Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 18

Expired cell-phone card

I had a cell-phone contract and after I had canceled it, I could still use the SIM card (for emergencies only). For that purpose, a cell-phone with an expired card can still connect to any tower, but does this generate costs for the cell-phone company? --Mr.K. (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. You phone will use 'bandwidth' from their towers. The cost will be tiny-tiny-tiny but will have an impact on their traffic and thus on their costs - there'll not be a specific cost attributed to your phones existance - it is more maintainenance costs for the towers, which your phone won't be paying for. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And why do cell companies provide this service? Are they obligated to it by law? --Mr.K. (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In many countries they are obligated to by law. In the USA, FCC regulations require that every phone which is physically capable of connecting to the network must be able to call 911; this includes disconnected numbers, cell phones with expired cards, and even cell phones with no sim card in at all. FiggyBee (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the main reason why non-profits such as women's shelters will take donations of old cell phones. They give them to women who are getting out of bad relationships where they fear for their safety. As long as the phone is charged, and receiving a signal, they can dial 911 if their abusive ex attacks them. Dismas|^(talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And why you should take the battery out before using a phone as a child's toy. I saw some numbers recently on this one. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in the UK (and EU?), the ability to call emergency services is a legal requirement for all telephones including mobiles. For example, just after I turn on my mobile, I am able to call 999/112/911 before I have even activated the SIM card with my PIN number - ie. subscription status or minutes remaining is not even checked. I presume the small cost of such calls is absorbed by the carrier. Astronaut (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Free University Education

Is it possible for an US teen to attend college for free in European countries where university education is free for its citizens? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In my home country of Austria, the answer seems to be: maybe. Have a look at this link, particularly step 2. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Free education isn't really free; someone has to pay professor's salaries, building and grounds maintenance, etc. etc. In countries with "free" university education, that cost is born by taxpayers in that country, so my guess is that most of those countries still charge tuition to foreign students coming to study; since those students would not be paying the taxes necessary to maintain the system. --Jayron32 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except that – as the link I provided says – in Austria, at least, you do not have to pay tuition fees if you are a citizen of a country that Austria grants, due to international treaties, the same rights as Austrians. I have no idea if the USA is one such country or how many such countries there are. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) In the UK, where the situation is slightly complicated*, you will have to pay overseas fees which are significantly higher than 'home' fees and vary from university to university and from course to course (e.g. from mid-single-digit thousands to around 23k for clinical medicine). This sort of information will be available on the 'international' or 'overseas' section of university admissions websites. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

* Scottish university tuition fees are free for Scottish and non-UK EU (or EEA?) students; elsewhere you are guaranteed loans with relatively friendly terms to pay tuition fees. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was in college ([ahem] more than 20 years ago), the situation in Germany was that foreigners did not have to pay more than Germans to attend German universities, but they did have to meet German admission requirements, including proficiency in German. German universities did not charge "tuition" per se, but they did charge fees, which however were much lower than tuition and fees at almost any US university. Students at German universities were also entitled to grants from the German government to offset their living expenses, though apparently since my day, grants seem to have been partly replaced by loans. It used to be that foreign students could also receive German government grants, but per the German Wikipedia article on this, foreigners are now eligible for support only if they have been legal residents of Germany for at least 4 years. Nonetheless, I think tuition remains very low in Germany, even for foreigners. Marco polo (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In Norway, no tuition at all, neither for Norwegians nor foreigners. [1] [2]. There is a small registration fee of usually less than (the equivalent of) $100 per semester, that's all. Living expenses can be high, but are lower in remote places (where there are still sometimes institutions of higher learning). Jørgen (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently a US Citizen studying in Germany. Granted, I am on a scholarship, but as it seems in other people's cases, they will still have to pay the 500€ tuition and the 42€ registration fee (that's for my Uni specifically). However, unlike the US, there is no (ridiculously) higher tuition price for out-of-state or out-of-country students, everyone pays the same amount regardless. But I don't think non-German citizens qualify for any tuition-waiving from the government (e.g. if you have a child, or if you come from a family that is still receiving Kindergeld). Fruit Blender (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up question, it comes to my mind whether somewhere in the world, there is a free English speaking university... Mr.K. (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Several. West Point, United States Naval Academy, United States Coast Guard Academy. That is just in the US and the list is not exhaustive. Googlemeister (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up follow-up question, it comes to my mind, whether somewhere in the world, there is a free English speaking non-military university...

Well, the University of Oslo (in Norway), referred above, has English-language master programs, but apparently no undergraduate programs taught in English. Maybe some other universities in Norway have that. (However, I think Norwegian universities would require one year of college from the US, the same might go for other European systems where, like in Norway, "high school" lasts one year longer than in the US) Jørgen (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was curious enough to look it up, and here is a list of English-language undergraduate studies in Norway. Though I know that the business administration one is not free (it's a private school), I expect most of the others to be. This list says that you can get admission with a US high school diploma with "3 APT tests with at least grade 3" (but this is only a minimum requirement, there might be additional grade requirements etc) Jørgen (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

