Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

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

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

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

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

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

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



December 14[edit]

Search for a wireless router[edit]

I am not a small business owner, but I am interested by the more numerous and stronger security features generally included with the aforementioned devices. Namely, I am very concerned about my network being exploited or hacked; DoS, brute-force attack, ARP poisoning, etc. Threats that I doubt my otherwise well-configurated Cisco E1200-CA could do much against, even with DD-WRT and WPA2.

At the same time, I am also searching for a device with the regular qualities (good data transfer speeds, SPI & NAT, VPN, QoS) of a home network wireless router. My network is composed of three computers, two tablets, one smartphone, and two streaming media devices. Moreover, it is possible that it will increase in size in the future.

Based on this (assuming I included enough relevant information), which models would you recommend? My budget should hover around 200-250+ USD. Matt714 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In my modest understanding of network security you have two points of entry for an attacker to try; through your wireless (parked outside in a van), or through your ISP/modem/router. To guard against wifi attacks, WPA2 is not perfect, but with a 64 character password it can be enough of a disincentive for attacker to move on to the next target.
Additionally, you can turn off your wifi and hardwire your network with cat5 eliminating an entire point of entry.
To guard against attacks through the internet your best bet is a series of firewalls. You should be able to access both your modem and your router and enable firewalls on both. additionally you can enable at least 1 firewall on your main operating system. For a fourth layer of firewall you can install a dedicated gateway computer to further filter incoming and outgoing connections. Firewalls are an effective deterrent because unless the attacker has a high interest in your system specifically, they will move on to the next victim.
In addition to firewalls and strong WiFi passwords, encryption is your next best friend, depending on what you are most concerned about you can encrypt your entire drive at the cost of performance, or use 'offline' backups, removing your sensitive data completely from the world wide web.
here is a link to your router's owners manual
also be sure to disable WPS on your e1200 and any WPA2 router
13:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal618 (talkcontribs)
google for monowall --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OS of handheld devices running the arm_v8[edit]

As I understand the new arm_v8 is a far cry from the common arm_v7 microchip that can be found in common Android smartphones. It is more like the microchip that can be found in a PC. Would this change mean that it will be easier to run one Gnu/Linux distribution on a smartphone instead of a new Android for arm_v8?--Noopolo (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a big difference between the command sets of v7 and v8, but v8 allows the running of different operating systems on the same processor with complete isolation between them. I'll wait for an expert to say whether this will allow both Android and Linux to run on a smartphone. You might be interested in this site if you don't already know about it. Dbfirs 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There were some qtopia Linux based mobile phones, mainly in Japan. Maemo is the main one that is currently being used. CS Miller (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I was trying rather to understand why a microchip can run this or that OS (given enough power), than to actually install it.Noopolo (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Each design of microchip CPU has its own set of Machine code (or Assembly language for easy programming). Processors in the same series tend to have very similar instruction sets (of machine code -- the sets of ones and zeros that tell the processor what to do). An operating system needs to be written (usually in assembly language) for a particular processor (or family of processors). The instruction sets of ARM chips are very different from the sets used in traditional PC processors, so an operating system needs to be re-written when it is transferred to a different type of processor. This tends to be a much harder task than just translating the instruction manual into a different language, and usually the system will be re-written from scratch, rather than trying to translate the instruction for one processor into the instruction for a different processor. ARM processors use a "reduced instruction set" so their "native language" is more different from Intel Core (microarchitecture) (for example) than Chinese is different from English. You might also be interested to read our articles on Fat binary, Instruction set simulator and Microcode. My knowledge of computer architecture is seriously out of date, but I wonder if, sometime in the future, processors will all be designed with the same universal instruction set and having inbuilt microcode to cope with structural differences in architecture. Dbfirs 22:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Operating systems have been written almost entirely in C, with small amounts of assembly language, for decades now. It's not that hard to port the Linux kernel if you have a C compiler for the target architecture, and it was ported to ARM long ago. Android is Linux (i.e., it uses the Linux kernel). I don't think there's anything in ARMv8 that makes Linux work any better on ARM. It seems to have some new hardware virtualization support that might make it better suited for something like Xen. -- BenRG (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I presume you know Android already uses a modified Linux kernel. While there has been some controversy relating to the modifications as per our article Android (operating system)#Linux kernel, I don't think these really prevent the inclusion of GNU or other components which would make up a more typical Linux distribution. Or more generally, I don't think many would suggest the primary reason why you tablets and mobile phones don't generally come with GNU/Linux as being because the physical hardware is too limiting but because most typical GNU/Linux distributions are not what most people want on their smart phones and because Google decided not to use the GNU and other stuff but mostly make their own (and everyone else who was trying failed). There have been and are several attempts to make good GNU/Linux based distros for such mobile devices, but as Microsoft's efforts have shown, it isn't necessarily an easy thing to do with a variety of reasons including incumbent advantage which Android and iOS well have by now, and the differences between mobile device and desktop UI expectations.
It doesn't help that many Android devices are fairly locked down meaning even for those that are interested, it's not necessarily that easy. And while the core of Android may be open source, many devices have a fair amount of proprietary stuff including the hardware drivers. While much of the hardware is similar, someone still needs to get it all working for your specific device, as CyanogenMod and similar efforts to port new or stock versions of Android to devices have shown.
For example, I don't see any suggestion at Ubuntu for Android that the efforts failed because the hardware couldn't handle it. Rather it sounds a lot like they failed because Canonical couldn't really convince anyone making Android devices to get sufficiently involved for their liking. Even the newer Ubuntu Touch which is intended to be standalone only requires the ARMv7 based ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore (although does require PAE.
It's perhaps also interesting that in terms of alternative Linux based smart phone OSes, Firefox OS which AFAIK also isn't GNU based (definitely it's primarily intended that apps etc use HTML5) has I think had more success (although it's still very early days for them) than most other competing efforts, probably helped by them pushing it in to the emerging market scene which is seeing a lot of growth and likely has fewer issues of incumbency (which isn't to say it isn't a big factor, particularly on the hardware maker side). (I'm not considering Amazon or others using Android without the Google stuff.) See also [1] [2].
Meanwhile Chromebooks seem to have had a fair amount of success recently possibly the largest Linux marketshare on laptops (couldn't find good statistics, many e.g. Usage share of operating systems don't differentiate ChromeOS but there are bold predictions about its future [3]). And while ChromeOS is evidentally GNU/Linux [4], it doesn't AFAIK really provided much access to these components and is primarily based around the browser based apps. Point being not that there's necessarily something wrong with GNU or other components. Rather that what makes an OS successful is fairly complicated and includes getting the ecosystem right, and having the strength to get your devices made and out there and of course being the right price.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Attachments with Outlook Being Zipped[edit]

I am using Windows 7 on a desktop machine and Outlook 2010. When I attach a large Word document to an outgoing email, Outlook is zipping the attachment before sending it. What option do I need to change so that I can send the attachment in native Word rather than zipped? Some of the recipients may not have a ZIP program. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Unzip is a default feature of windows since WinXP. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
7zip is an alternative. Linux systems also are able to open zip files. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I still don't want to send the ZIP file but the Word document. Where is the option that tells Outlook to ZIP the attachments, so that I can turn it off? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, outlook it self does not have a native auto zip feature, so that means you have some "other" application doing the zipping. You'll need to find what that application is and disable it or change its settings. I think your best bet is that it's an outlook "add in" which you can find in "file>options>add-ins". If it's not an add-in then you'll have to figure out where it is, are there any extra ribbons at the top of your outlook other than the default "home, send/receive, folder and view"? Vespine (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Possibly you may have WinZip Courier installed. If so, Outlook may include a WinZip Courier menu item or ribbon tab. On my machine (with Outlook 2007), the WinZip Courier Options invoked from Outlook don't have an obvious option to enable or disable it (only configure some compression options). However I can enable/disable it from Windows 7 Start menu, All Programs, WinZip Courier, Configure WinZip Courier, Attachment options, which brings up a slight different options dialog, including a check box "Zip files before attaching to message". (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
A zipped email is faster on slow internet connections due a less amount of data. ZIPped files contain checksums that show you a successful transfer of the file. If your email receiver is a bot, use a batch job to extract the stripped attachment. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Software comparison[edit]

Hello peeps,

I would like to know, what software(s) out beats the following softwares, or high in demand:

  1. AutoCad 2014.
  2. Pinnacle 17.
  3. Adobe Photoshop CS8.
  4. Dreamweaver 8.

( (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

Can you rephrase your question? You can find alternative software at which has user based reviews and ratings for many applications and websites. Does help answer your question? Fractal618 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Fractal618: No.
I spoke to someone and asked, 'what softwares do I require to modify a (2)'video(s)' (old movies/New movies/of my own), (1) to creature 'architectural' work such as creating a building, car, plane, or any model(s) in a computer first, (3)modify an image which can at least come across as hand made, (4) a software that will create a Webpage. They mentioned the aforementioned software names including SQL, Oracle/MS Excel/Access and UNIX to go along with the Web page making software. I would like to know if there is anything better than what's mentioned so far or in demand that I can buy for to learn and use. So far I have Adobe Photoshop 7, SQL 2012, Oracle 8, MS Excel & Access - I'm willing to change them all, to acquire best results. -- ( (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC))
The response above is what you want. Go to and type in the program that you want an alternative to. I do not do CAD or edit videos. Instead of Photoshop, I use GIMP. I do web pages in a text editor, not a WYSIWYG editor because, contrary to popular opinion, it is much much much easier to type in the HTML tag you want instead of struggling to find the correct option or plugin to do what you want. (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on the HTML. I have not tested the GIMP yet - I don't think I'll if it is not a popular/easier software with lots of tools in it. Whatever software I start learning (soon come), it will stay with me for a long time; probably for at least 20+ years...
I've checked the specified website, didn't find the expected results on archetecture and movie maker...
Pinnacle 17 & AutoCAD 2014 is out on the market. Got AP CS8; not installed yet. Can't find Adobe Dreamweaver 8. Someone told me to buy SQL, UNIX and Oracle. I bought SQL and Oracle 8, suddenly the guy disappeared. I wonder if I've wasted my money every time I see this two/three CDs.
( (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

December 15[edit]

Pc issue[edit]

hi.i have problem with my PC.My PC turn ON when i switch on the power at the power outlet. Already try some Basic troubleshooting steps but the problem still there. (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If you shut it down from the Start button, does it stay off? If not, it may be something simple like your power button being stuck down or plugged into the wrong connector on the motherboard. Alternatively, your BIOS may be set to "Power on after power failure" - see, for example, this article from RS. Check your BIOS and see if this option is enabled, and disable it if so. Tevildo (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
1. What operating system do you have? (Windows 7, Windows 8, XP?)
2. What happens when you click on Start > Shutdown? Does the PC shut down and restart? Does the power light go off?
3. What sort of motherboard do you have? We'll be able to check what BIOS settings are available if you let us know.
Tevildo (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The green wire of the PC is shortcut to ground
  • the front panel power switch is locked in position "on"
  • In the BIOS the "POWER STATE WHEN POWER LOST" setting is set in server mode "ALWAYS ON". Change this setting to "ALWAYS OFF" or "LAST STATE".
--Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

can website block my ip address from accessing that website?[edit]

can website block my ip address from accessing that website? is that possible? Ram nareshji (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a standard access control method. It can be done in the web server configuration or with a Firewall, etc. Why they would block it is another matter. You can sometimes get around such blocks with a proxy server or virtual private network. (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, but there are other ways in which your IP address can be blocked other than by the website itself. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Even wikipedia does it. Vespine (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

videos on computer[edit]

Hi, I've sometimes watched videos on my computer, including those I've downloaded onto my hard drive, and they play up in the same way as a CD, with some kind of "track skipping". That is, it gets jerky, and replays the same bit a few times, then gets going again. Why would a computer file be prone to any kind of track skipping? Surely it isn't the hard drive physically playing up (for if it was, there would be so much more wrong with my computer, I would think)? So assuming it's software, the problem makes no sense to me - I would expect freezing, crashing, or entirely random behaviour. Mimicking a physical malfunction seems strange. Any explanations?? Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When you play a video there's various things that have to happen between the hard drive and the screen. Depending on your computer, the video file will be loaded chunk by chunk into RAM or video memory. As it plays, the file then has to be decoded by the CPU or by a video decoder on the graphics card to form the picture you see on your screen.
Any one of those steps could cause stuttering. If your hard drive is busy, it might not provide the next chunk of the file in time for it to be decoded. Insufficient memory could cause the same problem, as the computer has to move other things back onto the disk to make space to load the new file. Or, if the resolution of the video is too high, the computer might simply not have the graphics-processing power to decode the frames at the speed it's trying to display them. If you know any information about your computer (how old it is, the amount of RAM memory, the type of processor, whether it has a graphics card), that might help to identify which component could be acting as the bottleneck. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
As Noiratsi says above, the computer has lots to do, so I find that it sometimes helps to close down all other applications and processes that I don't need. This might include agressive anti-virus software -- mine seems to disobey my explicit instructions to run in the background, and sometimes takes over processing time from what I want the CPU to concentrate on. Dbfirs 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Audio data is written into a circular buffer in RAM and the sound card reads from that. If new data is not written in—because the CPU or hard drive is overloaded, for example—the sound card will wrap around the buffer and play the same short segment of audio repeatedly. Video also typically uses a circular buffer of 2 or 3 frames, but the frames are advanced by the same software that's drawing them, not by the video hardware, so if no new data is available the video will normally just freeze. -- BenRG (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lowest possible signal strength?[edit]

I just found out my phone has a way to display signal strength as a figure rather than bars. I know this won't improve anything but it's fun to see. When I have no signal here it shows my signal strength between -109 and -113. What's the lowest it can go where I actually have a valid signal for voice calls? Also, what's the very lowest it can go, for example if I sat inside a lead lined box underground in North Scotland. It's a GSM phone if that matters. (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The unit is dBm. A minimum threshhold for a GSM call is around -105. You should read the article (I don't fully understand it), but to summarise, it seems the scale doesn't have a way to express theoretical zero—it goes all the way down to negative infinity. (Source and more figures: —Noiratsi (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In the spirit of disclosure, we don't know that the display is showing data in units of dBm - although that is one common way to express such signal levels, there are many other methods and units. For example, received signal strength indication (as standardized by the IEEE 802.11 WiFi specifications) has arbitrary units; and it is permitted to vary between vendors and implementations; so there is no real way to relate its value to any physical parameter. Proprietary techniques for signal strength indicators proliferate widely in the consumer radio industry!
Nimur (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
To answer the theoretical part of the question, the thermal noise floor at 25°C with a 50 ohm load is -147 dBm/Hz, so for a single GSM channel with a bandwidth of 200 kHz, the noise floor is at -121 dBm. (Copper would be better than lead, incidentally - see Faraday cage.) Tevildo (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What disasters were caused by bad programming, bad software development?[edit]

I see that software providers cover their back with a 'no guarantees' clause, but what has happened already due to buggy software?--Noopolo (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Divide by Zero error in a navy ship. Avono (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Therac-25, Mars Climate Orbiter#Cause of failure. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1990 AT&T Long Distance Network Collapse
Wikipedia has an interesting article List of software bugs. Since it only covers bugs that are notable in some way, a bunch of them might qualify as "disasters". APL (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This list was constructed from articles posted in the Risks digest over the years. Not all of the items are examples of "buggy software"; see the table of descriptor codes near the top. -- (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Which Linux distribution?[edit]

A friend of mine contacted me to say he has an old laptop running Windows 7 that he wishes to replace with Linux. I'm assuming the laptop is already several years old. I don't know its exact specs yet as I've not seen it yet. Which distribution should I use? The only distribution I have myself ever used is Fedora, and Red Hat before it became Fedora. My friend knows his way around Windows, although he has no training or experience in programming or system-level work like me. I'm assuming he has no previous experience of Linux, but should quickly pick it up once he sees it. JIP | Talk 19:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Xubuntu -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, or try to boot a 32 bit Linux Mint. When this live CD etablishes the desktop, it is possible to install it from desktop. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Linux Mint.--Aspro (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is Blipp?[edit]

An ad in my newspaper (which I get home delivered, so I'm talking about something I saw on paper, not online) tells me to Blipp. This seems to be connected to Blippar. Neither has a Wikipedia article unless this is somehow connected to Blip (website).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

g returned no:Stian Blipp or blippapp --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I get something called "augmented reality advertising" but I'm not interested in the type of marketing-speak Wikipedia avoids.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Videos for youtube[edit]

I am attempting to upload 6 different 40 minute albums up to youtube. My songs I made are around 12mb a song and I compiled them into on long mp3 file of the album just for youtube use and when I use Windows Movie Maker to take a picture/album cover and use that as the image for the youtube video the files end up being massive for some reason. All it is in the movie maker is the audio files aka mp3 files and they are about 50mb in total and the image is less than a mb in size. How can I Use my image and add the audio to it so it doesnt take up to much video space? The video files take for ever to finish and they are up to 350mb in size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Can I install two operating systems on one internal 3.5 inch hard disk[edit]

That's my question. Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That depends on the operating systems but it is possible. See boot loader. Dismas|(talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One OS is Windows Server 2008 and the other one, that I want to install also on the same disk is Ubuntu. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Both O/S's would need to support the format used on the hard drive. And there might be other problems, like different O/S's using different paging space on the hard disk. I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but it might be possible. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is certainly possible. You need to install the two operating systems to separate partitions within the single physical disk. Ubuntu has a good guide for going about this here. GoldenRing (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Win first, then Ubu. But troubleshooting will be more complicated. Swapping 2 drives is less complicated. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I will second that. A second drive is well worth the money (and easy to instal, plus more storage, plus a convenient place to back up). <Linux plug>Also, you will then realize that of your precious time spent on maintenance and trouble shooting, is nearly all wasted on the drive hosting Microsoft. If window was released for the first time today, it wouldn’t stand a chance against the modern Linux family of no hassle distros. </Linux plug>--Aspro (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hosting English Wikipedia for a group of Users[edit]

I have installed MediaWiki 2 years ago.But since MediaWiki can't handle more than 1 GB(not sure) I changed to XOWA app.But using XOWA for a single user might be good but when it comes to a group of users I think MediaWiki might be more efficient since online wikipedia uses this software.Could you tell me are there any memory constraints for MediaWiki(asking whether it can handle a wikipedia dump of 10GB)?I once tried to install the dump by increasing the memory limit in php configuration file(apache too) in WAMP server but I think it can handle around 1GB as I tried but when it comes to the dump file(10GB) it usually gives some error.Since I couldn't get a lot(memory) from MediaWiki should I need to install any other software?Could anyone help me.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What limit are you talking about, the media upload size limit?
Do you know about Wikipedia Zero and the project wiki on a stick or wikipedia offline? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Haase:No.I'm taking about the memory limit in MediaWiki for uploading(MAX_UPLOAD_SIZE in MediWiki).Also 'Wikipedia Zero' is an mobile application.I'm really asking about an software used in computer to allow a group of users access the wikipedia in a network.I have asked this question previously at :

Could you tell me is there any constraint in uploading a 10GB file(after uncompressing 40GB) into MediaWiki.Is there any other software that might be good to host an English Wikipedia for a group of users.I know about XOWA but using it individually might be good but when it comes to a group of users the addon(firefox) it provides doesn't work and the http connection is slow too.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Trying to pronounce ð and θ[edit]

Hi there,
I've tried to pronounce those consonants,
I would like to hear comments about my pronunciation,
Beginning with accent, and particularly the pronunciation of the THs.
It should be "they think".
Another issue is that I noticed that most of the native-English speakers, put their tongue out.
What I do, is putting my edge of the tongue on my front teeth,so another part of the tongue is sliding out from the "teeth box".
It's like my tongue is in a C-like shape. Is it okay?
15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If you were a computer, your post would have been justified here, otherwise, perhaps the Help desk would be the best place for it? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You mean the Language Ref Desk, I assume  ? If so, I agree, unless they want an audio file or software tool to help them pronounce it (although they did mention C !). StuRat (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The sound is faint for me, but I hear nothing wrong with it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TV color adjustment[edit]

Faces on my TV have yellow patches on them. I have the following color controls for each color (R, G, B): brightness and contrast. So, since there's no option to turn yellow down, which sliders should I change ? It's an LCD TV with LED backlight, if that matters.


StuRat (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The RGB color model is additive, and yellow is created by adding red and green - you should either decrease both, or increase the blue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Since they are only yellow patches, not the whole image being too yellow, does that mean I should turn up the blue contrast and/or turn down the red and green contrast ? StuRat (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried a test pattern? Many modern TVs have them built in, or you could pipe one in from a computer. I am suspicious that only patches of faces seem off. Other issue: what is the input signal? Broadcast HDTV? DVD? etc. It could be a problem with the input and not the display. The closest thing I can think of is when an old film noir movie has been poorly converted to DVD. When the MPEG encoding/compression isn't done right, you can clearly see clean squares of dark purple or maroon in what should be smooth deep shadows. Anyway, from your description, it's not clear to me that simple color adjustment will solve the problem, though it may help or at least make it less noticeable. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The yellow patches aren't blocks, the seem to be areas of the face that maybe should be a bit more yellow, but are much more yellow instead. I turn up the blue contrast to max and turned down the red and green contrast to min. That certainly reduced the problem. BTW, this is broadcast HDTV (1080i). StuRat (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't feel it's a good idea to make an adjustment to fix a specific problem; in my experience, that just creates another problem. Your problem might not even be in the color settings. I think a more "scientific" or "holistic" approach, for lack of a better word, works better over all, and there are a lot of web resources for "tv picture calibration". I was lucky with my current TV, a low-end HD LED model. Consumer Reports published a full set of picture settings (not only color) recommended for that model by their engineers/testers. I tried their recommendations and after two years I've been extremely happy with the results. ‑‑Mandruss  19:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL, it sounds like it took two years to do the color calibration. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Eh? I don't know how long it took the engineers to determine the settings. It took me 5 minutes to set them and several months to decide that I was extremely happy. ‑‑Mandruss  22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Generating lists from Excel[edit]

I have something similar to the following table in Excel and I'm wondering if there is a way to generate lists from it in Excel or Word, such as, a list of Mr. Smith's math students, a list of Ms. Jones's science students, etc.

Name of student Class 1 Teacher 1 Class 2 Teacher 2 ...
Alison Math Mr. Smith Science Ms. Jones
Barry Gym Mr. Fisher Art Mr. Fraser
Charles Math Mr. Smith Art Mr. Fraser
Dawn Gym Mr. Fisher Art Mr. Fraser
Edward Gym Mr. Fisher Science Ms. Jones
Fred Drama Ms. Taylor Art Mr. Fraser
Greg Drama Ms. Taylor IT Ms. Carter
... ...

Carveroa14 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A simple way to do it in Excel is to use the Auto Filter function: filter "Teacher 1 = Mr. Smith" and "Class 1 = Math", then cut and paste the result into a new worksheet or into Word. --Canley (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes and to export the sorted list should not be the problem. An other solution: Mark the whole table. In menue, select data, sort data and specifiy the sort order of the colmns. Copy an paste the result. If you do not want to change the excel file, close and don't save it. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Minimize Backtracking Algorithm[edit]

So today my teacher was talking about Depth-First Search and Breadth-First Search. He was saying how when finding the path you have to backtrack for DFS and go to the next available branch. When he finally had found the tree his tree seemed mangled and had multiple sections with non-sensical back-trackings (degree 1 nodes in the final tree). My question is "What is the easiest way to find a tree such that the minimal amount of traversing is required to pass through the tree. (explanation--when picking a new location how can I continue the line I am on without creating a dead end before passing over all nodes/vertices). Idk if this question has already been answered so if it has just post a link. Thnx -- Jetstream5500 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the "minimum leaf spanning tree" problem, which is NP complete since it has the Hamiltonian path as a special case. NP-complete problems aren't always intractable in practice, but this one doesn't even have a constant-factor approximation (i.e., a fast way to get within a factor of N of the minimum amount of backtracking). That probably means that a backtracking-minimized DFS would be much slower than an ordinary blind DFS. -- BenRG (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you make an algorithm that could give not the correct answer but a possible answer that is 95% correct or would this still be difficult. In more general terms: Is there an algorithm that could make several spanning trees with 0 backtrackings and then somehow connect them to result in a fairly good answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on the info you've given, it sounds like you have no way of knowing when you are close to the target state. In that case there's really no efficient way to get there, other than an exhaustive search.
But, let's say you were solving a maze, and the desired state is being at the exit. In that case, you could use the Manhattan distance from your current location to the exit as an approximate measure of how close you are. Of course, it's not always correct, because there could be a wall in the way even though the distance is less. But this would allow you to prioritize search down branches with lower distances, and usually make your search more efficient.
I've also found that searching from both directions is more efficient yet. So, while you are branching from the maze entrance towards the exit, also branch from the exit towards the entrance, and when your two trees meet in the middle, that's your solution. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you break apart the maze anyway? When 2 graphs are connected by a bridge you can run the program on both sections thus starting in 4 locations right? This would be even quicker. --Jetstream5500 (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you'd need to know an intermediate state you will need to pass through (the "bridge") in order to break it down further. I was assuming the only two states which are known for sure are the start and end states (entrance to the maze and exit). Now, you could also have a system with multiple starting and ending states (entrances and exits, in the case of a maze). If the goal is to find the shortest path between any starting state and any ending state, then simultaneously building trees from each of those might also make sense. When the first tree from a starting state intercepts the first tree from an ending state, that's your solution.
Oh, and if you haven't already discussed pruning algorithms, the obvious one here is to prune off any branch that leads to a state that's already in that tree. In the case of a maze, that means we don't go back to any place in the maze we've already visited.
For a real-world example, lets say we are writing a program to find the shortest path between a start location and destination on a map (like Google Maps). We'd want to start a tree at each end, and also start trees at intermediate stops, if any. (In practice we'd completely solve one segment before starting the next, unless we are using some type of parallel computing architecture that would make solving all segments simultaneously faster.) We'd also want to weight each step by if it moves you closer or father from the goal state (location), and explore those nodes that get us closer first. As in the maze example, this is no longer guaranteed to find the best solution, because a route which initially takes you farther from the goal state may actually turn out to be the best (here perhaps that might mean driving to the nearest highway entrance, even though it's out of the way). Weightings could also be altered based on type of road, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you actually want to find a goal node quickly then A* search is often a good way to do it, but in this question there is no particular goal node. The goal is to explore the entire graph without backtracking. "Pruning off any branch that leads to a state that's already in that tree" is how DFS always works. I get the impression that you've never taken the standard algorithms course that Jetstream5500 is taking. -- BenRG (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I just wasn't sure if he'd gotten to that part of the class yet. I took the class a while back, but didn't recall if they taught the pruning right up front, or first teach the difference between DFS and BFS and then add in pruning methods. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Im in a Discrete Math course in high school. Now I was wondering you can't find a path that minimizes back-tracking and you said this is similar to hamiltonian paths and cycles. What I was wondering is can you (like hamiltonian paths and cycles) determine if such a path through the nodes exists w/o actually knowing the exact path that would need to be taken. I like the idea of pruning and the above mentioned algorithms also. Also if you have 2 bridges to the same point you can eliminate a edge that passes between 'b' and 'c' if 'a' is part of graph 1 and 'b' 'c' are part of graph 2. Thank you for the responses. This problem makes a lot more sense now. Close approximations are the best you can do unless a new algorithm / idea comes along on hamiltonian paths/cyclesJetstream5500 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as a pair of bridges go, there are some different possible arrangements. One is if you can cross one or both bridges, as in two shores on opposite sides of a river with 2 bridges across it, where you start on one side of the river and must finish on th other. In this case the bridge just behaves like any other link between nodes. However, I assume you meant a case where there's an island in the river, and one bridge from the island to each shore, so that you must take each bridge exactly once to get from one shore to the other. In this case the problem breaks down to 3 distinct problems to be solved, optimizing the left shore navigation, island navigation, and right shore navigation.
BTW, edX offers an excellent class on Artificial Intelligence through the University of California at Berkley which covers this and much more, online, for free, the last time I checked. StuRat (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]



Please don't SHOUT. Typically, a company will employ a firewall to limit internet access, either for security, to increase (perceived) productivity, or both. A firewall normally blocks most ports, allowing only connections to certain ports (and hence the associated services). What works for me is to go to the responsible system administrator and say "I need to access service X, please adapt the firewall". Success depends on the skill and workload of the admin, and your relative standing in the organisation. If some ports are open, you can always use a proxy and tunnel blocked services. The amount of technical skill needed for that varies, depending on what services are open and closed, and which services you want to use. You can use a virtual private network for this tunnelling, but in either case you need an unrestricted server somewhere for the final connection to the the internet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that any attempt to circumvent your employer's firewall is likely to result in disciplinary action, and could cost you your job. If you need access to a web-based resource to assist you in your work, ask your line manager to liaise with the IT dept. to add it to the whitelist of permitted sites. CS Miller (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How to determine if I have new mail in Gmail[edit]

Yes, it lists the number of new messages and puts them in bold text. However, when I log in from a new location, it lists messages as new that were previously listed as new at the previous location. Is there a way to make it recognize that this mail is no longer new, since I already viewed the titles and decided not to read them ? StuRat (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In my Gmail, messages stay new until I either read them or delete them, and this is the same wherever I access them from. Are you using POP? If so, there's a setting to mark as read on the server (settings -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP -> 2. When messages are accessed with POP -> Mark Gmail's copy as read). Dbfirs 10:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

GPRS at 35 kbps (k not K)[edit]

If you have 35 kbps, what can you do with that? Can you at least send and receive emails?--Senteni (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as the emails are plain text, yes. Full HTML might take a while, but it will probably work. KonveyorBelt 18:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Your "(k not K)" comment confuses me. Either way, "k" or "K" both mean 1000. I'm guessing you meant "(b not B)", where "b" is a bit and "B" is a byte (typically 8 bits). So, 35 kbps is 35,000 bits per second. A character of text is typically encoded as an 8-bit byte, so that would mean you could send 35000/8 or 4375 characters per second. Allowing for some overhead, let's say 4000 characters per second. That's a lot of text. Possibly you could also send some sparse vector line drawings, like a map. Or you could even send some heavily compressed bitmap images, provided they had large areas of constant color, to make compression work best. Something like newspaper cartoons, perhaps.
There's also some possibility of sending animations, although they would be severely limited, and again use only sparse vector images or heavily compressed bitmaps. Let's say you send 10 frames per second, that means some 400 bytes per image. Each 2D vector on a 256x256 grid could be represented by 4 bytes, or 32 characters. Let's add 5th bit for the color of the line, allowing 256 different colors. That's 40 bits per line. So, you could have maybe 10 lines on the screen at a time. Maybe you could send an image of a rotating pyramid with that.
And many games don't require exchanging much info between players. Chess moves, for example, only require a few bytes of data each. Or each placement of a letter on a 19x19 Scrabble board requires only about 15 bits of data. So, entire game histories could be downloaded in a second. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
yes, I meant kbits , not kbytes.Senteni (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
When I were a lad, we had 2400 bps - not "k", not "K", not anything. And that was perfectly OK for text and the occasional picture. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I remember those days (in fact my dial-up phone line connection used to run around that speed until a few years ago), but we had problems when trying to download "big" files of perhaps 50KB. Dbfirs 23:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You folks are too young. I remember when 1200 bps was a high-speed modem, normal ones being only 300 bps. And then there was 134.5 bps... -- (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well didn't home modems start out at 75 bps and reach 300 bps by about 1980? I can't remember the speed of the first one that I used, only that it was slow and unreliable. Dbfirs 12:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
In my day we had to get our internet in buckets! We'd go down to the information well, uphill both ways, rain or shine, and get one bucket full of internet to pour into our computers. Of course, to save on buckets when talking about the internet, we got rid of the "uck" and bucket got abbreviated to "bit", which is where the modern term comes from. MChesterMC (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I started doing 110 bps in 1974. Two years later, 300. Messages became less terse. Two years later, 1200. Vroom! Email really worked well at such supersonic speeds. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

Spred Spectrum[edit]

hi.just bought a nu pc yesterday.while exploring the pc bios i come to a setup named spred spectrum.i wonder what is it for and when i click on it, it pop out +/-0.2%,0.35 & so on.i want to know what is it for.

It allows a CPU or chipset to intentionally modify the clock frequency to avoid a certain type of electromagnetic (radio) interference. Here's a very old Pentium II-era application note available from Intel for the general public: Design for EMI (1999). It explains the concept. Newer computers support this feature in many more places with many more variations. Nimur (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ok.thank 4 the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is ms dos supported on beagleboard?[edit]

Has anyone ever tried to install ms dos on the beagleboard?Whereismylunch (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried to install an x86-based operating system on an ARM-based single-board computer? Quite possibly. People try all sorts of things. It seems rather unlikely to have worked though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It's more likely that FreeDOS, rather than Microsoft DOS, has been ported... but if you ever played around on DOS, you know that the system doesn't abstract very much of the machine. "Making DOS run" is quite different from "making a Beagle-* computer run applications that were designed for Intel 386 on DOS". Perhaps what you really seek is Linux on Beagle-* with a supplemental, application-layer DOS-like virtual machine like DOSBOX. Nimur (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If I wanted to use version control for text files[edit]

What could I use in Linux to get different version of text files, pictures (that are being worked on) and the like? It has to be offline.

LyX and LaTeX has SVN (Apache Subversion). Would that suit you? Better than MS Word too.--Aspro (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You include 'pictures'. For what purpose are you wanting this revision control feature for? If it is for some heavy duty stuff, then there is a beta version of Scrivener (software) available for Linux.--Aspro (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I use Git (software) because it allows me to commit changes even if offline and later merge with my main repository. It's fine for text. For images, a new version is, well, new. Editing binary files fills up the repository, but realistically, disks have become so large that few things you do manually can cause a problem with space... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Another vote for Git here. It really has everything I want/need from version control.--Link (tcm) 10:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Git is great if you are saving to a network store and will be offline a lot. If this is sitting on one computer and the files are not going anywhere, it is overkill. SVN will suffice. Best of all, you can pick sides in the eternal Git/SVN flame war and then, when you feel battle-hardened, you can jump into the Vi/Emacs flame war (and troll with Nano). Finally, when you feel really ready to waste your life, get in on the KDE/Gnome fight.
Nano and pico are both still terminal programs, so I prefer to troll with MSWord :) Also please sign your posts in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

thermal compound/paste[edit]

Thermal grease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

thermal compound/paste is there any other alternative to replace it.can it be made by youself.if can,how?:Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:50, 19 December 2014‎

There are a couple of possibilities discussed here - a toothpaste/Vaseline mix, and a diaper rash cream. [5] Neither appears to be anything but a short-term makeshift substitute, and I'd certainly not recommend either unless you are prepared to risk destroying the CPU or whatever if they fail. Thermal grease is expensive, but not as expensive as using something cheaper that doesn't do the job properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Andriod/iOS devices[edit]

Why are mid to high end tablets so much cheaper than phones with similar specs and capabilities. From what I understand, the only major hardware missing from tablets still is the cellphone radio (for WiFi only models), since most high end tablets include the motion, light, and GPS sensors. They also usually have bigger batteries. It just doesn't make sense.

Well if the specs are entirely the same, then you have far more room to work with in a tablet. Of course a bigger battery, larger screen and case would generally cost more than a smaller one, although for the screen, resolution and other factors will come in to play. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've failed to find actual dimensions, but looking at disassembly videos of the various iPhone and iPad devices (neglecting the iPad Air) they're build to much the same format - they have a main logic board that's about 40mm wide that runs on the side (the long axis) of the device. The battery sits beside that, and the display sandwich is above both. So it looks like the phone PCB is about half the area of the tablet ones - with, as you say, about the same hardware on it. Making very small footprint, dense boards like this is expensive - generally you need more layers, more blind and buried vias, and in general more tortuous feats of routing. Again I can't find a reliable source, but it looks like iPhones have something like a 10 layer board and iPads a six layer board, with the iPhone using thinner traces and smaller vias. So the logic boards are pricier to fabricate - but by how much, only Apple and their partners know, and I don't think it's enough to explain all the differential. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 16:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This story in EE Times talks about the 10-layer package-on-package board in the iPhone 4. It confirms what I've said about small traces and laser-drilled microvias. They put the price of that board at $5 (from maybe $2 for a simpler board) - so that doesn't remotely cover the differential you're asking about. There will be additional costs to stuffing such a complicated board (particularly the package on package components) - but I've no idea how much. The very dense nature at which ICs are packed will have two additional problems - thermal and EM. All these chips right next to one another, or actually stacked, means that the phone form factor will have a harder job dissipating heat into heat spreaders or the casing. The EM problem is due to the proximity of various RF systems (GSM/GPRS/HSPDA, Bluetooth, NFC, WiFi) - if they're in extreme proximity to other components, they may interfere. A tablet has a bit more space to get these (particularly their antennas) away from the digital logic and from one another. It seems the iPad Air, and some iPhone models, has an L-shaped extension to the main PCB (or a RF daughterboard connected to the main logic PCB with a flexcircuit), which allows them to put some distance, and some of the battery, between the antennas and the main logic. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 18:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Without getting into the technical details of electronics (as the others have presented well), consider a few related questions - why was a laptop in 2000 significantly more expensive than a comparable desktop PC? Or in the 1960s, why was a portable radio much more expensive than a desk model? Making item A to have similar performance to item B but much smaller is almost always more expensive. Engineering is much easier when space and weight are not restrictive. Even today, a mid-range mechanical watch is more expensive than a mid-range mechanical wall clock, and the same goes for quartz clocks too. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As to materials - some educated estimates of the bill of materials for the iPhone5 put that at $199-$230 and for the iPad Air 2 at $275 - $358. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 15[edit]

When taking a shower, does the body loses liquids (/water)?[edit]

or maybe it add liquid to our bodies? ot it's natural and it doesn't add or lose. (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The body neither losses nor gains any liquid. Ruslik_Zero 03:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's a hot shower, I expect that you're going to lose some by perspiration. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The overall lose or gain is very small. Don't worry about it....Captainbeefart (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is the day divided into 24 hours?[edit]

Why did they divide a day into 24 hours, why not use a multiple of 10? When was this done? (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Babylonians popularised the sexagesimal system, and that system is retained because of its historic prevalence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The history sections of the articles Hour and 12-hour clock may be of interest, as may the article Decimal time. Deor (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I remember hearing somewhere that if you extend your hand and hold it horizontally, the width of your hand will be approximately the distance the sun travels in one hour. So if the evening sun is 2 hands above the horizon, it is 2 hours until sundown. It turns out that on average there are 12 hands of daylight hours and 12 hands of nighttime hours and that is the origin of the 24 hour clock. I've even heard that etymologically the word "hour" derives from the word "hand". I don't know if any of this this myth or truth, but it sounds reasonable to me. Maybe someone can confirm or challenge these statements? Edgeweyes (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It's 40 minutes at the equator. At 45 degrees latitude the Sun should take square root of 2 (1.41x) longer than 40 minutes to move this distance vertically at the horizon, at the equinox, a bit more at the solstices (especially the winter one). You would need convoluted calculus-like corrections for much of the day (the Sun has no vertical motion component at noon) and the hour was invented in Egypt (23-30N) or Mesopotamia where 1 vertical hand = 60 min is more inaccurate. I don't know if this was a historical reason. 12 is the most reasonable number of Earth's ecliptic constellations (lucky humans). I don't know how the first people did it but if I'd never heard of time units before and had to invent them I think I would count zodiac constellations and the spaces between them (24) and use 1/24 day units for the Sun, too. Anyway, doesn't hour sound like horology, Horologium, horoscopes (obsession with minute of birth), horary astrology.. horo-something is Latin for clock. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
When dividing a unit into smaller units, the only advantage of using 10s is that if you're working with base-10 numbers (as we do today) then you get a conversion factor that's easy to deal with.

