst it is true that nobody decides centrally which articles to create, somebody does decide which ones go on DYK. Therefore the question is completely valid, somebody is continuing to put pointless little river articles on DYK, rather than interesting stuff. (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Define "interesting" - and make sure your definition is true for all people at all times. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Go easy on him Jack, not only is he from Wales, whose waters drain only into the Irish Sea; he also doesn't understand the difference between a river and a watershed. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the gatekeepers at DYK don't really judge based on subject matter, only that the article meets basic quality standards such as length and proper referencing. Every qualified article which is nominated at DYK appears on the main page. --Jayron32 14:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Drooling in my sleep[edit]

Whenever I decide to take a nap during the day, I wake up at about an hour afterwards, and always find myself having drooled on the pillow. This only seems to happen during naps at daytime. When I actually go to sleep for the night, I don't drool. I know this because although most of the time I sleep for six to eight hours until early morning, some times I wake up during the middle of the night and then go back to sleep. I have never found myself having drooled during the night. Does anyone have any idea why this happens? JIP | Talk 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The obvious suspect would be your sleep position. Do you sleep on your back at night ? If so, that would tend to prevent drooling. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what position I sleep at night. I lay down on my back, but I think I change positions several times during the night. As I mentioned earlier, I lose all connection with my body when I fall asleep. I regain it when I wake up. During naps, I sleep for so little time that I think I lay down on my back for the entire time. And I always lay down on my back, whether it's for a nap or for the entire night. JIP | Talk 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Other than seeing your doctor to work on arranging for a sleep study, perhaps you could get a video camera and record yourself during one of these naps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Another possibility could be that governed by your (our) natural circadian rhythm your saliva output decreases at night but does not decrease during the day. Richard Avery (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Or you're sleeping deeper at night. From Saliva: it is generally accepted that during sleep the amount drops to almost zero. A nap may not count as "sleep" in that sense. ―Mandruss  07:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
While I can't point the IP to any Reliable Source that discusses the prevalence of this, my Personal Observation is that it's common. I've done it, relatives and friends have done it, and I remember it being depicted in at least 2 cartoon stories (Girls With Slingshots and The Ballad Of Halo Jones, for the record). {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Jip: As stated, it is common, analyse your concentration level, body tiredness and so on, before during and after you take a nap... --Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If you drink more and work less to begin the day than end it (I do), it seems reasonable that you'll have a wetter mouth at naptime, notwithstanding your circadian clock. Also more time at night for you (and your pillow) to dry before you wake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]

What is the future of Knowledge in 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?[edit]