tagging a account

How you tag a account as a legitimate alternate account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Sheik Dark (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia should normally be addressed to the Help Desk. That said, the alternate account portion of the sockpuppet policy page spells out the accepted means of tagging. — Lomn 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to do it is to write at the top of the alternate account, in plain old text "This account is an alternate account of User:XXXXX" where XXXXX is your main account. However, someone has come up with a fancy template that does the same thing, see Template:User Alternate Acc. However, there is no requirement to use that tag, you just need to unambigiously link your two accounts. --Jayron32 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't even have to unambiguously link accounts if you don't want to. Just don't sock puppet. Having multiple accounts that nobody knows about is fine as long as you aren't abusing any of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is actually quite easy to abuse them. Undisclosed alternate accounts should not a) edit the same article as other accounts you manage b) be used to edit in the "Wikipedia:" namespace c) be used to avoid scrutiny or to edit disruptively while your main account stays "clean" (good hand/bad hand) d) be used to dodge a block or to mask prior existing sanctions against other accounts (i.e. avoid having multiple warnings and blocks on each account; spreading out abuses so no one notices its the same person, etc.) In general, you tend to run into FAR less trouble if you just link the accounts publicly, so on one will suspect any shenanigans. --Jayron32 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See User:Edison2 for an example. Edison (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another good thing to do is to be logged in to your main account when you visit Special:Createaccount to create the alt account, as I did when I created User:The Hero of This Nation. That way everyone can see in the log who created the account (example).

Spinning black thing on top of vans

Hey

This has been bugging me for years, what are the names and purpose of the spinning black thing on top of some vans? It looks like they are wind powered so i assume they either charge something or do some other kind of job but what?

I tried finding a picture but with no luck :(

If anyone can inform me about these id be truely grateful! Cheers

-Benbread (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A ventilator? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think they are air vents. They work like an (unpowered) extraction fan. Vans don't have windows or anything in the back, so they need some other way to keep ventilated. --Tango (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow i was well off :P Thanks for your help Cuddlyable3 and Tango :) -Benbread (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

November 19

Wikipedia

Who started Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.153.106 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. We have an article at Wikipedia. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy won't be too pleased about sharing credit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.114 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not, but Wikipedians examined the reliable sources and determined that Larry was a co-founder. That's what it says in the relevant Wikipedia articles. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also History of Wikipedia. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Company wiki

Im sure this isnt the proper medium to ask this, but im also sure that this will point me in the right direction.

i wanted to write a wiki about a small company. Nothing too different from the others ive seen, just location, company backround, services offered. But from what ive read,that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I was hoping for a little help understanding why.... this is an encyclopedia right? Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincinnatus010 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). They should help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might also read WP:NOTWIKI. Staecker (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI would be good to read, too. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we do not encourage articles about things that are not "notable" because if we allowed articles about absolutely anything then half of the people on the planet would be writing articles about themselves, their pets...you name it. There would be no way to police all of those trivial articles for reliability, correctness or even language. It's tough enough with just three million articles - imagine if there were a billion or so! The guidelines lay out the threshold at which something (like a small company) is just too insignificant to warrant an article. It can be harsh to think that something you care about is officially "insignificant" - but that's life. Secondly, we aren't about providing free advertising space...and that's probably what you're thinking about when you are considering writing this article. But recall that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Do you really want your competitors carefully recording and exposing every mistake you make on the Wikipedia page about your company? They certainly could (and probably should) do that - and because we value neutrality here (as you'd expect of a reputable encyclopedia) - it's very likely that wikipedians would stand up to your protestations and demands for removal of offending material! Finally, you would not be allowed to write just what you want about this company. We have verifiability standards - you need to be able to point to reliable sources for this information - not things that the company has published, independent sources such as newspaper articles, books, etc. You can't say "The Whizzo Widget Company makes red, green and blue widgets" without finding some independent source that says that. That's because we are not a primary source of information - we require that our readers should be able to (in principle) look up the references at the bottom of the article and check for themselves that what the article says is true. For a small company - finding those independent sources can be tough...which brings us back to the notability standards. If you aren't notable enough to have had a lot written about you by independent sources, then there is unlikely to be enough verifiable material to be able to write an unbiassed article. SteveBaker (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Faulty cds- any uses?

What can u make from faulty cds instead of throwing them away. The only thing I can think of is wheels.--79.75.63.71 (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Beermat? --Jayron32 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Build a model of a high-tech Viking ship, with the CD's on the side of the boat as shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang them in the garden to scare away birds--88.109.19.101 (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sew them onto a jacket or dress (shiny side outwards, of course) for an unusual fashion look. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And deer! --Sean 13:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Place them by windows in beams of sunlight to reflect 'rainbows' around the room (some work better than others). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Put one in your survival kit - they make splendid heliographs.Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Use as pocket mirrors? Jørgen (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Send to a CD recyclers, although you have to send in a lot in one go. Lots of places have boxes where you can drop in printer cartridges for free recycling and I've often thought there should be similar boxes for CDs and DVDs.--80.195.117.33 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons. They make for good shuriken. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Have fun zapping them in the microwave (takes less than 5 seconds). Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stick a cotton reel over the hole in the middle, stretch a party balloon over that, inflate it, and you have your own air hockey game. --Tango (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of possibilities: [3] I like the clock idea and actually had one. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes see them hanging in the vertical plane from a long piece of string outdoors as a kind of scarecrow. Have lots of them and you have a kinetic sculture that moves and flashes with the wind. I wonder if they tinkle when they hit each other. 78.146.97.208 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Add a CD halo to a statue of Buddha. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Make a homemade spectrometer. Nadando (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, this is something that's often been discussed [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] www.squidoo.com/oldcd (not a wikilink due to spam blacklisting). This also applies to other common sources of useless optical media, e.g. AOL CDs and we even have an AOL disk collecting which has a few relevant links, e.g. [9]. Of course the fact they are commonly called coasters hints at a use itself and there are numerous tutorials [10] [11] [12] www.ehow.com/how_2841_create-cd-coasters.html (not a wikilink due to blacklisting) [13] [14] [15]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