For example, 16 meters = 1600 centimeters = 16000 millimeters, whereas expressing 16 days in hours is not so easy. But against that, dividing a unit into 12 or 24 parts means that it's easy to work with 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 of the large unit. That is, 1/2 day = 12 hours, 1/3 day = 8 hours, 1/4 day = 6 hours. And there is the advantage of that system. -- (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for example if you are setting up shifts so somebody is always on duty (let's say guard duty). You can set up two 12 hour shifts, three 8 hour shifts, or four 6 hour shifts. It doesn't get messy until you try to put 5 shifts into a day. If you used a 10 hour day, even 3 shifts would be messy. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Marking off 90 degrees using the width of my hand at arms length takes about 9 hands. 180 degrees would be 18 of my hands. Your handage may vary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heating Shale Oil with Microwaves[edit]

According to news articles I've read on new shale oil extraction techniques, microwaves can be used to heat oil shale in situ producing crude oil and reducing its viscosity. Since crude oil is mostly non-polar hydrocarbons, how can microwaves be used for this type of heating? (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Crude oil shale might be mostly non-polar but not a purely microwave transparent non-polar matrix. There is a lot of other gunk in it, that acts as 'microwave couplers'. Since oil has about half the SHC of water -heating will be rapid! Having said that. Even with pure non-polar substances, some distortion of the dipole molecule can take place. Thus, the temperature in a pure substance will rise very, very slowly at first. However, as the dielectric constant shifts due to the temperature rise, so will the microwaves loose more energy to the non-polar substance with increased efficiency and the substance will start to heat more rapidly. So don't put a cup of oil in your microwave oven– not joking. --Aspro (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion here is quite interesting in this regard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You can't get cell phone reception in a tunnel. This indicates that microwaves don't carry through many yards of rock. I don't know precisely why, though I think of just about any rock as a matrix of positive and negative ions, hence capable of interacting with electromagnetic radiation. The oil is not all that is present in oil shale, which is why special measures are needed to begin with. I am rather amazed that the equipment is able to put in 0.65 MJ per kilo of extracted oil;[6] I'm surprised that such powerful microwave emitters have not been pressed more often to the service of evil... Anyway, from [7] I think the heating wells are about 4-8 meters from the extraction wells, so the rules of the microwave oven don't well apply - those microwaves are going much further. That source also makes a very vague mention of tuning the microwaves to control what is heated which is no doubt potentially interesting. Wnt (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a complete explanation of how RF penetration is archived. In situ radio frequency selective heating system & In-situ tuned microwave oil extraction process P.S. My oven can easily achieve 0.16 MJ/kg. Whilst it may be true that a mouthful of my culinary efforts, would be all that's needed to convince any gourmet that it has already been put to evil use, it's only because I lost the instruction manual. So with me at the controls it has become a weapon of bio-Mass Destruction I suppose.--Aspro (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term effects of antihistamines on mind and CNS[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji deleted as probable copyvio [8] Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This was a bit of a bee in my bonnet a few years ago. If a substance alters the response to a single receptor type or a family of receptor types over a long enough period. Then the cell will adapt. Before adaptation is complete, it will obviously have some effect and a change of affect. On discontinuation of the substance, the cell will attempt to return to its previous state. During this return, an opposite affect will be evoked. The type of synthetic antihistamines that you refer to is for short time use but a small and perceptible change in mental faculties is to be expected. --Aspro (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

B cell receptor editing[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji deleted as probable copyvio [9] Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An insightful question! I'd been aware of clonal deletion to prevent central tolerance, but had not been aware of receptor editing as a means of solving it (rather than just dealing with low expression levels [10]), or that it was so common. At least this paper [11] says that cells can de-differentiate and go back and rearrange both kappa and lambda loci, but the one preceding seemed skeptical of it. This seems like an active research topic that probably requires a thorough research of at least everything recent on PubMed to get the sense of what is currently thought about it. Wnt (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you just buy antibiotics?[edit]

See above. It seems like you can only get them via prescription, which is fine I guess, but going to the doctor is a pain. I'm not asking for medical advice, I just want to know why you can't just buy them over the counter if you have an infection or something. (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Typically the doctor will prescribe a certain amount for a certain number of days. There are enough problems already with Antibiotic resistance, and popping them on a whim, as with aspirin, would only make that problem worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It depends where you are. A good place to start reading is our article on medical prescriptions.
In the United States, many controlled substances - particularly, medicinal and non-medicinal drugs - are "scheduled" (controlled) as required by the Controlled Substances Act. I am not certain, but I think most common antibiotics - like Amoxicillin and Cipro - are regulated by entirely separate legislation (see, for example, the FDA's website on New Drug and Antibiotic Regulations, which cites specific changes to 21 CFR made in 1985, among dozens of other laws); but the general rules are roughly parallel: possession and sale of such substances is regulated by the state or federal government, ostensibly to prevent harm. Only certain people are allowed to have or sell such substances; and only after specific paperwork is filed. The authority to grant such permission is among the many privileges granted to a licensed medical doctor - a license that is also granted by the local or federal government. If you really want to trace all of this to root-cause, from a "scientific" perspective, we could trace this to utilitarian descriptions of the evolutions of theories regarding the social contract, delegation of responsibilities, specialization of labor, and so on. Without doubt, you will find dissenting opinions from many people who believe that they ought to be able to freely and openly carry and sell any substance, weapon, antibiotic, radioactive isotope, and so forth, all without government intervention of any kind; but irrespective of their opinion, the present status-quo is that you may not do such things at present in most parts of the United States.
Nimur (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
However, specific to antibiotics, the public health concerns outweigh the individual concerns regarding chance for abuse or personal safety. Basically, though the chance for addictive abuse is nil, and the chance for adverse reactions is small (but real), the main concern is what Bugs describes above: antibiotic resistance. Overuse of antibiotics is to blame for many major health problems societally (like MRSA to name one), and the issue is related to the tragedy of the commons; if unregulated every will use antibiotics all the time, even if they don't need them, and while it may not harm them as individuals, it has the effect of causing major health problems for society in terms of antibiotic resistance. By regulating antibiotics, we're able to mitigate that effect. --Jayron32 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The non-libertarian societal benefit arguments being made above are interesting, but some of the practical reasons why you should consult a professional are: (1) misdiagnosis, (2) specificity, (3) side effects. The first problem is misdiagnosis. If you have a cough due to a viral cold or asbestosis or lung cancer then not only will the antibiotic not help, you may fail to get proper treatment, like chemotherapy, which is often started very soon after a lung cancer diagnosis.
Second, specific antibiotics are often prescribed for different ailments. Amoxicillin is prescribed for upper-respiratory infection, but not for diverticulitis, in which case Cipro is called for. I think penicillin is still standard for syphillis, but you'd have to check with a professional.
Third, antibiotics are strong medicines, and the can have serious side effects, such as penicillin allergies, and effects on liver and kidney function, gut flora, light sensitivity, incompatibility with alcohol consumption, and so forth. There are other issues, like administration whether by injection or IV, and some very strong antibiotics require regular, even several times daily blood testing. Most of this is something we should not want to do on our own. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Essentially correct. Note that reservation of most antibiotics as requiring prescription significantly pre-dates concern over superbugs in the broader public sphere. Pharmaceutical-grade antibiotics are like any medication; there's a certain degree of occurrence of adverse reaction and they can have untoward physiological effects when abused or even when used in a manner consistent with usual medical practice. A small handful even have toxicity issues if consumed too far beyond their manufacture date. Control of the manufacturing process also needs to be rigorous, as dosing and binding agents can both drastically influence the efficacy and safety of many such pharmaceuticals. All of these concerns would have made good arguments for strong control, well in advance of resistance becoming the other major class of factor driving the decisions of regulators today. None of which is to say that physicians and pharmaceutical firms haven't been aware of the concept of resistance for as long as antibiotics have existed as modern commercial products; they clearly have, but the concern has grown more and more prominent (and more and more visible to the layman) in recent years. Snow talk 11:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's important to realize that antibiotics are sold freely over the counter in countries including Russia[12] and the Dominican Republic,[13] and as explained in the second article this translates to availability within some subcultures even in the U.S. I don't see much study of the difference between Russia and the U.S. on resistance (I don't get much from this) but the sky doesn't seem to have fallen on them. Honestly, I think that medical ethics is purely the political pursuit of profit, and this is an example - merely a racket to keep-away the medicine from the sick until they pay. I don't see much consideration of the mortality and spread of disease caused when some poor luckless sap catches a strep throat on a Thursday night. (It seems hard to find a doctor on a Friday in the U.S., let alone a weekend) To say that doctors are needed to prevent allergic reactions seems absurd, because all they do is ask you if you're allergic to any antibiotics, you say no, you take your chances. A minimum-wage store clerk can ask you if you have any allergies just as well, and could enter it into a database just as reliably for that matter.
I even find myself very skeptical of the truism that taking antibiotics for less than the full term causes resistance. We know what antibiotic resistance is - it's caused by the uptake of plasmids with the genes on them. The bacteria don't just re-invent the resistance by blind slow evolution, not in a few days in your throat. So either some of your bacteria have the plasmid, or none do, and so either some are unaffected, or none are. The only way I can see it mattering is in the edge case where you don't take down enough of the susceptible bacteria and so there is less immune system to bring to bear on the resistant ones; but if that is the case shouldn't you still feel sick? Still, that's a question, not an answer, because I know this statement is repeated everywhere antibiotic resistance is discussed. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Was that all just a complicated joke, Wnt? The source you give for whether they do actually sell antibiotics off the shelf in Russian says no such thing. What it does say is

It's not wise to get antibiotics over the counter - ) the one you get may not be the most appropriate for you b) the one you get may not be most appropriate for your problem and c) most importantly, your self-diagnosis may not be correct; you're best advised to see your doctor today and as well as a history being taken, have your chest listened to / examined so that the diagnosis can be made with certainty. Bronchitis can turn to pneumonia in some people / if not appropriately treated. Disclaimer: These comments are made for the purpose of discussion and should NOT be used as recommendations for or against therapies or other treatments. An individual patient is always advised to consult their own physician.

. Further, doctors don't simply ask if you are allergic to penicillin. They then apply that knowledge to avoid prescribing penicillin-analogs that might also cause a reaction.
Third, Taking a full course of antibiotics is recommended because, first, stopping when you feel better may leave a reservoir, possibly of bacteria which have become more resistant in your body and during the course of your infection (or do you think bacteria acquire plasmids over the counter?); and second, because the antibiotic may be affecting dozens of other bacteria in your body, weeding out some of the less resistant strains and leaving some of the more resistant strains. If the political goal is to weed out hypochondriacs from the population, I am all for your plan of eugenics. But as practical, non-fringe OR....? μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a group of people who acquire antibiotics through various channels: survivalists, aka doomsday preppers. I won't give you a lecture on legality, medical advice, etc. Search the web for e.g. survivalist antibiotics. Plenty of information and disinformation there. (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Biology is complicated. People spend years studying how the human body works and they still only have a vague idea of what's going on, but their views are probably more valid that your manicurist's. The drugs we have, have been shown to generally help people who are suffering from certain problems, but because biology is so complicated, it's still a crap shoot whether any particular drug will help you with your problem. Talking to a doctor is often a good thing to do because 1) they are generally fairly intelligent, 2) they know something about biology, and 3) their judgement isn't impaired by whatever is ailing you. Getting in to see a doctor does seem needlessly convoluted. I think it's that way to keep the riff-raff out (all those people who are not really sick). Drugs are restricted to enrich the medical establishment, not because anyone is worried by antibiotic resistance. That is a recent problem. Antibiotics have always been proscribed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How many percents of the human blood are water?[edit]

Someone wrote on a Facebook group that 92% of the blood is water. I'm confused because of the hematocrit is about 45% of the blood. Maybe the the water includes the HCT? (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blood#Constituents_of_human_blood indicates that of blood, 45% is red blood cells, white blood cells 7%, and the balance is plasma. One thing to remember is that this accounting is not an indication of the total water; remember that cells (including red and white blood cells) are mostly water as well (they are basically bags of water surrounded by a cell membrane). So, if you're asking what fraction of blood is water (and looking for a molecular analysis rather than looking at the breakdown I cite above), you're going to get a different answer. The 92% figure is for water in blood blood plasma: this site indicates that, and matches that number. There is a lower percentage of water in the cells, but they are still more than 50% water. I can't find a solid reference, but some uncited answers at places like and indicate that red blood cells are about 80% water, meaning that overall, your blood (including what is inside the cells and what is in the plasma) is in the high 80's for percentage of water. --Jayron32 16:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32 thank you for the response. Do you not think that it's strange to not have even one article that talk about (the percentage of water in the blood)? I would never believe it if you don't say it. (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Those figures seem to come from a study done in 1953: A Rapid Titrimetric Method for Determining the Water Content of Human Blood. (Titrimetric = measurement of the concentration of a solution) I would guess studies since then focus on parts of blood rather then on the whole. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Rechard, Thank you! (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the strongest organ in the human body, in all aspects?[edit] (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by strong? Capable of producing a force of X Newtons? --Lgriot (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And what do you mean by "in all aspects"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Lgriot and Bugs have valid points, but - the mechanically strongest bone in the body is the femur (thigh bone), the muscle capable of applying the greatest force on its own is the soleus (calf muscle), and the muscle with the best force-to-weight ratio (and the one capable of applying the greatest pressure, via the canine teeth) is the masseter (jaw muscle). But we'll need to narrow down "strongest" (and, indeed, "organ") to give you a better answer. Tevildo (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The question's open until we get a better clarification, but I suspect the heart beats the rest. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, let's just guess. Eyes may have the strongest influence on social behavior. The stomach has strong acids. The brain has the strongest influence on how the body runs and what it does and while doing so consumes up to twenty percent of the energy used by the human body, more than any other organ. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Where can I read about the influence of the gravity on the blood pressure?[edit]

In which the article here can I read about the influence on the blood pressure in different places in the human body (for example: if the blood pressure in hand is the same to the BP of the leg) (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A web search (Google, Bing, etc.) would be a good place to start. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
... which brings us back to our Blood pressure article, but it hasn't a lot of detail. Some other articles in Boris's search will provide more detail, depending on how technical the OP wants to get. Dbfirs 18:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What do nutrient deficiencies tell us about early modern human diet?[edit]

Before the invention of iodized salt, before the invention of vitamin tablets, before the invention of calcium tablets, what did early modern humans eat to maintain a healthy, complete diet? (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Early humans ate seafood which contained enough iodide to keep them healthy and was also possibly what helped develop the larger brain.[14] Presumably as we migrated away from coastal areas iodine deficiency became a problem in some places but not such a problem that it wiped out whole populations or made them so unfit they were at an evolutionary disadvantage. Vitamin tablets and calcium tablets are unnecessary for most people if they eat a balanced diet - most people who take extra vitamins just excrete them in their urine. It is often said that the effect of most vitamin tablets sold is just to produce expensive urine! Hunter gathers ate anything they could get hold of - meat, nuts, fruit, seeds etc. all of which contributed to a balanced diet. Richerman (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And humans can digest all of them. I'm trying to imagine how apes descended from the trees evolve the right teeth to tear meat. (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You've lost me now - are you asking about apes or humans? We don't have have teeth that can tear meat very efficiently - our teeth are more suited to eating an omnivorous diet with small pieces of meat such as seafood and insects, so we developed tools for killing and cutting up larger animals. Other apes diverged to become carnivores with massive canines for tearing meat without the use of tools but I would think that further back on the evolutionary chain they ate insects, seafood etc. as many still do today. Anyway, I'm afraid I'm just leaving for work so I'll have to leave it to others carry on with this discussion. Richerman (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The bit about the iodine is interesting in an evolutionary sense. Looking at [15] figure 3.3, you can see there is substantial variation of iodine levels in Africa. It would seem reasonable to suppose that if you could guess the habits of human ancestors, you could use data like this to narrow down the range of early human ancestors within Africa. I've been suspicious that there could be a trove of ancient fossils somewhere near the Okavango Delta, since things like the elongated feet of the lechwe and the ability of clever hunters to feast on game killed in yearly wildfires or trapped in mud pits seem reminiscent of specific human adaptations. But generally the genetic data has been pointing further north, which is a big problem for that idea! It's interesting though that some of the regions to the north seem much too low in iodine... Wnt (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is worth keeping in mind that moderate malnutrition is survivable and in the past was very common. The average human adult increased about 4 inches in height since the 1850s, with most of that change attributed to improvements in childhood nutrition. It is likely that early humans often had a suboptimal diet. Access to nutrient rich foods would have been one of many factors that determined where people lived and which populations of early modern humans became dominant. It is likely that early humans didn't have a good understanding of their nutritional needs beyond simply trying to stay fed with whatever was available. Dragons flight (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I second the above, where is any evidence that "early modern human" had anything close to a "healthy complete diet"? It's some sort of naturalistic myth that animals in nature live long healthy lives. Most animals born in nature have far less than a 50% chance of making it to breeding age, they get eaten, die of diseases or parasites or malnutrition, early modern humans would have been in the same boat. Vespine (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The idea isn't that they had a "healthy complete diet", but that they should have adapted to be OK with the diet they have. For example, in the iodide figure I mentioned above, there are countries where the iodide level is optimal (100-200 ug/l iodine in urine), some where people get goiter from deficiency (some with <20), some where people have risk of iodine-induced hyperthyroidism (going to over 300 ug). Now the enzymes that take up iodide and conjugate it to thyroid hormone could be evolved to have higher or lower avidity, stronger or weaker vmax, or most likely, just higher or lower expression levels. So how did they evolve to be set where they are? Well, to make the diet optimal -- over a long time scale. That fine-tuning might shed a light on how things were for human ancestors, though admittedly, there's a big risk that the evolution is much faster than that, so that the ancestral state is forgotten; it is not unlikely to evolve as quickly as skin color, I think. But I don't know and I really doubt anybody looked yet. Wnt (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The higher primates; tarsiers, monkeys and apes, have lost the ability to produce Vitamin C. Given its essential nature, this means those animals must have gotten enough of it in their diet to survive. Hence the term Limey. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That limey article is awful - they've used an answer from yahoo answers as a reference and got it all wrong. Lemon juice was added to the rum ration to make the lemon juice, which had been shown to ameliorate the symptoms of scurvy, more palatable. Looks like that's another one I'll have to rewrite :-) Richerman (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seemed they had it backwards. It was my memory that this was done purposefully to avoid scurvy that reminded me of the term. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Do animals in nature just copulate among their peers?[edit]

Without human intervention, could one animal go after another animal of a different species?--Noopolo (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a recent example: (link to a BBC article) --Dr Dima (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank God for human intervention, or this sort of unnatural behavior would be happening all over nature! Plus, copulation implies mutuality, not (inter)species rape. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you're nitpicking ... but with a nitpick that's completely wrong. Whatever baggage the word "copulation" might carry when referring to humans, it's often used scientifically to refer to other species, even species where mating routinely involves force and an unwilling partner. The first such species I could think of off the top of my head was Mallard, and guess what? That article uses the word twice to describe a situation that is very much not mutual. APL (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've chided Medeis and others before, it is totally unscientific to to talk about Mallard mating as "rape" or to claim that is in some sense not consensual. Ask any specialist in animal behavior and they'll agree. How do you know what a duck wants? Maybe she is thrilled to get chased around. Also, there is assortative mating and sexual selection that come in to play. From honey bees to bedbugs to ducks, animals mate in various ways, and there's little value in projecting our human notions of consent on to these dynamics. (Seriously, traumatic insemination seems weird compared to the human perspective, but if you call that rape you'll be declaring to the room that you are naive to the ways of modern biology.) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Copulation implies uniting, joining; rape is usually described as forced penetration. (Consider: police officer: "So, ma'am, when you copulated with the rapist, did you happen to see his face?") I am not likely to take the fact words are used loosely or improperly by WP editors or elsewhere as of much weight. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you probably shouldn't be making statements based on subjective assessments that invite equally subjective responses. Unless you have a source to support your assertion that the established definition for copulation as a clinical term involves consent as a necessary condition? Snow talk 21:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is usual for animals to copulate (for whatever reason) among their own species. However there are many reports available by internet search about inter-species copulation, as noted above. These incidents are rare compared to normal sexual behaviour, but they occur. Human intervention has little to do with wider natural sexual behaviour of animals and can be regarded as of little influence except where animals are kept in captivity and may be subject to stress by denial of natural species partners which may lead to abnormal sexual behaviour.
You may find Animal sexual behaviour of interest.
Medeis, you really need to edit properly so that your irony is clear. Richard Avery (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes, yes. Other times, less so-- see founder effect, inbreeding depression, Allee effect, Naked mole rats are highly related to each other, while the Major_histocompatibility_complex is thought to be a factor in helping humans avoid mating too closely within a lineage. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I thought the question was about inbreeding as well as inter-species attempted copulation. I'll leave the links above though. More on topic to the actual question - here [16] is a very interesting example of interspecies 'mating' - this Amazon_molly fish reproduces by parthenogenesis, and only females exist. However, the females only reproduce when exposed to sperm from males of a different species, even though that sperm does not fertilize their eggs!

Capillary action in a tube of insufficient length in a gravity free space[edit]

What will happen to water when capillary action take place in a glass capillary tube of insufficient length in a gravity free space? Will it just come out of the tube and take spherical shape or water will simply overflow the tube? (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the outside of the tube hydrophilic or hydrophobic? What is the temperature? μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The tube is at a place where there is no planet, no mass. Let it be placed somewhere in general space (like halfway between earth and sun). (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
NASA flew Capillary Flow Experiment-2 to ISS this year; STS-131 flew a related Capillary Flow Experiment in 2010; there have been many other similar research experiments on other space flights. Earlier flight results flew to International Space Station in 2003. I found this publication from the same group of researchers, and the Capillary Flow Experiment webpage maintained by NASA Glenn Research Center.
I also found Mark Weislogel's faculty and research webpage, which links to lots of video and photos from these experiments.
Among the many fascinating experiments, CFE and CFE-2 have specifically studied your exact question: NASA and its research partners are interested in studying the egress of fluid propellant from tubes in microgravity environments. Like everything in science, the answer depends on details, but hopefully you can read these websites to get some context for the answers that we do know!
Nimur (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sanity Test for Einstein's Train Experiment[edit]

Imagine a remotely controlled spaceship moves close to the speed of light [say 0.9c] relative to stationary observer on asteroid. For simplicity please click on the link. Reset the value of beta to 0.9 and then press the tab of “set value and play” of animation. Assume each mirror [shown in the light clock] has a firing gun and stopping detector such that source and destination points of a signal lies face to face separated by distance L’ in their respective clocks. Onboard observer fires a pulse from any of the shown mirrors and a space ship stop when it strikes its target on the opposite mirror.

Horizontal clock

Case #1: A pulse is fired from the back of ship towards the front.

For onboard observer: A pulse has already arrived at its front target and counterintuitive asteroid has just stopped in front of ship (L’=Ct) while

For asteroid's observer: A signal (pulse) will be still moving inside the moving ship due to ship’s high speed and yet to arrived at the front (L=Ct+Vt)

Case #2: A single is sent from the front of ship towards back

For onboard observer: A signal (pulse) will be still moving inside the ship and yet to arrived at the back (L’=Ct) while

For asteroid's observer: A pulse has already arrived at its back target and a spaceship has just stopped in front of asteroid (L=Ct-Vt)

Vertical clock

Case #3: A signal is sent from the floor towards ceiling target

Case #4: A signal is sent from the top towards the floor target

Case #5: A pulse is fired from each mirror simultaneously towards its face-to-face target.


Would the universal stopping position [coordinates] of spaceship be the same for both stationary observer on asteroid and onboard observer when spaceship comes to rest with the help of remote control device used by onboard observer in aforementioned scenarios?

After comparison on such similarity, would the global stopping coordinates [position] of the Einstein’s transparent train be the same for onboard observer and outside stationary observer if it comes to rest with the help of remote control device as explained above?

Would the universal/global stopping position [coordinates] of ships/ train (or asteroid) coincide for conflicting observers? (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

You say that the ship stops when the light hits the detector, but the gun and detector are both inside the ship—implying that the light travel time across the ship is significant—and any mechanical process that stops the ship is subject to the same speed-of-light limit as everything else. It can't stop instantaneously. You could probably work around that by making the ship much smaller and having it contain only the detector. You also didn't specify what triggers the gun. That's important since it affects where the ship stops relative to the asteroid. To the problem as stated, the answer is basically that the gun fires earlier (in case 1) or later (in case 2) in the rest frame of the asteroid than in the rest frame of the ship. -- BenRG (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Although its not necessary but it may bring more clarity in case#1 and #2.

A similar defect would find by the onboard observer in the asteroid’s clock due to the mirror situation, therefore, although onboard observer has just stopped in front of the asteroid but according to theory, an asteroid would be still moving (due to his counterintuitive uniform motion) as a pulse would be still moving inside the moving clock (which is stationary on asteroid) and yet to arrive at the target (if mounted with decoy source and target) for him.

Conclusion: Both observers became to rest relative to each other but not according to the theory of Einstein. So is it possible?

I don’t think a sudden stop or stopping from declaration would affect sanity check.

Further it is added that although the velocity of bolt is C for the onboard observer of train but at the same time he also observes that outside observer (although stationary)/ surrounding is either moving away or toward him with Vt. Thus L for onboard observer relative to the motion of outside observer (stationary)/ surrounding is either L=Ct-Vt or L=Ct+Vt (where Vt is velocity of train/ship). (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

December 16[edit]

Why we shouldn't eat already dead animal instead of killing & eat them?[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC) deleted as possible copyvio [17] given the lack of any reassurance from the editor that they are the original author. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One reason dead animals are not eaten is they may have died from a disease that could be transmitted to the person who eats meat from the carcass. Another reason is that since animals die of natural causes at unpredictable times, it would be difficult to butcher the carcass quickly enough to prevent decomposition.
But the biggest reason animals are killed rather than allowed to die of natural causes is that cattle are slaughtered before three years of age. If they were allowed to die of natural causes, they would have to be fed for several years, which would greatly increase the cost of beef. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If found soon after death, it may become roadkill cuisine. Rmhermen (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Mutton sometimes comes from sheep kept for wool production, which died of old age. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you got a source for that StuRat? Dying of old age implies no slaughter just waiting. Hmm, horrible. Richard Avery (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This would be more common with subsistence farmers. Dairy animals would be another example. Basically they are kept alive for their primary use as long as possible, then used for meat after they die. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you find a dead animal, it may also contain parasites. Some are obvious, like maggots, others may not be, like trichinosis, and may be potentially contagious. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As ever I wonder which planet you are from. The animal,before it was dead, also had the parasites. Including, quite possibly, maggots, which while they may not whet your appetite are edible. Greglocock (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"Finding them dead" implies they weren't raised on a farm under controlled conditions, so are presumably more likely to have parasites. Maggots, however, normally are only found on dead tissue, although it is possible for the dead tissue to be on a live animal. But, after death the number of parasites quickly increases (although perhaps I should have called them "insect and microscopic scavengers", not parasites, in a dead animal). Also, existing parasites can rapidly increase in number, after death, due to the lack of immune of other responses from the host(s) (like chimps picking bugs off each other). StuRat (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Tradition - religious tradition primarily - compels many people to make sure to not eat dead (deceased), improperly killed, severely sick or congenitally deficient animal. In Judaism, these fall under nevelah and treifah categories, see terefah. The original purpose of these commandments and rules may have been to ensure cleanness, both physical (hygiene) and spiritual (morality). Dr Dima (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If I might sum up the above. The OP's fatherly advice was indeed a good dictum. And with all dictums there are exceptions. If a person is knowledgeable about how to judge the carcass as low risk and knows how to prepare and cook it safely. Then it could be eaten without suffering ill health. Outside that exception – then its better not to. Otherwise one could very well become ill or even end up as a cold stiff carcass oneself.--Aspro (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does anxiety cause diarrhea or constipation?[edit]

Question deleted as probable copyvio by Ram nareshji as remarked below Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you copy-pasting questions from other websites into our reference desks? [18] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Heh, maybe someone is doing a sociological experiment to see whether our desk is better than theirs, or vice versa, by asking the same question both places and/or copy-pasting. If so, then let us oblige by answering the question, while also fouling up the experiment by knowing it is active, as it is a positive good to foil the schemes of those who hope to learn to predict us. But... if you go on PubMed and type anxiety and constipation, anxiety and diarrhea, you're in for a slog. At a quick look there's a lot of data about irritable bowel syndrome, where there's a definite comorbidity; the neuroendocrinology of the bowel itself is at issue: [19] But of course we all know the jocular phrases about needing a change of underwear after a scary situation, so it has to be a more general relationship. But I can't really dive into this right now... Wnt (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The answer is in the parasympathetic nervous system. Vespine (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because anxiety causes the release of adrenaline, which speeds up the bodily processes, including the rate at which food is passed through the body [20][21]. I have often wondered whether diarrhea is just an unwanted side effect of the adrenaline rush, or whether it is a deliberate ploy by the body to evacuate the bowels quickly so you have less weight to carry and can run more quickly. However, I don't suppose there is any way to prove that one way or the other. If it is the latter then wearing underpants tends to defeat the object of that response. Richerman (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • For the record, irritable bowl syndrome (linked above) has three types, one with chronic diarrhea, one with constipation, and one that fluctuates between between periods of diarrhea and constipation. Typically, episodes occur over days or weeks, and alternate with periods of relief. There's no evidence adrenaline is the mediator of IBS, and treatment usually consists of ameliorating the symptoms with stool softener or anti-diarrheals, as the cause is unknown. (There is indeed co-morbidity with anxiety, which can be treated by benzodiazepines and other means.) Evacuation due to the fight-or-flight response is a one-time thing on a far smaller timescale, and does not involve constipation. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Anxiety, which is a known factor in IBS, causes adrenaline to be released on a regular basis due to a perceived stressor - see: here. Richerman (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sound from laying your head on your hand[edit]

First off, I'm not looking for a medical diagnosis or advice. I don't think this is a problem and I think it's probably something everyone can experience.

When I lay on my side and put my head on my pillow, I often put my hand between my head and the pillow situated so that my ear is between my thumb and index finger. If my hand is completely relaxed, I don't hear anything other than ambient noise. If I flex my fingers even slightly, I hear a sort of white noise. It's very faint. Where is this noise coming from or what's causing it? If I'm not mistaken, muscles are making constant adjustments to the force it takes to perform a task. So would this be the result of that benign tremor? Dismas|(talk) 06:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like the seashell effect. But have you been diagnosed with a benign tumor?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Do ignore the diagnosis above, which is worth considerably less than what you paid for it. I experience the same thing, as do the authors of [22]. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
What diagnosis? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I think i know the sound you are talking about, I always thought it was something to do with blood flow. The thing about your ear is that it is incredibly sensitive! It has been demonstrated that for you to detect a sound, air pressure has to deflect your ear drum by a distance LESS than the diameter of a hydrogen atom! Imagine that! So if you are lying in a very quiet environment, lying on your arm, I can sort of imagine that by flexing your fingers you are constricting the blood vessels slightly causing the blood to "rush" through the blood vessels making a very slight noise, possibly not even transmitting through the air, but through the material between your hand and you ear. Vespine (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Citation needed for the "hydrogen atom" thing, please. -- (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Wnt is wondering why you suddenly mentioned a benign tumour which is very weird unless perhaps you misread Dismas mentioning a benign tremor as as a benign tumour. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yikes! You're right. I need new glasses. Or maybe my brain wasn't expecting to see a term like "benign" next to "tremor". What exactly is a "benign tremor"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well if it helps, I actually made the same mistake and was nearly going to reply saying that perhaps Wnt missed the part where a benign tumour was mentioned until I noticed it wasn't. In my case I do definitely need new glass because my are scratched and falling apart (have an appointment with an optometrist early next year). But I don't think this was the cause, although I had read the bit about benign tumour already which may have influenced what I read. Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Citations for the hydrogen atom thing. Vespine (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


summerfield model — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sommerfeld model? --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, five. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Good answer. I think you nailed it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you quite sure it's not four point nine repeating? μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is four point nine repeating, but only on Wednesdays. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


1. Before the mumps vaccine, what percentage of the population had a bout of mumps in childhood? (Data for any country will do) 2. What percentage of people who have had actual mumps (not vaccination) gain lifelong immunity to the disease? Thanks. (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC):

You can take your pick of which population population. The World Health Organization -Data and statistics has it all. Also, I don't think its certain (beyond all doubt) that naturally acquired Mumps gives truly life long immunity. It is certainly not the case with chickenpox and some other viruses where the individual used to have their immunity reinforced by coming into contact with the virus again and time again throughout life. Hence, adults are now getting some diseases at an age where serious complications can set in.--Aspro (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"Natural infection was once thought to confer lifelong immunity, but we now know that reinfection can occur, although it tends to be milder and more atypical than in primary infection."[23] --Modocc (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for the links. How do I use them? I couldn't see mumps on the World Health page so I clicked on Immunization but it only talks about pertussis and measles. Can you tell me where you found the mumps Aspro? And Modocc, the data in that link is hard for me to parse. They seem to have picked out the same numbers of infected and non-infected people so I don't understand how to get the percentage who actually have immunity, can you explain? Thanks again. (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops sorry. They will either refer to mumps as viral parotitis or epidemic parotiditis. --Aspro (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The CDC states here that "Before the U.S. mumps vaccination program started in 1967, about 186,000 cases were reported each year." Since the US population then was around 190 million the percentage was approx. a tenth of one percent or one per thousand [per year. See below]. I'm not sure which study you are referring to, but the text I quoted is referenced to a study [24] that simply found evidence for recurrence by comparing 82 patients with possible recurrent mumps with an equal number of primary infected patients. That won't be much help though for estimating lifetime immunity for the various strains. --Modocc (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. If the OP is referring to this paper then one will not be able to get the percentage as this was not what this study set out to discover.Both groups 1 & 2 of 82 individuals each showed symptomatic evidence of mumps so one must conclude that all where infected. The point was that the first group had low IgM. This suggest that they had previously had mumps before – as IgM is mainly involved in the first nouveau infection (don't quote me on all this, as these days I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning). For subsequent infections IgM production is lower. Also, the cohort (group 4) of just 20 non-infected mumps-immune subjects was too small a sample from which to come up with a reliable figure. Without reading the full paper I can't even say how the immune cohort of 28 was selected (i.e., immune by inoculation or natural). I doubt if anyone has done such a study yet due to the cost. My advice is to just stay away from all kids – they are virus factories running at full production 24/7.--Aspro (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I know things here in WP are meant to be referenced, and I have no reference to cite. But "approx. a tenth of one percent" is way off. When I was at school (in England, around 1960) every few years a wave of mumps (likewise chickenpox, measles) would sweep the school, infecting almost every pupil who had not already had it. It meant a few days in bed, with mild discomfort, but no lessons! And no "cases were reported". Maproom (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that @Modocc: compared the number of people who had mumps each year with the total population, which doesn't tell you how many of that population had it over their lifetime. Back of the envelope approximations could be made from that figure and the average lifespan (i.e. multiply the number of cases per year by the average lifespan of a person, compare to the population), or comparing it to the birth rate (i.e. mumps cases per year / new people per year), but neither seems likely to be particularly accurate. MChesterMC (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I was half asleep (I still am) and missed the "in childhood' part of the question. Even if young children primarily got it and made up ten percent of the population (increasing the percent per year by a factor of ten), then for fifteen consecutive childhood years per person that adds up to only a childhood infection rate of only about fifteen percent. I don't know the reason why that is so low and only have guesses as to why. For instance, kids might have been asymptomatic or were only mildly sick and stayed home and did not see a doctor, such that these cases went unreported as Maproom suggested. Alternatively, again I am only guessing here, localized herd immunity perhaps created bottlenecks along major travel routes that may have hindered its spread. -Modocc (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the followups, much appreciated. Clearly this data is pretty hard to find. I will keep looking under the latin terms, if anyone does come up with the numbers please keep posting! (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it known which drug is with the longest half life[edit] (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Half life"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See biological half-life. The article lists some examples (Bedaquiline with 5.5 months, e.g.), but that's probably not the record-holder (also, see the metals) . All the "longest half life" items I googled in connection with drugs meant the longest within a certain group or sample of drugs, not of all known drugs. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Half-life is the standard way to analyze how a drug is metabolized and excreted in your body, since the measurable levels of the compound in your body will degrade in power law manner, you can calculate a drug's half-life. It's rudimentary stuff. I don't know the answer to the OP's question, but will direct him (and anyone who wants to read more) to the article on pharmacokinetics, which is the study of how the body processes a drug. Half-life is a very common measurement for a drug's presence in your body. --Jayron32 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Mcdonald's French Fries rot?[edit]

I've seen some videos comparing Mcdonald's French Fries and home made ones. It seemed that Mcdonald's French Fries rot slower than homemade ones. Is it just because Mcdonald's French Fries has too much salt and too little water (in comparison the home made French Fries with large cross section[25] seems to rot faster than those with small cross section[26])? Or is it because Mcdonald's French Fries contains some artificial preservatives?--Bdog07 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean literally rotting, or simply becoming no longer tasty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Salt is a perfectly good preservative. I have no idea what the methodology is behind those videos, but this is why you don't trust random youtube videos. There's far too many opportunities for someone to screw up the experiment, either unintentionally (for example, not salting the homemade fries to the same level as the McDonald's fries) or intentionally (because they have an axe to grind, see Super_Size_Me#Criticism_and_statistical_notes for how these things can go wrong). A random youtube video is NOT a controlled experiment, and should not be trusted one way or the other. I am not saying the people are lying, I am not saying the video is or isn't an actual experiment. What I am saying is there is no way to draw any meaningful conclusion from it because we can't trust the provenance or methodology or anything from it. So, we can't answer your question because we don't know if the videos are trustworthy, and as such, there's no need to explain why they are happening that way. You've started with the conclusion that the video maker has planted in your head, instead of starting with "can I trust the video one way or the other". If you can't answer THAT question to a satisfactory level, you can pretend you never saw it... because it means nothing. --Jayron32 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They dry out before they can rot. The large surface area to mass ratio and water boiled off during frying combine to make this happen. If you were to keep them damp, then I suspect they would eventually rot. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I found McDonald’s Reveals 17 Foul Ingredients in Their French Fries, which if true, says that they use citric acid as a preservative amongst all the other stuff. Mmmm... Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That site looks about as far from a reliable source on health matters as you can get. I think citric acid is pretty benign as food additives go - it's a major part of lemon juice, after all. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I was being lazy. Here is the ingredients list for the fries sold in the US (p.14): "FRENCH FRIES: Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]*, Citric Acid [Preservative]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt. Prepared in Vegetable Oil: Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil with TBHQ and Citric Acid added to preserve freshness. Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent. CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK. *Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients...".
Interestingly, McDonald's don't put any of that stuff in the fries that they sell in the UK: "Fries: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Dextrose (only added at beginning of the potato season)." No idea why that is. Anyhow, perhaps the citric acid (harmless as it is) helps explain why their fries last longer. Alansplodge (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you "see" a cell-phone probing for a network?[edit]

In the same way you can see a PC probing for a wlan?--Senteni (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

From a purist, physical scientific standpoint, "yes." Mobile telephones actively transmit radio frequency signals, and you could theoretically detect and decode such transmissions.
In a practical sense, "no," you can't buy the gear you need to break the encoding - or even to demodulate the radio signal in the most commonly used mobile telephone spectra.
With sufficient domain-specific expertise, and certain very expensive equipment, it is evidently possible - somebody is designing, building, and testing telephones! But those tend to be very large telecommunications companies who employ large numbers of highly-specialized engineers. There are many hobbyists who attempt to build their own cheaper "cellular"-band sniffer radios, and in principle this can be done - heck, when I was in graduate school we built UHF radio mixer-transceivers out of copper tape and single transistor amplifiers ... but to do this efficiently requires a lot of time, money, and experience. If you go down to your neighborhood HAM radio store, and dig around among the pretty high-end gear, you'll invariably find an abrupt "band-gap" in the available equipment right at the frequencies you might find interesting. A lot of times, you'll see this in the product marketing literature as a radio with "ultra-wide band (less cellular)." For example: The Alinco DJ-X30T wideband receiver covers 100 kHz to 1299.995 MHz (less cellular). But click around on the more expensive gear - no matter how much you spend, you can buy radio equipment in any band you want (less cellular). It's almost as if ... the Government forbids mere mortals from purchasing or using equipment that would interfere with common-use radio spectrum, ensuring that electronic surveillance isn't easy or cheap! In the U.S., you could probably get away with receiving signals passively, as long as you never transmitted... but in other countries, like the U.K., even a passive receiver may be illegal to operate.
Unlike IEEE 802.11 frequencies, mobile telephones operate in radio bands that are much more tightly regulated, which means that you cannot easily and cheaply buy electronic test equipment that receives or transmits in those bands. This is a good thing for the digital-radio-using public: it is just one of the many technical and administrative hurdles that prevent unauthorized hobbyist "eavesdroppers", "jammers," and other troublemakers from interfering with mobile digital radio.
Nimur (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You can easily and cheaply hear the characteristic interference that mobile phones create in the reception of Longwave AM broadcasting such as BBC Radio 4 in the UK. Of course, you would need very different and much more expensive equipment to decode the signals. Dbfirs 21:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an alternative link to Title 47 § 302a, for anyone having difficulty using Nimur's link. Tevildo (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(Technically, you have linked to United States Code, Title 47; I linked to Code of Federal Regulations Part 47. These are parallel but distinct sets of laws and they serve different purposes; items in USC are codified statute law, while CFRs are federally-enforceable administrative regulations; CFRs tend to be a lot more specific but a lot less fun to read).
Nimur (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I can't get your link to work at all, so I guessed what it referred to based on the URL. The precise text of the legislation is probably irrelevant here. Tevildo (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The point is that cellular radio equipment is not easy to legally purchase, because it is tightly regulated. Anybody who legitimately needs to know more will know where to look. Nimur (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced it's as difficult to buy equipment capable of receiving those signals as you suggest. Various sources like [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] suggest you can probably at least detect (which seemed to be what the OP referred to), if not even decode (I'm actually a bit surprised by this, I didn't quite expect the RTL-SDR to be good enough for that level) a number of mobile phone network signals using a simple RTL-SDR. I don't want to comment much on the legal issues but I'm fairly sure owning a DVB-T stick with the RT2832U chipset would be legal in much of Europe including the UK where DVB-T is common. And definitely these are easily available on places like Ebay and Amazon for under US$20 or less, including from local sellers. I'm not totally sure if these are legal in the US since DVB-T isn't used there but since as was mentioned, the legal restrictions on devices only capable of receiving are generally far less stringent it wouldn't surprise me if they were and they can definitely be purchased from sellers in the US. Of course, just because it's legal to own and use the device for its intended purpose doesn't mean it is to use the device for other purposes, particularly monitoring frequencies associated with mobile phone networks [35]. But the point remains, legally buying and owning equipment capable of at least detecting the signals probably isn't as difficult as you suggest even if actually doing it could theoretically get you in to trouble. BTW, as also highlighted a previous time this came up another option which isn't that cheap but also isn't super expensive is a USRP (the sited figure was around ~$1200) combined with an appropriate daughterboard like [36] (specifically advertised as being suitable for such purposes). I have no idea however how easy this is to buy in the US but the seller has existed for a while now without any apparent major problems despite some confusion last time. (Of course my early point stands that just because you can own it doesn't mean you can use it for the purpose without theoretically getting in to trouble and if you're actually transmitting rather than receiving, it may be more than theoretical. Then again, transmission was never mentioned by the OP.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The first problem you will run into is interference. Cell phones trying to make a connection use the same radio frequencies as are used for communication. So unless you are out in the wilderness or inside a faraday cage you are going to have a hard time picking out the signal you want. If you are isolated I imagine you would be able to 'see' the signal with radio receiver that can tune to the required frequency and an oscilloscope to display the signal. You won't be able to decode the signal with that kind of setup, but you should be able to tell if the cell phone is transmitting. If you want to decode the data, then Software Defined Radio [37] is the rat hole you need to crawl into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Mystery fruit (?) in hay bale[edit]

Here's a good, old-fashioned species ID question for everyone. I am a farm dweller (southeastern United States), and I have been coming across these things in bales of hay from time to time. They are what appear to be very tiny fruit, the largest being maybe 7 or 8 mm in diameter. They don't look ripe to me, but not knowing what they are, I guess that would be a hard call to make. They are yellow (obviously) and full of seeds (hence, fruit). I was brave enough to taste one, and decided I didn't like the taste; decidedly pepper-like, but quite bitter. The skin, though, has a slightly irregular, almost citrus-like texture. Any ideas? Evan (talk|contribs) 05:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Horsenettle, Solanum carolinense --Digrpat (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I won't be giving it another taste then, in that case! Glad I spit. Thanks for the reply. Evan (talk|contribs) 06:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is that hay for horses ? If so, I'd be a bit concerned that they may get sick if they eat too many of those. StuRat (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been picking the fruit out before feeding the horses on the off-chance it was bad. I'll start being even more careful, and maybe have a chat with my new hay provider; never seen these in hay from anyone else. Evan (talk|contribs) 07:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, but don't be too hard on him, it's apparently a bitch to get rid of that weed. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Gap in teeth[edit]

Some people have a very prominent gap between their front teeth. Here is a photo of an example: Michael Strahan: Why I Never Closed the Gap in My Teeth. Is there a name for that (other than simply "gap")? Also, what causes this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Diastema. Evan (talk|contribs) 05:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Never heard that term before. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding what causes a it, there are physiologically important diestemata (plural) in animal dentition that serve to both prevent food impaction and to aid in occlusion. Animal dentitions are super strange from a human-focused perspective because there are gaps and missing teeth and all sorts of wacky things that exist quite normally that, if found in the human dentition, would appear quite odd.
But back to human diastemata -- a midline diastema, as exemplified by Michael Strahan, is sometimes caused by an overly large incisive papilla (I'd steer you toward Google images for this, rather than the Wiki article because the latter is very misleading: the photo is from a terrible angle, exhibits terrible shadowing and the palate manifests a torus palatinus which can easily be mistaken for the focus of the photo as used by the article). Also, if the incisive papilla happens to be positioned a little more anteriorly than normal, the central incisors (which are the two large front teeth) may not be able to erupt into proper position, thus forming a midline diastema.
Back to animals, for a second -- I did come across something very interesting recently while reading about the rhinarium, or mammal wet nose. Apparently the groove on the rhinarium, the philtrum, is embryologically similar to the groove primates (and humans) have under their nose, even if they do not possess a wet nose (i.e. haplorhines). There's much debate about how to classify the various prosimians based on some of the variations that exist with these structures (see here) and, apparently, the presence of the rhinarium and its philtrum creates a gap between the roots of the maxillary central incisors (see second paragraph here). As a dentist for humans, I can confirm that there is a gap between the roots of maxillary central incisors for humans, even when there is no gap between the crowns (and so, no diasthema) because the two maxillary bones fuse at the midline suture. I have not seen clinical or radiographic information related to what is meant when the aforementioned citation refers to a gap between the central incisor roots in strepsirrhini, so I can't know for sure the comparative anatomy. But in humans, the incisive papilla is the exit of the nasopalatine nerve from the nasopalatine canal and if the nerve would exit more anteriorly, I can see it being very much in the way of the two central incisors being close together. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing teeth (technical terms)[edit]

Inspired by the previous question: Is there a technical name for adult teeth that are missing because they never developed? For example, suppose a person simply doesn't have cuspids and never did, is there a technical name for such missing teeth (or perhaps a name for a medical condition associated with having fewer teeth than normal)? Dragons flight (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hypodontia gives several terms to related this condition. Also "aplastic" can be used to describe any missing organ.--Digrpat (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This is anecdote, but the lack of cuspids is rare. The lack of wisdom teeth is most common, and the human jaw is one of our rapidly evolving body parts. I mention this from my having had impacted molars extracted. μηδείς (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. Dragons flight (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heat engine problem[edit]

Hi, I'm working on a homework question and basically I feel like I've gotten the whole thing but I'd really appreciate someone else to helping me check because I'm not sure if I did it right.