What is the future of Knowledge in 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Total human knowledge will continue to increase, of course. However, most of that knowledge is likely to be extremely specialized and not have much influence on the average person's life, other than via inventions created using that knowledge. As for individual humans, each may have less knowledge in the future, as it becomes less important to memorize things that can easily be looked up electronically. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The reference desk does not "answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." See above. StuRat regularly ignores all the rules here, so you can excuse him for not obeying them. If you do want to know what people respected for predicting the future have to say, find some well-regarded futurist or "futurologist" and read their works. Wikipedia has a (badly referenced and woefully incomplete) List of futurologists and there is also Category:Futurologists which contains articles about people who purport to be futurologists. Caveat lector as always. --Jayron32 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"What time will the Sun (appear to) set tonight in a given location ?" "How could I possibly answer a question about the future ? Do I have a crystal ball ? Knowing when the Sun will set is as impossible as extrapolating based on current trends !" StuRat (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem, Stu, is that if the answer were as obvious as predicting the sunrise, the asker would not have asked the question in the first place. If you have nothing to contribute except to restate the self-evident, you have nothing to contribute. If you have links to resources the OP could use to help them answer the question, provide those. But just stating the obvious is self-serving blather, and does not help the OP. --Jayron32 16:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that it is obvious to some does not make it obvious to all, any more than the time of tonight's sunset is known to all. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then, provide a reference to the time of the sunset. Not so hard, it it? --Jayron32 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If there was any dispute over the time, then I would do just that. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't provide a reference because something is in dispute. You provide a reference because this is the "reference desk". Not the "I tell everyone what I think I know so I can look smart" desk. Providing references has nothing to do with something being in dispute. It has to do with being the purpose of this place. If you want to just tell other people what you think or think you know about stuff, there's a great place for that. It's called the rest of the internet. It's a big place, you shouldn't have any trouble finding it. --Jayron32 22:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That's an overreaction. This question is definitely answerable - as I'm about to demonstrate. SteveBaker (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The American Society of Training and Documentation claims[27] that the total amount of knowledge is currently doubling every 10 years - but that the half-life of knowledge (the amount of time before it becomes obsolete) is also shrinking...they don't provide a number for that...but one presumes it's considerably less than 10 years. This is kinda backed up by Nature magazine [28] that provides the hard information that the amount of scientific knowledge doubles every nine years. What's surprising about that is that the world population is only doubling every 40 or so years - so each person must be generating and storing knowledge at an increasing rate. However, population growth must soon level out (by one means or another) - and that may place a far lower cap on the rate of knowledge growth.
On the other hand, "knowledge" is a fairly fuzzy term. For example, Walmart is claimed to be retaining the information about every single item a person buys with a credit card in a store. Is this "knowledge"? As in "I know that a person named Steve Baker bought a 24 pack of Diet Coke at 10:35am in Manor Texas on 27th April 2015 and went through checkout number 7 and therefore must have been standing at latitude blah,blah,blah, longitude blah,blah at that time". It's easy to claim that it's NOT knowledge - but merely data - but suppose someone 100 years from now is writing my biography (unlikely!) then they would easily be able to ascertain an awful lot about me and turn that into a book that you'd have to say constituted "knowledge"...and the knowledge of my location and purchasing habits is building up at a phenomenal rate.
So if very mundane data counts as knowledge then our ability to store that data on computers instead of on paper will massively increase the rate of knowledge retention...but in terms of actual useful results - that may not deliver much in the way of improvement in our overall understanding of the universe. But Nature's claim is that the number of scientific papers that are referenced by other scientific papers (some kind of a measure of "usefulness") is doubling every 9 years - and that is more likely to be useful knowledge than the mere rote memorization of trivia on some computer someplace.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Steve. Much information/knowledge in the future will be quite trivial and stored externally, such as on computers. For example, we seem to rapidly be approaching a situation where your location (well, your cell phone's location) will be tracked and stored 24/7. This could be helpful for police, but the loss of privacy is frightening. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this[1]come under the word 'opinion' as Jayron stated? Beside, what Jayron stated, if I understand properly, shouldn't it be stated to the questionnaire rather than to Stu (who used his time to answer a question in order to satisfy the questionnaire)? However, I could be wrong... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
VGrigas (WMF): Seeking easy lifestyle, quick money and sex, no learning, testing, only documenting and archiving, using mechanisms ('knowledge' word wise, a reading pen, a bot talker for word...)... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are confusing data with knowledge. Knowing how to get to the Moon is knowledge. The telemetry of the moon shots is data. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Me? Apology if so! SMocking.gif -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That was a you pl., and I didn't indent under your comment, I bulleted the thread. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It might continue to increase, but there's no guarantee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that there is a capital K at "knowledge" in the original question? I think the first answer by StuRat is a better understanding of the original poster's question. It is one good use of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia can indeed be a means to think. An encyclopedia can be a good base for thinking. The OP was thinking, and he was asking a question that was thinking. In my opinion, correct answer should not be to turn him off to "the rest of the internet because here at Wikipedia we don't think we just collect references". The reference link StuRat should have provided in his first answer, should have been a link to Wikipedia home page. What I mean is Knowledge (with a capital K) does not live without thinking. If we act like robots, if we don't think, then the answer to the original question is undoubtedly "Knowledge has no future and will soon disappear, since it is being killed, and quickly, by a tendency to function in a non-thinking robot way. Akseli9 (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)