throw them at your little sister? --Talk Shugoːː 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

res judicata

Is this legal concept the same as double jeopardy? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, it's more of a parallel to it. Read both articles (which I have now linked) and perhaps the distinction will become clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BB. Couldn't make heads or tails of the difference myself. 210.176.69.125 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Res judicata means that the legal issues involved have already been firmly decided and are unlikely to change. Double jeopardy says that the same person can't be tried twice for the same crime. I suppose that most cases of double jeopardy are also res judicata - but not vice-versa. Res judicata comes up in (for example) hearings of the US Supreme Court where they may decide not to hear some particular case (deferring it to some lower court, perhaps) because they have already ruled on similar cases in the past so that the legal issues involved are res judicata - even though different defendants are involved each time so that double jeopardy does not apply. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that last sounds more like stare decisis. I don't know much about res judicata but the impression I got from the article is that it has to do with questions of fact, not questions of law. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any national financial capitals that aren't

also the national publishing and advertising capitals?

Seizethemonth (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany: Frankfurt am Main (finance) vs Hamburg (media). Advertising may be evenly split between those two (with Berlin and Munich as further centres). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong. 210.176.69.125 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

USA - Wall Street isn't in Washington DC!Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would consider Washington DC to be either a publishing or advertising capital. Dismas|^(talk) 12:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I didn't read the question properly...Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Canberra , Australia seems like it would qualify. Googlemeister (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think Canberra is a financial, publishing, or advertising capital. Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is still the case, but in the 1980's, through a quirk in legislation, Canberra (more correctly the ACT) was the hardcore porn publishing centre of Australia. --80.176.225.249 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is many a porn to be had in Canberra, but like Marco polo said, Canberra definitely is not the financial, advertising or publishing capital of the countryl. - Akamad (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For China, Shanghai is arguably more important than Hong Kong as a financial center within China. Hong Kong is something of a city-state unto itself. Within China, advertising is split among Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, with Hong Kong firms also heavily involved. However, Beijing is really the main publishing center. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How does a city with no convertable currency or free movement of capital qualify as a financial capital?DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

India: Mumbai is the center for finance and advertising, whereas New Delhi is the center for publishing. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% certain, but I think that Wellington is still regarded as New Zealand's financial capital (it's definitely still the legislative one), while Auckland is the centre for advertising and publishing. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

why does a minute have 60 seconds???

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.253.31 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it does. It's a tacit, consensus-approved convention. Also,

The fact that an hour contains 60 minutes is probably due to influences from the Babylonians, who used a base-60 or sexagesimal counting system.

I'm sure this also applies to the second-minute ratio. Vranak (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...and also the 360 degrees in a circle. It wasn't really a base 60 system, though, but alternated between bases of 6 and 10, as follows:

    The 1st digit went up to 6.
    The 2nd digit went up to 60 (6×10).
    The 3rd digit went up to 360 (6×10×6).
    The 4th digit went up to 3600 (6×10×6×10).

You also see the 3600 seconds in an hour in there. Now, you might ask why they used an alternating system of 6's and 10's. The 10's are obvious, as that's how many fingers we have (except for those who play with fireworks). The 6's, on the other hand, may have come about as a way to get a number close to the number of days in a year (360≈365¼). They also have the advantage of being a number you can probably just look at to count (rather than going 1, 2, 3, ...). StuRat (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For pre-decimal days, 6 works better as a number base because it's more convenient to do fractions in. (Dividable by 2,3,6 - add in the 10, and you get 2,3,4,5,6,10,etc.) -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I also heard somewhere that part of the reason a second is the length it is because it roughly approximates a human heartbeat at rest. Don't know if there's any truth behind that... TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For a possible alternative system, see Decimal time. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a world without calculators, base-60 makes a lot of sense because 60 is evenly divided by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20 and 30. No other reasonably small number can do that. Choosing base-10 just because we happen to have 10 fingers was a poor decision in retrospect! SteveBaker (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you then need to have sixty different, distinguishable symbols to represent all of the numerals. And what child will remember his multiplication tables? If you'd like, you can pretend that we have a base-100 system now — just take pairs of digits in a base-10 number. Then you've got a base that is evenly divided by 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...which is more or less exactly what they did - using pairs of symbols in base 6 and 10 as StuRat explained above. I agree that learning to multiply in such a system would be tough. It's interesting to note the issues with going the other direction - computer software people are "really" working in base 2 - but that's so incredibly inconvenient that people started to work in base 8 (octal) in order to have shorter numbers, using more symbols. Gradually, it became clear that base 16 was yet more convenient. Octal is now more or less obsolete - most people work in "hexadecimal" - complete with 16 symbols (0-9,A-F). SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In the 16th century the astronomer Taqi al-Din in his observatory at Istanbul built the first mechanical clock which divided each minute into five seconds. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a world without calculators, base-60 makes a lot of sense because 60 is evenly divided by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20 and 30. No other reasonably small number can do that. Which is especially useful in the time when fractions were the way of math, and decimal math was far in the future. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Count