It's a heat engine problem, going from A to B to C Volumes and pressures are as follows A = 7x10^4 Pa, 2.5*10^-2 m^3 B = 3x10^5 Pa, 2.5*10^-2 m^3 C = 3x10^5 Pa, 7.5*10^-2 m^3

I got that the engine has a power output of 57.5 J by finding the area inside the points (just using 1/2 b*h) and an efficiency of 12% by finding the total heat added by Q=dU+Work from A=>B and B=>, but I'm just not sure if I'm doing it right. Can anyone please help me confirm with their steps? (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're missing some information here. From A to B the pressure goes up and then from B to C the volume goes up. In both steps energy is being added to the gas. But we don't know what kind of gas it is, its mass or its specific heat. (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm supposed to assume it's an ideal gas, and the temperature at A is 290K. (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your first statement is incorrect. Joules is not a power output. J/s is power and is expressed in Watts (alternatively as horespower). --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the centre of mass of the Local Group of galaxies?[edit]

What do the galaxies in the Local Group orbit around?Whereismylunch (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

According to our Local Group article: "Its gravitational center is located somewhere between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies" (although the center of mass and gravity aren't technically the same, they may be close enough for you purposes). However, I don't think it's correct to say that everything in the Local Group orbits about that point, since the way that distance is critical in determining gravitational attraction ensures that each galaxy is far more affected by those galaxies near it than by those far away. So, in effect, each galaxy will orbit about a different center of gravity, as viewed from it's perspective.
To compare with magnetism, we might say that all compasses on Earth should point toward magnetic north, but local variations in the magnetic field, or nearby magnets, can easily change the direction the compass points. It's not that those things are more powerful than the Earth's magnetic north pole, they are just closer. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

But what's at the gravitational centre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. --Jayron32 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Or, more accurately, the gravitational center is never going to be made of anything, since it's a point, an abstract construct rather than a physical body. To be clear, something might be occupying the space that roughly corresponds to that point, but it needn't be a significant body contributing any particular amount of gravitational force. Snow talk 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has an article Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields which may be a bit technical, but does provide some explanation of the concept. --Jayron32 13:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was about to link to the same article which explains that the concept is not really clearly defined for clusters of galaxies, but I think our "Local Group" article probably refers to roughly where the CofG would be if (suddenly and inexplicably) a uniform gravitational force suddenly appeared (from the edge of the universe? or the Great Attractor, or Dark flow?) and acted on the whole cluster. It is more usual to call this "point" the centre of mass. The theoretical point about which the galaxies seem to be revolving (on average, see StuRat's comment above) is not necessarily the same point, but might be somewhere near the centre of mass. Dbfirs 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How accurate is reentry?[edit]

The recent test flight of the Orion spacecraft ended with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean where is was picked up by the USS Anchorage. How far was the ship from the point where the spacecraft touched down? What was the predicted impact point and/or area? Once the retro rockets have been fired, does the spacecraft have any further control of where it lands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, to give you some idea. The Mars Science Laboratory only went to our nearest planet and yet it missed point zero by 5½ miles. Better luck next time eh.--Aspro (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The distances involved in a re-entry procedure are significantly shorter than those of an interplanetary trajectory, such that, under many conditions, a given error in trajectory at the outset results in a larger divergence (in terms of absolute distance between resulting arrival points) for the latter, relative to the former. Snow talk 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It was 1.5 miles, not 5.5 miles. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Which, considering a trip of 675 million kilometers and the necessity for incredibly accurate timing (in that each planet is in motion in its own orbit) is pretty impressive in it's own right. Sure, close is often not good enough in astronautics, which is why most missions now include a handful of opportunities for course corrections. Still, if I launched something 675 kilometers via mechanical means and managed to land it within 1.5 millimeters of my (swiftly moving) target, I dare say it would be regarded as the single most impressive thing I'd ever do. Snow talk 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the points about splashing down in the ocean is one can ensure there aren't people anywhere near! So hopefully they were some distance away, especially as it was a test flight. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
To the question in the OP's heading, the answer would seem to be "not necessarily very accurate". The charts at Splashdown#Locations include "miss distances", which indicate rather variable results (though the entry for the Orion test does not include a miss distance). Deor (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lioness hunting tactics[edit]

I read yesterday in a Simon & Schuster mammal field guide from about 1985 that lionesses tend to kill their prey with a single blow to the back, breaking the spinal cord. I'm not naive enough to simply ask how could it be that striking with a paw leaves the prey with fatal damage but no damage to the lioness' paw, but I was just intrigued at everything that needs to go into such a technique. It seems obvious to me that lionesses do not consider their options like a person would, but of all the possibilities and all the alternatives, I find it fascinating that the lioness would consider this means of execution over, say, chomping on the trachea. I see Youtube videos on lionesses attacking buffalo and they seem to try to bit into the ventral neck, but the buffalo resists. What sort of force is required to tear out a trachea, and why would a lioness find that difficult? Is it really more efficient to snap a spinal cord? Thoughts and insights are welcome. Thanks! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The way the lioness kills her prey is directly related to how she approaches it. The typical approach would be to stalk and then attack from behind - this makes the back of the neck the clearest and easiest target for a killing blow. Going for the throat would require a frontal approach which could lose the element of surprise, as well as leaving the lioness open for a counter-attack from the prey's hooves, horns, etc.
There is a lioness-eye-view video of a hunt and kill available here:This is what hunting looks like from a lioness' point of view. (Don't watch it if you may be disturbed by seeing an animal get killed.) The narrator notes that a lioness "will generally sneak up to the prey, as close as possible, and then make a sprint for it." That sneak attack pretty much demands going for the back of the neck rather than the throat. - EronTalk 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, also going for the throat puts a lion in easy kicking/stomping range of a quadruped. But all of this is massive simplification. Does the field manual mention the technique is to jump on a zebra, overshoot, flip over, almost get trampled then run away? Because that happens a lot too :) Finally a serious spinal injury at the neck makes a mammal stop, nearly instantly - even if it's not dead it's not moving. But I wouldn't want to be around a wildebeest with its trachea recently ripped out. It will still be deadly for an important minute or so, and you lose all that tasty and nutritious blood. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a few refs - an old paper [38], and a newer ref [39]. The first (paywalled) link has a table with data on kill rates - males killed a bit more than females, immature and old prey made up the majority of kills, but "prime" healthy prey made up the plurality. Humorously, the latter is on a Lion King fan site, but it does have additional citations, and mentions the importance of cooperative hunting and scavenging. It reports (and you can also see in videos) that often several lions will jump on a prey at once, attacking various parts simultaneously. The point being that kills made by a solitary female are probably a rather small part of a lion's average weekly diet. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Lions often hunt together, but as for pouncing on the prey together, that's only needed for large prey. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Buffalo made up over 60% of lion kills in this study [40]- though they do mention that smaller prey are probably underrepresented in their study, because the lions might finish eating before the observers could find the body. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
And for more throat-based killing, check out Cheetahs, they seem to be generally less effective at killing - this paper [41]] says
SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Many years ago I read a research paper on Lions' killing methods.(Sorry, can't find it now) They found that most prey were killed by a bite that forced the canines between the vertebrae, rather than crushing the vertebrae. Using high-speed photography and post mortem dissections, they found that lions have some rapid response muscle fibres in their jaw muscles, that can very quickly do a series of test bites until the canine teeth find the softer area between the vertebrae. An amazing bit of evolution!! (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bugging the outdoors with spiderweb-like antennas[edit]

I ran across an interesting story at [42], in which three planes flew close overhead and fine spiderweb-like fibers were then seen sticking to the landscape. I am for now discounting the site's explanation of "geoengineering" entirely, but assuming the truth of their published lab analysis that indicates the presence of aluminum (1020 mg/kg), barium (34.1 mg/kg), and strontium (70.8 mg/kg). These are small but perhaps not negligible amounts, up to 0.1% aluminum in the sample as collected.

To be clear, I have found a fairly persuasive "debunk" of the story at [43]. If we assume that the witnesses were wrong about the association with the planes and the fall of the webs immediately afterward, or if it's just a remarkable coincidence, the webs are explained; if they were contaminated with soil the aluminum is explained; I'm not so sure about the rarer barium and strontium. The test was consistent with spider silk, which would be more impressive if they hadn't first identified it as wheat flour and bacitracin; suffice it to say that some non-metallic matrix containing peptide has to be the major constituent of whatever these fibers are.

But to be contrary, just because the fibers look natural doesn't rule out another explanation, since they might intentionally be camouflaged. My question is whether this data could be explained with some known form of antenna that could be sprayed through a nozzle as a plane flies overhead, land as an intact radio-reflective surface, and then have a signal bounced off it to measure changes to it, i.e. vibrations caused by the speech of nearby persons? (as a wild guess, probably wrong because it also contains titanium, see [44]). Alas, I'm not familiar with this literature. How thick would such a metal fiber actually have to be to be used this way? And is this metal composition actually practical to include in some sort of polymer "spider silk" that can be sprayed from a plane?

I'd also welcome any other possible explanations. Wnt (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So much of this is such utter nonsense I'm not sure where to start. I don't even believe that a plane flying at 5000-8000 feet could distribute "spider web like fibers" to the ground in anything like a reliable fashion. This is also one of the major problems with chem trails, there is an absolutely immense volume of air to travel through from a mile up and there are all sorts of wind currents and turbulence to get through, to suggest that a spider silk would just gently fall all the way to the ground from where it was dropped by a plane a mile up is ridiculous. Also, known form of antenna and radio reflective surface are mutually exclusive concepts. I suppose you are talking about something like a Laser microphone but that already exists and would be a far simpler way to "bug" someone without the need to spread square miles of high tech spider silk antennas randomly around the country side. Vespine (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the non conspiratorial explanation is ballooning (spider) - which can reach the jet stream and return safely to the ground. Therefore, it should not be impossible to drop it from the height of a plane, though getting around the difference in velocity would indeed be an interesting technical problem. (for example, you can picture a flexible boom that wiggles back and forth, regularly reaching near zero airspeed) As for chem trails, so far as I know this is simply jet fuel that contains up to 0.3% sulfur;[45] it is said to delay global warming by 6 months, kills 1000-4000 people every year, but hey, it makes the jet fuel 1.6 to 7 cents cheaper a gallon. Officially not a conspiracy, just business as usual, with a side spin of "good for the environment". (And where else did people think the chemtrails would be coming from, if not the fuel tank?) The presumed purpose of the scheme would not be to place a specific bug in a known location, but to place many bugs in multiple locations that are hard to identify as such, so that the conversations of a large number of people are simultaneously screened for bits of interest while being as easy to deny as possible. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I came across something that sounds vaguely similar. Google "Huntsville weather anomaly". Here's one site: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well for one, I wasn't saying that spider webs 'couldn't be dropped from a plane and land somewhere, my point was that it would not land anywhere near where it was dropped, to the point where it would be practically futile. Notice how low a crop duster flies to spray a field, that's not done from a mile up for precisely the same reason, the amount of spray that would actually reach the ground at the target location would be negligible. Similarly if you dropped cobwebs from a mile up, I propose it would be very difficult if not impossible to say with any level of confidence where those cobwebs would land. If it's purely a 'non targeted' attack and they don't care where it lands, and I'm assuming it's supposed to be covert since no one knows about it, then why wouldn't they just fly the mission at night when no one would notice? I suppose the conspirators were just too stupid to think of that? Or is it because they control all the media and so they don't care if a few people notice? I'm guessing this thread has already been tagged and will be deleted soon and me and you will disappear without a trace? Also, pollution from ships kills about 60,000 people a year, compared to 4000 a year from planes, so I guess the conspiracy should really be "chem wakes" not "chem trails"? And lastly, coal fired power plants kill hundreds of thousands globally with their pollution, what conspiracy is that? chem power plant? Vespine (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting argument. How well can the path of the dropped material be predicted, given extensive modelling of local weather? Wnt (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
What kind of answer do you expect? "Well enough"? The question is too vague. IF there was actually some practical requirement for the military to drop spider web like material from a plane flying a mile high, I doubt there is any challenge there that could not be overcome, given enough research and resources. I just don't think the practical need exists and there would be far easier and more efficient ways of achieving a similar result for less cost and effort. Vespine (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The aerodynamic coefficient (I just made that up) will make a huge difference. Iron cannon balls will have a fairly predictable trajectory. Threads of spider silk, not so much.

December 18[edit]

Hydrochloric acid and methylbenzene[edit]

Why is hydrochloric acid acidic in everything except methylbenzene? I am really confused about this as my textbooks do not include anything of the sort and I have been told that this would appear in my exam. Please help. Thanks! pcfan500 (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably want to review the concepts about what makes things "acidic" - see Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory and Lewis acids and bases for an overview of the two big ones. In short, a compounds is an acid because it donates a proton (accepts an electron pair). Hydrochloric acid is a strong acid because the chloride doesn't hold on to the proton very well ... at least in water. Other solvents (like the aforementioned methylbenzene) don't do as good of job stabilizing the separated state, so the proton and the chloride want to stick together. I'm not sure why methylbenzene is being highlighted specifically - I'd expect other similar solvents (ethylbenzene, for example) to also behave similarly, sot it's not really the case that hydrochloric acid is acidic in "everything" but methylbenzene. -- (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

why is time known as the fourth dimension?[edit]

why is time known as the fourth dimension? (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a heading to this question. It's known as the fourth dimension because it is one in a physical sense, i.e. subject to the rules of physics in a very similar sense. Of course you can also see the sense in which it!s a dimension: just consider cases where we remove a dimension and use it for time instead, like a flipbook of animation . There are two dimensions shown at a time and the third dimension gets shown over time. (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To fully describe where an object can be found, you need 4 dimensions, with the 4th being time. Consider trying to describe the location of something which no longer exists, like the Lighthouse of Alexandria. You can go there now, but you won't find much. StuRat (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You might (or might not) be interested in the technicalities given in articles such as Spacetime and Minkowski space. Dbfirs 12:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Geometry "works" with any numbers of dimensions. You know how there are all sorts of "math" you can do with shapes and lines and such? Calculating area, length, volumes, velocity, etc.? Well, the "rules" that allow you to make those calculations are not restricted to any number of dimensions. For example, you can establish a line in two dimensions by defining two sets of points, say point A = [0,0] and point B = [1,2]. You can then set up equations in either cartesian coordinates or vector coordinates to define the line that goes through those points. Well, you can do the same in 3 dimensions by defining the points in 3D space as A = [0,0,0] and B = [1,2,3] or some such, and then can write an equation to define that line. Now, the deal is, even though you can't picture a line in any more than three dimensions, the rules for writing the equation of a line still apply in any number of dimensions. You just do the algorithms and define the line. I can define a line in 4 dimensional space simply by saying A = [0,0,0,0] and B = [1,2,3,4], and the rules for writing the equation for THAT line (which has no reasonable PICTURE, but never mind that) are the same rules as writing lines in less dimensions. I can have any arbitrary number of dimensions, and the math for describing an object called a "line" in those number of dimensions is the same as it is in 2D, 3D, or whatever. So that brings us back to why even bother to treat time as a dimension like space dimensions: that is, we have the three spacial dimensions (up-down, left-right, forward-backward) and add time as a fourth number into that set. The reason why has to do with Einstein's theory of special relativity. What special relativity shows (among other things) is that you can vary how you move through time. Just as you can move through space at various rates, it turns out that time passes at different rates depending on certain conditions, such as the mass and velocity of an object relative to nearby objects (the effect of mass on time passage is actually covered by general relativity, not special, but whatever). Now, it turns out that because the rate of passage of time for an object is variable just as it's movement through space is variable, in order to completely describe the motion of an object, one needs to consider not only how it's position is changing, but also how it's timescale is changing with respect to other objects. In order to do that, you treat time like a dimension, and do your calculations in 4D rather than 3D; but the rules for doing so (as noted above) still apply. One last thing about time, however, is that the time "dimension" doesn't behave like the other "dimensions": it has it's own set of rules which is different than the others; however as long as you take those rules into account, you can still do math with it to predict the behavior of objects (and that's what physics is: the science of being able to predict the behavior of objects in motion). The specific set of dimensions (which includes the three spatial dimensions and the one time dimension) we use to do these calculations is called Minkowski space, named after the mathematician who worked out the math of such a system. The last question someone might ask is why do we have to do all that. The answer is because it is necessary to explain observable phenomena where normal 3D "Cartesian/Euclidian" space cannot, for example experimentally verifiable phenomena like time dilation, or the invariance of the speed of light. I know this was a little TL;DR but I hope it is clear enough to help one understand the entire point of treating time like a dimension. --Jayron32 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Your "TL" discussion makes sense. The way I like to "picture" the time dimension is to think of the state of the universe (or some portion of it) at a series of points in time - as with the flip-book discussed earlier. So the fourth point in that [x,y,x,t] coordinate system can be pictured as what that [x,y,z] system looks like as "t" changes. Beyond that, of course, it gets tricky trying to picture. But in math, as you say, you can have any number of dimensions and the equations still work, albeit getting more and more complicated with added dimensions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually imaginary time is the fourth dimension. The distance in relativity calculations seems to be determined by x2 + y2 + z2 - t2. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Normal, everyday time is the fourth dimension. Imaginary time is used only for very specialized calculations, such as to eliminate the singularity (division by infinity) at the Big Bang or in black holes. --Jayron32 15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that normal everyday time is a fourth dimension. It's definitely the most common choice in any non-technical context. As you discuss above, there are lots of other choices for what dimension we might call the fourth (or fifth, sixth etc.) especially if one is delving into theoretical physics (e.g. string theory) or certain mathematical structures (e.g. octonians)SemanticMantis (talk)
Yes, "the" in this case refers to "the fourth dimension used in Minkowski space for relativity purposes". Imaginary time as a fourth dimension only has limited utility in understanding a few physical phenomena. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the "spacetime interval" (see Spacetime) is that we can treat time as a fourth dimension for calculating a distance if we treat c as the conversion factor between our measurements, and recognize that when measuring time we are measuring multiples of i. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the consensus nowadays is that treating time as an imaginary spatial coordinate is a cute mathematical trick, but probably too cute, because it seems more meaningful than it is. I believe there's a note on it in Gravity by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, a book we should probably have an article on if we don't already. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Trovatore, it's a matter of perspective. Because of the sign conventions of working in Special Relativity, the "time" dimension has the opposite sign of the spatial dimensions. Mathematically, this means that some of the terms have a value of i attached to them. The math is identical if you attach the i to each of the three spatial dimensions, and leave time in the real number set; or if you attach i to the time dimension and leave the three spatial dimensions in the real numbers. Conventionally, we tend to leave the i in the time dimension because it makes the math a bit easier (in the sense that we have one imaginary number and three real numbers), but time itself is a real number. The use of imaginary time only comes in, if I am not mistaken, in unusual situations where the standard sign convention [-,+,+,+] for [t,x,y,z] produces physically paradoxical results (such as singularities). At least, that's my understanding. --Jayron32 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And we do have an article on the book. It's called Gravitation. Not Gravity. --Jayron32 21:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, what I'm thinking is that if you use a two or three dimensional coordinate system, you can say that within that coordinate system, every two points has a defined distance between them. That distance doesn't change unless you look at it from a frame where the whole coordinate system is changed. But in a system of "four dimensions" with real time, the distance between any two points is not constant, but depends on the frame of reference of whoever is looking at it. So to say time is the fourth dimension in that case is sort of meaningless. I mean, you can make the color of the object the fourth dimension, if you're willing to have a coordinate system that you can't calculate distance in. But use time * i as the fourth dimension and you do have a real distance that is Lorentz invariant. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a less coordinate-dependent way of phrasing things. It requires you to know a little differential geometry. The point is that the metric tensor has three positive eigenvalues and one negative one. This is just a fact; it's not based on which arbitrary coordinate system you choose.
The x4=ict trick is sort of an attempt to obscure this fact, or if not actually an attempt, risks obscuring it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll admit it... I'm in the fog here. I'm afraid I'm missing how spacetime coordinates have four eigenvalues in the first place. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Because there are four dimensions to move in: up-down, left-right, forward-backward, and past-future. --Jayron32 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Wnt and Jayron, I think you're both confusing imaginary time (as mentioned, for example, in A Brief History of Time) with the old (now disfavored) convention of using a pure imaginary value for the t coordinate instead of a flipped sign in the metric. They are different. "Imaginary time" is kind of the opposite of what you're thinking: it starts with a mixed-sign metric with all coordinates including t real-valued, and then considers (unphysical) imaginary values of t to make the metric effectively Euclidean. -- BenRG (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes in Mammalian Milk composition - Biochemistry question[edit]

I understand that a cattle's food, environment, and artificial hormone shots can change the composition of it's Breast Milk. Any professional name for this phenomenon? I need it to efficiently search for some literature in this subject. Thx. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One source suggests "biochemical alterations" in breast milk after heating. I'd think the preferred term in that case is denaturation. Though, it's certainly not what you're looking for. Let me see if I can find a better term. (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I just searched google scholar for /diet nutrition effect cow milk/ - These articles were near the top of the list [46] [47] [48]. From skimming the abstracts, it does not seem that there is a single term to cover all the food/environment/hormone effects on cow's milk. The term "ruminal biohydrogenation" and "Conjugated linoleic acid" are used quite a bit, and the keywords used by the articles should help further searchers, e.g. "mammary metabolism", "fatty acid desaturation" "milk fatty acids." The first linked ref above should be especially useful, as it is an Annual Reviews article, which are usually an expert summary of a broad field of research and give lots of references. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

circuit analysis[edit]

How do I solve the first order differential equation for an LR circuit WITHOUT using Laplace transforms ie from first principles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The canonical solution for a linear first-order ordinary differential equation is a solution using the separation of variables method. In the case of an L-R circuit, you'd have a first-order equation in current with respect to time, parameterized by the inductance and resistance.
When I write out every step, this procedure takes longer than simply applying the Laplace transform by inspection, so in practice, mathematically-inclined people tend to memorize the solution of a simple circuit (instead of explicitly re-solving it). You must simply recognize the standard form, understand the relationship between the relevant variables, and recall the standard-form solution.
Nimur (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How do the enzymes and nutrients in breast milk survive body temperature?[edit]

This source suggests that heating breast milk can denature some enzymes and nutrients. I haven't read the full article yet, so I can't tell what temperature they set the breast milk at. But human body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius. Can't the breast milk's enzymes survive when exposed to some heat but not too much heat? Would it be better for women to take stored breast milk from the refrigerator and heat it up with their own body temperature? Or would they have to acquire a wet nurse? (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Self-evidently those proteins do not degrade at body temperature; they are made at body temperature, stored at body temperature, and consumed at body temperature. --Jayron32 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously this can't be a problem. We (and all other mammals) have evolved to do this without any refrigeration or whatever. Also, any degradation due to a brief period at body temperature would happen in the baby's mouth, throat and stomach anyway. Clearly the problems with heating milk (any milk, actually) happens at much higher temperatures. Efforts to (for example) sterilize milk might well suffer from this problem. SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The temperature required to denature the proteins in breast milk would be roughly the same as required to cook an egg. The change in going from raw egg to cooked egg is mostly the process of protein denaturation.
Different proteins denature at different temperatures. In fact, a common experimental technique to measure the stability of the protein is to look at the circular dichroism of a protein as a function of temperature. (See also Protein_folding#Circular_dichroism). For most proteins you see a sigmoidal transition from "folded" spectra to "unfolded" spectra, with a characteristic transition point at a defined temperature. This temperature is called the "melting temperature" of the protein, and varies from one protein to another. Some are very unstable, and will unfold at or around room temperature (mostly proteins from psychrophiles). Some are stable at room temperature (25 C) or body temperature (37 C) but will unfold at 45 C or so. Different proteins unfold at different points, all the way up to 95+ C, where it becomes hard to measure. (There are proteins which don't unfold even under boiling conditions - mostly these are from thermophiles, but there are some mutants of proteins from mesophiles which have very high melting temperatures.) - So the answer to the original question is that there's a large swath of temperatures between 37 C and 100 C, and there are some proteins which are stable at 37 C but which will unfold at 45 C or 55 C or 65 C or 75 C, etc. And the temperature at which the unfolding/denaturation happens for one protein is not indicative of what will happen for other proteins.-- (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Resistance of electrically conductive paint.[edit]

I've been looking at these electrically conductive paints:

...and trying to find out how much resistance I'd get if I painted strips of varying widths.

It quotes the resistance in units of ohms/sq - I have no idea what 'sq' means...square meter? square millimeter? Then the values are 0,3 (which I suspect is 0.3 in one of those places in the world where they use '.' and ',' in the opposite sense to the more common US/UK useage).

Anyway, if I use a layer of the stuff of the recommended thickness to paint a 'wire' that's N mm wide and some much longer length - what kind of resistance would I measure per mm of length for various values of N? (This seems like it might be a variant of: which case, I apologize in advance!)

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

- from Sheet_resistance#Units I don't know how to compare the resistance of an Nx1cm strip to a Nx1m strip, but this seems to say rather clearly (if counter-intuitively) that the resistance of a NxN square is equal to the resistance of a (2N)x(2N) square. It's unclear to me if the resistance would be different for a (2N)x(2N) square compared to a (N)x(4N) rectangle (but I'd guess they would be different). If you figure it out let us know :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh...that's strongly counterintuitive! So a square that's a mile by a mile has the same resistance as a 1" x 1" square?! I guess that as the distance increases, so do the number of parallel paths that the electrons can travel the two numbers cancel out and the resistance stays the same. Weird!
So if the resistance of an NxN square is always the same - then I could mentally chop my 1cm wide strip of paint into 1cm squares that are in series and say that an N cm long by 1cm wire has N times the resistance of a 1cm x 1cm strip...which is just the ohms/sq number?
Which would mean that the ohms per meter of a strip of this stuff is inversely proportional to the width...which seems entirely reasonable.
Resistance = ohms/sq * length / width ?
If someone could confirm my intuition on this one, we can call it "answered". (And thanks to User:SemanticMantis for a great & fast reply).
SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, the geometry is probably more important than the area. So a circle of any area will also have the same resistance, but it will be different than the square resistance. And once the proportions of a rectangle are fixed, they should have the same resistance independent of area as well, I think... SemanticMantis (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds right. Read the second paragraph of the section linked by SemanticMantis. It says you just multiply the square resistance by the aspect ratio to get the resistance for a rectangle. Proving the exact result for painted traces with corners or other bends would be tricky, but I suspect that total length over width is still a good approximation. (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Specifically, SteveBaker, resistance is proportional to the length and inversely proportional to the cross section. With paint, the cross section is, for all intensive purposes, the same as the width, and by definition for a square, the length and width are the same. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah...yeah - that makes sense. ...BTW: the phrase is: "all intents and purposes"...not "all intensive purposes".
Thanks everyone...I think I have everything I need. SteveBaker (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cloning by chance[edit]

This is a topic I've read about before, but I recently came across it in a graphic novel, so I'm interested in recalling the specifics: Given the size of the human genome, what are the chances of an individual being born with DNA identical to that of another individual? The story in question posits an interplanetary population of 100+ trillion humans, and one of the characters claims that "three people are born with my DNA every day," which seems impossibly high. Like I said, I know I've read about this idea in scientific literature before; just not sure what keywords to use or where to start looking. Evan (talk|contribs) 18:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The human genome is about 3 Gigabases. So, there is around 4 to the power 3,000,000,000 possible combinations. Not, all of them are, of course, actually possible but this rough estimate still holds. So, the claim that "three people are born with my DNA every day" is false if the population is around 100 trillion. Ruslik_Zero 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That's theoretically true - but some of those possibilities would imply that the mother gives birth to a tree or a duck or a elephant. Totally random DNA isn't likely to arise in a population. An oft-quoted number is that 99.9% of my DNA is identical to yours (or to any other human) - so taking that rough number says that only 3,000,000 base pairs are really likely to vary between people. Still, that's 43,000,000 - let's say 101,000,000 to pick a nice round number. Given that there are only around 1080 atoms in the visible universe - it's still SPECTACULARLY unlikely that two people would ever have the same exact DNA by chance reshuffling of A's, G's, C's and T's.
However, we have to consider that the man and woman (who love each other *very* much and make some babies) each only have 23 pairs of chromosomes - their child doesn't get a random selection of A's, G's, C's and T's from each parent - it gets entire chromosomes. So for any given pair of humans, there are only 223 possible chromosomally unique children that they can have...about 8 million. If those children were to in-breed, so no new chromosomes appear then their children would still only have some combination of their grandma & grandpa's DNA. So if our 100 trillion humans were all descended from Adam and Eve, there would only be 8 million unique human chromosome combinations - and there would indeed be a bunch of people with the same DNA. However, copying errors, mutations and the fact that it's been a hell of a long time since our most recent common ancestors guarantees that there is considerably more variation than that.
I don't buy the story's claim...but it's not so simple to dismiss it as that. SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note chromosomal crossover in meiosis is essentially a required event for proper gamete production (it can be omitted, but only with a significantly greater chance of abnormalities as I recall). This means that there are vastly. vastly more than 223 outcomes. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Depends on how you're defining "the same". A DNA database will try to claim an absurdly low probability, but will only look at as many markers as are needed to reach that -- and there is a risk that in a particular small ethnic group the different markers will not truly be independent, but will be more likely each to go a certain way. This risk seems to be very low, but it is not zero - consider the trivial case where a person turns out to be the identical twin of someone who was secretly swapped at birth, which however soap opera unlikely is not astronomically unlikely. However, the ways in which this can happen are fewer the more markers are examined. The identical twin will always come out the same, but fellow 100% Tasmanian aborigines will eventually be distinguished, assuming any known method of reproduction.
I still have in the back of my mind a nagging doubt whether it could ever happen that humans clone themselves naturally, if a diploid egg or sperm were to provide all the genetic material to the exclusion of the other gamete. Such embryos normally die, but that observation only holds up until a counterexample can be found. But with the number of large-scale genetic tests on the general population this is rapidly fading from absurdly unlikely to genuinely ruled out. Wnt (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How much would it cost get tested for every genetic risk factor known to man?[edit]

How many are there (including the minor ones like propensity for male pattern baldness)? Hundreds? Thousands? Where would one go? Would that be an unusual request there? I guess they could give you the list of risky genes that can take effect before 30 (hundreds?). You'd take it home, cross out the ones that'd be unoverlookable by your age (bubble boy syndrome, complete immunity to chickenpox..) and only get tested for genes that could bother you before testing gets cheaper. How much would that cost? I don't think I'd actually do it though, I'd wait till it's cheaper and understanding of genetics isn't so piecemeal. Well, if it's tens of dollars (yeah right) I'd consider it but I'm curious how much I'd have to have to not mind spending the money. Also, how much is it to find out just the known genes for cancer? breast(40s) — colon, skinny male breast (!) is my parental history of cancer. I guess a single disease is cheaper to test for than many. (grandpa died from cigarette cancer at 56 before we could find out whether he would've died from regular cancer, other grandpa died a year after being well enough to make baby the original way, increasing the chances that it was cancer, but he might've smoked) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a question that is easy to answer, as there are many genetic risk factors about which we know, but which we don't know (i.e. we know they are inheritable, but we don't know which combinations of genes cause them). If you thrown in a research program to identify them all (or even just a few of them), the sky is the limit. On the other hand, if the genetic factors are well understood, testing all of them should not be impossibly expensive - a quality whole genome sequence cost Steve Jobs US$100000, and prices have come down significantly. I think the analysis of the genome should be highly automatable, at least in principle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Your question implies there is a test for every genetic risk factor known to man, but not every gene or set of genes that causes a disease that runs in a family has been identified. This is about the third time since halloween that we've had this question, you might want to serach the archives for lengthy previous answers. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Medeis, but what search terms should I use? I can't seem to find one, much less two after Halloween. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You may want to look into 23andMe and in particular their pre November 22, 2013 test kits (probably available at elevated prices on eBay). Ariel. (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It would probably cost you your life. When you add up the X-ray exposure, exposure to radioactive tracers, exposure to chemicals, tissue damage due to biopsies, blood drawn for hundreds of tests, etc., the net result is a pretty large insult to the body. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
He meant "genetic" and I have fixed the title to reflect that. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you're describing getting tested for every "disease with a non- nurture component known to man". Clearly no one is going to want a piece of their lung (much less every organ) pulled out of their body and many other invasive tests in their 20s with no evidence of malfunction. And I actually imagined "every blood test known to man, including thousands of toxins" as a child, pictured hundreds of vials of blood and thought the image amusing.
    • If you could get a full genome without too much somatic expense then you should easily be able to get enough DNA for fewer genes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In your hair[edit]

After seeing a shampoo advert, I was wondering, what does caffeine do to your hair? Would the same results occur if you used tea, coffee or a high caffeine drink e.g. Monster or Red Bull? What would be the effects of each of those? Also why do some people pour beer or another alcoholic drink in their hair? (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Beer is supposed to give hair body. You can google beer shampoo for that answer. What caffeine does is wash out and run down the drain. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Its just bogus marketing. There is no benifit in caffeine on your hair. They just play men to belive "activating" will prevent the loss of hair at advanced age but since this is a natural process caused by hormones "activation" will likely even speed up that natural process. --Kharon (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Caffeine may not do much to your hair, but it can be absorbed through the skin [49]. There are products like caffeinated soap [50] that purport to deliver the drug through the skin. So if there's a lot of caffeine in shampoo, absorption through the scalp may deliver similar effects to taking caffeine orally. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Anything that would deliver a clinically measurable dose of caffeine through the skin would have a lethal dose of caffeine per mouthful. Given how often people consume soap and shampoo, there'd be a flurry of deaths and an episode of Inside Edition with Bill O'Reilly exposing the danger. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Did anyone ever make a weird mathematical treatment of physics with extra dimensions of time?[edit]

Where every possible spacetime really exists, more than that universes just like ours except one electron was on the other side of the electron cloud at 10^61 Planck times exist (if you even looked at it at the wrong time (slightly before 10^61), you couldn't distinguish the universes anyway, even in theory, it's almost not even a different universe). Of course people make weird unfalsifiable, Occam's Law-violating or even debunked physics theories all the time, a theory existing doesn't mean that it deserves serious thought. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Imaginary time. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
OK...the title here is a question - the answer to which is "Yes...several versions of String theory suggest multiple time dimensions." The rest is not. But to comment on what you have to say:
  1. Certainly if the Many worlds interpretation of quantum theory turns out to be true, then many universes are seemingly (or actually) completely identical. There is no problem with that - if a quantum-mechanical event causes a universe to split into two parallel paths, then one of them can go on to have another event that perfectly undoes the first one - and now you have a pair of parallel universes that are utterly identical. This causes no specific problems - if the hypothesis is true, then there would be vastly more universes than there are atoms in our universe - there would be no shortage of them and no 'cost' to creating new ones. We could even imagine that there are an infinite number of them.
Isn't the many worlds universe be more like an "exploding cone-time" where the Big Bang is a point, BB+1 Planck time is x wide, the third Planck time is x*x wide, the fourth Planck time is x*x*x wide and so on? That is not usually what two dimensions means. In 2-D time with perpendicular axes the Big Bang would be a line at the left edge and universes that won't split from ours for trillions of years would start already separated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. The many worlds hypothesis may very well be unfalsifiable. We define "the universe" as "all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy." So anything we could detect or measure about these "parallel universes" would make them be a part of our universe. So by the very definition of the word "universe", anything that happens in a different one in undetectable. For this reason, the many worlds hypothesis must seemingly be unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean that it's "false" - it just means that we may never be able to prove or disprove it.
  2. Occam's Razor isn't a "law" - it's not even a hypothesis - and it's not always true. It's just a handy guide that you can employ when there are many possible explanations for something and you want to pick the most likely one. So, if I can't find my TV remote, it might have fallen behind the sofa cushion, or it might be that a team of crack commandoes from North Korea may have broken into my home and removed the remote just to be really REALLY sure that I can never watch "The Interview". In terms of the science, I may not be able to decide which of those hypotheses are true right now...but Occam's razor suggests that I should probably do the experiment of looking behind the sofa cushion BEFORE I contact Homeland Security. It should be called "Occam's Very Rough Rule of Thumb" or something.
I hardly gave any thought whatsoever while writing those two words, if I knew that wasn't a common name for the idea then I wouldn't bothered to Google Occam. I knew it wasn't utterly unable to be wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. A "theory" (the scientific term, meaning something that's proven and widely accepted) does deserve serious thought. Most useful hypotheses (thing that we think are good explanations, but are not yet proven) are sometimes worthy of serious thought - and sometimes not. Many Worlds is a pretty good hypothesis that could certainly explain bizarre stuff like Schrödinger's cat - and is taken seriously by many reputable physicists. So I think it does deserve serious thought, even though it's not proven, may never be proven, and may very well be unfalsifiable.
But physics "theories" (in quotation marks) go all the way to "the sun is made of iron" and Time Cube. Even if no one with a degree in a relevant field takes it seriously (note that I didn't say that's the case) it might be easy enough to add the terms needed to make Einstein's theory 3+2 dimensional (I haven't studied the equations, I can't tell) but have little enough physics sense to take it seriously. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that stored memory could be misinterpreted as another time dimension? (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No. --Jayron32 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the heart's valves made of cartilage?[edit]

I read the articles here and eventually I don't understand if yes or not149.78.45.16 (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No. See cartilage and heart.--Shantavira|feed me 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that any tendon has two sides - one connected to muscle and the other to the bone or cartilage?[edit]

Is it true that any tendon has two sides - one connected to muscle and the other to the bone or cartilage? another sentence that I think about is that always tendon needs to be connected to the muscle or the bone. not? (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Tendon which may be able to help you learn more about tendons. --Jayron32 03:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

how many people with gonorhea eventually go on to develop prostatitis?[edit]

Or maybe a better question to ask is, how common is acute prostatitis, and of those with it, how many test positive for gonorrhea?