I am going to Munich, Bavaria, Germany, in about a month. I'd like to try authentic Bavarian cuisine there. I already know of the restaurant "Bratwurst Glöckl" right next to the Frauenkirche in central Munich. There is a dish there consisting of bratwursts, "Stadtwurst", "Käsekrainer", sauerkraut and mustard. I have eaten authentic Bavarian bratwursts and sauerkraut and liked them very much. But I have never eaten the other two sausages. Wikipedia has an article about the Kranjska klobasa, which says the Käsekrainer is similar, but with cheese added, which sounds nice. But what is "Stadtwurst"? The menu says they serve "Münchner Stadtwurst". What kind of sausage is it like? I have tried "Milzwurst" - spleen sausage - in Munich and didn't particularly like it. The Bavarian Weißwurst even looks repulsive. Is "Münchner Stadtwurst" anything like them or like bratwurst? JIP | Talk 18:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but foods which are repulsive in large quantities can often be tasty in small quantities, blended in with other foods. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd highly recommend Schnitzel mit Spaetzle, although it is not specifically Bavarian, but it is typically Bavarian. If you don't want veal, see if you can get a substitute like chicken, but don't skip the Spaetzle. I can't recommend any specific restaurants, since I was there 30 years ago, but I'd avoid the beer halls unless you are in a group of 4 or more, otherwise it's kind of like bowling on your own. If you like dark beer, ask for DAB Alt, although DAB went bankrupt, so I am not sure if they are still in business (they stopped exporting to the US some time ago. There's always the Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte which is local and world-famous.
And this (important) is ein typisches bayerisches Restaurant you will specifically want to avoid.
μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. "Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte" is not local to Bavaria but to the Black Forest, just as the English name, Black Forest cake, suggests.--TMCk (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's supposed to be typically Bavarian, why are they speaking with French terms? Anyway, sausages are my primary option so far, that's why I'm asking. But it's not set in stone yet. I could change my mind still. I've been to the Münchner Hofbräuhaus on my own, with no problems. But that was during the middle of the day and I didn't actually drink any alcohol there. I should be fine as long as I avoid the largest beer halls at the middle of the night. JIP | Talk 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
French terms? Like Jenseits von Gut und Boese? (I am confused.) In any case, I didn't mean you'd have a problem in the beer halls, just that they would be boring if you didn't have at least a quartet of singers to enjoy them with. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see the soup is à la clown and the host calls the guests monsieur (twice) and madame (once), but that is typical cosmopolitan vocabulary and less than 1% of the Auslaenderwarnung Video. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte has taken over most of Germany, but is local to the Black Forest area in Baden Württemberg, not Bavaria. And DAB Alt is made by the "Dortmunder Aktien Brauerei", which is, somewhat surprising, in Dortmund, which is in the Ruhr area (very much not Bavaria). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly won't contradict Stephan, but one should still have both while in Germany. In America, if you ask a New Yorker what to have, he'll tell you they have the best pizza and subs, which is pure nonsense, you will get better in Philly. In New York you either want a hotdog from a street cart (if you are not weak of stomach) or a sandwich at a Jewish Deli. Junior's in Brooklyn is great for everything, especially their brisket and their cheesecake. And City Island is expensive and isolated, but it has the best seafood outside Maryland and New England. I'll stand by my recommendations as an American tourist, but gladly acknowledge the superior knowledge of the natives. PS. I understand DAB is cheap in Germany from our article, but I still have never had any dark beer of any sort better than DAB Alt. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree about trying a lot of different things. But for beer, in Bavaria you really want to try the local varieties, of which there are plenty, and plenty good ones. Most of the major breweries have beer gardens in Munich, but the real find are the smaller ones around the city. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has an article at de:Stadtwurst if any German speakers wish to translate. Nanonic (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am too lazy to give a complete translation, also because I know JIP reads German, but summarizing from that article: It's a type of Brühwurst from Franconian and Upper Palatine Cuisine composed of ground pork and often also beef along with finely chopped pork, marjoram, and fresh back bacon, all stuffed in a pig's intestine. Then there are varieties, including Stadtwurst mit Musik ("Stadtwurst with music"), a dish of sliced Stadtwurst with vinegar, oil, pepper, and onions. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have started Stadtwurst, yet one more of my of my tiny but well-referenced stubs.
"de:wikipedia" laudably rejects "fair use" images, and only uses pictures that are fully free. Props to them. From my purely anecdotal experience translating articles de -> en, there is somewhat of a lack of citing sources over there.
That said, it probably goes both ways. And is no doubt a problem on all the Wikipedias.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We have an article about Bavarian food. I'd recommend eating at a Biergarten if season has started. As for the dishes, Spaetzle are common but Knödel (2 kinds off: 1 made with potatoes and the other with bread crumbs) are far more typical. For (late) breakfast Weisswurst with Brezeln (the real tasty soft kind you'd never find in the US or else) is a "must try" and so is a Schweinshaxn. Just ask locals (not the tourists) for further food recommendations.
    There is a place called "Schlachthof" that has a Wirtshaus with beer garden + a hall for cultural events. Tho I don't know how much it changed since the last time I was there, I highly recommend it for food and atmosphere; And you won't find noisy drunk tourists/locals in there ;)
    It's located at: Zenettistr. 9 in München.--TMCk (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, a "Stadtwurst" is not a typical food in Munich and the (wide) area around as per the German article and to my own knowledge.--TMCk (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Bavarian dishes are more or less repulsive, nevertheless you might wish to see some at List of Bavarian dishes (in Bavarian language) and more at Category:Cuisine of Bavaria. --Stuhlsasse (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