Hi, I once stumbled on a link to a page where you can see the count of your contributions on Wiki, so I obviously got hooked, and now I'm page-count-dependant, so how do I reach it? It should be a site outside the orthodox Wiki, and anyway does it count all contribuitions on wiki or only WikiEnglish (eg. contribuitions in italian)? Help a poor Wikiatic...--Amendola90 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A list of edit counters is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. The most popular one is by User:X! at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec, and it can count contributions on any language Wikipedia individually. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the help.--Amendola90 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NOTWIKI. Thanks, gENIUS101 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that you wish to know how many edits you have done, it's listed near the top of your "my preferences" page. B00P (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize I was torturing users calling Wikipedia Wiki, but I suppose it could bother some people, I used it just so I didn't have to repeat Wikipedia over and over. Anyway WP is all I need as abbreviative. Thanks --Amendola90 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Viatical settlements

A viatical settlement is where a person with life insurance sells beneficiary rights to a third party who pays the premium until the insured person's death. Usually beneficiaries are close to the insured and have a financial incentive, so notifying the insurer of death is not an issue, but that's not the case with a viatical settlement. How does the viatical settlement purchaser ensure that they are notified when the insured dies (assuming they don't do the logical thing and take out a hit on the seller)? Thanks. --Sean 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually in such cases the insured person is terminally ill when the benefits are assigned, so they won't have very long to wait. The settlement will stipulate that they are notified of the death, and if for some reason this does not occur, they can always search the register of deaths. -Ehrenkater (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some life insurance policies have an early benefit (often called "accelerated benefit") provision, wherein a terminally ill person can collect a portion of his benefit before he dies, thus reducing the incentive to make an arrangement like a viatical settlement. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

True - most term protetion policies have a 'Terminal Illness Benefit' which pays out the life-insurance amount on diagnosis of a terminal illnness (usually qualified with being given less than 12 months to live). Firms also have 'orphan funds' with millions in payouts that haven't been claimed. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you buy something, and the price drops substantially, and you are still within the return period...

Will the retailer usually refund you the difference, or will they require you to return it and then buy it again?

I bought a Tivo DVR from Amazon less than 30 days ago, and now it is selling for almost $42 cheaper. Will Amazon refund me the $42 or should I return it and buy it again? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. No "Ask Amazon" answers please. I am asking them -- I just want to know what others' experience has been. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unopened/unused items with a purchase-receipt - yes you should be able to get a refund from most retailers and then re-buy in the sale. Amazon automatically 'drop' the price if you pre-order something at one price and it is then subsequently released at a cheaper price (it recently happened to me - I bought a game at £35 on pre-order, but by release it was £25 so got a £10 refund). I very much doubt they would automatically do that for non pre-order purchases (since you are buying the item there and then). It's a company by company issue. 15:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Unless there is something wrong with the item, you may find you have to return it at your own expense, including insurance in case it goes missing. In the UK at least, vendors are not obliged to refund your money if there is nothing wrong with the purchased item: once you've accepted it the contract has been completed. (Sorry if this is bordering on legal advice.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's bordering on incorrect legal advice. In the UK, Amazon is obliged to accept goods back if they are returned within 7 days, under the Distance Selling Regulations. (There are conditions attached to how they must be returned). --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Amazon, but a lot of places charge a 10-15% "restocking fee" on electronics (along with return postage), which would eat into your profit on the return-and-rebuy deal. Unfortunately, the "Ask Amazon" is the best answer you're going to get - each retailer has it's own policy, and I am unaware of any law which would force them to refund you the money. It is, however, good customer service, so it may be likely that they'll do so if you ask nicely. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My family does this all the time; it seems sketchy to me, but I think they do it on purpose for some reason. They've never had a problem getting a refund for the difference between the normal price and the sale price. Occasionally they will need to bring the item back, get a full refund, and then buy it again at the sale price. This is at big retail stores in Canada, where, I suppose, the teenagers working for minimum wage are too apathetic to care. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the store allows full refunds without a specific reason, then there's not really anything the cashier could do about it even if they did care. Rckrone (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP is hoping for two things that in Law are separate: 1) Voiding of the original purchase with a full refund. 2) A subsequent purchase of an article. (It makes no difference whether it is the same or a duplicate article.) Depending on the terms of sale, the Seller may not be obliged to do 1). The Seller is not obliged to do 2) (and can always claim to be sold out). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some brick-and-mortar retailers have a "price guarantee" offer: if they cut the price within a certain period after purchase (usually one week or 30 days), you bring in the receipt and they'll refund you the price difference. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

From my experience this all depends on the refund policy of the company because not all places have fancy "price guarantees". The refund policy will dictate the terms of refunding the item. However, most refund policies also indicate that the item must be in a sell-able condition, so for example, let's assume you are still within the return period, but you are actually only interested in getting refunded the price difference and not interested in actually refunding the item, but your item has been used and isn't really "sell-able" - in which case the manager would have to be called to issue a refund and immediately sell it back to you. I guess, this whole system also means that if the price is reduced and your return period is up, you cannot get the better price -- and that sounds pretty fair to me :p Rfwoolf (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What stops her from going mad?