HIV testing[edit]

I know about the window period for HIV testing, but (and I'm asking this question without much scientific knowledge so bear with my ignorance) is there a particular point at which testing will pick up HIV?

Am I right in thinking that HIV tests will test positive after seroconversion occurs? Is seroconversion the same as acute HIV infection (early HIV symptoms)? After the acute HIV infection, is the patient seroconverted and the HIV detectable?

What about during the acute HIV infection? (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Relative concentration of Chitinase in various fruits[edit]

Chitinase#Presence in food says:

Bananas, chestnuts, kiwis, avocados, papaya, and tomatoes, for example, all contain significant levels of chitinase.

Where can I find the relative concentration of Chitinase in these and other fruits? -- ToE 20:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but this pdf would be a decent ref for that sentence if you care to add it [51]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 13[edit]

Meandric numbers[edit]

Meandric numbers sketch.svg

According to Meander (mathematics), and (sequence A005315 in OEIS), the third meandic number is eight. Ok, so I can find four distinct meanders, A1 to A4, with 23 crossings and along with their horizontal reflections, B1 to B4, make the required eight. But wait, some of them, C2 to C4, have a vertical reflection not homomorphic to any of the eight, and along with their horizontal reflections, D2 to D4, make a total of 14. What am I missing? SpinningSpark 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The pdf linked in the article gives all 8. The problem is that yours are crossing the line 8 times, not 6. (It's 2n not 2^n, so you should have 6 crossings)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I knew it had to be something simple. Just for the record, I found quite a few more with eight crossings after posting the diagram. SpinningSpark 13:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Validity of (ab)^m = (a^m)(b^m)[edit]

(ab)m = ambm
I have questions regarding the validity of the above law of indices depending on what a,b,m are.

I'm trying to come up with the valid values that a,b,m can take so that the above law is always true for a given set of restrictions.
I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible, meaning that if something isn't wrong or results in something being wrong, then I won't exclude it. For example, if a complex number (not just a real number) also works in some situations of the above law, then I'll also try to include and describe those situations.

Note: For all cases, any situation that results in division by 0 (or 0 to a negative real number) and 00 are exceptions that have been noted. I'm not writing expressions that show I'm disallowing them so that I can reduce clutter in describing the different cases below.

Case 1:
If m ∈ {ℝ \ ℤ}, then a,b ∈ ℝ+
This is so we avoid the wrong results of 1 = -1 and i = -i (and other similar wrong results).

Case 2:
If m ∈ ℤ, then a,b ∈ ℂ
Apart from that note I made above, I don't see any problems with this case.

Case 3:
If m ∈ j2k+1 where j,k ∈ ℤ, then a,b ∈ ℂ
The power is rational, and its denominator cannot be even because taking even roots of negative real numbers results in the same problems mentioned in Case 1.

So, my questions are:
1. I paraphrased Case 1 and 2 from this wikipedia article ( Is it correct for me to paraphrase it this way?
2. I'm not sure if Case 3 is correct though, and that is where I require help in checking its correctness. The reason I wanted another case (other than the 2 mentioned in that wikipedia article) is because (just from working a few examples out) there are some complex numbered bases that can be raised to a rational power (with an odd denominator) that satisfy this particular law of indices, so it feels too restrictive/un-inclusive if we don't cater to these cases.
Thanks. (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Cases 1 and 2 should be regarded as distinct functions. You cannot combine them sensibly so that the identity always holds, even though they will agree on every point for which they are both defined. If you regard the functions as distinct for case 1 (am ≝ exp(m⋅log a), where log is the real logarithm) and case 2 (am ≝ ∏m a, extended to all integer m through division where possible), these cases work perfectly. I would phrase case 1 without the exclusion of integers, i.e.
    • Case 1: m ∈ ℂ and a,b ∈ ℝ+ is the domain of the first exponentiation function, defined in terms of log.
    • Case 2: m ∈ ℤ and a,b ∈ ℂ is the domain of the second exponentiation function, defined in terms of repeated multiplication, with a ≠ 0 and b ≠ 0 for m < 0; interestingly we can define 00 for this function without problems if we wish to do so.
  2. Case 3 does not work. There are problems like with even denominators whenever m ∈ ℚ ∖ ℤ for most complex bases. —Quondum 21:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've extended the case 1 function domain, since you're trying to to be maximally inclusive. The in the domain can be replaced with far more general objects in both cases (e.g. matrices, quaternions, etc.) if you wish to be maximally inclusive. —Quondum 01:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

zero knowledge comparison of two positive integers[edit]


Can A and B run a Zero Knowledge Proof algorithm to learn whether A's or B's positive integer is larger (or if they are the same) without either of them learning (or giving away) any further information beyond this fact? They should not have to trust a third party, this is part of the field of mathematics called zero knowledge proofs. Thank you. (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see Secure multi-party computation for the general, highly inefficient methods, and Yao's Millionaires' Problem for a (presumably more efficient) method for this particular application. It is assumed that there is some known bound on the lengths of the numbers (which could be very loose), perhaps it can be generalized for a case that such a bound is not known a priori. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Meni or another: could you summarize the principle Yao's solution works on? (what is the general principle.) The math in that article is a bit hard for me to follow. (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As with your previous question, if A is allowed as many queries as they want, they can brute force B's integer. ("is it greater than 1?" yes. "is it greater than 2?" yes. "is it greater than 3?" no. "it's 3!"). If the range of the integers is limited, this can be done relatively quickly (see binary search) MChesterMC (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Presumably, they will only run the process once, and they are both genuinely interested in the outcome, and thus will behave honestly. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

December 16[edit]

Forcing -vs- Boolean Valued Models[edit]

I have books on both - and my understanding is they are equivalent - but I wanted to ask which is better to study, in detail? I have a basic understanding of both, and intend to go into both in detail, but wanted a better idea of which is "more useful" in terms of seeing connections and understanding set theoretic things - as opposed to, say, actually proving some specific result. Our article on forcing indicates BV models, but I'd be curious to hear actual input to get a clearer idea of things. (Thank you for any answers, or help, the further I go, the harder it is to keep a clear sense of direction, all of you are immensely helpful and I am truly appreciative for all the help I've received in the past).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but I'll point out that this is not about forcing in dynamical systems (e.g. [52]), but rather Forcing_(set theory). One might suspect that there are some analogies between the concepts based on the name but even that is unclear to me. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit of a matter of opinion, but here's my take on it: Forcing is usually a more efficient way to actually make progress than Boolean-valued models are. A forcing partial order can be described in such a way that you can see "what it's trying to get at", what sort of generic object it's trying to add to the universe. The corresponding Boolean algebra is usually a lot less perspicacious. If you have to back off all the way to the general case (the algebra of regular open sets in the topology generated by cones from the partial order) then you've basically lost all useful intuition about what the elements of the Boolean algebra are.
However, it's very nice to know the Boolean-valued model approach for other reasons, to be able to have a more philosophically satisfying interpretation of certain results. For example, take the the result about making 2^{\aleph_0} equal to κ, for a given uncountable regular cardinal κ. What does that mean?
You can't capture it completely in proof-theoretic terms ("adding the assumption 2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa to ZFC cannot produce an inconsistency in ZFC unless there was one already") because κ is just some random cardinal, one that may or may not even be definable in the language of set theory, so there is no way to add 2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa as an axiom. It's a category error even to try.
Similarly, you can't get at it in any obvious way via countable transitive models (the usual fallback for talking about forcing in terms of concrete objects) because κ is not an element of any countable transitive model. There may be some way to make sense of it using countable transitive models that are Mostowski collapses of models containing κ; not sure on this point.
But with Boolean-valued models, there's a very clear interpretation. There's a Boolean algebra B such that the statement 2^{\aleph_0}=\kappa has probability 1 in V^B. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your insight, as always - I think I am going with BVM's first, then:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I buried the lede on that a little bit. My more important point was that if you want to understand a given forcing notion (Cohen forcing, random-real forcing, Prikry forcing, what have you), then it's much more clear to think about the partial order than the Boolean algebra. What BVM's give you is more of a nicer story to tell yourself about what the final results mean. --Trovatore (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That's how I took it - but, oddly, having the ability to tell nicer stories about results, first, will make forcing easier to comprehend for me. My struggle has never been with understanding the formal/mathematical aspects of things, but putting them in a coherent context and having an intuitive sense of meaning. So if BVMs make that easier, then having that context will make the more useful notion (forcing) simpler to learn and use. I end up reading a lot of things "out of order", so to speak, for this reason largely. (As an aside: your example is fascinating and reminds me of a discussion on the talk page for the Continuum Hypothesis involving Easton's Theorem and what 2^c "can be".) --unless you mean that learning BVMs requires already knowing forcing - the books I'm using don't seem to indicate that, but I've gotten a few chapters out of the way, so I may not have hit that hurdle.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, sure, except I think you're going to hit a dead end pretty quickly trying to understand forcing/BVMs in the abstract, without examples. And as soon as you're talking about particular forcing notions, it's a lot easier to gain intuition if you don't have to deal with the overhead of the stuff you have to add to the partial order to make it a Boolean algebra. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Coin flipping[edit]

If a coin has 50% chance of landing "tails" when flipped, and I flip it 25 times in a row, what are the chances that I never get 4 (or more) consecutive "tails"? What is the formula by which I can calculate this? --Theurgist (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The number of sequences is a(29)=14564533 where a(n) is the nth Tetranacci number, so the probability is 14564533/225 or about 43%. See (sequence A000078 in OEIS) for formulas. --RDBury (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

Math & Value definition[edit]

If you receive 1 for 100, how much will you receive for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00?

How would you do the math?

How would you pronounce 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00? - Is this 1 Zillion/Trillion?

What's the highest sum (word) known to human kind? Is it a 'Zillion'?

( (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

You might want to see names of large numbers. What you have here is a trillion (European naming) or a quintillion (US naming). YohanN7 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Just noting in passing here that so-called "US naming" is now almost completely standard across the English-speaking world. It may be in some sense less "logical", but it's more convenient, and that seems to have won out. See long and short scales. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, more convenient, just like furlongs and pence, shillings and pound sterlings (Not)Face-smile.svg
Yes, it really is more convenient. To use the long scale, you have to use either locutions like "thousand million", "thousand billion", etc, or "milliard", "billiard", etc. The "thousand million" solution is longwinded; the other solution is virtually unknown in English. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You are right. But a universal naming with *-ion and *-iard would have been logical. At any rate, these are big numbers. Bigger numbers than this are called astronomical numbers. Yet bigger ones are called economical numbers (Feynman). YohanN7 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A Brazilian can get pretty high, especially around Carnival. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody's answered the original question - you get one hundredth of the stated amount, i.e knock two zeros off before the decimal point.→ (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To answer another of the original questions, there is no such number as a zillion; it's just a slang word for a very, very big number. The -illion sequence is sometimes considered to end at a centillion (with 303 zeroes in what's called "US naming" or "short scale" above, or 600 zeroes in the other system), but as you will see at that article, others take the sequence still higher. In practice nobody uses these large names; they would express the numbers in other ways. As far as I know the googolplex is the largest number named with a single word; it ends with 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeroes and there is not nearly enough matter in the known universe to write it out in full. -- (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks peeps, thanks to the ones, the most, who specified what was needed to know. I'm on two weeks holiday which started today, forced upon me, so I read the article stated in this post, otherwise you all would've heard me moaning for explanations. Thank you for stating the equation too.
( (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC))

December 19[edit]

Cosine of powers series[edit]

Does \sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n\cos(z^n) have any meaning? I do know that I can identify it with the Weierstrass function with a = -1, b = z, and x = 1/π. The Weierstrass function is not differentiable anywhere but I'm going to conjecture that the function defined by this series is differentiable in some neighborhood of the origin. Am I right?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 14[edit]

Dabbling in historical research[edit]

I have a strong interest in history, but have a PhD in an unrelated field and a strong and well paid career in that same field that I enjoy very much. As a bucket list-type thing, I'd like to actually do a genuine bit of research in history, perhaps demonstrated by a published journal article (yes, I am an academically oriented type of person). One option is to actually leverage my expertise into some sort of collaboration with an actual historian, but I feel that I wouldn't really be doing history research in that case, my collaborator would be. I would actually like to do a bit of what an actual historian does. As it happens, I am paid well enough that by the time my kids will be off to college and I actually will have time, I could probably take a lot of time off, or even retire (but I'd rather not because I really like what I am doing now). My question is about options I might have, and also how to prepare.

My interests are primarily in Roman or medieval history, so not something easy to do on your own. Clearly I need training. Basically, my advantage is that I require no funding, and can pay tuition, but the downside is that I don't want to abandon my current field altogether. I looked at a few top history PhD programs, and it seems that they probably would be an overkill, since I don't think I want to become a professional historian - I don't think I'd be as good at this stuff as I am in my own field. Also foreign language requirements are daunting and my undergraduate preparation for a history degree is minimal. I do know some Latin and am learning more, but I don't know French or German which seem to be required. It seems like my best option might be a Master's degree, but my main concern is that this will not be enough to actually accomplish my goal. My impression (and this is what I am asking professional historians that may be reading this) is that to do something worthwhile you need to spend significant time going through archives or other such things, and this is not likely to be possible in a master's program, especially one located in the US when all the materials are in Europe. I wonder if it might be possible to do a master's on a part-time basis while I am working and establish a good relationship with some professor and then take some time off to go to Europe and do research there. However, of the two good schools in my area, Berkeley has no terminal master's at all, and Stanford seems to only have a full-time master's. In short, I am looking for information and advice on how I can accomplish a little something worthwhile in historical research without becoming a professional. (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for boasting to everyone about how well paid your job is . . . (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant, since we need to know that he doesn't need to be able to make a living in this field, in order to make appropriate recommendations. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a historian here, but I'd think Latin would be sufficient for studying the Roman period, and perhaps the medieval period, too, especially if you specialize in Catholic Church documents. Perhaps your Master's thesis could be to translate and analyze some obscure Latin document, and you can then publish that. StuRat (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Latin may be sufficient for primary sources but not for dealing with the secondary literature. A reading knowledge of German and French at least is essential for that. Contact Basemetal here 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's why I mentioned an obscure document, meaning one that's never been reviewed by anyone else until now. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've got a PhD in medieval history, and I can tell you about the requirements where I studied, at're absolutely right about Latin, French, and German, to begin with. A working knowledge of classical Latin was an asset when I first started, and after that we had a, I will say "thorough", training in medieval Latin - it was like being beaten over the head with Latin until you got it, and if you didn't get it, you could be kicked out the program. It was pretty harsh, but lots of fun if you like the challenge (I did!). You could study things that don't really require Latin - my school also taught Old Irish, Old Welsh, Old Norse, Old/Middle English, and Middle German, but even those students had to pass the Latin exam whether they needed it or not. We also had to pass Modern French and German exams, because there is a huge amount of modern scholarship in those languages. On your own, you're also expected to study whatever other languages you might need for your own research. In my case, I also studied Old French and Arabic.
So you pass all those tests and you know the languages - that's a good start, now you can read published editions of medieval works, and modern scholarship on the issue. But what about reading the original documents? For that we also had classes on palaeography, to learn to read all the different kinds of Gothic script (and several other scripts besides that), and diplomatics, and about reading vernacular manuscripts which can be quite different from reading Latin manuscripts. And what if you want to publish an edition of a medieval work? Then you can study critical editing, codicology, learn how to collate manuscripts, etc.
That all takes several years in a PhD program, and you can spend several more years putting all this to practical use while writing a thesis. You can do a Masters degree in 1 or 2 years, but most of what I learned as an MA student was relatively basic (learning about Medieval Latin, how to use/read different sources, things like that). In total, MA and PhD, it took about 6 1/2 years for mine - some people can do it in less time, some people take even longer. So if you were just looking to finish an MA, I'm sure it would be helpful, but maybe not helpful enough to do meaningful research.
I'm not sure where you could go in California. I seem to recall that UC Davis has a medieval program, but if you're in the Bay area maybe that's too far away.
Hope that helps! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam, it helps, and I actually had you in particular in mind when I posted this question. I am quite aware that it's not a very realistic undertaking for me to do all that, unless I abandon my current line of work and spend many years working on a PhD - I've done that sort of thing once already. I guess what I am thinking of is whether I can grab one little corner of some area and do something meaningful with it, where as a PhD has to be well-rounded and prepared for many things. E.g. I can avoid learning Old English by picking a really specific topic that only requires Latin, and where major secondary sources are in English (maybe history of England?). I might be able to skim French or German articles or books with the help of Google Translate and dictionaries, French at least is relatively easy to read if you know English and Latin. I don't need a degree, so I don't have to fulfill any formal requirements. I was thinking of doing a master's exactly to learn palaeography and so on, to acquire the needed skills. By the way, I found an interesting online program from University of Edinburgh - do you think this can be worthwhile? Overall, I think this plan would hinge on finding some professor willing to direct research under such informal conditions - I have no idea how realistic this might be. (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, really? I'm famous! If I may ask, what is your PhD in? It certainly helps that you already have a doctorate. I know it happens that people work in one field and then switch to another without having to go through the whole process of getting another PhD. You already have one, so that's enough, it's assumed you'll be quite capable of learning to do research in another field. I'm not sure if people ever become prolific in a completely different field, but someone would probably be willing to help. It would be worth contacting a professor at Berkeley or Stanford (or UCD or wherever else). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
My PhD is in Computer Science, and research there is quite different, in particular it's not mostly reading and collating, and the output is mostly not writing - so my skills aren't up to par. My specific research has applications for historians in some of their technical work, so I could likely get involved from that side, but as I mentioned I would like to do the historian's work, not just a technical helper's. Still, you may be right, I should talk with some professors directly. (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the technical help would be a benefit. I'm sure you know about the "digital humanities" - one aspect of that is that historians have often tried to use computer programs to help with their research, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. I worked on a project like that, and there was often a disconnect between what the IT people could do and what we historians imagined they could do. A historian who was also a computer scientist would certainly be welcome everywhere :) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys, but I already know something about Roman history, it would be rather stupid to plan to do research in it otherwise. There's a big difference between reading fiction about Rome or Roman classics and doing actual research. (I have read parts of Gibbon, but I gather it's more useful as a study of 18th century English intellectual thought than a fair take on the Roman history). I know than I like it as an amateur, whether I can get immersed in it and dig something useful out is a completely different story. (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, you probably know more about Gibbon than I, but I've done a history major for an unfinished arts degree, and I've read a fair bit of stuff where he is quoted without embarrassment or irony as a perfectly valid secondary source. You can't read him uncritically, but I'm sure I've seen somewhere the claim that, whilst details have been revised, his work is still essentially valid. All the same, I doubt you'd really need it - for essays I just read the relevant portions, and cited it occasionally. IBE (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just a suggestion, but rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in WP:Middle Ages and/or WP:Classical Greece and Rome might be a good place to stick your toe in the water. Both have important (and not so important) articles that could do with the work, and practical contribution wil give you a fair idea of your own strengths, weaknesses,and preferences, maybe even showing you avenues for research you never previously considered. It will also give you a good idea of the resources available online (there's more than you think). Your background says you already know about regular expressions and search engines. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IBE, I don't mean to diss Gibbon in any way, I rather liked him. Fiddlersmouth, it sounds like an interesting idea, but I don't yet feel very confident when there are so many better qualified people around. I did contribute bits and pieces when Wikipedia was young and major articles were not yet there. (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't think you were dissing him at all - just thought I should add that single point. I read Gibbon for the literary value, and feel pleased as punch that I occasionally learn a trite thing or two about the Empire as well - my interest is in the style, and a microscopic bit of the erudition rubs off as a bonus. Also, as for contributing to WP, well, that would be easier than contributing to the professional field of history. Schools have had projects which involve contributing to WP as the end product, so much of what happens here is not elite. You can click on the talk page for an article to get an idea of the current quality. Here is one example: Talk:Children's Crusade, read the line "WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades (Rated Start-class, High-importance)" to see the rating within a particular WikiProject. So this one is "Start-class", which is apparently not very good, surprising for such an important article. There are many things that count against contributing: it's time-consuming, unpaid, and uncredited, to name a few. You may find it a waste of time on other grounds, but don't be afraid of us being too high in qualifications. Worry about too low, even though there are some bright sparks around. IBE (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I had such lofty goals for the Crusades WikiProject once upon a time. Now, I can't even remember the last time I made a substantial edit to any Wikipedia article outside the Reference Desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You could make a valuable contribution to historical research by finding a voluminous original source or sources in translation and then finding an interesting an original angle to examine it by. The tricky part of doing more than one source is that the odds are that you're randomly leaving out other sources that deserve to be treated together. So, for example, "What we can learn about xxxxxxx from the existant works of Herodotus". If you want to be pedantic about it, you could partner up with someone who is expert in that language, to get them to confirm that your interpretations from the translation match the intent of the original language. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along these lines too. That's why I'd need an experienced mentor who could help figure out what the relevant other sources and current research is. (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Are humanities and sciences really two opposite intellectual fields? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You could ask C.P. Snow... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I would not call them "opposite" fields. Perhaps a better word would be "distinct". Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ideally complementary, even, but with increased specialisation, it's harder and harder to realise the potential gains. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Humanities begin where sciences end. Why did you post your question here and not at the Science desk? Contact Basemetal here 16:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's like asking if apples and chicken are two opposite foods. Being different doesn't make them opposite. But if you want to read what some have written about the interplay of science and the humanities, perhaps I could recommend the book The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. --Jayron32 17:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

[Answers moved from science where dup Q was posted]

Science is a body of knowledge. Humanities is a body of knowledge. They are two branches of knowledge. And they use different methods to acquire knowledge. However, in some cases, they can overlap. For example, psychologists may use experimental data in their research and improve their clinical technique. Where did you get the idea that science and humanities were two opposite intellectual fields? On what spectrum? (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
See social science. The social sciences are midway between the "hard sciences" and the humanities, because of what they study; if the sciences and the humanities were opposite fields, there wouldn't really be a way to have something that's kind of midway between them. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Science is not primarily a body of knowledge, it is an approach to gain knowledge via observation, hypothesis testing, and reasoning. Knowledge is the fruits of science (cue WP:Reference desk/Languages on proper singular or plural of that phrase ;-), not science itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There are different ways to obtain knowledge. That is a subject of epistemology, though, which I won't go through here. I did say that Science and Humanities use different methods to acquire knowledge, such as a different understanding of something. Many professors of Humanities (Religious Studies, Classics, Middle Eastern Studies) propose theories and examine the world in a critical way. If you have ever read a journal article from the Humanities, they may begin with an Introduction, some detailed analysis, and a Conclusion. It's like an essay, really. (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda singer in On the Beach[edit]

To my Australian friends, I apologize in advance.

I'm stuck on a 1959 post-apocalypse movie, On the Beach, and its incredible, metaphorical, use of your unofficial national anthem, Waltzing_Matilda, which I have come to truly love. No other country has such a song. No other movie has made so much use of one song.

Very effective movie score, at least for one American, not previously over exposed. I've viewed it three times in two days, heard parts dozens of times, searched IMDB, YouTube, etc. & still can't find the singer who makes the most romantic moment of all movie time. At about 1:50 on the DVD, Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck are stuck in a rainy hotel room, listening to drunk renditions, when, while lighting the fire, an incredible voice transcends all - "You'll never take me alive!" said he - and moves them to passionately kiss.

WHO sang that magnificent verse? Where can I hear it? Other versions recommended? Thanks, mates! Paulscrawl (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

IMDb lists Delos Jewkes as "Solo for Waltzing Matilda (voice, uncredited)" - presumably that's not it? Tevildo (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This site suggests it may be by the same group who sings it drunkenly during the fishing trip, but without identifying them. Tevildo (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For some background on the song itself, the National Library of Australia has this section. Some notable versions of the song are available for listening at the The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia page here. There are many more versions of the song — I would recommend searching YouTube. Hack (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A belated thank you to both Tevildo and Hack. Alas, I am not able to definitively nail it - the IMDB attribution of Delos Jewkes as the solo singer seems a good bet, but no confirmation from any other source, except this comment:

"My wife and I were watching ‘On the Beach’ - 1959 - this evening and were left essentially awestruck by the Peck/Gardener kiss scene that was so lushly accompanied by Mr. Jewkes soaring vocals and upon whose wings the scene was so lovingly lifted to a place far above any like scenes in film history."
-- my feelings also, perfectly expressed by Steve Bassi, following a wonderful photo-essay bio/tribute (penned 1984 by Ralph Woodward) to the pioneering and prolific Hollywood movie singer at Jesse Delos Jewkes: Basso Profundo (1895-1984) - worth a glance for any movie buff. Not much on him on YouTube, alas.

Greatly enjoyed searching through the many links provided in the pages you both linked above and on YouTube. Thanks again. - Paulscrawl (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is lying effective in western politics?[edit]

I often see scientific lectures and discussions where the the costs and benefits of course of action discussed objectively. When I see politicians and lobby groups discuss the exact same issue, the debate is full of blatant lying, oversimplification and meaningless soundbites. Do they choose to this because it is an effective strategy to get their policy implemented? The alternative is that they really are ignorant, which is an unpleasant thought. I would love to see quotes from studies about the effectiveness of different political campaign tactics and modus operandi. Thanks --Goose Geyser (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

<side discussion moved to talk page>

In a much-cited 2007 paper in Games and Economic Behaviour (link, but it's paywalled), the authors created a model of election behaviours to test what happens when lying by candidates is introduced as a factor in campaigns.
They write in the abstract: We find that candidates more willing to lie are favored, but that this advantage is limited by the electoral mechanism and to such an extent that more honest candidates win a significant fraction of elections. Most notably, the possibility that some candidates lie more than others affects the behavior of all candidates, changing the nature of political campaigns in an empirically consistent manner. Taknaran (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Web search finds that paper here along with lots of other promising leads. Medeis, I think Jayron's advice could have been phrased a little more diplomatically but his point is well taken. (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the most effective strategy is to be deceptive, but not actually lie. Take the case of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. When asked if he would sign a right to work (anti-union) law, he could have honestly said yes, which would have lost him many votes, or lied and said no, which would have lost him votes once the lie was exposed when he signed it. Instead he said "That's not even on the table", which everyone took to mean no, but which he could pretend meant something else later, after he signed the bill into law. So, deniability is key. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatever: but, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth." (Edmund Burke). From our brief article: Economical with the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Translation from Middle French[edit]


What does "Le Livre de la Deablerie" translate to in English (the title, not the entire poem)? Also, can someone translate these four lines to English:

"Viença, le chief des ruffyens,

Houlier, putier, macquereau infame

De maint homme et de mainte fame,

Poisson d'apvril, vien tost a moy"

Thank you. Seattle (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like "the book of devilry". You could ask at WP:RDL for the rest (my guesses probably aren't that reliable). See also Eloy d'Amerval. (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Poisson d'apvril sounds like "April Fool", as in the person who is fooled. In modern French, it's poisson d'avril. IBE (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The book of devilry", yes. It sounds these words are not exactly old French, it feels to me it is more some kind of slang of old French. The rest of what I can translate, although I'm not expert at all, just what I can feel, as translated into current French:

"Viença, le chef des voyous,

Proxénète, souteneur, macquereau infâme

De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,

Poisson d'avril, vient tôt à moi" (vers moi)?

I don't quite understand but in English it gives something in the vein of

"Viença, the leader of the thugs

Procurer, procurer, infamous procurer (choose synonyms)

Of many men and many women

Trickster (or Prank?), comes soon to me

Waiting now with interest, for someone who can enlghten us with some better translation. Akseli9 (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several puns here. "Poisson D'Apvril" is obviously April's fool. "moy" is middle French for the month of May, so I would translate the last phrase as "April fool, soon becomes May".
Macquereau is quite likely procurer, you are right, but note that it likely is a pun relating to the "Poisson" below (literally "April fish" for April fool).
The first word "Viença" seems to be used like "Voici" "Here it is" in other books.
I also do not quite understand what how the last line relates to the other 3, apart from wanting to make a pun on mackerel and fish. --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
[Cross posted at [53]] The context is at [54], if that helps. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This page contains a prayer to the Virgin Mary, in which Viença appears to be a poetic summoning (=viens). Googling the word seems to confirm its use in poetry during the early modern period, giving us "Come, chief of thugs", which would seem to fit the context. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The context helps a lot, thank you! I was misleading when I stated this looked like slang. After all it just looks like old French. Poisson d'Avril is said the same way as one would say "you're a joke", "hey, you joke, come here". It also could work as an exclamation of ridicule. Please take into account that April's fool's origin is an uncomfortable misunderstanding about the new date for starting New Year, with making fun of those who still believed New Year was still April 1st. Viença is not a name, it does mean "viens ici" (come / come here), as it is confirmed in several other poems that can be found on a Google search, and several times in the rest of the poem, he tells him to come quickly and soon (vien icy faire ung tour de dance = viens ici faire un tour de danse) (acours bien tost = accours bien tôt) (vien bien tost = viens bientôt). And sorry, I confirm "moy" means moi (me), again seen in many other poems and a song I used to sing at school when I was a child that was a song from the Middle Age (l'amour de moy, s'y est enclose dedans un joli jardinet). The most disgusting/shocking/insulting verse is the last, naming him a procurer not only of women-whores, but also of men-whores.

"Viens ici, chef des voyous,

Proxénète, souteneur, maquereau infâme

De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,

Poisson d'avril, viens tout de suite à moi"

in English

"Come, chief of thugs,

Procurer, procurer, infamous procurer (two synonyms)

Of many men and many women,

April's fool, come to me at once"

The entire poem makes sense, except a few words that I would have to figure out from google searches. If you are interested by a translation, feel free to ask. Akseli9 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You've read this entire Middle French poem in a few hours and saw it made sense? This is a poem of more than 20000 eight-syllable line in Middle French. You seem to be very fast indeed. Contact Basemetal here 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There are hundreds of short poems, I read only the one where Lucifer insults Satan, from line 295 to line 346. Akseli9 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not using accurate language. I should say "Middle French" as I just learned "Old French" means something else. As well I suppose I should have said I read one scene of the play. Akseli9 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which democratically elected national leaders throughout history committed treason?[edit]

  • Only national leaders who are/were naturalized citizens of the country that they ended up leading qualify for this question.

Basically, I hear nativists who are against repealing the Natural-Born Citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency argue that a naturalized citizen could commit treason against the U.S.

Frankly, I am not creating this thread to make a political point. Rather, I am simply asking an honest question here, since I am genuinely curious as to how many, if any, democratically elected national leaders who are/were naturalized citizens of the country that they ended up leading committed treason against that country afterwards.

Thoughts on this?

Also, for the record, if this is not obvious enough already, Hitler certainly does not count for this considering that Hitler did not commit treason against Germany after he came to power there in 1933.

And again, to clarify, treason which was committed before a national leader came to power (such as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch attempt in 1923) does not count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre Laval and Vidkun Quisling spring to mind; although both were elected representatives, they weren't actually elected as national leaders. However, in many constitutions, the UK included, an election is not required for somebody to take office as their country's leader, Gordon Brown for example (I'm not suggesting that GB is a traitor, just that he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom without there being a general election). Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
But Laval and Quisling appear to have been natural-born citizens, as opposed to naturalized citizens, of the countries which they led. Thus, they don't appear to count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your question. However, it does demonstrate that treason is not the exclusive property of naturalised citizens; natives can do it too. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's OK! :) Also, Yes, I certainly agree with you that natural-born citizens also sometimes commit treason (heck, I think that Jonathan Pollard is one example of such a person). Futurist110 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess you would need to start with a list of heads-of-state or heads-of-government who have been found guilty of treason. This is a pretty small list to start with. Hack (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have such a list? Futurist110 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
We do have an (incomplete and poorly-referenced) list of people convicted of treason including heads of state such as Philippe Pétain and Imre Nagy, but these examples obviously don't fit the OP's specifications. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And do we have a list of naturalized national leaders of state? --Lgriot (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure a head of state can commit treason, at least not during his or her leadership. This is particularly true of those nations whose heads of state are also in control of foreign relations. I'm reasonably certain that the only reason a "conviction" for treason would happen is a purge following a revolution. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Whaaat? Are you saying that anything a head of state does is legal by definition? If a head of state can in principle commit theft or rape, then why can't he commit treason? Contact Basemetal here 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
See Sovereign immunity. Basically, in some jurisdictions (in particular, monarchies, constitutional or otherwise), anything that a head of state does in his capacity as head of state is legal (or, at least, not prosecutable). Whether a particular action comes under that heading is a matter for the courts. Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For all practical purposes, a head of state's official acts don't fit within the concept of "treason". If the act is to destroy the government and assume full power, it's a self-coup (a type of coup d'état); I don't think we can say Napoleon committed treason. Diverting state funds to your own ends? Embezzlement, yes; but treason? For heads of state that are also in charge of the military in some capacity, giving comfort to the "enemy" doesn't even make sense: it'd be the functional equivalent of a cease fire. Or telling the troops to throw down their arms: that's a surrender, not treason. I mean, even if you consider a psychotic head of state who leads the foreign army through the city walls, that's still essentially a self-coup or a surrender. I don't think you're going to find any examples of heads of state being convicted of treason except as a cover for a political purge, or in the aftermath of a revolution. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And if a president of the US was proven to have sold to the Chinese some important secret (the design of a weapons system, computer codes, whatever) that would be considered to have been done in his capacity as head of state, right? Contact Basemetal here 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • All this discussion about sovereign immunity is, though interesting, a distraction from the OP's question. He clearly was interested in cases of a foreign born head of state who as head of state would have acted against the interest of his adopted country (and most relevant for this discussion, for the interest of his country of birth). After all the OP's original question was about a supposed debate in the US on maintaining the exclusion of foreign born citizens from the presidency. If there are indeed people who are against an amendment repealing that restriction on the grounds that a foreign born head of state would be a treason risk, they would very certainly not be satisfied with Mendaliv's and Tevildo's legal niceties. But I have a question for the OP. I didn't know there currently was in the US a debate on this question in the first place. Could the OP point to some articles, etc. discussing this question? Has such an amendment really been proposed? Where have you been arguing with "nativists"? This is the first time I've heard of this. Contact Basemetal here 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you raise an interesting side point which has not been addressed: the rationale for the "natural born citizen" clause in the U.S. Constitution vis-a-vis qualifications for the President. It should be noted that the rationale of the original writers of the Constitution was not treason per se. To understand their rationale, it's important to understand their world, politically, and to look at their original writings that explain exactly why they wrote what they did into the Constitution. Luckily, we have those explanations in the form of The Federalist Papers. In the Federalist Papers, the authors argue for the specific kind of Republic they saw themselves setting up, both in the general form (that is, the sort of three-branch Federal republic that they were laying out), and the specific (that is, going clause by clause and explaining why the Constitution was worded exactly as it was). At various points throughout the Federalist papers, the authors cite specific examples, from history AND from contemporary times, how various Republics succeeded and failed, and what they were doing specifically to avoid such failures. Cogent to our argument here is the example, used repeatedly, of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (called simple "Poland" in the Papers). Federalist 14, 39, though 19 is quite relevant "Foreign nations have long considered themselves as interested in the changes made by events in this Constitution; and have, on various occasions, betrayed their policy of perpetuating its anarchy and weakness. If more direct examples were wanting, Poland, as a Government over local sovereigns, might not improperly be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government and self-defence, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories." (bold mine) Quite relevant as well is Federalist 68, to wit " These most deadly adversaries of republican Government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our Councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?" The world of the 18th century did not have a lot of positive historical examples of large, federal republics which worked. Instead, what the founders had to work with was a handful of elective monarchies, which were failures for various reasons. Poland in particular was instructive, because it showed what happened when the proper precautions were not taken when electing a leader. The "Natural-born-citizen clause" was NOT designed to prevent someone who moved to the country as an infant and then lived here the rest of their lives from becoming the President. It has that side-effect, but that wasn't the main issue for the Writers. Instead, what they wanted to avoid explicitly (and we know what they wanted, because they told us directly, see above) was having a foreign prince become elected President, then use his position to make the U.S. a vassal of foreign powers. This is exactly what happened in Poland, where various members of foreign royal families (Valois, Vasa, Wettin, Bathory, etc.) were elected by a Sejm which had been corrupted by foreign influence (money and titles and property and the like) which is why they keep coming back to it in their justifications. The entire mechanisms and rules for electing a President were explicitly put in to prevent a Poland-like collapse. It wasn't treason in the sense of selling out one's own native country that was the issue. It was foreign influence to the point where the interests of a foreign power would take precedence over the interests of the U.S. We don't live in a world filled with Monarchies anymore, so the rationales seem a bit outdated, because they are. --Jayron32 15:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
A bad example is Eli Cohen, who was chief adviser to the Syrian Minister of Defence and an Israeli spy. He was not elected but he was high up in government.-- (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jayron, thanks for that. I've always wondered about the precise origin of the "natural born citizen" clause. Good, concise explanation. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that divided loyalties don't need to rise to the level of treason to be problematic. Say the US could and did elect a President who was Canadian born and raised. Then, during any trade negotiations between the US and Canada it might be suspected that they were giving Canada a bit too much in the bargain. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For a real life instance of people worrying about something like this, see United States presidential election, 1960#Campaign issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

University Club, Honolulu[edit]

Where and what was the "University Club" in Honolulu around 1909 mentioned here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Organized in 1905, the University Club was an exclusive most-likely white men's association that admitted members who had been graduated from recognized Universities, including military academies. In 1930, it merged with the Pacific Club (originally known as "The Mess" and later as the "British Club")" (C. S. Papacostas, "Ha'Alelea Lawn's Fate" ASCE-Hawaii (May 2013)). Mentioned in our list of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do illegitimate children have to be born to unmarried parents?[edit]

I was thinking of King Henry VIII. IIRC, he declared his daughter, Elizabeth, a bastard. Apparently, the king can at least declare anyone a bastard? A different scenario would be that a parent does not want his or her stepchildren to inherit the property, so he or she fails to recognize the stepchildren as stepchildren legally in order to ensure that his or her own biological offspring inherit everything. (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Henry, the trick was that his Parliament passed an act that declared his marriage with the recently late Anne Boleyn null and void. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So, the king was more powerful than parliament and the church? (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The King was head of the church at the time ... so he had the authority to do as he wished pretty much. Stepchildren do not have an automatic right of inheritance, by the way. [55] See WP:Tiptibism. Collect (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Legitimacy (law) makes it clear in the first sentence, which is quite relevant to this discussion: "In Western common law, legitimacy is the status of a child born to parents who are legally married to each other". A great sentence in that almost every word means something. In the case of Henry VIII, the issues regard the word "legally". As Henry's succession needs changed throughout his life, his various marriage were declared either "legal" or "illegal" at his whim and as needed. Mary had been declared illegitimate because she had been born to Catherine of Aragon, and Henry had his marriage to her declared illegal (ostensibly because of the prohibition against marrying one's brother's former wife, which was a form of incest). Later, he had his marriage to Anne Boleyn declared illegal (because he's Henry, and can do that. Officially, Parliament passed that resolution, but Parliament was always a pawn of Henry's whims...), making Elizabeth illegitimate as well. Finally, at the end of his life, he finally relegitimized all of his children by the Third Succession Act, as Edward was sickly and there was a good chance he wouldn't live much longer than Henry himself would; and Henry wanted to shore up his succession. As a point of order, Edward didn't produce issue, and despite the Succession act, there was still a minor succession controversy on Edward's death (see Jane Grey), but basically both Mary and Elizabeth were in turn accepted as legitimate heirs because of the act. --Jayron32 17:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Legitimate heirs, but not legitimate children. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No, the law does not make a distinction. They were made legitimate children in order to be legitimate heirs. Titles and property must pass to heirs of the body, which requires legal legitimacy. This includes his title as King. --Jayron32 02:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • A case where such a distinction was attempted to be drawn would be Le Fevre v. Sleght, a case in the Year Book of 7 Edw. 2. (i.e., 1313), reprinted in 36 Selden Society 158 (1918). In Le Fevre, the claimant in a writ of right said that the tenant was "born out of espousals" and was a bastard as a result. The problem with this is that bastardy was within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and as a matter of ecclesiastical law, apparently someone born out of espousals was still legitimate (even though he would be a bastard at common law). The court refused to accept the averment about espousals, and required that the pleading be made as accusing the tenant of being a bastard, which led to a writ to the Bishop issuing to inquire as to the tenant's legitimacy (i.e., the claimant lost). Another case, Thornsett v. Whaite (from 1311, reprinted in 31 Selden Society 38 (1915)), not so much dealing with legitimacy but with whether a widow was entitled to dower, tried to frame that issue by splitting the act of marriage (ecclesiastical law) and the act of the ceremonial endowment at the church door (presumably common law). This also failed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second scenario, the parent would set up his will so that the people he wants to inherit do inherit, and in the ways he prefers (though of course he would do so with a lawyer's consultation since wills can become tricky as they get more complicated). There would be no need to "de-legitimate" the children he wants to disinherit. And in the general period of Henry's life (and for at least 200 years on either side) a common practice was to use a fine of lands to set up "family settlements" during the life of the landowner. The advantage of these over other methods of arranging your estate was that their validity was determined as a matter of law by the courts. And again, they were great ways of sidestepping the law of intestate succession if you wanted to set things up differently (e.g., your eldest son was a wastrel). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset seemed to have done pretty well for himself. There's no reason Henry VIII couldn't have left him any number of things upon his death - except for the crown. There was some buzz about trying to have Fitzroy legitimated, but it proved to be a non-issue as Fitzroy died before Henry VIII did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Are Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu and Eugène Diomi Ndongala the same person?[edit]

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently yes. He was a vice-minister of Mobutu. This is not the first time WP has got two different articles on the same person. Contact Basemetal here 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The content of the two is quite different, with different points of view being pushed in each. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that this is very likely the same person. Look at the French articles. Are you saying WP should have two articles on the same person if they're written from different points of view? Contact Basemetal here 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that if the names were missing, you might be hard pressed to conclude they're about the same guy. The two articles obviously should be synthesized - and be held to BLP rules in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The latter should no longer be a worry as the French article states he was "disappeared" in 2012. Contact Basemetal here 00:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a good starting point would be to translate the French article into English, and then see how it squares with the two existing English articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't Just Stand There[edit]