American skincolor[edit]

I am perplexed at the fact that this US poll and many similar diagrams separate Protestant religious denominations into a skin color issue. But it rarely happens to any other religious groups. For example you usually don't hear "black jew" or "black catholic" or "hispanic mormon". But Protestants get separated by colour. Why is that? Jartgina (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The data come from the "Public Religion Research Institute" so it is probably done that way to emphasis a particular point of view or stance. MilborneOne (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There aren't a lot of Black Jews (in America), for one thing. —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, there are only 3 million Catholics of African descent in the US out of the 21 million Catholics in the Caribbean and North America. So, again, a fairly small percentage. Our own article says that Black Catholics account for only 4% of the Catholic population. Dismas|(talk) 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
But that diagram you cite did seperate Catholic in to a Hispanic Catholic and white Catholic. I presume white theoretically means non Hispanic white. As for black, either they are actually in the white (so it's really non Hispanic, mostly white), or they don't show up due to being too small a percentage. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See also this PEW survey that shows that 78% of African Americans are protestants. Even with 40,000 interviewees, the PRRI surevey that the Huffington Post article is based upon would have too few "black jews" or "hispanic mormon" for statistically meaningful results. And black catholics are probably covered by the "other non-white catholic" category in the data. Abecedare (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right on the last point, somehow I missed that multiple times (even though I saw it when noting the minimal variance and disagreement with the official Catholic position but still didn't realise my mistake). Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is frankly tough to spot in the Huffington Post graphic. The categorization is much easier to follow and understand in the table on the PRRI page. Abecedare (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

L'affaire Grégory[edit]

See fr:Affaire Grégory. I'm surprised that there seems to be no article on the English Wikipedia about this celebrated French murder case. There's just a brief mention of the case at Vologne#Grégory Villemin. Am I missing something? --Viennese Waltz 09:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A brief summary of the case can be found in our article List of unsolved deaths, section 1980s, but no article in its own right, no. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)