I am British and an avowed supporter of the Monarchy though I would happily lose most of the lesser hangers-on. I watched the Queen yesterday do a magnificent - as usual - job of presenting the next set of Government Bills to both Houses of Parliament. I have met the Queen and Prince Philip on several occasions and always found them to be polite, pleasant, and utterly bland, in the same way she was during the Queen's speech yesterday. Nothing seems to excite or thwart her - she takes everything in her stride. Her life is so pre-arranged and predictable that she must know to the minute what is going to happen to her schedule for months and years ahead. How can anyone in her position remain sane when there are no surprises left, save an ex-daughter-in-law dying in a car crash, or 3 of her 4 children divorcing. Does she have some secret and private life that is kept justifiably off-limits from the press and public that allows her to be like the rest of us - at ease. Or was she, like her father and predecesors, trained for this pantomime role and therefore takes it and herself utterly seriously? 92.21.176.245 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The queen certainly has times when she is not scheduled and her time is her own. As best anyone can tell, her private life is quite conventional. She dotes on her dogs and takes an interest in horse races. You should see the film The Queen if you haven't already. It offers what I think is a well-researched glimpse of the queen's private world. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also a matter of what you're used to. Bear in mind that she's lived in that environment all of her life - for her, it's 100% normal. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression "utterly bland" used as a compliment before, but there you go, language is full of surprises. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand "utterly bland" to be complimentary, as used. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First, what choice does she have but do go along with the dreary life you have described? Second, maybe she already has gone partly mad. Just because you go a little crazy it doesn't mean you cease to live. Vranak (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure her life is dreary. One way to look at it is that this is her job. As a job, it's not a bad one. She does some research, so that she knows something about the various dignitaries she will meet and can carry on polite conversation with them. She is always meeting new and interesting people as part of her job. She needs to keep up with the news so that what she says is relevant. Most challengingly, she needs to inspire Britons and help uphold the legitimacy of the British state. It is her job to project the gravitas that American presidents are also expected to project, though not all succeed. Finally, the job is quite well paid and comes with some very nice perks. Marco polo (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That will depend on your point of view I suppose. It seems like a prison with golden bars to me. Googlemeister (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"..she needs to inspire Britons and help uphold the legitimacy of the British state.." LMAO, ROFL, etc. etc. I know you're US not UK, but do you really think she does that - or that most Brits think she does that, or would even want her to...  ???!!!! (There goes my chance of a knighthood, but I'd rather have a barnstar any day...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When I had an office job I could tell you what I was going to be doing months or years ahead. I was stuck in an office, in the same seat with the same people doing the same paperwork with the same view out of the window (view: a wall) for years, but I did not go mad (I think....). Q has it a lot easier: she jets off to interesting places, meets interesting people, and gets constantly adored. 78.146.97.208 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She upholds an interesting ideal. There are expectations of how the upper crust is supposed to conduct themselves. I think that involves not revealing vulgar emotions. I think that involves not stooping to engage in expressing disagreement except from a place of remoteness. The air of nobility has to be understood in order to be cultivated, and understanding it is probably a full time preoccupation. Being the queen is thus a genuine calling, with all its quirks and demanding responsibilities. Bus stop (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Her "public persona may be the way it is because that's the way they're taught - just like those palace guards who look like statues. Once they're off duty, they likely engage in quite a few interesting leisure activities with quite a few frivolities. It's just that the only time you see them is when they're guarding Buckingham Palace, etc.. I'm sure the queen is the same way.

Besides, what else would you expect? Do you really expect reigning monarchs to start hurling insults at other countries, or launch into a monologue like Bob Hope? "Hey, about that European Union, I wanna tell ya, I had a bad feeling about it ever since I first saw the acronym for it; who would want to belong to a place that sounds like someone let off a stink bomb?" (Eeewwwwww) :-)

Some United States politicians have been known to have much greater senses of humor, too, than others. So, maybe her personality just isn't one to be really loud and outgoing. Some people, genetically, are just much more reserved.209.244.187.155 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with politicians is wide of the mark. The UK monarch, whatever else he or she may be, is absolutely not a politician. They do not engage in public controversy, and are rarely if ever interviewed. They are above politics. The only time the Queen ever speaks on political matters is when she opens a new session of Parliament, where she outlines the government's intentions for the coming period; but she always reads a speech prepared for her, and it is important that she be seen to be reading someone else's words, even if they are couched in terms such as "My Government will ....". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that the lives of all you palace watchers have aspects that you would regret being widely known. The Queen has a private life that is nobody's business but hers. As a public person she would seem never excited or thwarted but if that is a mask, it can slip as when she related

“ 1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an Annus Horribilis. ”