What is the history and is there a documented first use of the the phrase "Don't Just Stand There. Do something (this part can be interchangeable to any so of action or command)."? It certainly wasn't used in the 19th century. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a guess base on this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Or this. Contact Basemetal here 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Google ngrams gets their first hit in 1912. --Jayron32 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My Ngrams query (before yours Face-smile.svg) gives 1915 for the first occurrence. Why didn't you like mine, BTW? Contact Basemetal here 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
When I use a "smoothing" of 3 I also get 1912. What's "smoothing" anyway? Contact Basemetal here 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've read what smoothing is I'd say that the 1915 is probably the accurate one as no smoothing (or smoothing of 0) represents the raw data whereas the 1912 date for the curve with a smoothing of 3 is probably just an artefact of the smoothing algorithm. Contact Basemetal here 21:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This page at The Quote Investigator about the inversion of the saying ("don't just do something, stand there!") finds approximate, but not exact, versions from 1877 and 1888. The oldest use I can find of the exact phrase "don't just stand there" is in the Edith Wharton short story "A Glimpse," published in the Saturday Evening Post November 12, 1932, but the quote is "Don't just stand there and repeat what I say!" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
All important difference between "don't stand there" and "don't just stand there". Your 1877 and 1888 quotes are of the former. If you are happy with that then Ngrams will give you the first occurrence in its corpus in 1741: take a look here. Contact Basemetal here 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day by Eric Partridge (p. 73) has some details of later use. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did Lenten traditions become less strict over time?[edit]

I read that, during the Middle Ages, the medieval Lenten diet coincided with springtime, so every springtime would probably mean a cultural abstention from eating certain foods. One person wrote about his or her personal experience with recreating the medieval Lenten fast, which was supposed to help people think about suffering, especially Christ's suffering. Other sources seem to suggest that these Lenten abstentions declined - from the early church to the modern day. In the 1950s America, some sources suggest that the Lenten food tasted bland, compared to their European or Asian Catholic counterparts. How did bland Lenten foods evolve culturally? And why did Lent become less strict over time? (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lent happens to coincide with the point in the Western European calendar when food stores run low; this was especially true in medieval times. The cows aren't making milk and the salted meat from the animals you slaughtered last autumn is running low, and the cheeses you produced in the fall aren't aged enough to go to table yet. Your grain stores are even looking a bit bleak. So what impetus do you have to break the rules, compared to the benefits you believe you're getting by following them? You might not even have the wherewithal to do so if you wanted to, even if you had a dispensation to.
Then go forward 300 or 400 years. Suddenly milk and meat are available 12 months a year at prices low enough for you to afford them. Suddenly food isn't as scarce as it was. How easy is it to justify bending the rules when forbidden foods are freely available and inexpensive, compared to earlier? --NellieBly (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, beavers and barnacle geese were counted as fish. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, at least in very recent years, health and medical factors have been taken into account. If someone has a medical condition which requires eating on a regular basis, like maybe bad diabetic conditions, at least the Catholic Church (and I'm assuming some eastern churches) have said it is unreasonable to really risk serious medical problems for religious reasons. And, considering just how many diseases we now recognize, and how many relate in some way to food consumption, or sleeping, or other factors which might have been given up for Lent in the old days, that has played a big role in the loosening of standards. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You probably also have to factor in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The Protestants looked with grave suspicion on anything that looked like Catholic piety, which would logically have contributed to a token "giving something up" for Lent. The Counter-Reformation didn't quite shadow the Protestants, but modifications must have crept in as belief in the miraculous declined, and tricked out crying/bleeding wooden saints were quietly retired. Ecclesiastical courts had less power, ordinary people had more control over their own lives. Simply, they could choose not to suffer, and were less inclined to believe they would go to hell for doing so. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. See the (rather wonderfully named) Affair of the Sausages, when Huldrych Zwingli sparked the Reformation in Switzerland by defending the right to eat meat during Lent. Some Protestant traditions reject the idea of the Liturgical year in which Christians follow different aspects of the life of Christ depending on the seasons and ignore or downplay feasts such as Christmas and Easter. Others, like Anglicans and Lutherans have retained the concept, but moderated in varying degrees. Here in the Church of England, the wild excesses of Carnival and Mardi Gras on Shrove Tuesday were replaced with the rather tame Pancake Day and excuses were found to indulge in treats like Simnel cake and hot cross buns during Lent. In the last century, secularism has had a role too. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A big issue to consider when considering lenten practices, at least with respect to Roman Catholics, is the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), around 1965. This instituted a series of reforms in the Roman Catholic church, many of which involved things like fasting. For example, prior to Vatican II, all Fridays were supposed to be meatless for Catholics. After Vatican II, it was just during lent that Fridays were meatless. Similarly, the emphasis on the concept of a "fast" changed - it became less about physical deprivation, and more emphasis was put on spiritual purification. The former explains the "blandness" of lenten foods to some extent. See Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching - you were supposed to be depriving yourself physically so you could grow spiritually. -- (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fasting antedates Christianity by a lot. Earlier than ancient Egypt, in fact. The Catholic Church adapted ancient practices and celebrations to a great extent. And with the same avowed reasoning as the ancients had. Collect (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case, Christians are directly imitating Jesus's 40 day fast in the desert, and He was following Jewish custom. It's not just Catholics, but Orthodox and Coptic Christians observe this too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

website that shows number of votes to gain a seat in parliament close party list[edit]

Is there a website that shows the where in Israel if a party can gain a seat in a 3.25% threshold, how many votes do they have to gain a seat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for a site that would show how many votes will correspond to the 3.25% threshold in the upcoming 2015 March 17 elections? Contact Basemetal here 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If that's the question, note it will depend on the turnout. (If I understand Voter registration#Israel and the outdated [56] correctly, the size of the electorate is probably fixed presuming the date remains the same.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Right. I was very curious to hear how the OP imagined such a site would figure out the turnout in advance. If that was indeed the question. If there's a different question in there I'm at a loss what it may be. Contact Basemetal here 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Any party crossing the 3.25% threshold is mathematically guaranteed to get some seats (at least 3, and almost certainly at least 4), and any party below the threshold will get no seats, if that's what you're asking. If there was no threshold at all, you'd get a seat with 0.8% of votes or even less. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean it's impossible for a party to win a total of 1 or 2 seats? -- (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Under the current threshold and directly from the elections, it appears so. From reading our articles, I'm not sure of there's anything stopping 2 smaller parties joining together with a unified closed list, but making it clear they will function seperately after the election beyond the difficulties coming to such an agreement and the possible dislike among supporters of such an agreement. (Something similar was attempted by Internet Party and Mana Movement in NZ, although in that case they just agreed to review rather than definitely break apart after the election. It spectacularly failed. Of course, NZ used MMP instead of a purely list based system so there's nothing stopping a party with only 1 or 2 seats by winning electorates.) I do see some discussion of party hopping/switching limitations (edit: I meant outside wikipedia), but couldn't find a clear cut discussion in our articles and it sounds like these things may change a bit in Israel fairly frequently. From the history, I'm not sure if these limitations would definitely prevent such an attempt. At worst, may be they would require the parties to be continue to technically function as one party when it comes to funding, seating arrangements etc (so would require that basic level of cooperation) while still allowing them them to vote on legislation and even confidence and supply measures independently. Edit: Noticed talk of alliances before but somehow missed the section at Elections in Israel which definitely suggests it may be possible. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Iorwerth ap Owain ap Caradog[edit]

Apparently Iorwerth Ap Owain had a connection to the ancient town of Waterford sometime around 1171. Where can I find information on this and a biography history on Iorwerth Ap Owain whom I think is in my family line. Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Iorwerth Drwyndwn is our article. It's all a very long time ago, and it wouldn't be surprising if all that remains is a few names in a genealogy or chronology. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Iorwerth Drwyndwn is a different character from the Iorwerth ap Owain ap Caradog whose basic details are given in the page the OP linked to. The OP's Iorwerth was a grandson of Caradog ap Gruffydd. His date of birth is unknown, but he first appeared in history in 1136, becoming lord of Caerleon, and dying somewhere between 1175 and 1184. These facts come from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's article on him, which lives behind a paywall but which you may be able to access via your library's website, Christie. Neither we nor the Welsh Wikipedia has a page on your Iorwerth ap Owain, but bizarrely German Wikipedia has rather a good one, de:Iorwerth ab Owain, which Google Translate should make fairly comprehensible. Couldn't find anything connecting him with Waterford by the way. --Antiquary (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Now I come to look at the ODNB more closely I see that in 1171 Henry II, on his way to invade Ireland via the port of Waterford, forced Iorwerth out of Caerleon (he regained it two years later). Maybe that's the connection, though an indirect one. --Antiquary (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What do people do if they share the same name with a criminal?[edit]

What do people, who have never been convicted of a crime and are looking for a job, do if they share the same name with a criminal? Are they allowed to change names, or would employers be highly suspicious of the candidate if they do so? Would employers do a background check to make sure the person is not related to the criminal by the same name, or would they dismiss by impression of the name? (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

They're going to check on a lot more info than just the name. If all they did was to check the name, the countless John Smiths of the world would never find work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(As an interesting aside- "John Smith" is actually much less common of a name than we would expect, based on the commonality of "John" and "Smith" independently. It seems that people have been avoiding that name. It was indeed hard to search for refs but I did find this [57] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was about to link that same article, but edit-conflicted. I'm surprised we don't have an article on Three word names or something similar. There seems to be long precedence for it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've heard that in Israel the most common surname and the most common masculine given name never go together. —Tamfang (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There have been a couple of cases where a person has shared the same name and date-of-birth as a criminal. They tend to get a letter from the police saying "To Whom It May Concern, the bearer of this document, John A. Smith, born 1st Feb 1970, IS NOT the same as John B. Smith, also born 1st Feb 1970. John A. Smith has no criminal record, unlike John B. Smith". CS Miller (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This also highlights the fact that you'd have to have the same name and at least relatively close DOBs and characteristics to be believably mistaken for the criminal by someone doing a background check. If you were just worried about someone randomly googling, you might just go by a variant of your legal name (e.g., short/long first name, or go by middle name). Finally, where even a surname becomes infamous, people just go and change their names. My grandfather once told me that in the 20s, the Chicago phone book had like a dozen Hitlers. There were none by the time the war got into full swing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I once came across an old news item from that time, about a man named Hitler who had not changed his name. When asked about it, he said: "It's the other fellow who's causing all the trouble: he should be the one who changes his name!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Rabbi Israel Hitler, for understandable reasons, was keen to change his name.[58] Hack (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Your link from a 1936 newspaper does not say he "was keen" but that he was asked to. Contact Basemetal here 08:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Background checks in the UK are usually done with name, date of birth, address, and unique National Insurance Number. It is impossible that two John Smiths (or even two Bartholemew Williebottoms) would share the same National Insurance Number, whether they live at the same address and have the same date of birth or not. I expect in the US they would use your Social Security Number. If your potential employer requires a check on your background, they will not just rely on a simple Google search. They will go to the Police for it (either paying for it themselves, or asking you to pay for it). This way it is done properly and thoroughly, in order to avoid misunderstandings of identity. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 18:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds like it makes sense, but see No fly list. I don't see any obvious reason why they don't use court orders and due process in reference to identified individuals, except that the officials need to afflict the innocent to prove that they alone are the new constitution and terrorism is the new democracy. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Passports all have a unique number, too. If the airport officials are unable to check those numbers, then they need to be retrained. Bartholemew Williebottoms is unlikely to have the same passport number as me. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a couple tricky bits with the no-fly list:
1) They don't want people on the list to know they are on it, because then they might know they are under investigation and be more careful about their nefarious plans. Unfortunately, this means innocent people don't know they are on the list, either.
2) If a criminal knows they are on it, they are likely to give a false Social Security number, making that not very useful for identifying criminals. (A driver's license is normally all that's used for identification, and that doesn't contain the Social Security number, so they just have to take your word for it on that.)
Personally I think they should use fingerprints. I bet the technology is now ready to compare any fingerprint with all those in the no-fly list database quickly. However, I sure would hope that any enabling legislation would require them to destroy records of every non-matching fingerprint they check against the database, so we don't end up arrested for some crime on the other side of the world where our fingerprints resembled theirs (it's happened before). StuRat (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Some airports have face-recognition technology. Basically, you hand over your passport and boarding card, then look into a camera, which then takes a picture of you, and compares it with pictures of people on the No-Fly List and also with wanted criminals and people who are under investigation (who may not necessarily be on the No-Fly List). This is less invasive and less time-consuming than fingerprinting. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is face recognition as accurate a means of identification as fingerprinting ? I'm a bit skeptical, especially if the individual has a full beard. StuRat (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, so far, the authorities have managed to identify a number of European ISIS fighters appearing in videos they post on the internet. The authorities don't put the videos on TV or anything, so I can only assume they are using face recognition. It is pretty accurate, but requires that the person in question has at least a passport or other form of photo-ID (we don't need passports to travel within Europe - any photo-ID will do for boarding planes or ships, but if you travel by land, you don't need anything). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That's quite a different scenario:
A) They no doubt had hundreds of security specialists and banks of computers dedicated to the task of identifying those people in the videos.
B) They also may have had a smaller pool of people to compare with. In the case of the French ISIS member, there were only a few dozen suspects.
So, this method may not work at airports, where the facial comparison would have to be made with millions of faces, in seconds, not hours or days. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
How is that different from a comparison with millions of fingerprints? Also, fingerprints can change - through injury, or even loss of fingers (which does happen due to industrial accidents, etc. - if your head is cut off, you would hardly be going on holiday, would you?). One woman who used to work at my (now retired) mother's office removed her fingerprints with acid to escape a conviction for stealing from the company. It is very easily done. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The singer Yusuf Islam was refused entry to the US in 2004. After some time, he was able to prove that the US authorities mistook him for Youssef Islam who they claimed was a terrorist. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
He hummed a few bars of Peace Train to prove who he was... --Jayron32 11:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
A persuasive theory, except... why was Senator Ted Stevens' wife, Cat(herine) Stevens, hassled under the list? (which is one of the incidents listed in the no fly list article) Wnt (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I intially misread your statement as saying why wasn't she on. Anyway it is a little weird that she matched. On the other hand, it only happened after Yusuf Islam was denied entry. I guess one possibility is that upon denying Yusuf Islam, who may have told them he was formerly known as Cat Stevens, the name Cat Stevens was added as a possible alias without worrying about whether the Yusuf Islam formerly known as Cat Stevens was even intended to be on the list. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In terms of travel, in the US, people who are repeatedly mistaken for someone else can apply for redress via the Department of Homeland Security which means they will get redress control number (RCN) which after the application is dealt with is supposed to help [59] [60]. Certain people can also get a Known Traveler Number although it's based on the person being special or trusted rather than being misidentified as someone else [61]. Edit: See this is mention in pur No Fly List article, where it's also claimed it doesn't do much. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, problems like the one discussed here are the reason media outlets frequently refer to notorious criminals by their first, middle, and last names. John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Gary Bishop, etc. It narrows the pool of people who can reasonably be confused with the person in question (though I imagine there's a John William Gacy somewhere who now goes by Jack or Bill). Evan (talk|contribs) 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone serious will look deeper, or ask you directly, but some people could probably get the wrong impression in some circumstances. Someone once said to someone that in situations like this you should control your own publicity. Set up a website in your name, use social media profiles, make Wikipedia edits and a userpage in your name, etc, in order to feature above, or at least contrasted to, the problem person. You may or may not have to sacrifice some privacy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
A recent example was that of Gerry Sandusky, a Baltimore sportscaster, and Jerry Sandusky, convicted of sexual abuse while a football assistant coach at Penn State. Because both were involved with football, their names frequently got crossed. It was sometimes compounded by the fact that both had relatives with similar names who were affiliated with the Cleveland Browns (Gerry's father John and Jerry's son Jon). Gerry Sandusky discussed the situation here.    → Michael J    23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Rotating ownership as a means of evading the law[edit]

I think we have all probably heard of, for instance, night clubs which somehow seem to consistently get shut down time and again and then reopened under new management time and again getting shut down for the same violations. In some cases, reporters find that the multiple rotating owners are in fact often some form of extra-legal partners to the same operation, using the rotating ownership as a way of keeping the place legally open but still, well, violating the same laws.

I hope that makes some bare minimum of sense. I remember having heard in the news, years ago, about a specific instance of this, where the reporter used what seemed to be a bit of a technical term, but I have no idea what the term used was. I know shell company is a bit of a related concept, but it isn't the one I'm thinking of. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Might vaguely fall under Collusion - in the common sense, if not the more narrow and strict legal sense. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That kind of shell game is more common than you might think. In the early days of cell phones there were many fly-by-night companies that collected subscriptions, went bankrupt, then reopened under a new name and repeated the cycle. And then we have General Motors, which just went bankrupt to avoid paying their debts and screw over their retirees, then reopened under the same name, but as a supposedly different company, with all the assets of the old company, and with government approval no less. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can a cathedral be a grass hut?[edit]

I've heard that a cathedral is just the seat of the bishop, and as such, there is no requirement to build a very tall, very fancy, very big structure. Yet, many cathedrals are tall, fancy, and big. Suppose a tiny Catholic population exists in the middle of nowhere, and there are just not enough resources to build a fancy, tall, and big cathedral. Can a cathedral be a grass hut then? (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A cathedral can be made of anything the local parish can achieve/afford. Here is one in Kwa-Zulu, Natal, South Africa. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A Cathedral is just the home church of a bishop. It doesn't even have to be the largest church in its own city; where I live (Raleigh, North Carolina), the local Catholic cathedral is Sacred Heart Cathedral (Raleigh, North Carolina), which is very small, with seating for only about 350. Meanwhile, St. Raphael's Catholic Church can seat well over 1000. --Jayron32 03:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
There is the Cardboard Cathedral in Christchurch although it's only intended to be a cathedral temporarily (may continue as a church afterwards) and it's not exactly small seating 700 people and costs $5 million to build and also uses much more than cardboard (less cardboard than even the designer wanted). Edit: Technically a Pro-cathedral I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You can see the old cathedral of the tiny Christ Catholic Church (Pruter) denomination here [62] [63]. Basically little more than an ordinary American house and supposedly once recognised as the "World's Smallest Cathedral in the Guinness Book of World Records" (but I can the feeling if anyone did have a grass hut cathedral they may not even know of the Guinness World Records). Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the Anglican cathedral in Yellowknife was for many years a simple two-bedroom house. Of course it would not be a grass hut up there, but as long as it has everything a church needs under ecclesiastical law it can be a cathedral. --NellieBly (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
NellieBly, I don't think the cathedral of the Diocese of The Arctic was in Yellowknife although the Synod Office is. The original pro-cathedral was All Saints located in Aklavik. Since 1972 St. Jude's in Iqaluit has been the bishop's seat. See The History of St. Jude's Anglican Cathedral, Iqaluit. The original St. Jude's was destroyed by fire in 2007 and that may have led to the idea that a house was being used as the cathedral. However, I don't think a house would have accommodated everyone. I believe that they used community hall for services but I can't find anything to confirm that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find a grass hut cathedral, but I did find a wooden shed. The building of Truro Cathedral in Cornwall necessitated the demolition of the existing parish church in 1880. As a temporary measure, a large wooden building holding 500 worshippers, was constructed nearby for the sum of £430.[64] It was the venue for the first Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols on Christmas Eve 1880.[65] The shed served as the cathedral for seven years and was later sold and used as a boot factory. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How did Anglican cathedrals arrive in China?[edit]

Eh? How did they get there? (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Colonisation. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
But China never really was under any European control. No declaration of independence or anything like that. (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Macau were owned by two European countries. Shanghai had a long history of European contact. There were colonies (British, American, German, French, and even Japanese) in North East China, most notably in the Tianjin and Qingdao areas. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Those are port cities. I can see why port cities would be desirable to foreign powers. As people move farther inland, it may be harder and harder to navigate, let alone control these territories. In the American Revolutionary War, one advantage that Americans had was that they were fighting on home ground, which might help with navigation. (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Converting locals helps you to navigate inland and convert more locals, ad infinitum. How do you think Christianity arrived in Europe from Palestine? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Missionary work. We Christians love our missionary work, a little too much actually. When Christians go into any country, they bring their clergy with them. When the clergy arrive, they see a wonderful place to win new converts and request that missionaries to convert the locals be sent in, and some people convert. The only places I know of that haven't experienced any significant missionary activity by some Christians are parts of the Muslim world, specifically in areas where any religion other than Islam is illegal and potentially basis for imprisonment or worse. And, of course, a lot of the businesses and other immigrants love being able to bring the heathen locals in line, or as they would say up to, their nominally "Christian" cultural standards. It was stupid, arrogant, condescending, and in the eyes of many people, including several Christians, inexcusable according to the standards of society today, but things were different then. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Christians call everything evangelism. They send missionaries out to foreign countries. They send missionaries across their native country. I've read about American missionaries who just evangelize in the United States in the 19th century. I think the secular form of missionary work would be something like the Peace Corps. The United States sends out human aides and provides medical and educational assistance. But instead of converting people to Christianity, they're more focused on gaining better understandings of American culture. (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No. Not every Christian is American (in fact, most of them aren't, and certainly weren't during the colonial era). Also, 'evangelical' or 'evangelism' in modern-day parlance refers to mainly American so-called 'Anglican' doctrine (ironically, 'Anglican' means 'Church of England' but American Anglicanism has nothing to do with us). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, not quite "nothing" - both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church (United States) are members of the Anglican Communion and recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as the "first among equals". Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Cathedrals are basically the seat of a bishop, in this case, an Anglican bishop. Bishoporics or dioceses are created by churches when the population is significant enough, in some way, to merit a separate overseer, or bishop. That bishop in general also has several priests working in some way under him. So, when there got to be enough Anglicans in China to merit a permanent bishop, that was the time the first cathedral was created, and new ones were created for each separate diocese thereafter. Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui contains some basic information on the history of Anglicanism in China, and there are numerous other sources, including this .pdf book from Yale University, which might provide some more full information. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See also the Church Mission Society. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Do the U.S. and China make efforts to secure Hawaii's affections?[edit]

Because it is a densely populated country and a leader in colonizing and farming the ocean, I suspect it is China's "manifest destiny" to be the one to colonize the Pacific. But to stake this claim in a process similar to that used in the Arctic, they would need to control Hawaii. A few years ago there was a comment by a Chinese ambassador that they could make claims on Hawaii. [66] Asians and specifically Chinese are a very large and growing minority in Hawaii, and I've read they don't receive the same "haole" treatment as whites are said to. If one could predict the rate of expansion of the Chinese navy and the rate of decay of the U.S. economy, and the potential for civil conflict in the political system, it would seem possible to guess a date not so far in the future when these factors come together. But that's officially not a topic for the Refdesk, so let's be more practical --- are there any visible signs that China encourages its emigres to settle in Hawaii, or has any operation to do "passportization" of Chinese nationals in Hawaii, or is using trade relationships in a way that will increase its political power? And on the other side, is there any effort by the U.S. government to subsidize migration and tourism between Hawaii and the mainland, to improve intranational trade and give it advantages over trade with China, or generally to bind the islands to itself more tightly? Wnt (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's quite the conspiracy theory you have there, I however believe the billions of Chinese hackers will one day attack and replace all recorded mention of Hawaii ever being a US state and that it has always been a Chinese province. (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hawaii is a U.S. state. It is legally as much a part of the United States as New York or California. It enjoys all of the economic advantages of being within the boundaries of the United States. As such there are absolutely no tariffs or barriers of any kind on trade between Hawaii and the mainland, not even customs inspections. So trade between Hawaii and the mainland is inherently easier than that between Hawaii and China. Because Hawaii is a part of the United States, young people there are acculturated to the same patriotic sensibilities (through national holidays, flags, school curricula, and so on) as young people elsewhere in the United States. Beyond this, there is no special effort to subsidize contact between Hawaii and the mainland or to "bind the islands ... more tightly". As for China's policies, there is no evidence of the policies you mention. The only exception is the existence of a Confucius Institute in Hawaii, but several of those also exist in other U.S. states. While there are ethnic Chinese in Hawaii, most of them are descended from immigrants who arrived several generations ago. These people tend to speak only the local variety of English and not any variety of Chinese. As such, most identify more as Hawaiians and Americans than as Chinese. As a side note, the Hawaiian economy, particularly that of its capital and largest city, Honolulu, is somewhat dependent on U.S. military spending because of the presence of several military bases, which are also important employers of Hawaiian civilians. These bases are in Hawaii for strategic reasons, not to win Hawaiian loyalty, but because of their economic impact, they probably also have that effect. Marco polo (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The U.S. Census Bureau, through their American Community Survey, keeps track of all sorts of data, including that on foreign born people in the U.S. (among hundreds of other characteristics). At American FactFinder (the database utility that parses the HUGE database for you), there's a table there called "Place of Birth by Foreign Born Population in the United States".[67] Comparing Hawaii to other states, the number of people born in China who live in the U.S., as of the 2013 estimates (based on a 5-year sliding average) are 17,378 (excluding Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are counted separately). That's actually much lower than many other states: For comparison, (only because it's the nearby on the table I am looking at), Illinois had 61,167 PRC-born residents. California had 495,064 PRC-born residents, which is almost 1/3rd of the population of the entire state of Hawaii. Also by way of comparison, there were 22,423 people born in Japan living in Hawaii. So, the Chinese-born Hawaiian population is not more than other states, nor are Chinese-born Hawaiians the largest group of East Asians in Hawaii. The premise doesn't hold up to the actual statistics: Not only is there no evidence that China is deliberately trying to infiltrate Hawaii to annex it, the facts don't even show that there's an unusually large number of Chinese nationals in Hawaii compared to other states. --Jayron32 15:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, this is a very good point. Though Hawaii has a very large Asian population, the vast majority of these residents are Japanese and Filipino. I hadn't realized so few were from China. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, you have to consider that Hawaii's large "asian" population (not evident in the above link because it lists only foreign born) is mostly Americans whose ancestors were Asian. It's a sad commentary on our prejudices, but people born in America with Asian ancestors are no less American than those with European ancestors. Not saying you are doing this at all, but it's a common problem in American culture, both historically and today, where only Euro-White Americans are seen as "real" Americans, while everyone else is treated as suspect. See Internment of Japanese Americans. Many of the people who are "Asians" in Hawaii have 2-3 generations before you get back to China or Japan or the Philippines, no more or less than those who trace their ancestry to the UK, France, Germany, or Italy. --Jayron32 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you can limit that to whites, Jayron, since a black person will be assumed to be American, not African or otherwise, unless he speaks with an obvious foreign accent. But I will admit that I was quite surprised some years ago seeing an East-Asian TV anchor who proceeded to speak with a Texas accent. It did not fit with my expectations. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Except that a white American carrying a weapon in public (as part of the open carry movement) is seen as a patriot protecting his right to bear arms, while a black American doing same is a threat which must be neutralized. So, no, African-Americans are not seen as fully American by the fact that American society as a whole reacts to the two differently in the same situation. --Jayron32 18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you've proven Wnt's wider point. Clearly the Chinese government were smarter than under Wnt's naïve scenario. Rather than sending all their people to Hawaiʻi , where people might start to be concerned if over the past few decades the PRC born population grew to become a majority of Hawaiians, they sent their people all over the US. Yet as Marco polo sort of hinted at, as Hawaiʻi is a state of the US there are few restrictions on travel from the mainland. So you send people to other states as well, nearly 500k in a big state like California are less likely to draw attention. Actually per your source there is already 2.2 million although I think this includes many who aren't US citizens. Still China only has to get about 1/2 or something of the over 18s to be US citizens then they can activate their mind control devices and send them to Hawaiʻi. To avoid suspicion, they'll call it the Free State Project 2 and hope no one notices they all happen to have come from the PRC or a frankly much more unanimous than the previous attempt. Once they've established legal residency [68] they'll be in the majority and can then get a constitutional amendment passed to secede from the US. Further, even if the existing population of Hawaiʻi's aren't happy about it, I imagine of the Chinese are fast enough there won't be much they can do before the Chinese can vote down any attempt to stop them. The US might object, so China can invade (presuming they've gotten their aircraft carriers and other stuff ready by then). After some fighting, one side may give up and start launching nukes. The other side will retaliate, the US and perhaps China will be well capable of destroying the world with their nukes and why not? Everyone is happy, well except for 99.99% of the population in the world (including China and the US). Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
China's economy is pretty dependent on the US's, we're their largest export partner (if you don't count Hong Kong... Which is part of China, so why would you?), and fourth largest import partner. They're where they are because we buy their stuff (even when they overtake the US's economy, if they haven't technically done so already). China-US relationships are probably only going to improve over time, eventually going back to their historical (mostly) friendly relations, and the Cold War mistrust is going to be seen as an anomaly instead of the norm. Except for the US limiting the immigration of Chinese workers and making the Chinese government pay for the Boxer rebellion (though it was more than the US that did that, and the US used their money to build schools in China), China–United States relations were historically good up until WW2. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]


It is said that a 'noncitizen' is one who is not a citizen of the country in question, however, what is the term for a person who is not a citizen of anywhere? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A stateless person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the correct term as far as I know, but I have also come across displaced person used with that meaning. Specifically, in Robert Heinlein's 1951 novel Between Planets, a character says: "Well, kid, the Old Man has settled your status; you're a 'displaced person'" and then explains it as "You have no citizenship anywhere." Being displaced is, of course, a possible consequence of being stateless, so it's possible that some people have confused the terms. -- (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, can one be a permanent resident and a de jure stateless concurrently? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Statelessness article gives several examples of that case (see the section on Brunei, it's also an inevitable (though likely brief) consequence of the "During Change of Citizenship" section for someone who was PR during the citizenship change). MChesterMC (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
See also: Akseli9 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Do we have an applicable user-box? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Where does a world citizen fall into this?    → Michael J    23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
A world citizen is still a citizen, just of no particular country. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense - there is no legal concept of 'world citizenship'. A person either has citizenship of one or more countries, or none at all. People may describe themselves as 'world citizens', but this in no way affects their status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortune telling’s of legendary folks[edit]

How many people’s futures were told to them or to their families or to whomever? E.g. Jesus’s future was told to Jesus and his mother. Muhammad’s future was told to Muhammad and his mother or to his grandfather. Moses - ???. Pharoah - ??? Does anyone know anybody else? -- ( (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

Are we restricting this to historically verifiable cases, or are foretold births as a literary/mythic trope in play as well? The first list would be much shorter. One example of the latter is Prince Gautama, whose birth was foretold (after a fashion) by a white elephant his mother saw in a dream the night before giving birth. Evan (talk|contribs) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The article says that the dream was on the night he was conceived. Given that it was a relatively normal pregnancy, I feel she may have had an inkling a little bit before the night of the birth! MChesterMC (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've heard both versions of the story, actually, but it does look as though the article's version is the more prominent one. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oedipus's future was foretold by the Oracle of Delphi. --Jayron32 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cassandra tried to warn her folks lots of times, but did they listen? Nooo. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Does predicting your own future count? Because, when John Henry) was a little infant, sitting on his babysitter's lap, he picked up a hammer and a piece of steel and predicted these things would eventually kill him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Evanh2008, Jayron32, MChesterMC, Clarityfiend, Baseball Bugs: Restricting to Incarnations/Celestial Beings/Prophets/Messangers/Apostles/Holy Spirit/Oracles, kind of cases. Male/Female. Whatever 'list' we have in Wikipedia with 'definitions'. If not you guys might need to help me, with a little definition.

So far I now, Mary was aware of Prophet Jesus and his future; so was Jesus. The granddad/mother of Prophet Muhammad's use to see dreams/visions of his success before/after his birth, in a place (room) based inside Mecca (near Ka'ba) [not enough knowledge I have in this...]. Pharaoh died a horrible death for considering himself the 'God', examples are, a story in the Qur'an, Hebrew Bible, the mummification...

Contemporary ones, I'm not sure, if their myth/story sounds good I'll insert them.

Can anyone help please? ('Name of the Person' and a little 'definition', if there is no list available).

( (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

Biblically speaking, in addition to Jesus' and Moses' births being predicted there are:
  • Isaac, son of Abraham and second in the famous patriarch trilogy
  • Jacob, later eponym of the people of Israel; Isaac's son and arguably the Return of the Jedi of the patriarchs
  • Esau, Jacob's brother, was also the topic of an angel's visit to their mother, the gist being that "the older brother (Esau) shall serve the younger"
  • Samson, Israelite judge and long-haired strongman
  • John the Baptist, as far as I know the only example other than Jesus from the New Testament
Outside the Bible, Zoroaster is worth noting. At least according to Aeschylus, Prometheus predicted the birth of his redeemer (Heracles) several generations in advance. I'm sure there are others. I would look particularly at classical and medieval rulers who may have made use of the trope. Caesar's comet, for example, comes close in that Augustus used it as part of his propaganda machinery in establishing the Principate, though (obviously) he didn't believe it had predicted his own birth. Miraculous birth seems to be the most pertinent article we have to cases like this. Julius Caesar, according to Shakespeare, was told to "beware the ides of march," which certainly fits the bill of fortune-telling. Returning to the Bible Saul had the witch of Endor conjure up the ghost of the prophet Samuel in order to predict the future. Other examples are likely to go on for quite a while. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oedipus is another example of someone whose fortune was told him, whether he believed it or not. Perseus's future was also foretold, and presumably believed. The number of characters in popular fiction, particularly comic books and similar, who have their future foretold to them is frankly staggering. Of course, considering in comics the nature of the future changes every year or so, sometimes we never actually see the future that is foretold take place, because titanic shifts in the very nature of reality itself cause tremendous, incalculable changes which stagger belief (just like they did last issue and the issue before that, or at least it seems that frequent sometimes). I'm not a real expert on pop culture in general, but I have a feeling the "doomed hero" or "loser destined to be a hero" types are such frequent dreams or fears of people that examples can probably be found in virtually every culture. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you guys mentioned (and assured) so far, some of them would do the trick, altogether with my ones... Thank you all SFriendly.svg -- ( (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

Hanukkah on the 17th?[edit]

My 2014 calendar says that Chanukkah commences on the 17th of December, but Wikipedia contradicts this, saying that it commenced on the 16th (yesterday). Is this simply a manufacturer error? -- (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A "day" begins at sundown, not midnight, on a Jewish calender.[69] Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Bus stop, in the Jewish tradition, a day begins at sundown. This is different than in the Western tradition, which holds that the day begins at midnight. So the first day of Chanukkah begins at sundown on the 16th of December and runs until sundown on the 17th of December, when the second day begins. How different non-Jewish sources report the date is inconsistent. Some will note the date it will start on, others will report the date where most of it is. --Jayron32 13:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As kind of a nod to this tradition, Christmas Eve is often treated as part of Christmas itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to see a citation for Christmas Eve being a nod to the Jewish practice. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Me too. Given that most of what we now know a Christmas festivities developed well after the split between Christianity and Judaism, I'd be surprised if there was much influence in that direction. Easter, a much older holiday, has far more obvious parallels in Jewish practice. Evan (talk|contribs) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can find a citation demonstrating that the church invented it independently, I'll stand corrected. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't so much that Christmas Eve celebrations are a nod to Jewish practice as that in the Christian tradition, the evening before every holy day is treated as part of the day itself. For example, Roman Catholic Canon Law states "A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass." (Code of Canon Law, Can. 1248 §1.) I had thought this was commonly understood to be a carry over from the Jewish tradition, but finding a citation that explicitly states that is proving to be challenge. - EronTalk 19:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm familiar with the practice within Catholicism (if I'm not mistaken, this is why Saturday night mass is a thing). I'm just not quite sure how to trace it; the history gets muddled at a certain distance from the first century, and Christian theologians are likely to jump through all kinds of intellectual hoops rather than say "we got it from the Jews," so I don't expect a decent primary source will turn up. For example, Christians who portray Seventh-day Adventists as "Judaizers" typically cite that sect's celebration of the Sabbath beginning on Friday night as evidence, while Adventists will counter that they're basing the practice on the "evening-morning" sequence of Genesis rather than Jewish legal tradition. At some point that becomes something of a chicken-versus-egg argument.
In general, though, I guess I had non-liturgical elements of Christmas celebrations in mind in my initial reply. I think it would be very hard indeed to claim that, e.g., decorating a Christmas tree came about because of some vestigial cultural memory of lighting the menorah on Hanukkah. I'd be interested to see if any Christian apologists have made that claim, though, in attempting to refute notions of the "pagan roots of Christmas." Evan (talk|contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Starting celebrations on the eve of a festival is shared by the whole Judeo-Christian tradition. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that's generally true, but is debatable when it comes to many Protestant denominations. I grew up in a Baptist family and other than Christmas Eve (which for most American Protestants often has more to do with Santa than anything liturgical), I can't recall us celebrating anything the night before. Before I started attending a Catholic church the idea of Easter Vigil was a totally foreign one to me. Also, it's not quite a "festival," but I'm not aware of anyone who celebrates the Sabbath (or "the Lord's Day") on either Friday night/Saturday morning or Saturday night/Sunday morning. That's strictly an Adventist (and possibly Seventh-Day Baptist?) thing, and they're very much regarded as "weird" by many other Protestants for doing so. Evan (talk|contribs) 02:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget, the time of sunset will vary from place to place, so even within one country, there will be different times for when Chanukhah started. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume they use local time, not GMT. Still... I wonder if Jews use the International Date Line to decide the break in which day such events fall, or is there a different religious line? (Jerusalem is at 35 degrees east) A web search landing at [70] actually suggests there is a "halachic Date Line", giving multiple suggestions including that Shabbat in Hawaii is on Thursdays-Fridays, but I think we better get somebody Jewish on here to tell us if they're pulling our leg. :) Wnt (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not Jewish, but I'm pretty familiar with basic Orthodox halakha—Shabbat begins on Friday night and ends on Saturday night, full stop. The methods used to determine when it begins and ends predate time zones and pretty much ignore them altogether. Shabbat begins at or around sunset on Friday and ends on Saturday when at least three stars are visible in the sky (considered "nightfall"). This particular rule is meant as a gezeirah, a "fence around the Torah," a rabbinic injunction erring on the side of caution by beginning Sabbath observance at the earliest reasonable definition of "Friday night" and ending it at the latest possible definition of the threshold between late Saturday afternoon and Saturday night. What this means in practice is two very interesting things: first, Sabbath can (and often does) last longer than 24 hours. Not much longer, but longer. Second, a longitudinal distance of as little as a few miles or so between one community of Jews and another means that one will begin observing the Sabbath a few minutes before the other. Evan (talk|contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Evanh2008: I think you missed the point... somewhere on the Pacific it will be Friday and somewhere it will be Saturday on the same night. Leaving the question of whether secular authorities have the last word on where that line is, which the source I mentioned seemed to cast doubt on. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I got the point, just couldn't find any evidence of the halakhic discussions getting any more complicated than what I summarized. Of course, I was forgetting Rule 613—"If it exists, rabbis have debated it. No exceptions." It seems that the issue of the international date line has come up in discussions of the Sabbath. Apparently it mostly seems to be an issue regarding Japan, for some reason. Evan (talk|contribs) 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It's well discussed. I've seen a book which deals with the International Date Line, Arctic/Antarctic times and even orbiting spacecraft and the halachik problems caused, not just for Sabbaths and festivals, but mundane daily issues such as times for prayers. --13:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

who came up with the dining philosophers problem?[edit]

who came up with the dining philosophers problem? It's disgusting - why would anyone eat with someone else's fork, then put it down for them to eat with again. I can't believe anyone came up with this - who was it?

Also, is there a saner version that is more practical and not some disgusting conceit (premise)? (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the article. The answer to your question is in the second sentence of the article. --Jayron32 13:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not disgusting when you consider the (unstated) fact that each of the philosophers will very likely have the option of washing/cleaning the utensils before reusing them. After all, they are philosophers. These are people who think. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 13:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's only "disgusting" if one assumes that the diners are unsanitary. Surely you've shared a utensil with a loved one from time to time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not a *real* scenario; it's a thought experiment about resource utilization/access and deadlocks. ---- CS Miller (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes but the OP's point is why such an unhygienic aesthetically unappealing thought experiment? Why couldn't Dijkstra come up with a "writing philosophers problem" with two pens and a sheet of paper as a metaphor instead of two forks and a plate of spaghetti. What next? A toilet bowl and two rolls of toilet paper? Note that requiring two forks to eat spaghetti is every bit as realistic as requiring two pens to write or two rolls of toilet paper to... Even with thought experiments, some are more aesthetically pleasing than others. What is also bizarre that they have to be philosophers. Why? Let computer scientists learn to come up with sane simple clean examples with no extraneous unnecessary pointless elements ok?Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, OP here. Basemetal has my objection exactly right. You don't eat spaghetti with two forks - and even if you did, the idea of then setting the fork you've just put in your mouth to your neighbour to put in his is disgusting, it's just not done. Typically not even a husband and wife do that. I could understand it MAYBE if it were a knife and fork and just the knives were shared, but that doesn't work with the example. So they really need to come up with a much better example, the example as shown is ridiculous and, " an unhygienic aesthetically unappealing thought experiment" exactly as I objected to. Basemetal gets me. (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You're allowing the details to get in the way of the purpose of the thought experiment. I'm guessing you've never shared a utensil with a loved one. If you find this so repugnant that you can't tolerate it, then substitute it with something mundane, such as replacing the plates by canvasses, the spaghetti by paint, and the utensils by brushes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Being a thought experiment - and therefore a philosophical question (even though it actually applies to computer programming), it would only be perfectly appropriate to use 'philosophers', rather than some random immigrants working at WalMart or in some randomly out-sourced Indian call-centre. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 18:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Schroedinger's cat thought experiment always seemed rather sadistic to me, making me wonder if Erwin Schroedinger enjoyed killing small animals. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Quote #284 from this page might be an indicator of the response if he were to actually have tried it. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The dining philosophers problem in its current form has a mnemonic value as an illustration of a real problem in concurrency. As such, if anybody is disgusted or amused by it, it has done at least part of its job (you won't forget it). The cat, on the other hand, always had an element of satire, and is probably taken far too seriously. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

Does colorado amendment 64 prevent marijuana from being carried out of the state?[edit]

[Posted by] Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 7:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I don't think any individual state's laws can have any effect outside of the state. So, while it might be legal to have or use marijuana in Colorado, once you cross a border to, perhaps, Nebraska, then Nebraska's laws, and the federal laws regarding interstate travel and commerce, whatever they are, become the relevant laws. Considering that Colorado is basically a landlocked state, there is really no way for Colorado's laws, which are only relevant to internal matters, would have any effect once one leaves the state or crosses its borders to other states.