Her present sanity is not in question. But their regal status kept neither monarchs George nor Ludwig sane Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of The Queen's purpose or lack thereof, it's nice to give her the benefit of the doubt. She seems like a decent lady. Vranak (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She's a pretty nice girl, but she hasn't got a lot to say. I'd like to tell that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine. Someday I'm gonna make her mine. Oh, yeh. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope that day never comes, Baseball Bugs - God save the Queen say I. Getting back to the point, there's much dispute about the nature of George III's illness which is not covered in the Wikipedia article, which just describes him as "insane". Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She's already in my little black book. Just waiting patiently for ol' Phil to croak. You've heard the expression "marrying up"? Hitching with royalty would qualify. In any case, as I understand it, the royals live a fairly conservative live in private. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm British and I favour just having a prime minister without any royalty or president. I've been trying to figure out how some people accumulate big success/wealth out of mutually-willing reciprocal exchanges with others. For the OP this seems to be some of the prestige of royalty rubbing off on them. The small amount of respect that Q gets in return from each individual like the OP adds up, due to the large number of people, and maintains her current wealth/sucess etc etc. I understand that the royal family refer to themselves as "The Firm" among themselves. Ha ha ha, merely a joke of course, not at all impliying that they are posh and polite version of the Mafia who have been conning the loyal suckers for generations, oh no definately not. 78.151.128.59 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As an American, it occurs to me there can be some value in having a head of state who is above politics, at least in theory. Whether it's worth what the royal family costs the British, might be debatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article says it costs 37 million pounds to support the royal family each year, which seems a pittance for anything of national importance (which I disagree that maintaining a monarchic appendix is, but there's no DisneyLand in the UK, so I suppose they need something for tourists to gawk at). --Sean 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the contributer calling himself "78.151.128.59" is in a small minority here in the UK[16][17]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose its the reflected glory that you like. The Soviets probably published similar polls about their system. £37m could relieve a lot of misery if spent in the right way. 92.29.18.113 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To a significant extent it is support of Queen Elizabeth II rather than support of the monarchy. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't really compare the UK to the USSR. People here are free to vote for whatever political party they choose. If there was a real will to do away with the Monarchy it would have been abolished by now. Australia is having the debate now. For my part, yes, I like the pageantry, I like the continuity with our history and I believe that the Monarchy is a sure safeguard for the British Constitution. Giving up the Monarchy for me would be like asking the US to give up it's flag and national anthem. For me, Britain without a Sovereign wouldn't be Britain. Just my opinion of course. Alansplodge (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My totally inaccurate back-of-an-envelope guesswork suggests that £37million per year would for example pay to put over 1000 people through university who would not otherwise go - thats 1000 human lives transformed every year, something like 80000 or more per monarch's lifetime. Spent in overseas aid it could I expect change the lives of many times that number. If the £37m per year was used to pay the interest on capital, then at say (pure guesswork) 5% it would be equivalent to £740million capital, which would pay for a lot of hospitals, schools etc in the UK or overseas. If you used the bank base rate as the interest rate then the capital would be much greater than that - billions in fact. 78.146.30.105 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an old argument, which also applies to spending on space programs, cultural events, pure mathematics, fashion, Christmas shopping, and a raft of other things that are not absolutely necessary for the continuation of the human species - while millions starve. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And I thought you were a rabid anti-royalist. 78.146.30.105 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss our individual positions on these matters. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, the Monarchy technically makes a net contribution to the Treasury - the Crown Estate belongs to the monarch (not the Queen personally) but all the revenue it generates (about £230m last year) goes to the Treasury because each recent monarch as agreed to it. It would only make financial sense to stop paying the monarchy if we also confiscated all that property. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Crown Estate belongs to the people of the UK, as does Buck Pal and so on. So its not true to claim that royalty pays us money. The wealth that the royals have now was taken from us in the past. Perhaps royalty has some worth in generating tourism and political stability, but the largess ought to be cut to 10% of what it is now. £3.7 million income a year is still a fabulous income. 84.13.162.136 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

November 20

Photographing fish - right side?