Short answer, I would have to say that the amendment wouldn't apply to interstate matters, and the existing federal laws and laws in other states would almost certainly make any attempts to transport marijuana problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But does the Colorado Amendment 64 say that marijuana can't be carried out of the state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The text of the amendment is available here. There is nothing specifically addressing taking any marijuana out of state, because a state law, by definition, applies only within the state. However, there is also nothing in the amendment which indicates that the amendment is to apply to transport of marijuana over state lines, which legally indicates that the existing laws of those other states and the US government would apply.
In all honesty, the only circumstances I can see the question, as asked, applying to is whether a person could be arrested in Colorado for the intention of taking marijuana across state lines or for having done so in the past. The answer there would be "no." However, that would apply only to specifically law enforcement agencies whose purview does not cross state lines, and would not apply to law enforcement agencies in other states or federal agencies. :I also note that you are apparently, so far as I can see, more or less requesting legal advice from editors here. It should be noted that we are not in a position to offer such. If you have real, as opposed to strictly theoretical, concerns regarding this particular law, your most reasonable course of action would be to ask a lawyer in Colorado familiar with the amendment and its specific legal implications. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no border patrols on the states, so there would be nothing to stop someone from taking some across the line, no matter what the amendment might say. However, if you get caught with it in a state where it's still illegal (which is nearly all of them), you're fair game for arrest in that state. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Some states do have border inspections - and most assuredly many states inspect vehicles for carrying cigarettes, alcohol, agricultural products etc. (either for tax purposes, or for preventing transportation of illegal agricultural products or pests - note this is also enforced on entry to the US as a rule) So yes - a state can restrict import and export of certain classes of goods - specifically including agricultural products.
  2. This is also established by the 21st Amendment (The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. depending on the definition of "liquors" by a current court). Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Where are there interstate border inspections on highways? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is a map showing where they are in California. Here is an article for such border stations in Florida. Nearly every state has stations on major highways for inspecting commercial vehicles, some called "weigh stations", some called "inspection stations", and probably some other names. --Jayron32 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes CA probably has the most border inspection points. In my experience, they're the only state that checks regular personal vehicles. When your state grows ~200 different export crops, you tend to be picky about what kinds of plant material (and associated pests and pathogens) you bring in. I recall being questioned mainly about fruits/vegetables and houseplants my last time through... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So that's for cars coming in, not leaving, right? In a somewhat less high-profile situation, Wisconsin sells a much wider (and more dangerous) variety of fireworks than Minnesota does, for example. The places that sell them are often near the state borders. Rumor has always been that cops will sometimes station themselves near these places and watch for neighboring states' license plates. Then they will notify their buddies waiting in patrol cars in the bordering state. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: yes my experience with CA is that they are more concerned with what comes in than what goes out. There are some examples to the contrary - if you own a plant nursery in CA, you may have to deal with APHIS (or similar federal agency) to export a rhododendron to NC (because it would be horribly tragic if sudden oak death crossed the Rockies.) In that case though, east coast states still have their own procedures for inspection and quarantine of plant material. The fireworks thing is very common - IN has different rules than OH and IL, and they have giant fireworks stores on both borders. Interestingly enough, there was a time in OH when you could buy fireworks only if you signed a statement saying that you were leaving the state with them! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong on this, but I thought the California ag stops were voluntary, at least for non-commercial vehicles. Last time I went through one, if I recall correctly, there was a bypass lane where you could just drive on by it if you so chose. Of course they don't go out of their way to tell you it's voluntary, and there's a significant intimidation factor (not to mention that most people probably don't want to be the cause of an agricultural disaster). --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
?? Has any court ruled that "liquors" refers to non-alcoholic products? --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In general, the interstate commerce clause reserves to Congress the right to regualte interstate trade--no state has the right per se to prevent you from taking you property from it. The case of alcohol falls outside this by effect of the 21st amendment's second clause: "Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." That means that by Federal law, states may regulate the import of liquor. Pennsylvania does this. While it is not illegal to purchase liquor in NJ and to take it out of state, it is illegal to bring liquor into PA in order to avoid Pennsylvania's liquor taxes. In PA liquor is sold only by "state stores" Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and their prices are usually significantly higher than out-of-state liquor, but sometimes are also at below-market prices (see previous link). My understanding is there are exceptions for things like small amounts for gifts, but that is going by memory of a discussion from 20 years ago. Given it's not specifically relevant to the marijuana question, I won't go hunting for the current law. But Pennsylvania has in the past fined individuals for bringing in liquor. In the case of marijuana, the only deterent to taking it out of state would be getting caught be the feds and the authorities of states where it's still illegal. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think any individual state's laws can have any effect outside of the state. This is actually incorrect. There's an entire regime by which conflicts of laws are decided in the United States. Though if you want to talk about criminal law, the territoriality question can be complex. Especially once you start talking about the internet. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The link conflicts of laws doesn't say anything about the US, the point is valid, so maybe there's a better link? Of course the Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Jurisdiction Supreme Court has jurisdiction in suits between one state and another or the citizen of another. But the commerce clause is usually determinative, except where the 21st Amendment contradicts it. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I have three questions relating to the Holocaust.

  1. Regarding the expropriation of Jewish assets and their redistriution to German people, is there any information regarding the effect this had on the german economy? For instance, many businesses had been in Jewish hands for generations and were successful, did the new owners have the same degree of business acumen?
  2. Is there any evidence of Synagogues and other Jewish institutions destroying registers of their congregations, so that Jewish people could not be easily identified? (This question relates more to occupied territories during the war, as I appreciate in Germany many Jewish communities wanted to see how the situation developed, as opposed to doing anything drastic).
  3. If there is evidence of this, how then did the Nazi intelligence services identify people who met their racial criteria?

Thanks in advance --Andrew 18:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Elements of your last two questions are addressed in this previous thread from March 2011. Alansplodge (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the first question, I spent a bit of time searching and couldn't find a study addressing the impact of expropriation on the German economy. It seems likely that a forced restructuring of Jewish-owned businesses would have hurt the bottom line, but it would be difficult to isolate the negative impact of expropriation on economic growth, since the German economy was experiencing a number of countervailing positive impacts at that time, such as recovery from economic depression and the stimulus resulting from rearmament and creation of a wartime command economy. Regarding the last two questions, besides the responses to the thread that Alansplodge linked, you might take a look at our article Kennkarte. Everyone in German-occupied countries was obliged to obtain a personal identity card and to show it whenever authorities demanded. When registering for an identity card, people had to produce identification documents such as birth certificate and marriage licenses. Christian birth and baptismal certificates were generally issued in Poland, for example, by parish priests, as were marriage certificates, so Jewish documents would have been distinctive. Also, Jewish surnames were often distinctive. That said, our article on Kennkarten indicates that some Jews managed to survive the war by obtaining false documents "proving" that they were Christians. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Finnish/Russian border map question[edit]

I was idling away on Google Maps and came across this island which appears to be divided between Finland and Russia. However, it looks like separate islands on Bing Maps.

I've searched for Vanhasaari, the Finnish name on Google Maps, but can't find any mention of a divided island. The ice coverage on the Bing image could conceal that it's one island, but does that mean that Google is showing the border incorrectly? Any insights would be much appreciated. Dalliance (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If you change the satellite view to the regular view in the first link you provided, it shows that they are two different islands. This source also shows two islands. Th4n3r (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
But the satellite view pretty clearly shows something connecting the two treed areas. The obvious guess is that there is an isthmus connecting the two islands and creating a land border, but only at low tide. Maps don't generally show that sort of thing, and different satellite photos may have been taken at different states of the tide. -- (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The article on the Russian island in the Russian wikipedia says that is "connected by a shoal/sandbank" (соединён отмелью) with the Finnish island.--Cam (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no tide in Baltic sea, and this region of the world still constantly gains a lot of land over sea, since the heavy load of ice from ice ages is gone (example the castle of Turku not long ago was still an island, example the city of Vantaa was on the seaside now it's 6km away from the sea, etc). Anyway, this kind of landscape in this area of the world, typically works the same way it would work if this was one big island. Especially in winter when everything is covered with ice so you can walk through the sea from island to island. Akseli9 (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Novella in English?[edit]

Was a work in English ever called a "novella" by its author or its publisher? Contact Basemetal here 03:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Many works of a length between that of a short story and that of a novel are so described. Steven King is an author who has written many collections of novellas. His collection Different Seasons featured four novellas, three of which were turned into films. You can find many more at Category:Novellas and Wikipedia has an article about novellas at the aptly titled Novella. --Jayron32 03:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That shows there are such things as novellas, but the question is whether their authors or publishers ever call them that. There are some hundreds of examples of stories being described as novellas on their title-pages by their publishers (and, it may be, with the consent of their authors) here and here, and some thousands here.--Antiquary (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes this was my question. I am well aware that WP applies the term to a certain class of works in English but I wanted to know how much currency that term has outside WP. Thanks to your examples I now know that the term is indeed used in English for works in English. Until now I had always thought that when the term was used in English it always referred to works in languages other than English (French, Italian, Spanish, ...) I am still somewhat puzzled by the use in WP of the term "novella" to describe for e.g. A Christmas Carol. As to e.g. Different Seasons is that how Stephen King himself describes those works? Note that to simply say that a "novella" fits between a "short story" and a "novel" does not completely clarify the matter. Traditionally English "novels" could be quite a bit shorter than e.g. French "romans", so there didn't seem to be a need for such a term. On the other hand when English "short stories" are translated into French they are usually called "nouvelles" (e.g. J. D. Salinger's volume Nine Stories), so the English and the French term do not seem to correspond. The French WP article describes the works in Different Seasons as "romans courts", i.e. "short novels". Whether that is because Stephen King himself described them as "novels" is what I'd like to know. (Why do people refer to Stephen King also as Steven King? Is that a legitimate variant?) Contact Basemetal here 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea how Stephen King describes any of his works, but his official site has a specific section for novellas [71]. BTW, I would suggest this is a variant of Rule 34 (Internet meme). Particularly with modern on demand publishing and ebooks, the field of authors and English works is vast. You can be fairly sure that if the question relates to whether these people describe their work as X, and X is well known enough to have a wikipedia article, the answer is surely yes. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
On this site the works in Different Seasons are described both as "novellas" and as "short stories". Contact Basemetal here 16:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Your second point is very important. So I'd like to rephrase the question to "Was a work in English ever called a novella by its author or publisher before 1970?" The web as we know it dates back to about 1990 but a restriction to before 1970 should keep us completely safe. Contact Basemetal here 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: The Stephen King point, you can see here where Stephen King specifically refers to some of his words as a novella [72] [73] ('"The Mist" for years and years and years, and he and I had talked again and again about putting an actual ending on the movie, because the ending of the novella is ambiguous'). In the second case, the term has earlier been used by the interviewer multiple times, but there doesn't seem to have been in the first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The Hugo Award for Best Novella was first awarded in 1968 and the Nebula Award for Best Novella began in 1966. Rmhermen (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Which doesn't directly tell us whether an author or publisher called their book a novella but I would agree is an important point. If you take it in concert with my earlier point, authors and publishers aren't some sort of special subclass of people with extremely unorthodox view points by all members. So if the term is widely used in a non derogatory fashion (although often even then), and used enough to even have awards for it, it's rather unlikely no one would want to call their work that term. And we can be fairly certain authors and people involved with publishers were involved in setting up these awards, it's rather unlikely they'd make an award with a title none would want to call their works. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(EC) As to the before 1970, well even then the number was still quite high. In any case, it's not particularly hard to find examples which show it is the case, e.g. these appear to be have images of genuine original covers all of which have novella on the cover [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]/[82] [83]/[84] [85]/[86]. I can't guarantee that all of these covers were definitely of editions from before 1970, particularly for the Amazon ones but find it hard to believe none are, particularly as some are first editions and other semi expensive stuff some it's likely the image is intended to be a fair representation of what you're going to get or more likely an image of the actual book for sale. If it's on the original cover, it's very that either the author or someone in the publisher wanted novella in the title, if not both. (There is a slight chance neither really wanted it and it was the best compromise title, but probably not, particularly given the number of likely cases.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to Jayron, Antiquary, Nil Einne and Rmhermen, and particularly to Nil Einne for all this data. The upshot seems to be that the word "novella" has probably been applied in English to works in the English language (even by their authors, etc. not to mention secondary sources) for a lot longer than I thought. Thank God for the WP RD. My doubts arose partly due to the fact that the word "novel" is itself derived from "novella" so "novella" sounded like a later borrowing specifically intended to cover a kind of work typical of some foreign literature. But whatever the history of the use of the word is, it seems that the word "novella" has been fully naturalized into English for works in English since at least the 1960s. Whether next to the "novel" and the "short story" it's become a concept fully on a par with the first two that's something else. Wiktionary defines a "novella" as a "short novel or a long short story". It's still a bit unclear to me how short a novel, or how long a short story can be, before they become a novella. Anyway, leaving that aside, if you're curious about use in English here are some ngrams: novella, novel, novel vs novella. Clearly Ngrams can't tell you if the word "novella" was used for a work in English or in a foreign language, or if "novel" is the noun or the adjective. Contact Basemetal here 18:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Background checking/fingerprinting and foreign criminal records[edit]

If someone had a criminal record in a foreign country, would it come up on a fingerprint background check in the United States? FYI, I do not have a foreign criminal record, I am just curious if illegal immigrants who may be convicted murderers or sex offenders could get jobs in places like schools using someone else's identity. (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I navigate the Quran?[edit]

Whenever I see a Quran, I am intimidated by its volume of text. The bound book is thick. I usually find them written in Arabic or English with the original Arabic script, and I still would have no idea what it's about. Unlike the Bible, where I would have some cultural awareness due to learning about biblical events by watching TV or listening to common hearsay, the Quran is completely foreign to me, except for a few verses that people cite when they make comparisons of narratives between the biblical account and the quranic account. Also, just by speaking English and being a curious thinker, I often get surprised at the various biblical origins of many English terms and phrases (i.e. "Man does not live by janitorial services alone" from Martha Speaks). Again, this really helps with my working knowledge of Christianity and the Bible to some extent.That said, the comparisons make me aware that the Quran has very similar narratives as the Bible, yet they seem different in a way. Are there any English-language picture books about the Quran or some easy guidebooks on how to read the Quran for absolute beginners who are completely oblivious to Islamic culture? I wish there is an Islamic version of DK Publishing's The Illustrated Bible Story by Story. That book was a very helpful walk-through of every story in the Bible. I realize that the Quran is not composed of stories, but a walk-through would still be nice. (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, the Qur'an is much shorter than the Christian Bible (i.e. old + new testaments). However, it's not particularly arranged in a manner that's conducive to "cold" reading from beginning to end, since the Fatiha prayer is placed as the first chapter (sura), while the other chapters are arranged roughly in order of decreasing length, with the longest near the beginning and the shortest near the end. The more useful distinction is between the earlier Meccan suras (generally on morality and the nature of religion) and the later Medinan suras (generally more preoccupied with legal matters). There are no real historical books (such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles in the Bible), and not too much overall sequential structuring or narrative order (the way that the events in the Bible can generally be laid out along a timeline beginning with the Creation and ending with Paul's arrival in Rome) -- and versions of Biblical stories which have found their way into the Qur'an are usually radically transformed (partially based on post-Biblical Christian and Jewish folklore)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The Quran is difficult to understand without knowing the context of the (supposed) revelations. While the Bible more or less provides its own context through historical narrative, the Quran assumes that listeners/readers are already familiar with the characters and concepts it discusses. Remember that the Quran is not actually a book, in the sense that it was not collected in book form by the author (Muhammad was illiterate). Knowledge of the Bible is helpful at least in the sense that many Biblical figures are mentioned in the Quran without any introduction. However, the most important aspect, I believe, is to know about Muhammad's life. Remember that all verses of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad because they were relevant to him or his audience at that particular time. Reading a biography of Muhammad, or at least an outline of his life before you read the Quran will probably be very helpful. And that brings us to the point raised by AnonMoos above: the traditional ordering of the Quran is mostly arbitrary and not really helpful. Reading it in chronological order (i.e. in the order that Muhammad recited it) will reveal a progression that corresponds to Muhammad's career. While the chronology of the Quran is complicated and not precisely known, this website provides a reasonable attempt (based on secondary sources) at giving the chronological order of the Quranic chapters. - Lindert (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's helpful. There is also this website called "". It publishes numerous introductory articles on the basics of the Muslim religion, because its goal is to promote awareness and understanding of Islam. (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Lindert's probably got the best plan for reading it like the Bible, though a friend of mine read the Quran backwards (that is, read the last Sura, the next to last, and so on to the second, then the first) because it just got easier and easier to read.
Another possibility is the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. It's not part of the Quran, but has more narrative than the Quran, but there's about a dozen volumes, several Sunni and the rest Shia. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos, you have given the most succinct formal description of Quran vs. the Bible. I doubt a Muslim could do such a fine job. Bravo! Omidinist (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bolshevik statistics[edit]

What was the official membership (either precise or approximate) of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (bolsheviks) (the Communist Party) at the time of the October Revolution? Given that this was the turning point in the Party's history, I expect that it's well documented somewhere. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union says that membership was 240,000 at the Sixth Party Congress, which began in late July, but Party membership had tripled (just like elephants!) since April, so presumably it was a good deal larger by October.

Second question: do we have any clue how many pre-October Revolution members of the Party outlived Stalin? Obviously some did, even rank-and-file (I remember reading a 1980s book that interviewed a then-living old man who had been an ordinary member in 1917), but it's got to be a small percentage. Old Bolshevik doesn't give statistics later than 1924. The intro in our article on Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich claims that he was the last survivor, dying a few months before the end of the USSR.

Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 14[edit]

Russian name Raskolnikov[edit]

Does the Russian surname Raskolnikov (Раскольников) really exist, i.e. are there or have there been real people wearing it? The only examples I've seen here and on the Russian WP are the Crime and Punishment protagonist and a Bolshevik whose this wasn't the real name. Could the surname have been made up by Dostoyevsky? Whatever the case, is there any theory as to the choice of this name by Dostoyevsky? I read the novel a long while back and I could be wrong but I don't recall there was anything connecting Rodion Romanovich's family to the Raskol. Contact Basemetal here 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Remember that раскол needn't refer to Old Believers and the Orthodox Church, and Rodion Romanovich himself was very much "split" or torn between extremes (whether you wish to see it as good and evil or "altruism and apathy" as quoted from our article). I'm pretty certain it was made up. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
At least one person existed. Though the name had to be quite rare.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Sluzzelin and Lyuboslóv. If this name is so rare is it a possibility that it is both real and made up, in the sense that Dostoyevsky did not actually know it was a real name but by accident came up with a name that happened to coincide with one?
Lyuboslóv: How did you find this person? Did you directly go to Memorial (Russian site, English site) or did you wade through Google results page after page?
That this name actually exists brings up for me a more general question about Russian surnames. (WP articles on the topic are pretty short on any substantial historical information.) Were Russian surnames imposed by a bureaucracy or were they chosen? Would anyone call themselves a Raskolnik? I thought that was others called Old Believers and that they would call themselves just Orthodox Christians. If anything, if it was up to them, they would probably call the majority Raskolniks. (Not saying they actually ever did of course.) BTW when did the majority of Russians acquire surnames? Contact Basemetal here 14:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just googled and get Then I went to the letter Р. Actually, the list has been very criticised as inaccurate and exaggerated (as you can see the Gdov's Raskolnikov was released a day after the sentence), but leaving politics and history aside, it turned out to be a good base of the surnames of the former USSR.
If you want know about Russian surnames you might read a very good book by B.-O. Unbegaun "Russian Surnames" (1972). Short answer: usually surnames were chosen either by the bearers or rather by their surrounding society (as in any other country). Bureaucrats hardly invented them, but just fixed. I saw census registers from the 17-18th centuries with surnames for common folks. But sometimes Russian peasants might have no surnames up to the end of the 19th century. Though if they wanted to work out of their home county (uyezd) they should get a permit to leave (passport), and as many Russian peasants might work far away from their home, the "namelessness" mustn't to be too widespread.
"Raskolnik" may look like a quite harmless word but it was actually a abusive nickname like English "heretic" or "heathen". Obviously the Old Believers did never call themselves "raskolniks". Dostoyevsky had to know that so the name was rather intentionally invented by him. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

come they do[edit]

How could such a construction be explained?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "construction", it's a fragment of a sentence which is meaningless out of context... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
"Come they do when they are called"? Know I not what it's called, but it's just a way to emphasize the "coming", rather than the more prosaic "They come when they are called." Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of a poetic usage, and as Clarity notes, it re-emphasizes the "come" part. I could say about Field of Dreams, "The Voice said, 'If you build it, he will come,' and come he did." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As to what it's called, it's a type of inversion. -- (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Which of the following sentences do not sound right in your version of English:
  1. come they do but they don't do much work
  2. come they do but not much work
  3. they do come when they are called
  4. come they do when they are called
  5. when they are called come they do
  6. when they are called they do come
  7. beer they do drink but not much of anything else
  8. beer they drink but not much of anything else
  9. drink beer they do but not much of anything else
  10. drink beer they do but not much else
  11. drink beer they do but not much work
  12. drink beer they do but they don't do much work
  13. they come alright all right
  14. they do come alright all right
  15. come they do alright all right
  16. come, they do come alright all right

Contact Basemetal here 12:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, 16 is completely incomprehensible, 2 involves a fairly heavy ellipsis to make it meaningful ("Come they do but not much work [is done]" is how I'd read it), 13, 14, and 15 use "alright" in a way that I can't immediately interpret (I'm not sure if it means "indeed", so we could rewrite 14 as "Indeed they do come", or "all right", so we could rewrite 13 as "They all come right"), and the rest are fine. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For the last four I did intend "all right" ("most certainly") all right. For number 2 what I was trying to do was precisely to check how that ellipsis would be interpreted and accepted. Could you interpret number 2 as being for "come they do but [they do] not [do] much work"? How would it compare with "come they do but not much else"? Just as odd? For number 16 I wanted to check how acceptable it would be to repeat "come" for emphasis ("as for coming, they do come all right"). I take it it is not acceptable to you. Contact Basemetal here 13:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Numbers 2 and 11 don't hang together correctly as sentences in my version of English. The meaning is fairly clear, but the attempted parallelism of "do drink beer" and "do work" grates slightly. "They do not much work" is not the normal word order in English. 16 needs a comma. Dbfirs 13:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree with the comma at 16. Does that make it alright for you then? Contact Basemetal here 13:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I read it as "come they do, come alright!" (a colloquial expression with that non-standard spelling). Dbfirs 20:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little lazy to give the whole context, I thought it would be clear without it.

The Life of Birds (BBC, 1998, Ep. 10). David Attenborough says:

—Why they come here in such numbers is a mystery. It can hardly be that they seek warmth in this muggy tropical atmosphere of central Brazil. They don't feed here. Perhaps it is because there are fewer hawks around to harry them than in the forest. But whatever the reason, come they do. In March, however, many of them will migrate north to the United States, and there they take up residence in very different homes.

I supposed it is an inversion, but what the type exactly? How is it named and where can I read abut it? I'm sure I've met this before (in other contexts).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would call this particular inversion a chiasmus; removing the intervening sentence, we have "Why they come here is a mystery, but come they do." Tevildo (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
But it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, this is just plain vanilla inversion for emphasis. So common in English (and also in Dutch and I think in German I might add): "Never could I imagine he'll do such a thing" for "I could never imagine etc." and a trillion (at least) other examples. Just Google "Emphasis inversion". The first page you get already gives you a bunch of examples. Contact Basemetal here 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Emphasis it is. Some of your other examples have the ABBA pattern suggested by Tevildo. (Thanks for the link, by the way -- I haven't met that term before.) Dbfirs 20:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Use just about any of these tortured constructions in an English pub, and likely you are Yoda to be called. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Rastrogar (or Rasrogar)[edit]

In Old Norse, what does this mean? It came up in a recent episode of QI, but Stephen Fry refuses to tell us what it means. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 01:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it's "rass" (arse) + "ragr" (unmanly, see also argaz). It's mentioned at Talk:Ergi#Untitled_comments. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely rassragr, and it gets translated as "woman's arse" here (the snippet view is off-target for me but it might work for you). There are also discussions of the word here and here at p. 6, from which it's clear that the insult is all about passive homosexuality. --Antiquary (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do "love marriages" involve parental consent or approval?[edit]

Yes, I know that love marriages are based on romantic love. But in practice, people may take their parents' opinions on the marriage and marriage partner, making marriage less about sexual attraction and more about starting a family. Do these marriages count as "love marriages"? Or do love marriages refer specifically to marriage based ONLY on the mutual romantic love between the couple REGARDLESS of what their family members have to say about the arrangement? (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking about what qualifies as a "love marriage" at the same time as...OK...I have no idea what you're actually asking about. --Onorem (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. What qualifies as a "love marriage". Does it involve parental consent or approval? (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to define 'love marriage' for me. It's not a term I'm familiar with. I'm not sure how love as a feeling is supposed to be controlled by consent or approval. --Onorem (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Love marriage. The article has issues, namely because it's poorly cited. It also does not list such marriages in non-Western cultures or whether such marriages exist in non-Western cultures. (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Onorem: WP:WHAAOE, Love marriage.
71.79...: Love marriages with parent approval are more likely to succeed than those where the parents disapprove, so many people usually try to see if their parents like the potential spouse. Arranged marriages still require the consent of whoever is getting married (because marriages where one spouse hates the other are even more likely to fail than ones where the in-laws are unhappy). Forced marriage are entirely dictated by the parents or by only one spouse, even if it's completely against the will of one or both persons in the marriage.
Because a parent's disapproval can make a love marriage riskier or less likely, and because a child's disapproval can prevent an arranged marriage, I've personally come to see arrange marriages and love marriages as ends of a spectrum rather than separate and distinct practices. However, most Westerners usually see arranged marriage and forced marriage as the spectrum, with love marriages completely separate and distinct.
That said, a love marriage can still occur even if the two families completely hate their new in-laws. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Without sexual attraction, how do you manage to start a family? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The answer to the original question is that love marriages may involve parental consent, but they can take place without parental consent. In response to Bugs, that depends on the man and his cultural context. There is the occasional man who can control his desires in the name of duty. Probably more significantly, there are cultures where marital fidelity is not really expected of the man. So the man can limit sex with his wife to procreation while satisfying other desires elsewhere. Even more significantly, though, people in arranged marriages can and often do grow to love one another, especially if they have honestly consented to an arranged marriage. Initial attraction isn't really so important in a long-term relationship. More important is to learn to love and appreciate one's partner. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Translation from Middle French[edit]

[cross post from [87]] Hello:

What does "Le Livre de la Deablerie" translate to in English (the title, not the entire poem)? Also, can someone translate these four lines to English:

"Viença, le chief des ruffyens,

Houlier, putier, macquereau infame

De maint homme et de mainte fame,

Poisson d'apvril, vien tost a moy"

Thank you. Seattle (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A rough translation of the title is "The Book of Devilry" (another possibility is Mischief). It seems to feature a conversation between Satan and Lucifer apparently so should be something along those lines. Can't make much headway on the verse though I'm afraid. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a go, but I have not formally studied Middle French, so I may be wrong on several words:
Here he is, the chief of the ruffians|debauched men,
Debauchery, stink, infamous procurer,
Of many men and many women,
April fool, come soon to May.
I must point out that April fool in French is linked to Fish, so the mackerel must have a sort of relationship with it. Maybe some more context would help (what was before? what comes after?)
--Lgriot (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"Vien ça" does mean "come here" (or "[he] comes here") but here it is more likely to be the nickname of the head hoodlum, the pimp, isn't it? I didn't know "mai" was written "moy" in Middle French. But even if this is the case, could there be a pun on "moy" meaning both "May" and "me"? I agree about a pun between "poisson (d'avril)" (literally "April's Fish") and "maquereau" which means both "pimp" and "mackerel". In my opinion "putier" means "procurer of whores" ("pute" = "whore"). Your English translation: "...the chief of the ruffians, debauchery, stink, infamous procurer..." seems to me to have some slight problems with English grammar. In my opinion "putier" means the same thing as "maquereau" and also "houlier", even though I'm not familiar with that word. Btw, I really hope a Middle French specialist will weigh in so we don't have to go through this Face-smile.svg. Contact Basemetal here 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The context is at [88], if that helps. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the book (context link here above) there is a glossary [pages 753 - 769] (from Middle French to "modern French"). Unfortunatly Google books does not display all the pages. From it: houlier =proxénète = pimp, procurer. – AldoSyrt (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't macquereau infame "infamous mackerel"? μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I didn't see it at first sight, I too found the pun interesting and appealing when you mentioned it. But now that I've seen the context and entire poem, I can tell you, after all there is no pun between mackerel and april's fool (fish). Please see my arguments here

"Viens ici, chef des voyous,

Proxénète, souteneur, maquereau infâme

De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,

Poisson d'avril, viens tout de suite à moi"

in English

"Come, chief of thugs,

Procurer, pimp, infamous cadet

Of many men and many women,

April's fool, come to me at once"

Akseli9 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)'

Like I said at the other desk, if you've read the entire poem, more than 20000 eight-syllable lines in Middle French, in a few short hours... I can only say: "Wow!". Contact Basemetal here 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said I read one scene of the play. I've read the short scene where Lucifer insults Sathan, from line 295 to line 346. It makes perfect sense. Middle French sounds very easy to me because I'm French (except for a word from time to time that I don't know). Akseli9 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I see. Beware the faux amis though. In some cases words that may seem familiar to you may have changed their meaning in 500 years. Contact Basemetal here 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
True. Akseli9 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In the glossary, included in the book, I mentionned in my previous post ruffyen = débauché. Therefore I would translate the first verse: "Come , chief of debauched people," — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Isn't it possible in poetry, to use debauched as a noun rather than an adjective? Then the first verse would be "Come, chief of the debauched"? Akseli9 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't say, I am not an English native speaker. In French débauché is a past participle, an adjective and a noun. — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Just want to say that I agree with the good progress being made above, especially that I got wrong putier, it must be indeed pimp. Also, here is where I got that "moy" could mean May (or have both meanings): link wich I got from --Lgriot (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

can anyone please correct the grammar in this sentence[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji deleted as possible copyio [89] Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Why are graphic words mostly used instead of gore?" KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 13:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What does that statement actually mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If I'm understanding the meaning of the original sentence correctly, I would suggest "graphic language" instead of "graphic words." Instead of mostly I would use generally, or usually. I would also clarify "depictions of gore." The whole sentence would read "Why is graphic language usually used instead of depictions of gore?" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think he meant "why using the word "graphic" rather than the word "gore"? Akseli9 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's (mostly) what I'm thinking (though with the formulation "Why is the word 'graphic' mostly used instead of 'gory'?"), since "graphic violence" usually means that there's blood or gore are shown instead of implied. Graphic language doesn't equate to gore. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Graphic" means depicted in detail: graphic sex, graphic nudity, graphic violence. Gore means actual blood, the blood of wounds. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


I think the correct symbol for apostrophe is "'" (U+0027), but why do many articles use "" (U+2019) instead? --Capim Dourado (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apostrophe#Typographic form explains that your prefered form originated to reduce the number of keys needed on a typewriter but the other form is in fact original. Rmhermen (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And MOS:QUOTEMARKS explains that the "typewriter apostrophe" (') is preferred at Wikipedia to the "curly apostrophe" (’); likewise " is preferred over “ and ”. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Capim Dourado -- In many contexts, ASCII 39 was a right single quote mark (or apostrophe) and ASCII 96 was a left single quote mark until the early 1990s (such as in the MS-DOS Code page 437 character set). For some reason, Microsoft Windows switched the interpretation of ASCII 39 to a straight (or "typewriter") quote mark and the interpretation of ASCII 96 to a completely useless spacing grave accent character, and that's the interpretation which prevails today... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
ASCII code 96 has been a grave accent since the 1960s (see "The Evolution of Character Codes, 1874-1968", which is linked from the ASCII article). Code 39 originally served double duty as apostrophe and acute accent, and perhaps that justified/motivated the use of code 96 as a left single quotation mark, but it was always nonstandard. I don't know if Microsoft had any role in this, except perhaps by following a published standard at the expense of backward compatibility, which is the opposite of the usual complaint about them. -- BenRG (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Spacing grave accent was one possible interpretation of character 96, but mainly in the context of paper output devices which allowed overprinting and/or strictly 7-bit "national variants" of ISO-646 -- neither of which was greatly relevant to mainstream microcomputing during much of the 1980s (when daisywheel printers were a declining niche market), and which became even less relevant after the 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

"Knowledge is the fruits of science"?[edit]

Over at the humanities desk, I wrote "Knowledge is the fruits of science, not science itself", and I'm looking for better phrasing. One thing that bugs me is the singular/plural discrepancy between uncountable knowledge and countable fruits. Is it even correct this way? The other thing I dislike is that the reference in the second phrase is unclear (it should be read as "science is not composed of the knowledge it produces"). There should be a pithy way of expressing that idea more clearly... (there also should be world peace and a human colony on Mars, but I'll try to fix my part first ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Singular "fruit" would work better, IIRC that's how it's usually translated in the Bible, in Galatians 5 fruit of the spirit. --Jayron32 11:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz -- number discord between a copular sentence's subject and predicate can sometimes make a sentence sound a little strange, but it's not grammatically incorrect as such, and the verb should still agree with the subject (except possibly in the case of "there is" / "there are"). So "Soylent Green is people!", not "Soylent Green are people!"... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the origin of "shtang" or "shtaung"?[edit]

I noticed that the nurses in my country (Israel) call the vein blockers / Tourniquet in the name "shtang" or "shtaung". It's very interesting for me to know the origin. Could you help? (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly "Stauung", the German word for stasis (among other). See also Stauschlauch. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of the English word 'staunch', which may be related. It seems to me the Israeli nurses are using a Yiddish word. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It happens.Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering it is spelled שטאנג (a picture) Contact Basemetal here 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Another word for "Stauschlauch" is "Stauer" (or sometimes "Venenstauer"), the agent noun of stauen. The (German) medical equipment manufacturing company in Basemetal's picture labels them "Stauer" too, which is closer to "Shtaung" than "Stauschlauch", but not quite "Stauung" - yet, to use "Stauung" for the tool itself would be metonymy (in German) ..., I'm still unsure whether it's a Yiddish connection or where the nasal ending comes from. There's also an Israeli company named Shtang, but it's a construction and engineering company ... ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all. I think I've got the origin and is German. According to Babilon, "Stauung" in german is: congestion, overcrowding, abnormal accumulation, stasis, stoppage of circulation of body fluids5.28.177.164 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "data" singular or plural?[edit]

When I queried Wikipedia before posting I found examples of both. What is the preferred usage for the United States? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Preferred by who? -- (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
"Data" is the plural, and "datum" is the singular. However, the singular is rarely used, like a sud or a grit. But just what would constitute a single piece of data anyway ? One bit ? It's like if there was a singular form of "water", when would you use that, when you have a single molecule of H2O ?
The one place I have seen "datum" used is in engineering drawings, where it's a point off which many dimensions are measured. Of course, a datum point will require many bits, when represented digitally, so we could also consider that to be plural.StuRat (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the term "data point" as being equivalent to "datum". As you suggest, a single point of data by itself is pretty much meaningless. A collection of those data points, i.e. "data", is potentially meaningful. Then there's the question of whether to say "data" with a long-a or a short-a. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In colloquial usage, data is a mass noun like information so it takes a singular verb. In more formal usage, it's plural. I would base my decision on whether to treat is as a singular or a plural on the register I was using it in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Similar confusion with "media" vs. "medium". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes register is the key here. Even in very distinguished academic crowds a phrase like "the data are interesting" can come off a stuffy and obnoxious, almost like a form of hypercorrection. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the register comment, but even in the most formal setting I would use data as a mass noun in the singular for a collection of data, and datum in the singular for a particular value. I.e. "the data shows normal distribution, but there is an unusual datum at x=4.3". Instinctively, I'd even go with "two datums" over "two data", although in that case I'd actually pick neither, and go with "data points". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The trick is to use defective verbs or to avoid the present, passive and progressive: "My data can beat up your data". μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, it is singular. I am relieved. That's what I've always thought. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Trying to pronounce ð and θ[edit]

Hi there,
I've tried to pronounce those consonants,
I would like to hear comments about my pronunciation,
Beginning with accent, and particularly the pronunciation of the THs.
It should be "they think".
Another issue is that I noticed that most of the native-English speakers, put their tongue out.
What I do, is putting my edge of the tongue on my front teeth,so another part of the tongue is sliding out from the "teeth box".
It's like my tongue is in a C-like shape. Is it okay?
15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Acoustically, the pronunciation in the sound file sounds right to me. (That is, the [θ] and the [ð] sound right; the pause between they and think doesn't sound natural at all.) English speakers don't normally stick their tongue very far out when making the sounds though; just a tiny bit. If you have the tip of your tongue behind your front bottom teeth and the area just behind that is what comes out between the teeth, that's fine too. As long as what you're producing sounds like [θ] and [ð], in other words as long as you get the acoustics right, no one's going to worry too much about the exact position of your tongue. Most English speakers will be content as long as your pronunciation of "they think" doesn't sound like "zey sink" or "dey tink". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you also record "vey fink" so we can compare with what your [v] and [f] sound like? Acoustically I think these are the closest consonants to [ð] and [θ]. They're only a little bit darker. Btw, why don't you record a video so we can see your tongue, teeth and lips. In any case, here's a bunch of YouTube videos. Contact Basemetal here 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
English speakers only put their tongue out when they are teaching the sounds, either to foreigners or children - purely to show how to do it. In normal speech, however, it is not normal to do so. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, very good! Much better than the examples you posted a few weeks ago. Nobody would confuse your example for a native speaker, but to me it's completely intelligible. To my ear, there's a little less distinction between the two sounds than a native speaker would make, but there's enough difference to make it work. My WP:OR: your level of accent would not stand out in many academic departments in the USA. Assuming that you are ok on grammar and vocabulary I think we could have a conversation in English :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    As an afterthought: [ð] and [θ] are fricatives so you can pronounce them on their own, you don't have to follow them with vowels. Such a recording would be the best check. In a recording where they are immediately followed by vowels they are too short, it may be more difficult to tell if you've got them down right. Contact Basemetal here 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Myself, I don't even bother trying. The sound doesn't exist in my native Finnish, so I have never learned it natively. I don't understand instructions on how to place my tongue and my lips, nor do I understand fancy words to describe vocal sounds. I just substitute "t'h" ("t" followed by "h") for the "th" sound and haven't had problems communicating with foreigners, even native English speakers, so far. JIP | Talk 19:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to it though. Juθt pretend you are a Finn with a lithp: "Olen θuomalainen joθθa leθpata". (Ið thiθ good Finnish? Comeð out of Google Tranθlate of courθe). Thiθ θaid I think there are even dialects of English where theðe θounds are pronounθed the way you do. Contact Baθemetal here 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't even know how to lisp (or lithp). I had to undergo speech therapy in my grade school days, because I was told I pronounced the letter "s" wrong. I never learned what was wrong with it, and I don't think I understood anything about the speech therapy. In the past two and a half decades, no one has ever said there was anything wrong with how I pronounce the letter "s". JIP | Talk 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, your example was good, but not perfect. It means something like "I am a Finn in whom to lisp". Proper Finnish would be "Olen suomalainen joka lespaa". JIP | Talk 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want inθtruction in liθping take a look at thiθ (although he ið being a bit inconθiθtent) Face-smile.svg Contact Baθemetal here 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My God, I almoθt forgot thiθ claθθic. Thiθ would have been unforgivable Face-smile.svg Contact Baθemetal here 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Language is for communication, not for pretending to be a native - your passport will show you are not. There is no point in trying to mimick natives to get the sounds right. Some dialects don't even have the two sounds referred to in the original question (my own dialect included). All you have to do is make sure you are coherent and understood. That is what language is for. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(then see shibboleth) --catslash (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
KageTora's advice is fine in an academic setting with a patient or captive audience. But in others there are many advantages to learning to mimic a native speaker. And mimic is a good word, since one should not be afraid to sound even humorous as if one is "putting on" an accent. That's how one actually does achieve native(-like) pronunciation. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am serious. When I was in China for the first time, 21 years ago, I went on a trip with an interpreter who was Chinese, and she was so proud of her Georgian (US) accent. She had never been outside China, and had learned it from TV and films (and most probably her English teacher). After a few days with me, she had started to pick up my British accent, and she was so annoyed about it 'polluting' her Georgian accent that she refused to speak to me (basically causing her to be useless as an interpreter). This is an extreme case, of course, but I thought it was completely unnecessary for her to speak in such an obscure dialect of a place she has never visited. The way I see it is, if you can get your point across, accent doesn't matter. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you weren't serious. I understand your point. And I don't think anyone should hang his ego on it. And I certainly didn't mention esoterically maintained regional accents, per se, but a phonetically standard "generic" accent. It is simply a fact that there is plenty of discrimination, bigotry, and simple lost opportunity regarding those with an obvious accent.
Immigrants will find they are much better accepted as insiders by a local population if they speak as the natives do. Phone communication, especially in low fidelity situations, can be greatly hampered by an accent. The ability to find a good job (again, outside credentialed environments like academia) can be hampered. For example, people who man call centers are much less likely to get hung up on by a frustrated American if the have a passable American accent, not just an ability to speak English.
It's simply not good general advice to say, don't bother, it doesn't matter. In very many cases it does. If the person is willing to make the effort, he should be encouraged, not discouraged. That being said, one simply can't teach phonetics to an untrained linguist/polyglot through text--a matter that has been the subject of dozens of threads here. Oral-aural interaction and modestly skilled training is necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, I can agree that if you work in a call centre and are cold-calling native speakers, and you have a foreign accent, the phone will be put down on you, but that also happens with native speakers cold-calling people. If your English is so near-perfect, you shouldn't be doing a low-paid commission-only job in a call-centre anyway. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Do I detect a slight catch 22 here? No one should be working in a call center: those whose English is too poor (for a call center) because they can't and those whose English is good enough because they could be doing something else, and, no, I don't work in a call center. But leaving that aside, in my experience, there are many advantages in not sounding (too much) like a funnyner. Plus, it's not a matter of aping native speakers, but of trying to acquire a skill that they have by learning from them. Trying to master an accent is in itself fun and a challenge, a bit like trying to learn to play an instrument. How much effort to put into it is an individual choice. And of course you should never hold back just because of your accent, especially if you've got something important to say. I agree that the top priority is to maintain communication and that the most important use of language is to allow us to communicate with each other. Contact Basemetal here 17:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You have changed and compounded the question, KageTora. I mentioned customers themselves calling customer service and being frustrated with getting a foreigner, as opposed to someone who sounds like a native. You changed that to cold calling, which is in itself inherently annoying. You could have made the same point more boldly by saying people don't like getting stabbed, whether or not the knife-wielder has a lisp. And you argue in favor of my point when you say that people with better diction can count on better jobs than being cold-callers. I have made my points above that speaking so that you are not immediately marked out as an outsider has large advantages, and that those who want to improve their speech ability should be encouraged. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Eh! Eh! Kahm down, kahm down! A wuz not sayin' nuttin' about not tryin' ter sound like a native speaker. A wuz merely sayin' da' English 'as so many accents and dialects da' it doesn't really matter. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 02:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are also other reasons why someone might want to know exactly how native speakers do things. Because I studied linguistics and am still interested in it, I always want to know purely for my own edification exactly how exotic sounds in foreign languages are made, and exactly what syntactic structures are grammatical in another language, and all that sort of thing, and answers like "Don't worry about it, everyone will understand you" are very frustrating, because being understood isn't the issue for me. Increasing my understanding of the human language facility is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Building on what Medeis has said, native speakers react much more favorably toward a foreigner who has made some effort to pronounce the language correctly, even if the foreigner does not sound like a native speaker. Native speakers do not react as favorably when, for example, foreigners have not even bothered to master the consonants of the language. Native speakers of English are more forgiving about vowels (including R-coloring), probably because those vary so much among natively spoken varieties of English. The more work a native speaker has to do to understand the foreigner, the less likely he or she will want to bother to do so. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

attn vs. c/o[edit]