I just read in an article about fish photography that there was some sort of "etiquette" requiring you to show the left side of a fish (i.e. flipping pictures where the right side of the fish in focus is visible). Is there such a taboo and where does it come from? 124.154.253.31 (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wild guess - most languages of the world read from left to right, and thus the majority of viewers have eyes that are expecting information to be presented from left to right - in which case it feels natural to have the head of the fish be the first thing you see, and the tail the last. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an explanation - but it's not just fish. Oddly - there is a similar weirdness about photographing cars. Take a look at car photos and you'll find that the vast majority have the car facing to the left. I just looked through photos of my favorite car (the MINI (BMW)) on WikiCommons - and there are more than twice as many facing to the left as to the right. This was discussed at some length a couple of years ago on WikiProject Cars - and many people thought that it was a consequence of which side of the road we drive on - but that was blown away when someone counted car photos in British and American car magazines and found that despite driving on opposite sides of the road - we still prefer our car photos with the car facing to the left (just the same as fish). In the case of cars, I'm pretty sure the bias is not "etiquette" or "convention" - because even people who were previously completely unaware of the 'rule' would discover that of the photos they'd taken of cars, more than two thirds of them were facing to the left. It would be interesting to analyze car/fish photos from countries where people read from right to left. One other wild-assed theory is that it related to the fact that our left and right eyes are connected to the right and left sides of our brains - and thus to some bizarre idea about one half of the brain being more logical and all of that stuff. I have no clue why that would matter - but then I don't have a better explanation either. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also watch photography etiquette which, if you check any magazine, demands watch hands to be at the 10 + 2 position. You can say what you wish about symmetrical spread and ability to see unique aspects of watch faces (such as the number 12 or the date at the 3 position) but that doesn't really explain why the hands can't be at 8 + 4. It's just what it is because someone once said to do it that way and it caught on by convention. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also a convention that profile or three-quarter images of people face the center of the page, and newspapermen were perfectly happy to flip negatives to make this so. The fish convention, though, has to be adjusted for flatfish like sole or flounder — the pictures are more interesting if you shoot the side with the eyes, which varies from left to right. Actually, flatfish are born with opposed eyes, and one migrates as the fish matures. Occasionally the wrong eye will migrate, so the fish settles to the bottom eyes down and starves.. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned numerous times that watches are set like that because it makes them appear "happy" and that viewers subconsciously react more favorably. Whether that's ever been scientifically proven I have no idea, but it's been repeated to me enough times by all sorts of people that I think it's become the de facto reason, if not the original? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We did have an article on that, but it got deleted. Astronaut (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, putting a profile so that it is facing outside the page seems really awkward (perhaps they are not interested in the article?), and since most pictures of cars, fish, and other animals, when presented on a page with text, are usually on the right side of the page, that might cause a general trend to have all "faced" items looking left-wise, which would then be copied and patterned into the brain as the "correect" orientation. Does that make sense to anyone else? 124.154.253.31 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a well-established photographic composition rule to leave more room in front of an animate or moving object. Extending this rule from the photo to the page would have the subject always looking toward the centre of the page. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton's beauty

Is Catherine Ashton's beauty (of lack thereof) ever a topic in the UK press? Do journalists have a code of conduct that forbids them to tackle this topic? Mr.K. (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a newspaper article regarding this lady until yesterday, whether discussing her facial features or not! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She's not so bad, she looks kind of like Emma Thompson -- or at least like how Thompson would probably look without the benefit of beauty treatments, etc. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fair to say she has "a good face for radio", but since politics is her business rather than beauty pageants, her looks don't really figure into it. Not every female politician can look like Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Except for in the extreme tabloid press, I fail to see the journalistic relevance of her (lack of) beauty. At least in Europe politics has yet to become a beauty contest. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, a woman that's too attractive is going to find that a handicap in running for office, at least in the USA, as the press tends not to take her seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that why Nancy Pelosi is so successful? Googlemeister (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinda cute. But I'm guessing she never posed in hot pants, nor created her own traveling reality show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it is Palins looks that is her disadvantage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pelosi is 69 years old, an age at which none of us will be getting by on our looks. A quick google shows she looked perfectly fine as a young woman. --Sean 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that one of the more wonderful things about the UK is that you can do very well for yourself and not be overly attractive. I guess Donald Trump proves that's not totally unknown Stateside either. Vranak (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, an attractive woman with no other real political views, aptitude, experience, etc, and no real plan at all beyond being a Hollywood-style media darling has a wonderful excuse for not being taken seriously: She can simply blame it on her good looks. (As you may have noticed.) APL (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also say that the half-blindness of Gordon Brown is only a topic for the tabloid press. However, a couple of days ago I heard a BBC's comedy podcast mocking his deficiency in perceiving depth (he spots trouble, but doesn'tknow how deep they are). Mr.K. (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Many would argue that New York governor David Paterson could not have been elected successfully, given his handicap. It was a significant issue in the press when he assumed office. As far as Ashton goes, I wouldn't say that she is either remarkably attractive or ugly. —Akrabbim^talk 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I did not associate "the press" with comedy shows. Of course in that kind of shows anything goes and the physical appearance of Ashton will probably be mentioned one time or another. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

CA license plates

During a recent trip to the LA area, I noticed that many people were driving without rear license plates on their cars. Many of these cars had very dark tint on their rear windows, but in none of them could I see any indication of a plate, temporary or otherwise, in that rear window or anywhere else on the car. I was surprised to see this on one car on my first day, and figured it was a single scofflaw, but over the course of a week I saw maybe 15 cars of this description. Many of them had placards which advertised car dealerships or aftermarket performance part manufacturers in the license plate holders. I can't imagine that I would get very far in my home state without a plate. Is this simply the result of poor-enforcement, or is there some other reason this seems to be so common in socal? Tuckerekcut (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See the 2nd question/answer here. --LarryMac | Talk 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So then the obvious question is: "Why on Earth does it take 30-45 days for the DMV to provide new car owners with a plate. What, do they have to send away to China for them ?". In Michigan, they have a pile of them there and you walk out the door with one (or transfer the plate from your old car). StuRat (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a serious backlog of license plate orders at San Quentin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Being a California prison, on any given day they have to check their New Age chaplain to see if the karma is right for stamping out plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was in LA I was also surprised at the number of cars driving with no plates at all. I noticed this exclusively in poor parts of town on old 'junker' cars. APL (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, LarryMac. Tuckerekcut (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arlington Journal, Virginia