In a mailing address, what is the difference between attn. and c/o? What are their uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Attention identifies the specific recipient or department at an address with many residents or employees. Care of indicates a party like a hospital or jail that will receive what is sent, and then pass it on to the intended recipient. For example, your uncle John is in a hospital and you don't know the room: Attn. John Q. Smith, c/o Bellvue Hospital, N.Y., NY 100XX. 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Use Attention when you want to communicate with someone as a member of the organization addressed: "XYZ Potholders, attention of Alice Aardvark". You don't mind if someone else at XYZ opens the letter, but it'll save time if they know Alice is the one who needs to read it.
You use care of or courtesy of if the communication is not relevant to the person or entity whose address it is. If Bob is on the road and you know he'll spend a night at a certain hotel, you might write to "Bob c/o Generic Hotel". You do not intend any of the hotel's staff to open it, only to handle it on Bob's behalf.
So if I order a package sent to my work address because it would be impractical to receive it at home, it should be addressed to "Tamfang c/o [employer]"; whereas if it's for my use at work, "[employer] attn Tamfang". —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Why do people use "we" to refer to the human species instead of using third person?[edit]

I have a problem with using "we". "We" may mean "you and I". "We" may mean "my friends and I". "We" may also mean "My people and I". Because "we" is a pronoun for so many things, why do people (professors, students, documentary presenters, anybody really) use "we" when they talk about the Homo sapiens species? Do people use "we" when they talk about Homo erectus or Australopithecus afarensis? In a similar scenario, I find many Christians have a similar vocabulary. Instead of using "Christians" or the name of a specific denomination, they would use "we", and then all of a sudden, I'd get the impression that "we" includes me. There was one time when I met a Catholic missionary, which gave me the opportunity to learn about Catholicism from one man's perspective. He seemed different. Instead of using "we", he used "Catholics", which then gave me the impression that God only interacted with Catholics and cared about no one else. So, anyway, what's the point of using "we" to refer to the human species? (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are your professors not Homo Sapiens? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because the speaker is included in the antecedent. In English, "we" is used as a pronoun whenever the antecedent includes the speaker. In this case, as far as I know, there are no sapient species speaking English other than human beings, so anyone speaking English would always include themselves in the concept of "homo sapiens". Thus, "we" is perfectly grammatically correct. --Jayron32 03:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Had Alex the parrot used we, that would have been creepy. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
'We' means anyone of a group of people or animals - not necessarily all of them as homo sapiens - that includes the speaker. "I took my dog to the beach and we had some fun" is perfectly normal. In some languages, such as Malay, they have inclusive and exclusive plural 1st person pronouns - in this case 'kami' and 'kita', which mean, respectively 'me and other people but not you', and 'me and you (and possibly other people)'. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 04:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia article is Clusivity (though I'm not too sure that's a standard linguistic term)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the question is quite interesting, because when talking about historical things, for example, we can say "We didn't reach Berlin before the Russians did," even if the speaker was not even alive in 1945. In this case, the speaker is including himself in a group of people (here, the Western Allies) imaginarily. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 13:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
See Mitchell & Webb's take on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Perfect example! KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 14:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Same at football fans saying "We lost". --14:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Basic words like we, they, us, them, etc. Are very flexible in their usage. About the only thing you can be fairly sure of is that when someone says "we", they are likely including themselves - and if "they", likely not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We tortured and droned people. (No, I didn't. Stop implying I had anything to do with it.) --Bowlhover (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You said it yourself. Are you telling yourself not to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I was countering your claim that "when someone says 'we', they are likely including themselves". --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"We" Americans do a lot of things that not all individuals necessarily do, but you're still part of that "we". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
For example, I can say "we" defeated the Nazis in WWII, even though "I" was not born yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean when an old, unattractive man is perceived to be "cute" by young teenagers?[edit]

Occasionally, the use of the word "cute" can be used in seemingly bizarre places. Such instances involve the use of "cute" to refer to an old, unattractive man or other rather unattractive beings. If "cuteness" is supposed to connote physical attractiveness, childishness, or youth, then how did the connotation of unattractive objects evolve? (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

'Cute' is a word with multiple shades of meaning - it clearly doesn't simply connote physical attractiveness. It seems to originally have meant 'clever' [90][91][92] and is sometimes still used in that sense. As for what it means when used to describe 'unattractive beings', one needs to look at the context. Perhaps you could provide examples? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the most common meanings of cute is "endearing". It is not necessarily about youth. (Though of course most people find infants and small children highly endearing.) It is certainly possible for an old man to be seen as endearing. Marco polo (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Irony comes first to mind too. I mention irony because I hear it a lot in my country (France), amongst teenagers but also on the radio, without any sign that it should be taken with irony. As if irony had become sometimes the only possible way to say something, as it sounds to me sometimes, especially on the radio. To the point I often say to myself, "wow, some foreigner who is not fluent will not get that he should understand the opposite of what is said, and I find it quite unprofessional coming from a radio..." Akseli9 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there's an inherent flaw in your premise. Your finding someone unattractive is no guarantee that everyone else does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Marco on this one: "cute" in this sense is most likely used to mean "endearing" or "lovable" in a very non-amatory sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The American sense of the word 'cute' is very often reserved for sexually attractive girls, at least from what I have seen from nonsensical American TV programs and films (nonsensical to us Brits). In the UK, 'cute' does indeed mean only what the above respondents have said. In Japan, the word 'kawaii' - which I am sure everyone knows by now - also means exactly the same: 'loveable', and not necessarily sexually attractive. In Japan, the word can also be used for an old man who is indeed loveable, or even for a tiny mobile phone (and 'cute' in English can also be used in that way). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I am American, and the word cute can have meanings other than "femininely attractive" in American English, as I've indicated above. American women and gay men certainly refer to attractive men as "cute", and there is another distinct range of meanings such as "endearing" and "adorable" that have nothing to do with sexual attraction. There are other less common meanings, but those probably aren't applicable to the old man. In response to Akseli9, American teenagers are also very capable of irony, but this doesn't sound like a case of irony. There could be an element of condescension, though. Hard to know without context. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I recall a young Singaporean lady, quite petite, who objected strongly to being called "cute", because the dictionary definition (I don't know which dictionary) is supposedly "ugly but adorable". --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that most Singaporeans define it that way. --Antiquary (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In my experience in science/math contexts in the USA, "cute" can sometimes mean something like "clever, surprising, unexpected yet correct" -- For example "that's a cute proof of the infinitude of primes, I hadn't seen that one before" SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A WP article calls a species of snailfish "surprisingly cute". I wonder how long those "surprisingly cute" fish live. Probably longer than the "cutest" longest lived old man. Contact Basemetal here 03:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Seeking an article from the Ukrainian newspaper Ukraínskaya Pravda[edit]

I'm working on the article SpongeBob SquarePants and am trying to better understand an issue about the show that arose in Ukraine. In 2012, a group called Family Under the Protection of the Holy Virgin (which has been described by the Wall Street Journal as a "fringe Catholic website") sought to have SpongeBob (along with several other shows) banned from television in Ukraine. A government organization, called the Ukrainian National Expert Commission for Protecting Public Morality, reviewed the situation. From there, the details get really sketchy. Different English-language sources provide conflicting information, perhaps due to poor translation. I'm aware that at least some of these sources based their information on an article that was written for the Ukrainian newspaper Ukraínskaya Pravda. I have no idea how to find this article, much less would I be able to read it. Is anyone able to do a search for articles about SpongeBob that have been written for this newspaper? If you're also able to explain what the article says, that would be fantastic, but even just finding the article would be a huge help. I don't know if this is the best place to put my request, but it's the only place that I can think of. Let me know if there would be a better option for finding someone to help me. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This link to the website of the newspaper ( might help other answerers.
Wavelength (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
These links might be helpful.
Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Wavelength! I've left a message at WP:UKRAINE. --Jpcase (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that the website of the morality commission looks extensive. It might have documents on the SpongeBob case (I can't read Ukrainian).--Cam (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Languages that lack standardization/spelling rules?[edit]

I am fascinated by constructed languages, and today while thinking about internet slang and 1337-speak a thought struck me. 1337 is a very fluid language, with no set spelling or grammar rules. For example, hacker, haxxer, haxxzorz, and h4x0r all mean the same thing and all are easily understood by anyone who's spent any amount of time on the sillier parts of the internet. Naturally none of these are proper English, but they are all proper 1337. So my question is, are there any real world languages that allow any amount of fluidity in their spelling and grammar? I know that Japanese allows for multiple readings of characters, creating different "spellings", but I'm thinking more along the lines of phonetically spelled languages. When you consider regional dialects or accents that would change the way words are pronounced, it seems to me that you'd expect a different spelling as well. In the US children are taught standardized spelling and grammar rules, so we all spell things the same, but are there any countries where this is not the case? (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Prior to the age of the great dictionary writers (Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, etc.) English was that way. There was a wide variation to how people spelled, often dependent on their own local dialects; though sometimes even the same person (sometimes in the same document) would show variation. English_orthography#History covers this a little bit. --Jayron32 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That is an excellent point, and one I had not considered. Thank you. Reading old texts I've often noticed that words are mispelled, but the mispelling sometimes appears more phonetically correct than the standard spelling. Considering that the spelling and pronounciation of many English words doesn't exactly jibe, I'm curious to know if a language like Russian, which to my limited knowledge seems to have more strictly phonetical spellings, allows a wider variety of "proper" ways to spell a word. (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian shows considerable variation in its writing. While not strictly a phonetic writing system, so it may not meet your criteria, it was at least semi-phonetic, in that consonants (and certain long vowels) were regularly written, at least from the later Old Kingdom period. However, the writings of course spanned several thousand years, so it was bound to change, but even writings from the same period (and as said above, whithin the same text) show considerable variation. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No I think that since the Soviet reforms (ca. 1917?) Russian spelling is pretty much phonetic and unambiguous. The only exception I can think of is that letter г which is sometimes pronounced as в in some well defined grammatical cases, e.g. его 'his' is pronounced ево. So except for a Russian kid using ево for what everyone else spells его, I don't see much room for variation. A language with spelling that is phonetic but ambiguous, and so could have spelling variants, is Spanish. For example 'v' and 'b', 'y' and 'll', refer in Spanish to the same sound. So conceivably you could find 'valor' spelled as 'balor' or 'llegar' as 'yegar', etc. In general spelling vagaries and variants are characteristic of languages with crazy systems of spelling like English and French (if they can even be called "systems"). Contact Basemetal here 16:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The Amharic language uses an abugida called "fidal", which has a number of letters that now have the same sound (they were distinct in the past). From what I have read, there is generally a historically correct spelling of words, but variations are much less censured than in English. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as a side-note, linguists probably wouldn't call 1337 a "language" per se, rather it is an English-based argot or cant; it's an intentionally obscured form of English designed to be used among a class of "insiders" and keep "outsiders" out. --Jayron32 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding what Basemetal said above, does Spanish not have spelling rules set in stone, or are there actually correct spellings that people ignore in favor of personal preference? I would assume that if the letters in your example are truly interchangeable then a Spanish-speaker could understand a word no matter how it was spelled, so what dictates what letter is used? (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Standard Spanish spelling is pretty much fixed. So there is only one way to spell 'llegar' and that is this one. Some of the reasons why one spelling was chosen over another may be historical: whereas 'll' and 'y' are pronounced the same nowadays they used to be pronounced differently in the past. Same for 'v' and 'b'. I forgot to mention that there are some slight variations also for the spelling of the 'j' ('jota'). For example traditionally you spell 'México', 'Texas', not 'Méjico' or 'Tejas'. However the town of Jerez for example is only spelled 'Jerez' nowadays, never 'Xerez' which was the old spelling. However the 'x' ('equis') is only used in historical spellings and in some foreign borrowings. There are cases where 'x' is not pronounced as 'j' but I forget what all of them are. I'm pretty sure 'extra' is pronounced 'ecstra' and not 'ejtra' but there are other cases. Note that the 'x' and 'j' thing used also to be a matter of sounds that have become identical but were not in the past: before the 16th century 'j' was pronounced [ʒ] and 'x' was pronounced [ʃ] and they both merged in the modern 'jota' which is pronounced [x]. Another issue is that of Peninsular Spanish vs American Spanish. Some sounds are distinguished in Spain ('z' vs 's') but not in Latin America. In such cases the spelling used everywhere is that which reflects all the distinctions made throughout the Spanish speaking world not only some subregion of it. See Spanish orthography for further details. Contact Basemetal here 19:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To a certain extent, I live in such an area, where no one is taught how to write the language they speak (and the same probably applies to other diglossic regions too). One of the reasons is that the low language, Swiss German, is virtually never written and read in newspapers, books, instruction manuals, package inserts etc., unlike Swiss standard German. There is a very thin body of Swiss German literature, and hardly anyone reads it. The important exception are occasionally hand-written letters, and especially text messages and e-mails. Not everyone uses the vernacular here, but those who do, spell the words however they see fit. Not sure this is what you're after, but there it is. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Rusyn language has never had an official standard since it has not been a political entity since the middle ages. It is a dialect group found mostly in Poland, Slovakia, and the Ukraine, and has been written and published using Cyrillic, Polish, and Slovak orthography (probably Hungarian as well), and I have family documents written in an inconsistent mixture of Polish and Slovak orthography, even by the same person. Paul Magocsi wrote two grammars of spoken Rusyn, Bisidujme po-Rus'ky for the Prešov dialect and Howorim po-Rus'ky for the Transcarpathian dialect. And each book gives all forms in both a Latin and a Cyrillic orthography.
This is not at all an unusual situation for languages that are not the standard of a nation-state. For example, the Christmas greeting, "Christ is born!" is alternative spelt Hristos/Christos Rozhdajetsja/Razhdajetsja, with o/a in the verb, and even then the zh can be written in many ways, with 'ž' being perhaps most common.
Spanish is an interesting case, at least in NYC. Although there are standard rules, many semiliterate people don't follow them, with sounds like y/ll and i (in diphthongs), b/v, qu/c, z/s and c before i/e all falling together. One might potentially see Vusquamos Alluda for Buscamos Ayuda as a "Help Wanted" sign. It is jarring to they eyes of some, but perfectly understandable and unambiguous when said allowed. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"or" in Keats[edit]

I'm looking at the following snippet of Keats. It's from an early poem addressed to the spirit of someone who has died. The confusing (or, at least, grammatically surprising) part is pasted below:

There thou or joinest the immortal quire

In melodies that even heaven fair
Fill with superior bliss, or, at desire,
Of the omnipotent Father, cleav'st the air

On holy message sent

I've bolded the part I'm not quite sure I get. I checked the OED and couldn't find any analogous construction. At first I thought this was some obsolete or idiomatic use of "or" (I had Milton's "or ere" in mind as an example, which the OED mentioned), but the more I read it, the more I'm convinced this is our plain-ol' English "or". What's strange about it, as you've probably noticed, is that it's not doing its typical job of connecting two words or phrases that are being expressed as alternatives. In the first line I quoted, it seems to be fulfilling a function similar to how we would now use the word "either"—"Either this spirit is joining the immortal quire," Keats is saying, "or God will be sending him down to earth to act as a messenger."

Is my reading correct? And if so, are there other examples of this weird use of "or?" I've read extensively in English literature from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries and don't think I've ever seen a construction like this one. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

See wikt:or#Adverb.—Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Wavelength, that is the use which Evanh2008 has already considered and rejected. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, it is. "Or ... or ... " is an archaic or poetic form of "Either ... or ... ". The OED has examples from 1325 to 1957 (the last of these being "Or far or near", fromDorothy L. Sayers' translation of The Song of Roland, so it was presumably deliberately archaising). --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and...and for the English "both...and" & or...or for "either...or" are very common constructions, more common than using two different words like we do, I suspect. Although I don't know a source off-hand for that impression. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with DE>AR name transcription[edit]

As the Language Ref desk on the Arabic Wikipedia seems dormant lately, I'd appreciate help on a query I posted there regarding the Arabic transcription of the name Josef Mengele. Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a common error. Joseph Goebbels جوزيف غوبلز and Joseph Stalin جوزيف ستالين are also spelled with a jiim. Could it be English or French influence? Contact Basemetal here 20:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Deborahjay -- I pointed out a long time ago that Famke Janssen was spelled on Arabic Wikipedia based on an incorrect English pronunciation of her name, but I'm not sure that anything changed... AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Spanish eña (ñ) go back to a double n (nn)?[edit]

There are actually two questions here: (1) Has Spanish spelling ever used a double n (nn) to write the palatal n which is written nowadays as the eña (ñ), and (if the answer to the first question is yes then) (2) Does the squiggle (aka tilde) over the n in the eña actually go back to an n? In other words was the eña originally a miniature n on top of a regular sized n? Contact Basemetal here 20:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you read Tilde for its long and colorful history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, WP:WHAAOE: Ñ. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 13[edit]

Jimbo Wales[edit]

DEAR SIR- I am teacher of Sri Kamakshi Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School in Thoothukudi in India. We invite Mr. Jim-bo Wales to give speech at our school about success and dreams. The major of Thoothukudi will be there and other local famous peoples.

Speech will be held at: School assembly hall on 7th March 2015 at 7pm. Please considor donation and give long speech for our students. Thank you SIR. --Pattaj Farachirti (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This RD is about entertainment, not for entertainment, even though we all agree Jimbo Wales is a great entertainer. Contact Basemetal here 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
On a more serious note: you could leave a message for Jimbo Wales at his talk page (follow the link). Try picking another section name that "Jimbo Wales". Contact Basemetal here 17:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The page is protected, i can not post to him. Can you do it for me? --Pattaj Farachirti (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That page is semi-protected. You've got to be an autoconfirmed user to be able to edit it. If you wait for 4 days and make 10 edits here at Wikipedia, you will also be able to edit Jimbo Wales's page. I'm afraid I can't do it for you because that would defeat the very purpose of the restriction. This said I don't agree with the rationale of semi-protecting Jimbo Wales's page. Why should people even have to register to be able to leave a message for him? But that's the way it is unfortunately. There were probably practical reasons such as vandalism (?) for doing that. Contact Basemetal here 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that other ways to contact him are described here. Contact Basemetal here 18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Detailed Motorcycle Grand Prix results for 1962 - 1964[edit]

I am writing a biography on an Australian motor cycle rider, Dennis Fry, who competed in the 350cc and 500cc Motorcycle Grand Prix events in 1962 to 1964. I would like to obtain the detailed results for the 350cc events. The 500cc events are covered by Wikipedia but there are not detailed results for the 350cc events beyond the point scorers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Rhetorical device[edit]

Papa Was a Rollin' Stone contains the line

"Papa was a rollin' stone/wherever he laid his hat was his home/and when he died, all he left us was alone"

How do you call the rhetorical device used in the high-lighted sentence? GEEZERnil nisi bene 23:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask on the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd call it an instance of zeugma—specifically, what's referred to as "type 2" in our article (though I can't say I've ever seen that particular anatomization into four types before)—based on a play of two senses of leave, "bequeath" and "abandon". Deor (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this can strictly be called zeugma, because in a zeugma both meanings "bequeath" and "abandon" would have to be present side by side (hence the name). Here only the latter is present. It would have been zeugma if they had said "when he died, all he left us was a lousy coat and alone". What makes this device work is that he uses the less expected meaning. What makes a zeugma work is that the two meanings sort of clash. Contact Basemetal here 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. The point is that that on hearing "all he left us was ..." the listener expects a conclusion corresponding to the "bequeath" meaning, but the final word alone shifts the sense of the sentence to "he left [abandoned] us alone" while at the same time allowing the sense that "he left [bequeathed] us nothing". That's a "sort of clash" in my book. Deor (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Compare with the following sentence from the paraprosdokian article (the article Sluzzelin referred to): "On his feet he wore…blisters." (Aristotle) Can this be called a zeugma? Does this work the same way as the OP's example? Contact Basemetal here 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Then, more generally perhaps paraprosdokian? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This is very convincing. Thanks!
Can we exclude one more thing? That the formulation ist just "bad grammer/formulation" ?
There are other examples in the text: "Never heard nothin' but bad things", "some bad talk goin' round town", "Papa never was much on thinking". So - for a native speaker - does it sound "well constructed in this way" or rather "slang which happens to end up as paraprosdokian" ?
So far: Thanks for all the input! GEEZERnil nisi bene 09:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A sentence which is "just bad grammar" (perhaps deliberately) is an anacoluthon, but none of your three examples really come under this description. "Never heard nothin' but bad things" is a double negative (with a negative, rather than a positive, meaning), and the sentence is missing the subject ("[We] never heard [anything]" would be the "correct" wording). "Some bad talk goin' round town" is similarly missing the verb ("Some bad talk [was] going round town"), but otherwise fits all the conditions of prescriptive grammar. The third sentence is again grammatical, but "on thinking" is a fairly unconventional/demotic use of "on" in the sense of "engaged with/at"; compare "on vacation", "on fire", "on heroin". Tevildo (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
So you - as a native speaker - conclude that "and when he died, all he left us was alone" is clearly intended as a rhetorical device ? GEEZERnil nisi bene 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I would say the writer has deliberately chosen the "depart" meaning of "leave", when the expected meaning is "bequeath". Tevildo (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Done - Case closed. GEEZERnil nisi bene 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

A Game of Pool (1961) ?[edit]

In this episode of the original Twilight Zone, Jack Klugman and Jonathan Winters (in a rare serious role) play a form of pool I'm not familiar with. As far as I can determine, these are the rules:

1) A coin toss determines who breaks first.

2) Each player tries to sink every ball except the cue ball. Each ball sunk counts as a point. When a player misses a shot, the next player gets his turn.

3) When they are down to just one ball plus the cue ball, they re-rack all but that one ball, and play continues.

4) First player to 300 points wins.

So, what form of pool is this ? StuRat (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

See Straight pool. Deor (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's it, thanks. Apparently it has gone out of fashion since then. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The song The Way You Look Tonight[edit]

I'm looking for a slow version with a male singer and (mostly?) a simple, effective piano accompaniment. Not recent, but not too old either. I probably heard it on a CD. Not much to go on, but that's about all I can remember. Never mind. I found it; it was done by the Jaguars. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Box office[edit]

Can anyone help me find box office data for The Kite? It says here that the film (Le cerf-volant in French) was a commercial success. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

looking for a comic cover blog :([edit]

Hello, I remember i stumbled on this comic-cover blog, featuring FUNNY, COOL, BIZARRE OR ODD" comics(covers) (those were tags in the blog) and they featured only comic covers but not from a certain era I think, more like everything from the 40s-00s just anything with a cool, funny, odd or bizarre cover.. :( I've looked through all of the google links and I can't find it, it was a big blog with probably 100s of pages. (i tried the top results when looking for those tags and it didn't seem to be them)

any help appreciated (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC), perhaps? Warning: apparently the original site has viruses, but a virus-free version reportedly is available. John M Baker (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is really similar, but I remember it had so many various comics, even from Russia! So not only golden age or just superhero comics, but just all kindss of weird, random, funny comic covers! I remember it was up earlier this year or late last year at least. but thanks! (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the Copacetic Gallery? John M Baker (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Rope magic trick[edit]

I was recently at a cabaret show, and there I saw a magic trick. A woman's hands are bound behind her back, and a rope is woven around her upper body through her armpits. Then a member of the audience wearing a jacket is asked to come on stage. He stands in front of the woman with his back to her and a curtain is pulled over them, enclosing them fully from all sides. When the curtain is drawn down a few seconds later, the woman is still bound, but is wearing the man's jacket underneath her ropes. Then the woman is freed from her ropes. How is this done? I suspect that the bondage is loose enough for the woman to free herself and tie herself up again without outside help. Is this true? JIP | Talk 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Who binds the woman's hands and so on? Where is he (or she) standing at the end of the trick when the curtain comes up again? Then I wonder what the purpose is of asking a supposed "member of the audience" to come on stage. The trick would seem to be the same if there was just a jacket hanging on a coat rack on stage next to the woman. Are we supposed to believe that "member of the audience" doesn't notice what happens to his jacket, that it is magically taken off his back by the woman behind the curtain without him noticing? That is probably just a distraction but it is not immediately clear to me what its purpose is. As to how the woman ends up wearing the jacket underneath the rope the simplest hypothesis is that there are two jackets and two women (and of course that the "member of the audience" is not a member of the audience at all). The weak point of this hypothesis is that this would require more than two salaries. Contact Basemetal here 17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The woman is bound by a stage performer, not by a member of the audience. When the curtain is drawn back, the woman and the man are standing in the same positions as they were when the curtain was originally pulled over them. Notice that the curtain is small enough to only cover the woman and the man. I'm not talking about the main stage curtain here, but a cylinder-shaped curtain only about a metre or two in diameter. The member of the audience is really just a member of the audience. I can verify this because he happened to be my work colleague. I don't think there are two identical women. There were only four women in the entire cabaret performance - the presenter, who also acted in tying the woman up, and three dancing girls, one of whom was tied up and the other two managed the curtain. JIP | Talk 17:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
How many seconds does the small curtain stay down? Contact Basemetal here 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
About twenty seconds, at the most. It's actually pulled up from the stage floor rather than down, but I think the effect is the same. JIP | Talk 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If the man (the performer) is hidden with the bound woman during that time, why are you assuming that she frees herself and ties the rope back again over the jacket without outside help? And if I understand you correctly, the purpose of picking a member of the audience is to "prove" that there is only one jacket, that there was no jacket prepared in advance? Contact Basemetal here 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The man who is hidden with the bound woman is the member of the audience, not a performer. The performer only ties the woman up before the small curtain is drawn up, and remains outside the curtain in full view at all times. You're right about the jacket. JIP | Talk 18:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you "can verify" that the man was not a performer "because he happened to be my work colleague", why not ask him what happened? -- (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently he had to stay with his back to the woman and not look and since he's a law abiding Finn he never thought of looking behind him anyway. Some of us of course would have done just that Face-smile.svg. One further question to the JIP: Did the woman take the jacket off of him while they were hidden, i.e. was he still wearing his jacket at the moment the curtain hid them both from view, or did he hand over the jacket beforehand? Contact Basemetal here 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The man was still wearing his jacket when they were hidden, the woman only took it off of him behind the curtain. I know that at least in this case, it was not a shill but a genuine member of the audience. I note that Wikipedia has no article about the gypsy rope mystery or gypsy mystery rope. Is there enough material available about it so I could use it as a reference for an article? JIP | Talk 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's called the gypsy mystery rope effect or something similar. At least one of the Google results should explain how it is done. In the two videos listed there both have the audience member help tie up the girl. In the Chinese one the audience member does a good job of being surprised that his jacket is gone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the YouTube video uploaded by user "gypsyrope", a bit of the trick is revealed in the way the woman wraps the rope around her right wrist. The rope is tied around the wrist and then she makes a flourish and the rope swings around and around that wrist. The rope is then tied to the left wrist. She keeps them close but they aren't actually bound that close. The rope can simply be unwrapped from the right wrist. This gives her about a foot of rope between the two wrists. The knots used aren't really inspected by anyone, so the ends could be knotted together but not actually binding her wrists at all. Once she has her wrists free (when the curtain is up) the man with the jacket (who I don't believe is an actual member of the audience) can help her get the jacket over her arms and then tuck the rest under the ropes. You'll see when the curtain comes down that it isn't tucked under the ropes on one side. Like they ran out of time and just had to go with what they had done instead of getting it exactly perfect.
Also, since the woman is behind the man while the curtain is still down, she could be getting her wrists free before the curtain even goes up. It would help if we could see the trick from the side but I doubt even the audience had that good of a view of her hands as she stood there before having the curtain raised. Dismas|(talk) 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

sometimes, why free throws are reduced to 1 for shooting foul?[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) deleted as possible copyvio given the lack of any reassurance [93] Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We have articles on Three-point play, Four-point play and Technical foul. In each instance only one free throw is usually taken. Hack (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It can depend on whether your player made the shot while being fouled. If he missed then he gets two free throws - if he made his shot then he gets one. There are other variables that might apply but it is hard to say without having been there. Thanks goodness it was NBA because if it was NCAA we stray into "one and one" and that is trickier to explain. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hack provides good links. The only time you'll only get one free throw on a shooting foul is if the shot is made. If you're fouled making a shot, you can add 1 point to it. If you're fouled missing a shot, you get 2 or 3 (depending on whether you were attempting a 2 or 3 point shot) free throws. --Onorem (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Foul rules in basketball are a bit complex, and it depends on which level of play (HS, College, Professional American, Professional European, etc.) is being played. But generally the rules are as follows:
  • You get no shots (ball is instead inbounded) in the following situations
  • Any offensive foul
  • Defensive fouls if the fouled player was not in the act of shooting, AND if the team is not "in the bonus" (that is, over the maximum allowable team fouls, varies per level of play)
  • You get one shot if you are fouled in the act of shooting, and you make the shot
  • You get two shots in the following situations:
  • If fouled in the act of shooting and miss the shot
  • If fouled at any time while your team is "in the bonus" (the other team is over the maximum allowable team fouls)
  • In lower levels of play (HS and College), a special situation called a "one-and-one" is given for the first 3 bonus fouls, whereby a player only gets their second shot if they make the first. After that, it's two guaranteed shots. One-and-one does not exist at the NBA level.
  • You get three shots if fouled outside the three-point line AND were in the process of attempting a shot.
That's about all I can think of for personal fouls. --Jayron32 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

actually i am asking about shooting foul, hack provided links for all fouls except shooting fouls Ram nareshji (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the gameplay on NBA 2K15 but I'm guessing it's the and-one/bonus situation where the shot is scored and a single free throw awarded. Hack (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This may not be relevant but it is possible to receive a technical foul for profane language. Hack (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It most certainly is. Technical fouls are usually awarded for "unsportsmanlike conduct". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

if team is in bonus, If the player is fouled while shooting and the shot goes in, then how many free throws are awarded? Ram nareshji (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

One. This becomes a potential three or four-point play depending on the location of the shooter. Hack (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

actually what i asking is if team is in bonus, then how free throws are awarded to team, the player is fouled while shooting and the shot goes in? & also i am not asking about what is four-point play? Ram nareshji (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a shooting foul, it wouldn't make any difference whether it's in bonus or not. It comes down to the location on the court. Hack (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

then what is the use of Bonus (basketball)? Ram nareshji (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's to stop teams racking up fouls that would not ordinarily be penalised with free throws. Hack (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Hack: ok! is there any benefits of Bonus (basketball) for a team? Ram nareshji (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. They get a one-and-one instead of a single shot, so they have a chance to make 2 points instead of 1. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the bonus is to minimize fouls outside of shooting situations. If you keep racking up fouls, eventually you give the other team free throws for every foul, so that removes the incentive to foul as they come up the court, and opens up mid-court play; it makes things like a full court press (when fouls are more likely) a less attractive defense and tends to open up play. Unless you have someone on your own team which is terrible at shooting foul shots, then the bonus actually works against you. See Hack-a-Shaq. --Jayron32 02:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did the Separatists want to kill Padme?[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji deleted as probably copyvio as remarked below Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This question was asked verbatim at this site as well as this one which were both answered. If you have problems with those answers, I suggest taking it up with the people who provided the responses. Dismas|(talk) 08:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the NFL record for most receivers with a catch in a single game on the one team?[edit]

i am sorry that i forgot to mention source of this question: this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talkcontribs) 06:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Question deleted as probable copyvio Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This question was asked verbatim at this site on November 25 and this site three days ago. Hack (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

what is meant by bonus in basketball?[edit]

Normally every foul in Basketball will get free throws, after team is in bonus, what will change in free throws system? Ram nareshji (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See bonus (basketball). When you're not in the bonus, only some types of fouls result in free throws being awarded. That changes when you're in the bonus; then all fouls award free throws. It is a common tactic for a team to intentionally foul "with a foul to give" (i.e. not in the bonus situation) and force the other team to inbound the ball, not shoot free throws. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

After Bonus, if defensive team commit double dribble, so how many free throws will get?[edit]

After offensive team in Bonus, if defensive team commit double dribble, so how many free throws will get? Ram nareshji (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

None, regardless of whether a team is in the bonus situation or not. A double dribble isn't a foul. The other team is simply given possession of the ball. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the defenders can't double dribble because they doesn't have the ball (unless they drool a lot). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After Bonus, if defensive team commit 5 second violation, so how many free throws will get?[edit]

After offensive team in Bonus, if defensive team commit 5 second violation, so how many free throws will get? Ram nareshji (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Again none. It's a violation, not a foul. See five-second rule (basketball). As above, the other team gets the ball. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Earliest known example of a remake cameo[edit]

Our article on cameo appearance has no earlier example of a remake cameo than the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. As far as I could tell, TV Tropes' article on "Remake Cameo" has nothing older either (click on "Film" under "Examples" for film examples). Does anyone happen to know of (or can anyone dig up) anything like that before 1978. (It's the year of the remake that counts, not that of the original). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Some sources consider Alfred Hitchcock to have appeared in both versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much. I don't know if you would count that or not. See List of Alfred Hitchcock cameo appearances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Clever find! Not quite what I meant, as the cameo in the second MWKTM was just one item on that long list, Hitchcock's entirely own thing, but (even if he did actually have a cameo in the first version, see Bugs's link) not an acknowledgement with a wink like Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear or Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair, and so forth. Thanks though, I certainly hadn't thought of that! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Romuald Joubé played the same character (Jean Diaz) in J'accuse 1919 and 1938 versions, both directed by Abel Gance. Another cameo from 1978 is Noel Neill in Superman who plays Lois Lane's mother, and Lois Lane herself in the 1948 film and 1952 series. --TrogWoolley (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There was Patty Duke who played both Helen Keller in one version, and Anne Sullivan in a later version of The Miracle Worker, though it was a year later than the 1978 date you give above. Still looking for others. --Jayron32 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jeff Conaway played Danny Zuko in the stage version of Grease, and Kenicke in the movie version, though a) I don't know if you'd count that being different media and b) the film came out in 1978, which still isn't earlier then the ones you've already found. --Jayron32 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Ursula Andress in Casino Royale (1967 film), which was technically a remake of the earlier 1954 TV Film, Andress had played a Bond Girl in Dr. No. --Jayron32 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(OP typing here) Thank you very much, Trog & Jayron, those are some exemplary early instances and precursors! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Did some more research (slow day at work) and found J'accuse! (1938 film) which was a remake of the J'accuse (1919 film) and it seems that Romuald Joubé appeared in both films in different roles, though he's credited as a second Jean Diaz in the second film. This may be a mistake confusing the two films; though I don't know as I haven't seen any. The main role of Jean Diaz in the second film is played by Victor Francen, so I'm not sure how Joubé fits in. May need some more research, but if Joubé does appear in a different role in the second film, it would beat the previous record by some 40 years, based on what we found here. --Jayron32 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Superman beats out Body Snatchers by a few days, with Kirk Allyn and Noel Neill (Superman and Lois in old serials) as Lois Lane's parents. —Tamfang (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, everyone, for offering (and re-inforcing ;-) these examples. Great working out the detail, Tamfang, so that's one older one in the strictest sense and for sure ..., and now you got me intrigued (and wigged out) with J'accuse, Jayron. At first I thought the remake might have used some old material including Joubé, or perhaps that he provided the voice? I watched some clips online, but only saw Francen. As I only looked at a total of maybe nine minutes (or less than 10%) of the film, I still don't know how Joubé fits in. Love it! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How movies are telecasted by T V Channels?[edit]

i have this doubt since my child hood, i don't know how T V channels telecast movies, they also insert DVD or Pen Drive if not then how? Ram nareshji (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See Telecine. The core problem is that the frames-per-second between film and TV don't match, so they have to play some technological tricks to make it work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Telecines were the devices used in the past. However nowadays the film production company provides the television networks with digital videos of the films, in the past on DVD and more frequently by transmitting the file online or by satellite, which the network stores in a server. (Movie theaters are beginning to get some films digitally as well, as opposed to traditional film.)    → Michael J    00:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

First broadcast of Appointment with Death (2008)[edit]

Hello! I was wondering what can be counted as the first broadcast of the 2008 Agatha Christie's Poirot episode Appointment with Death? The IMDb infos are quite confusing; the first date is Sweden, then there is listed a "(limited)" date for the UK (whereas the official UK date appears to have been one year later). Does anyone know what the "(limited)" means (I found the explanation "If a release was in more than one or two cities, but not wide enough to qualify as a wide (no attributes) release, then please use the attribute (limited) instead. In the USA, this usually implies 11-599 screens.", but it only talks about movies) and where (on which channel) the first broadcast (apparently in Sweden) has been? Thank you, XanonymusX (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Who was C Titsek?[edit]

Does anybody know anything about a composer called C Titsek? He (or she) wrote a rather jolly choral setting of Rorate Coeli, a text for Advent. That's all I know. Sounds rather Baroque (18th century) but may be later. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ChoralWiki puts him in category:romantic composers (here) but that's probably just some editor's guess as they don't have any information about him. The name seems, judging from Googling "titsek name", to be from Eastern Europe. Very mysterious composer. He seems to be known for this one work only. Contact Basemetal here 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
PS Could anyone with access to Grove online look if they have something about this guy? Contact Basemetal here 17:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
PPS Jerome Kohl, ever heard of this guy? Contact Basemetal here 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder whether there's an alternative spelling that's throwing us off the scent, but I'm not finding anything at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Since User:Basemetal asks, I've not heard of this composer, and there is no article in New Grove on a person of this name, or including an indexed reference to him/her. The spelling looks like a phonic transcription, possibly of a Russian name, such as Туцек (though I do not find this particular name linked to the Advent hymn). I notice a number of the Google hits are to Slavic-language sites (Slovak, Russian, Czech). That's the best I can do, sorry.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if a Cyrillic spelling Тицек or Тыцек would not be more likely to be transcribed as Titsek than Туцек which would seem to correspond to Tutsek, etc.
Alan: Is this the recording of Rorate Coeli by C. Titsek that you heard? (I hope not, for your ears' sake Face-smile.svg). (Sorry, I was listening simultaneously to the YouTube peformance and this MIDI performance. Sounds a bit better when they're listened to one after the other Face-smile.svg).
Contact Basemetal here 18:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have made it clear that my familiarity with Russian and the Cyrillic alphabet is limited, at best (almost as poor as my piano playing). I did try Тицек, with no result. Trying Тыцек just now does not look very promising, either. It was just a suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Then there is of course the Ukrainian spellings Тіцек (also Belarusian) and Тїцек... Face-smile.svg. Don't worry about your Cyrillic. You can type(set) Cyrillic wearing mittens as far as I am concerned Face-smile.svg. I am always very grateful for your help here and elsewhere. Contact Basemetal here 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The right tune, but I sang it last night at my church's modest version of the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols. I suspect that it was selected because it is, rather unusually, scored for Soprano, Alto and Bass, and we don't have any tenors at the moment. I was just curious, because I'd never heard of him or her. It seems that nobody else has either. Many thanks for your efforts. Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I am curious too. Once in a while we get a brutal reminder that WHAAOE... NOT! Contact Basemetal here 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the occasional jolly jape. @User:Basemetal: You are welcome, and thanks for the kind words.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Can anyone explain Interstellar Questions?[edit]

Question by Ram nareshji (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC) deleted as possible copyvio as remarked below [94] given the lack of any reassurance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a film or TV show you're talking about, they can do anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This question was copypasted from Questioner has been warned about this behaviour.--Shantavira|feed me 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical Examiner[edit]

what does "foul to give" mean in basketball?[edit]

In NBA, Announcer says "foul to give" at the end of the game, please some one explain.

what i understand is if we foul at act of shooting other team will get free throws, but what does foul to give, even i download NBA official rules PDF, even that PDF also never explained, didn't even mention "foul to give" in that PDF, so i am trying reference desk.

i am not copying this question from other sites, i am asking this question from my heart. Ram nareshji (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in an answer to one of your previous questions, a "foul to give" means the team will not trigger the bonus if they foul. It even says it in the very first paragraph of Bonus (basketball). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

when will "foul to give" will be used? i mean, at which quarter of the game?
& also A team has 3 fouls left, can they foul B Team without getting penalty is meaning of "a foul to give"?
can shooting fouls allowed without getting penalty for A Team? Ram nareshji (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be used at any time, but practically, the purpose of "giving a foul" intentionally is to stop the clock at the end of the game. When a team is losing towards the end of a game, but is also out of time-outs, the winning team can practically "run out the clock" and never relinquish possession. If the winning team is "in the bonus" however, when fouled they have to shoot free-throws and the other team gets the ball. This is a very important point, because it allows the losing team the chance to get possession back; really aside from stealing the ball, it's the only way the losing team can force a possession change. However, teams can only force a shooting foul in a non-shooting situation when the opposing team is in the bonus, so when they are not in the bonus, the announcers on TV will tell us all how many fouls are left to "give" away to reach that situation. Technically, the concept applies at all times of the game, though it is usually only relevant to mention it at the end of games in specific situations, which is why you only hear about it at that time. --Jayron32 11:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jayron32, but for every foul, they have to shoot free-throws and the other team gets the ball so what is the use"foul to give in"?
Also can you please explain again what does stop the clock at the end of the game? or else i find a basketball full match at youtube., so can you explain with that video? Ram nareshji (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget a full game video. Let me try to explain it this way.
The Celtics are playing the Lakers. The score is 91-86 in favor of the Celtics, with about 1 minute left to play. Let's say the Lakers have two team fouls in the fourth quarter. That means they would have to foul the Celtics twice more to force them to start taking shots. Here's the way it could play out:
  • 1:00 Lakers foul the Celtics. Team foul 3, the Celtics are given the ball to inbounds (as is the rule for any non-shooting foul when you AREN'T in the bonus). Clock stops for inbounds. Celtics have one more foul to give.
  • 0:59 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Team foul 4. The Celtics are given the ball to inbounds (as is the rule for any non-shooting foul when you AREN'T in the bonus). Clock stops for inbounds. Celtics will be in the bonus the very next time they are fouled.
  • 0:58 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Team foul 5. The Celtics now get to shoot 2 free-throws. Lets say they miss the first and make the second. Now the score is 91-87 in favor of the Celtics, but now the Lakers get the ball to inbounds following the successful second free-throw from the Celtics. Clock starts on the inbounds.
  • 0:50 Lakers set up a quick 3 pointer, and are successful. Score is now 91-90 in favor of Celtics. Celtics inbounds on a running clock.
  • 0:44 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Celtics now get to shoot 2 free-throws. They make both. 93-90 Lakers get the ball back on the inbounds following the free-throws, drive down the court, and score another three-pointer. Score is tied 93-93 with about 30 seconds left; with a 24 second clock, the Lakers have now guaranteed themselves last possession, which is pretty good considering they were down by four points 30-seconds ago.
If the Lakers did not use the strategy of intentionally fouling the Celtics at the end of the game, the Celtics would be able to run the 24 second clock down to nothing; with a 4 point lead they would have wasted at LEAST 48 of the 60 seconds remaining, and the Lakers would STILL have had to score twice to bring up the same situation they did with fouls. That's why teams try to force fouls at the end of the game when down. Because they get possession of the ball after the free throws they can get the ball into their own hands with less time off the clock. --Jayron32 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 thanks for detailed informations, but you posted answer in american english, why can't you change in britian or simple english,
so i can easily understand. First you said only 2 Team fouls are there, but at 1:00 you mention Team Foul 3, if two are remaining, what does Team Foul 3 mean? Ram nareshji (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Troll, Foul 3 means the one after 2. Go entertain yourself elsewhere. --Onorem (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Onorem i am not trolling wiki reference desk, i have a doubt, so i am posting it, that's all. User:Jayron32 can you explain just after the game score tied 93-93. Ram nareshji (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The fuck you aren't. Carry on Troll. I'm not going to respond again. --Onorem (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Onorem wiki reference desk is user friendly, so why are posting the vulgar words here? Ram nareshji (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In NBA 2K14 PC , how to use substitute, Time out, Buy & Sell Players?[edit]

In NBA 2K14 PC, how to use substitute, Time out, Buy & Sell Players features?
i am not copying this question from other sites, i am asking this question from my heart. Ram nareshji (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Best source for this information would be either the product instruction manual, or if that's not available, the publisher's website should also help. --McDoobAU93 14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

CSI: Miami: Driven[edit]

Milli Vanilli's Grammy[edit]

On the way into work this morning, I heard a song from famous lip-syncers Milli Vanilli. I know their Best New Artist Grammy Award was retracted after it was revealed that more-talented yet less-photogenic studio singers were actually singing the band's songs. My question is this: since the only thing changing is the face of the artist (that is, the music is just as catchy, regardless of the singer), was there a reason they didn't just give the award to the actual singers instead of the two faces of the group? --McDoobAU93 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How would you know whether a vote was based strictly on the song and not also including the visual? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Valid point, but I would presume that since the Grammys are supposed to represent audio works that the visuals wouldn't make a difference. For further analysis, look at Daft Punk. They've won several Grammys—deservedly so—but we have no idea if the men in the helmets are the ones that recorded the music that was nominated and subsequently won. --McDoobAU93 17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on reporting at the time, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammys, considered recognizing the actual singers but decided against it. "Pilatus and Morvan, the dancing, dreadlocked frontmen for the group, suggested the award go to the three singers who actually performed the vocals for Milli Vanilli. [Academy President Michael] Greene said that was 'not a possibility.' In announcing its unprecedented move, the academy said it recognizes that packaging groups is part of the music industry... but misleading record labels are unacceptable, Greene said. 'The integrity of that album label copy obviously was flawed. It said "Vocals: Rob and Fab." That was just absolutely false,' he said." Pop duo's Grammy award revoked (Elber, Associated Press, November 19, 1990.)
Some consideration was also given to awarding the Grammy to one of the other nominees but the Academy declined that option as well. "'The Grammy process does not, and is not intended to produce a ranked result," Michael Green, president of the Academy, said... 'There is one winner. There is no first runner-up.'" Revoked Grammy to be unclaimed, (Gainesville Sun, December 5, 1990.) - EronTalk 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you think about it, the real performers were ultimately willing participants in the fraud, so it would not be appropriate to reward them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Movie marketing budget and viewings[edit]

What's the relationship between marketing spend and the number of people who see a film in the movie industry? I'd love to see the ratio for several successful films and also a graph if there are any out there.--Goose Geyser (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing to watch for with such statistics, though, is that marketing may very well get more people to watch the movie quickly, but in the long term word of mouth will make it more or less popular. So, I suspect you'd see a strong correlation between marketing budgets and initial sales, but not total sales, over, say, 10 years. Then of course, sometimes the marketing is totally wrong, like when they tried to sell Kindergarten Cop as a cute kids movie when in reality it was an extremely violent film that no little kids should ever see. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

What was the source of this quotation by actor John Malkovich?[edit]

I remember reading a quotation by John Malkovich in an interview, in which he said that he considered himself "a Shakespearean actor forever cast in a high school play," in reference to some of his roles in popular films. However, I have since been unable to track down the original source of the quotation. Do you know where he might have said this? If not, what are some good resources for finding old magazine interviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I searched Ebsco's Academic Search Premier and Gale's Academic OneFile, which are two online magazine and journal databases that my library subscribes to, and was unable to find the quote in either. I tried searching the exact quote as well as key words from it, both with and without the name John Malkovich, and nothing relevant came up. Now, this doesn't mean he didn't say it, or something similar; it could have been an interview in a magazine that's not indexed in either of the databases I have access to, or the wording of the quote could be sufficiently different than what you remember that the keywords aren't matching. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2 songs in a YT video[edit]

Hello, can anyone help me find out what the names of the songs @6:18 - 6:45 and 7:00 - 7:13 are? :)

would be really super well appreciated. (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The first is "Urban Street Speak" by TeknoAXE. The second I can't find. --Jayron32 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

How old is the asian-kid-being-adopted-by-white-family motif in American pop culture?[edit]

  • In The Baby-sitters Club, the Brewer family, a white American family, adopts a little girl from Vietnam.
  • In Arthur (TV Series), Binky Barnes' family adopts a little girl from China, and the little girl is drawn with stereotypically Asian features, while Binky and his family members are drawn with non-Asian features, hinting that the family may be white American, despite the fact that Binky Barnes is an anthropomorphic bull dog.
  • In Modern Family, one white gay couple adopts a little girl from Vietnam.

How old is the asian-kid-being-adopted-by-white-family motif in American pop culture? What was the first occurrence? Are there any works that feature a non-white American family (Black, Hispanic, East Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern) adopting children overseas, and any works that feature a little boy being adopted instead of a girl? (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Never mind. I should have just googled my answer beforehand. Oops. (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to come back and say you've found the answer so we don't waste our time on it. But it would be nice if, on such occasions, people would share the answers they've found. Remember, even though only one person asks each question, many people might be interested in the answers :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Minority Report (2002 film)[edit]

What is the location of the cottage in the final shot? Th4n3r (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Searching for <Minority Report locations final scene> gets a lot of hits. This one suggests that it's one of these locations in Virginia. Dismas|(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried searching, but I guess I used the incorrect terms. Anyway, thank you. Th4n3r (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Upload photos[edit]

please am new here when and how can i upload my updates and photos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirerick5255 (talkcontribs) 08:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading images for an explanation. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Blazing Saddles question[edit]

There's a joke that I don't get in Blazing Saddles. When Hedley Lamarr is administering the oath of allegiance to his army, he tells them to raise their right hand. In the next shot we see the Nazis raising their left hand, and then Hedley repeats "Right hand!", at which point they switch hands. But the Nazi salute is made with the right hand, so… why were they raising their left hand? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it's anything specific to the Nazis. His posse is pretty stupid altogether; they screw up the whole "pledge of allegiance to evil" thing several other ways. --Jayron32 10:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Most people wouldn't know which hand is raised in the Nazi salute. Wouldn't have been much of a joke if they had raised their right hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Getting left and right mixed up that way is an old joke, as is the literal response "your name" rather than stating one's actual name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a question: At the end of that deputizing speech, Hedy Hedley exhorts them to "go do that voodoo that you do so well." I think that's from a song, but I don't know which song. Does anyone here know it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cole Porter's "You Do Something to Me" --Jayron32 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
When Hedley starts his speech, all the Nazis are saluting with their right hand. When he tells them to raise their right hand, the shot shows them with their left hand raised, so they quickly change back to their right, which is what they were doing at the start of the speech. A visual joke. Widneymanor (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


December 14[edit]

List of supercentenarians who died in 2014[edit]

Nobody has added any new supercentenarians to the list or even editited it for two weeks. Is it because no supercentenarians have died at all this month? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This user page [95] contains a list including some, no sources, though. There is another table located at a link with "invisionfree" in it that Wikipedia says is blacklisted, that contains a list with 5 unverified deaths in December (and only those 5). Here are obituaries for all of the unverified for December (save for Elizabeth Meier): [96], [97], [98], [99]. I have no idea if there are others - and the blacklisted site is, obviously, not an RS, I guess, but the obituaries are (I'm assuming).Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't get into "invisionfree", and by the way, it is more commonly known as "The 110 Club". Anyway, I can't browse forums or read their shit because they don't let guests browse forums or read their sections anymore.Deaths in 2013 (talk)05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's odd - I know nothing about any of this, just hunted down the above - but I had no problem entering their site, nor reading the forum posts that came up. Maybe it was just some odd luck. At any rate, the other sources listed should have the info you're looking for - at least for this question.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

1,400+ supercentenarian list[edit]

I want to create an article out of the 1,455 oldest people list of my page, User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff, but I can't copy or paste anything, since the right click of the mouse is broken, and that means I can't even update the table, let alone relocate it. So can someone else please do it for now? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You can copy and paste with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V without having to right-click. Tevildo (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)CTRL + C copies highlighted test, CTRL + V pastes it where a typing cursor is located. Also, I'm not seeing much in the way of sourcing, which would be needed for any entries that we do not currently have articles about. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: this page is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Makes me wonder whether my own subpages break the rules. —Tamfang (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

which logical fallacy is this?[edit]

"You can't complain that X breaks the rules because W, Y, and Z break the rules as well." (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it really a logical fallacy? Or is it just a lawyer's argument? It reminds me of one of Bill Veeck's axioms: "If everyone is corrupt, then no one is corrupt." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That fits a few things in the List of fallacies, including Two wrongs make a right and Nirvana fallacy, depending on context. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia world it is also known as other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not a logical fallacy, it is an informal fallacy. Logical fallacies are errors made in logic, that is in violations of the formal rules for connecting two axioms and in drawing conclusions from them. Informal fallacies are the collective term for other errors of reasoning. --Jayron32 23:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I would go with Association fallacy, an informal fallacy. However, simply because there is a fallacy with the reasoning doesn't mean the person is wrong. See the formal fallacy argument from fallacy. Sometime it is OK to ignore all rules. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this tu quoque? It seems like it is but maybe I am misunderstanding. (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Two wrongs make a right is of relevance. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Horse-drawn sleighs[edit]

I remember seeing, in a televised movie many years ago, someone riding on a sleigh drawn by one or more horses. The setting might have been urban or rural or both, and the country might have been the United States. Where have horse-drawn sleighs ever been ridden? How common were they? Nowadays, the World Wide Web has some websites about horse-drawn sleighs as a tourist attraction. Are there any places nowadays where they are used as a practical means of travel (either public transit or private transit) over snow-covered terrain?
Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Troika springs to mind as an obvious example.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you able to provide a source confirming that they are used there nowadays as a practical means of travel, and not just as a tourist attraction?
Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Non-tourist sleigh in Ukraine, 2012. Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No, because you asked multiple questions, and I wasn't attempting to answer that one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, AndyTheGrump, for an answer to my first question. Also, I thank Alansplodge for an image and caption answering my third question.
Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Were you referring to Doctor Zhivago? The film is set in Russia and filmed in Canada. See this scene with horse-draw-sleigh. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have probably never seen that movie. Anyway, the sleigh in the YouTube video differs from what I remember seeing many years ago.
Wavelength (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I should think they would have been a common form of transport in anyplace that got large amounts of snow and used horse-drawn carts in summer. They would just connect the horse(s) to the sleigh in winter. Keeping a team of sled dogs for use in winter wouldn't have been practical. And early motorized vehicles would have been particularly poor at handling snow and ice, until the snowmobile, snowcat, etc., were invented, and they started plowing and salting roads in winter for normal vehicles. Today, anyone who can't afford a vehicle probably can't afford a horse and sleigh either, so that leaves them purely for entertainment and nostalgia purposes. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
They are still sometimes used on Mackinac Island, which bans cars.[100] Rmhermen (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a prime example of entertainment and nostalgia purposes. Mackinac Island is a tourist destination where people visit for the "old-timey feeling" (and the fudge). StuRat (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A few people live on Mackinac Island in the winter, and their everyday life is not all "nostalgia and entertainment." They are not actors or re-enactors in some historic village. As for the sleigh, a woman born around 1900 told me once that her family had a one horse sleigh and used it for transportation in her teen years, in northern Illinois. Edison (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but they still cater to those who do come for nostalgia and entertainment, realizing that if they brought motor vehicles onto the island in a big way, that would end their tourism bonanza. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rmhermen and Edison, for the information about sleighs on Mackinac Island.
Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My grandmother grew up in a rural part of Canada in the early years of the 20th century and according to her stories, yes, horse-drawn sleighs were commonly used in the winter, including to take children to school. The sleighs were replaced by wheeled carts when the snow melted. Obviously, they were all replaced by motorized vehicles by the 1930s or so. --Xuxl (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Two important questions[edit]

I have two important questions that I have been wanting to ask for lord knows how long. First question: Why is the Gerontology Research Group slacking so much? In other words, what is causing so many delays of adding new verifications to the GRG website? The GRG used to be only days behind, now it is three months behind. Is it because of Stephen Coles being sick and passing away? Question two: Is User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff going to be deleted as recommended? I'm done editing the page permanently. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Answer to Q1: Ask on their website. We are not affiliated with them in any way.
  • Answer to Q2: Better to ask on that page's Talk.

KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

is walking on the back door in the bus a bad idea?[edit]

Kristine here. I almost did today because I saw other people do it and a woman got angry with me. So we got in a verbal fight. Anyway is walking to the back door of the bus illegal? Venustar84 (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's illegal in your particular area, but the back door is for emergencies, not everyday use (assuming you're not talking about the side door near the back). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think OP is talking about boarding from the rear. It depends on the bus company. Since the driver can't accept cash fares at the rear door, it's usually not allowed to board as a cash fare from the rear door. Some companies do allow boarding via the rear door if they support payment cards. Some also allow it if you are using a transfer. Every city's bus service is different. San Francisco allowed boarding from the rear for all but cash fares last time I was there. Chicago had signs saying it was unlawful to board from the rear last time I was there. You need to check the bus company policies or ask a driver. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found that many cities with either prepaid tickets, or tickets you validate on the bus (either a paper ticket you punch into a machine, or an RFID card which you swipe against the reader) allow passengers on at the back if they are using these tickets (with the appropriate machine avaialble at each door). Cash passengers generally have to board at the front, to pay the driver (if indeed this is an option). It may be that the woman got angry because you walked in the back and did not do the required action to validate your ticket, which the others did without you noticing. [User:MChesterMC|MChesterMC]] (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Some places may have the convention of boarding from the front and exiting from the rear to speed onloading and offloading during crowded times (one way movement moves faster). It may be the sort of thing that develops as an unwritten convention, and the locals all know it, but when an outsider comes by, they haven't "figured it out" yet. --Jayron32 11:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC
When we had proper busses, you could ONLY get on at the back. Those were the days. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
When there was racial segregation on buses in at least some US cities, "colored" riders could ONLY get on at the back even though they first had to pay at the front. Those were NOT the days! -- (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Although just to make it clear, even with electronic payment, it may still be one way only. In Auckland, most buses only allow you to "tag off" at the rear, not to "tag on". (Exiting is fine at both the front and back door, although I have seen times when the driver isn't paying attention and doesn't notice someone wants to exit at the rear.) In KL, in the old days when there were conductors from memory no one cared if you boarded at the rear or front (although IIRC conductors lasted longest on minibuses which didn't have rear doors). Nowadays I think it's okay to board at the rear if you're using electronic payment but I can't recall exactly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We can't say for sure what the policy is unless you can tell us the name of the bus system. In the USA, I've used dozens of bus systems in several states, and generally the common practice is to board at the front door, and exit from the rear. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For two years I rode the Geary Express bus in San Francisco; that line had (iirc) one pickup downtown and then no stops for the first few miles. Most busses have only a few seats where I, with uncommonly long femurs and a crooked hip, can be comfortable. So I'd often let a bus go by and wait for the next one so that I'd be near the front of the queue and have a better chance of getting one of those seats, which were near the rear doors. So naturally the driver, to get going more quickly, would often open the rear doors and invite everyone to board that way – knowing that most of the passengers on that line had monthly passes. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Anecdote time: I was once riding on a very crowded Chicago bus on a very cold winter day. At a stop at which there was a press of people boarding (at the front), making it difficult to board, one fellow boarded at the rear door—which had been opened by exiting passengers—to avoid the crush (and maybe to avoid paying the fare). Unfortunately, a passenger sitting near the door happened to be an off-duty police officer, who flashed his badge and told the fellow that if he didn't immediately exit the bus and reboard at the front door, he would arrest him for "theft of services". Deor (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

What's the newest spice ?[edit]

It seems to me they are all centuries old. Are there any recently discovered spices ? (Let's exclude new blends of old spices.) StuRat (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discovered by 'whom'? I am pretty sure that any spice in the world will have been discovered by natives to the local area well before anyone else. Also, define 'spice' - if it's just something that changes the taste of the food, it could include literally anything, including moon dust or sand gathered from Mars (not that they would be particularly palatable). KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Umami is not new, but it's being produced chemically (1908) and sold in a pure white crystalline form to home chefs as "Accent]" brand "flavor enhancer" (i.e., monosodium glutamate) is pretty recent, with Accent dating to 1947 in the US. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's a starting point, at 67 years. Can anyone come up with a more recently discovered spice ? StuRat (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
MSG is a seasoning, but not a spice. The word "spice" has a very specific definition. Spices are specifically dried plant parts, not including the leaves (leaves of a plant are properly herbs, whether dried or used fresh). If it isn't dried, and it isn't a plant, it isn't a spice. --Jayron32 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Spices or herbs will do. StuRat (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The OP has spoken, Jayron. And the possible source of the essence is all sortsa plants and other sources. You might as well say vanillin is not a spice. See the better answers below, and then we're back to the chatroom discussion on the talk page, non? I agree with KageTora the context here is a local one, but you've cruelly ruled out cilantro, so hence whither? μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
There is I would suggest an additional point related somewaht . As even μηδείς has mentioned, as does our articles the umami taste has been recognised to some extent by various cultures for quite a while before the isolation of MSG. It's true that the various glutamates that stimulate this taste were only isolated fairly recently which lead to a more scientific recognition of this as a taste. OTOH, while some sweeteners like sucrose have been recognised for a long time, others are far more recent. Heck some things that stimulate the sweetness taste are naturally occuring but probably not stuff you want to eat (like lead(II) acetate and choloroform). So somewhat related to what Richard-of-Earth said below, if you're going to count MSG as a recent spice due to the recent isolation, what then with the large number of naturally occurring (let alone artificial) sweeteners? Edit: In other words, what's a new spice? Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Does Baby Spice count? First arrived in Europe 1976 and North America 1998.--Aspro (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What about Old Spice? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 05:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of whether MSG is a spice, why on earth are you taking the 67 year date? There's been commercial production by Ajinomoto since 1909, so 105 years now. If this question is the newest spice in the US that should have been stated in the question. And somewhat similar to KägeTorä's point, you'd also have to define "in the US". While international transportation before 1947 wasn't anything like it is now, it would seem unlikely there was really no one who imported MSG to the US before 1947 even if it was just a single bag or whatever they brought back for personal use. And there are surely plenty of other spices (however you define it) which were rare in the US prior to 1947 but used sometimes by someone and which are much more common now. So precisely how you want to differentiate between the two is unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your dudgeon one whit, Nil. Are you calling me a racist? I simply reported the facts I had, and provided links. I don't read Japanese, so I don't know what products Ajinomoto markets, although I did note chemical manufacture started in 1908. As for the spice issue, I keep it in the spice cabinet, and it's sold in the spice section of the grocery store in the US. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
???? As shown by the identation, my comment was a reply to StuRat who is the one who chose the 67 year date despite giving no indication they wanted spices new to the US.
Don't get what reading Japanese has to do with anything. I don't read Japanese either. I did read our article on monosodium glutamate which you linked to so I assumed you'd read which says the commercial production as Aji-no-moto began in 1909 (~1 year after isolation in 1908). Or even if you hadn't, which was largely a moot point anyway, StuRat who is the one wanting help would have read it and chosen the most appropriate date. Which may be 1908 or 1909 but not 1947 unless they only wanted spices new to the US and even then, they'd need to properly define what new to the US means since as I indicated, under some definitions where msg being new to the US in 1947, it's likely other spices would come in at a later date.
Also, even if not in the US, Ajinomoto's association with msg is also fairly well known outside Japan and to people who don't read Japan and don't really give a flip about Japanese stuff (at least no more than anything in general), to the extent that Ajinomoto may sometimes refer to msg [101] [102] [103] (which was after all the origins of the name). Heck the area where I lived in Malaysia wasn't that far from an Ajinomoto factory, a somewhat prominent landmark for the area [ [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] (the last link also supports my earlier claim), albeit probably far less so now given the amount of development but still enough that I was easily able to find the earlier links. I'm fairly sure I was far from the only one who always assumed they produced msg there (at least one of the links supports the idea they do), if not other stuff (not something I really thought about and again I'm guessing I'm not the only one). And the real Japanese craze in Malaysia only took off fairly late in my time there, so I'm reasonably confident it had nothing to do with any great concern for anything Japanese, simply the fact that the name Ajinomoto was associated with msg (one of the links suggests a 70-80% market share so it isn't surprising). So yes, I really have no idea what reading Japanese has to do with anything. And this only came up after your latest reply above, so I wasn't thinking it until now.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
There should be new spices all the time. Growing plants in new environments will change the resulting spice. There are also crossbreeds that would produce slightly different tastes. For instance a new variety of Cardamom has just been released by Indian Institute of Spices Research Appangala 2. One can always create a new spice mix as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I specifically excluded new blends of old spices. New varieties of old spices aren't really what I'm after, either. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, if we exclude MSG since it's a seasoning, not a herb or spice, then what's the most recently discovered, completely new, herb or spice ? StuRat (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Chemists in the labs of food-processing corporations are coming up with new flavorings all of the time. This list from the FDA could be a starting point to research which of these is the most recent, though the exact date of the first formulation might be proprietary corporate information. However, these are not spices as usually defined. Because people have been experimenting with plants in every environment from the moment they first visited that environment in prehistoric times, they probably made use in prehistoric times of nearly every edible substance that could function as a spice. I did a brief search for spices discovered in Antarctica, the most recently discovered continent, but couldn't find anything. Of course, not much grows there. Maybe there is a substance used by someone as a spice that came from one of the remote islands first discovered in historic times. Marco polo (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
There are an awful large number of plants, fungi, etc. in the world, some of which are rare, or rather inaccessible, like truffles, and some of which only have small portions of which work as spices, like saffron, and others of which require special preparations to make them edible. So, considering all this, it seems like there should be some spices only discovered recently and others yet to be discovered. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Another factor to consider is whether any spices gathered from organic products may be being genetically engineered for some reason or other, be it productiveness, flavor, longevity, etc. Honestly, given the amount of genetic engineering being done on agricultural plants and animals, I could see people saying that, at least potentially, based on the specific definition of "spice" being used, there might be new spices coming into existence on a very regular basis. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Death rumors in the 110 club likely false[edit]

In the "Recent Deaths 110+ section of "The 110 Club", Bernice Madigan and Ethel Lang are reported to have died. Has anyone that is a member of the 110 club looked into this and verified that they have died? It's got to be a hoax. I mean, I see NO SOURCE that confirms EITHER Ethel Lang NOR Bernice Madigan to have passed their earthly test. I am blocked out of the 110 club for repeatedly making disrespectful comments about SCs, so that is why I am asking the question here. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you link us to the 110 club since you are aware of it, and cannot you ask them? μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The question appears to relate to a Wikipedia blacklisted website called "The 110 Club", a members-only discussion board on the subject of supercentenarians. (It's the top link on this search results page.) Google suggests that Bernice Madigan and Ethel Lang are both still among the living. No report of either of their deaths has been published; given their status among the ten oldest living persons, I expect it would be news if they lost that distinction.
As a hint to the OP, perhaps you should show more respect for your elders if you don't want to get banned from discussion sites? Just a thought. - EronTalk 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What're the most well-known sets of 15 and 16?[edit]


XIV Stations of the Cross
Thirteen American Colonies
XII cranial nerves (all named), months, signs of the zodiac, Dodecanese islands...
basic English color words (ROYGBV, brown, white, black, gray, pink), major solar system objects, according to Earthlings (9 planets, Sun, Moon), objects in a horoscope (exclude the Earth, include asteroid 2060 Chiron for some reason)
Ten Commandments
Nine planets (traditional)
Seven Deadly Sins
chess pieces
Platonic solids
cardinal directions, elements
Gods (Hindu, Mormon)
Gods (Zoroastrian)
Gods (Abrahamic)
Gods (atheist)

But I can't think of any sets of 15 or 16. They should exist, but I'm not sure if there's one where both the subject and number of members is relatively unobscure. For example, types of glands in a man and international airports of Scotland are relatively small, unchanging sets where the number of members is not cared about despite the somewhat important subject matter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And a partridge in a pear tree. Many of the items in your list seem pretty obscure to me. I'm guessing more people associate the number seven with continents than with deadly sins. 15: number of on-field players on a rugby union team. ‑‑Mandruss  08:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I thought the pretty obscure ones were interesting and some of the commonest ones are cliched or boring. (days of the week?) And maybe the Gods semi-joke got religion on my mind. When you get to 14 (A US President's 14 Points, the 14 Words ridiculously paranoid racists tattoo to their skin), they're all going to be pretty obscure anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sixteen Tons, The Sixteen, The Fifteen Streets] - Q Chris (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
There are always 15 UN Security Council members. But the 5 permanent members are more significant. -- (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of this set of six. Pete "DNFFT" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There were 16 original Major League Baseball teams: AL: Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Cleveland Indians, Chicago White Sox, Philadelphia Athletics, St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators, Detroit Tigers. NL: Boston Braves, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, St. Louis Cardinals. This set was unchanged from the 1900's to the 1950's. Also, for your list, six could be the Original Six NHL franchises (Boston Bruins, New York Rangers, Chicago Black Hawks, Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Montreal Canadiens). --Jayron32 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
15 stripes on the American flag at Fort McHenry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In computers, there are 16 bits in a hexadecimal (base 16) number, and 16 bits comes up in many places, like 16 bit color (there's also 15 bit color) and the unicode double byte character set. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But if exponential growth continues 65,536 bit will come up a lot in 2060s GPUs and I will not be considering sets of 65,536 bits in a byte to be notable :) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant to say that there are sixteen distinct "digit" symbols in hexadecimal. Like any number, a hex number can be any length. ‑‑Mandruss  20:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You can find examples in "15 (number)" and "16 (number)", and choose the best-known sets.
Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
... and one splendid example from there which can fit both 15 and 16 is the 15 puzzle (for the number of tiles) aka 16 puzzle (for the number of spaces). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A chess set, with one piece missing. 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Various old songs: "Sixteen Candles", "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Sixteen Going on Seventeen", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are 15 players in a Rugby Union team (actually on the field of play). Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sixteen personalities in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Best Bollywood internet TV service available in the UK[edit]

I need something that can work through some sort of set top box (I don't have a smart TV, and the inconvenience of linking a computer to a TV is more than I wish to deal with). I primarily, but not exclusively, want it for movies and music television. Any ideas?--Leon (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Best way to acoustically isolate a subwoofer ?[edit]

I have a couple problems with my subwoofer:

1) It often causes something or the other in the room to vibrate, making a buzzing sound.

2) It disturbs those downstairs from me.

So far, I've solved the problem by setting it on the floor, but with a pillow underneath, to prevent it from transmitting vibrations to the floor and thus the rest of the room, and this also makes it quieter downstairs. I also turn it off at midnight. It occurred to me that suspending it from the ceiling by bungee cords might even better isolate it from the floor. However, before such an undertaking (which involves drilling lots of holes in the ceiling), I'd like to know what others have done to solve this problem, and if anyone has tried the suspension approach.


StuRat (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Check out Vibration_isolation. You can spend a fortune on an isolation system that will damp out nearly everything, see e.g. here [111] for a nice video showing what a high-end isolation table can achieve. Also some good info on the math and physics here [112]. I would consider mounting on four isolating feet before hanging from the ceiling. Looks like you can get 4 feet for around $30 [113]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any indication that those would be better than a pillow ? Also, why on Earth does this isolation system cost well over 3 grand: [114] ? I'm guessing it works with pressurized air and some powerful magnets ? Still, that seems like it might cost a few hundred, not a few thousand. Maybe it has some kind of active suspension, where it detects the frequency of vibration and changes the suspension to counter that ? StuRat (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It costs over $3k because it can ensure that your microscope (or laser, etc) doesn't move a micrometer when someone walks by your experiment (number made up for illustrative purposes). When you're working on million dollar research, you don't want it messed up because somebody sneezed. Also it will hold up to 500 lbs. I can't easily tell if it's active or passive damping, but both forms exist. As for comparison to pillows, I honestly have no idea how to start estimating the sound damping from first principles, but some of the more reputable vendors I linked above give quantitative measurements of how much vibration can be damped. One thing about the tables and feet is that they also ensure the object stays level and on a hard surface, which is important for laboratory equipment but probably isn't much of an issue for your subwoofer. Finally, there is also a market for this kind of thing to mount high quality turntables on. You might find audiophile products to be (slightly) less expensive than scientific products. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My intuition (unsupported by any hard evidence) suggests that suspending the subwoofer from the ceiling will not be significantly better than your pillows, but you might need to put pillows under some other objects in the room if they happen to resonate with the frequency of your subwoofer output. A good thick carpet and underlay will also help, of course. Dbfirs 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
A few year back I was friends with a defence engineer who was designing audio isolation accessories (initially for himself). It is quite a complex process as one is dealing with resonances that mutually interfere with each other, over a large audio spectrum. Every mass has to me matched with everything else in the whole hi-fi system, as that can effect the overall sound – so it gets expensive. Here is a review of some of those speaker stands that are now made by his brother's company as he himself couldn't keep up with the orders.[115] Of course these are only for connoisseurs and not for the average hoi-polloi, who only aim is to stop annoying the neighbours. Yet it gives you some idea of why the price. However, on that subject. The other-thing I discovered from his research, is that if one employs a really good amp and matching high power speakers (he swore by JBL's) then the definition of the reproduced sound is so good and clear, that one does not have to have to have the volume up. I don't think that is something that can easily be appreciated, until one walks out and closes the door behind one and relize that the system is only at 30% power. One needs an amp with sufficient reserve to follow the waveform of the lower frequencies accurately. Those with lower power systems often try to get round it by turning down the treble and upping the bass and wonder why they keep wrecking their speakers. It don't sound too good either.--Aspro (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting approach, to try to minimize the transmission of vibrations by reducing the contact area between the supports and the floor. But is that really more effective than absorbing the vibrations by using a soft material to dampen them ?
I know a sand table is often used when making holographic pictures, where vibrations cause massive problems ([116]). But maybe there's a bit of a difference, since, in holographic photography you want to eliminate all vibrations, whereas with audio, you want to preserve the vibrations at the speaker and in the air, but eliminate them from the floor and objects sitting on the floor. And sand apparently filters out high frequency vibrations, whereas low frequency is causing my problems.
And yes, I am guilty of having a cheap system. It's actually a $30 2.1 speaker system I use as external speakers for my TV, which, without them, sounds like a cheap AM radio. By doing just as you said, turning the treble down and bass up, I can make it sound respectable on a budget, aside from the annoying buzzing I got (until I put the subwoofer on a pillow). I guess I'll stick with that solution for now, unless anyone else has an economical suggestion for me. StuRat (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What does this wire do?[edit]

At this link you can see a wiring diagram for a switch. I get the basics of the red and black (load and line) and of the ground wires but what does the white/neutral do? Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that to me this thread is started with what might be one of the scariest questions imaginable. ;) John Carter (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, cut the red wire...although "cut the red wire" gets 41 million google hits, "cut the blue wire" scores 57 million, where "cut the black wire" gets over 100 maybe not.  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
See Ground and neutral. It's just the "return path" for your electricity. All active controls need four wires (if earthed) since they need a line supply independent of the controlled load. Dbfirs 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Jesus H! Thimble connectors and uninsulated ground - H&S would have kittens if they saw that over here. One hopes that they have efficient fire departments in the USA. Tevildo (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I can remember when these were normal in the UK (and I think I might know of one or two premises that still have them!) Does the USA not have the equivalent of IEE Wiring Regulations? Dbfirs 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course we do. In the US, most in-house wiring uses bare ground wire. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Bare earth wire was used in the UK also until 1966 (IEE Regs 14th Edition). It's only a problem if it touches a live terminal. Dbfirs 23:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It's still used. BASEC approved from my local hardware store here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That's sheathed, and it has to be separately sheathed (using green and yellow striped plastic) at the socket. Dbfirs 23:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
In the US and Canada, the junction box where the bare wire is exposed is itself commonly made of metal, and if so, is supposed to be grounded. Keeping the ground wire bare makes sense in that context. -- (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This particular switch box is made of plastic. Dismas|(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
not the switch itself, the junction box in the wall which may also have metal conduit which also needs grounding (or can be the ground). Rmhermen (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the responses! Dismas|(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Famous last words: "What does this wire do?" ZZZzaapp! μηδείς (talk)

December 18[edit]

Paper folding man[edit]

I'd recently come across a man who invented a certain way of folding a piece of paper. I don't remember who he is, or why this particular paper folding technique was so important/ground breaking. All I remember is that he was probably a mathematician of some sort (not very sure about this though) and the way of folding the paper was this: first you'd make mountain and valley folds along one length of the paper, then you'd make mountain and valley folds orthogonally (by turning the piece of paper by 90 degrees). Can anyone tell me either who this man was or what technique this is called? Thanks in advance. (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried searching our article Origami for leads? The sub-section 'Origami tessellations' looks as if it might be particularly relevant. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you're thinking of this guy [117] - from a popsci news story in 2008 - guy is a mathematician that works on folding, applications are to airbags, I'm sure you can find more on him with his name - Robert J. Lang. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. I've removed the double posting of the question below.
You'll want to watch the video Between the Folds which will most likely feature the person you are talking about. Lang is in the video, and you may also be speaking of Erik Demaine. In any case the video covers many present Western cutting edge origamists. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]


Does anyone know any info on this? I have been trying to find any info in what year people started gift wrapping with newspaper and have not had any luck was wondering if you could help I thought I had read in an article it was during great depression because money was so tight but cant seem to find the article or anything helping me figure out when that came about. Would really appreciate any help you could offer. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I could find here and here it was the opposite. During the Great Depression people wanted their gift to look nicer as they couldn't afford expensive gifts. Although one reference I found from 1944 had this:

Gift packaging at Neiman-Marcus of Dallas, Tex., is a ritual. War or peace, booms or depressions, it continues as a definite part of store operations. When the material shortage threatened at the beginning of the war, J. B. Aiello, superintendent superintendent, said, "We'll gift package, even if we have to use newspapers," and his boast was made good by the creation of a colored newspaper package wrapped by Beverly Morgan, Neiman-Marcus' imaginative gift-wrap designer.

Modern Packaging. Morgan-Grampian Publishing Company. 1944. p. 102. 
I hope that helps Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died in 2014[edit]

Another user started deleting pending cases on the list. Is this necessary? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Any article which does not have enough source material outside of Wikipedia is subject for deletion. It's not complicated, unless the deleted articles are somehow your pet project, and then you'll somehow come up with some other justification for why they shouldn't be deleted. If you want to stop something from being deleted, come up with reliable source text to support it as an article. --Jayron32 03:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Highest Bejeweled 2 score ever?[edit]

Could this be the highest score ever achieved in the ACTION game in Bejeweled 2 Deluxe (my highest score in the ACTION game), 2,164,600? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

nope Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Are news network interviews pre-scripted?[edit]

When a news network, such as CNN for example, brings on air a specialist to discuss a particular subject (Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondant for example), are these guests given the questions that will be asked ahead of time so that they have time to prepare a well-thought out answer? Similarly, on late-night comedy shows such as Colbert Report, Jimmy Fallon, or Jon Stewart, are their guests given the questions and prepare answers ahead of time? Acceptable (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The interviewee needs to be informed about the subject that they are being asked to give their views upon but that’s about it. Knowing the questions beforehand temps the interviewee to memorise answers which lead to a boring, non-spontaneous, speech like response. Also, a good interviewer will only have a few brief bits on the on the subject written down as a aid memoir of the most important bits he wants answers to, together with the expert's possible responses, so that interviewer can come back instantly with a counter argument (cross-examine). However, much of how the interview goes though, is based on the response given by the interviewee. On chat-shows things are 'slightly' different. Very often the guest(s) appear for the sole purpose of promoting their latest film, book, tour, or whatever (you are watching an advertorial in case you hadn't realized). The guests may demand ahead of time, that certain topics of a personal nature are not mentioned, if talk of them would subtract from their public persona or image that they wish to project. Likewise the interviewer needs to weave into the conversation what the guest is there to promote. The structure of the interview is bound by tight time constraints. So the producer can keep the chat-show host aware of the right point in which to bring into the conversation the promotional stuff (through the earpiece). As this has got to go well and smoothly, a little pre-collusion sometimes helps but this is up to the personal style of the chat-show host. A good host can find himself introducing at short notice, someone substituted in-place of a guest that could not make the show, yet be able to draw out an interesting conversation about what the guest has been getting up to (in a professional sense). Hence, the substitute guest's eagerness to appear on the show, at short notice and unprepared. --Aspro (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
There was of course this infamous case of an interviewee who clearly wasn't prepared at all, although also wasn't particularly eager to appear on the show and wasn't brought in because the other Guy wasn't available. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortest time to Execution in the United States?[edit]

In thinking about one of the Criminal Minds Episodes, I was wondering within recent time (last 40 years?) has anyone been executed in the Untied States either a) within 6 months of the death penalty being imposed by a judge or b) within a year of the crime taking place? If not, does anyone have minimal number for either?Naraht (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)