75.76.95.188 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)I am trying to verify an article in The Arlington Journal, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 31, 1984 in the Tempo section titled "Mental Illness." I cannot find any information related to this article. I have even checked w/ the Library of Congress. Can anyone direct me to a link that verifies that this article actually exists?75.76.95.188 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A large university library, especially on in the Washington D.C. area, should have backissues of that newspaper on microfiche. this link states that the paper merged with the Washington Examiner; if you contact the examiner's research department directly, they may have access to back issues of the Journal. --Jayron32 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

November 21

Nine MSN

On NineMSN, why do some of the news photos that appear on the home page have a miniature photo of a person mentioned in one corner of the photo? ([18]) jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 03:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example? That link doesn't show any. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean like [19] that's a fairly common practice on news sites and news papers as a way of showing both people involved in a single picture Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I find historic snow conditions for a Ski Resort? eg. Heavenly

I am planning to go to Heavenly Ski resort or maybe a different US ski resort sometime December til May.

I'm looking for real data, like snow depth or #of runs open on different days in past ski seasons.

In planning my trip, I intend to go when it's least crowded and has a good chance of decent snow conditions based on the last 5 years of actual snow conditions. 125.27.70.193 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This link might get you somewhere. It gives you historic snowfall, but doesn't take account of wear and thawing so it might not correlate with conditions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My friends and I used to live within a few hours drive of lots of ski resorts in the French Alps. We quickly found the worst time to go was during the school half term break (usually mid-February); there was usually poor snow coverage until mid-January and by the time late-March came around the snow was starting to melt. For coming weekend's ski trip, it would work like this:

1. Wednesday or Thursday - look at the local weather forcast and ski report on the internet
2. Thursday afternoon or Friday morning - seek out accommodation and book it
3. Friday evening or early Saturday morning - drive up to the resort

The choice of resort was the one with the best current snow coverage, best percentage of lifts open, and with available and affordable accomodation. Later in the season, a high altitude also became important. I got to ski most weekends for 2 seasons. We occasionally got poor weather, but more usual was bright sunshine and great snow. In summary, we were flexible and prepared to go anywhere at almost the last minute.

That said, we were in Europe and within a reasonable drive of lots of resorts. maybe that's not the case with you. Astronaut (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For those in North America "half term" translates to "March break". At least in this context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon-style trapdoors in office

It is a rather well known tool, from Scrooge McDuck's office to other cartoons or comedies: In front of the desk, the visitor is left to stand and becomes subject to falling through a trapdoor beneath, devised by the owner/creator to get rid of unwanted people. My question is, are there any famous examples of this occuring in reality? 77.18.71.126 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, since this would usually involve major structural work, and you still have the problem of removing them from the pit. The closest thing would be sending someone to the gallows; these sometimes had a trapdoor.Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This probably goes back to the tales of Sweeney Todd and I would not be surprised if it is even older. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Trapdoors are common on theatre stages, where such an office scene may have been depicted for comic effect. 78.146.30.105 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Value of diamonds

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12diamonds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hpw

Though it is a major commodity producer, Russia has traditionally not embraced policies that artificially keep prices up. In oil, for example, Russia benefits from the oil cartel’s cuts in production, but does not participate in them.

Diamonds are an exception. “If you don’t support the price,” Andrei V. Polyakov, a spokesman for Alrosa, said, “a diamond becomes a mere piece of carbon.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125650986946206903.html

"Tiffany's is an extreme example of an industry shift that started during the recent luxury boom. Like most other diamond retailers, Tiffany long bought the vast majority of its diamonds pre-cut and pre-polished from industry middlemen. But with global diamond-jewelry sales soaring earlier this decade, Tiffany and others worried they would soon be fighting over dwindling supplies."

Is it me or does the WSJ article seem to be missing a lot of details? So does Tiffany's really just fear the new cartel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highcountbedsheets (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Diamonds have long been subject to market manipulation by De Beers, but that mostly ended in the 1990's (see that article for details). I've only skimmed the article, but it seems to be saying that the demand for cheap diamonds has been rapidly increasing and Tiffany's wants to get their share of that demand, which requires cutting costs. They are doing that by cutting out the middle man and cutting/polishing diamonds themselves (to lower standards). So, I don't think there is a new cartel, there is just an intentional reduction in supply in order the match the reduction in demand caused by the recession. Without that the price would reduce and diamonds only have value because they are expensive (that sounds tautological, but it is true). I don't think that is really connected with the change at Tiffany's - they are in response to changes in the market on different timescales. The recession is just over the last year or two, the shift to cheaper diamonds is over the last decade. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Any discussion of diamond prices must touch on the issue of laboratory diamonds, which can be even purer than natural diamonds. Of course, those who depend on keeping lab diamonds off the market will try to convince everyone they are "fake", but they really are real, and eventually, as the price comes down and size and quality goes up, I expect consumers to accept them, leading to a crash in natural diamond prices. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The price has come down and size and quality have gone up. The only way to tell the difference between a synthetic diamond and a natural one (using typical diamond examining technology - ie. a bright light and a magnifying glass, not a spectrograph) is that the synthetic ones are too flawless. I'm not sure what is stopping "fake" diamonds flooding the market - massive efforts from the natural diamond industry, I guess. --Tango (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Diamonds are the ultimate Veblen good; they're valuable because they're valuable, and natural diamonds will always be prized much more than artificial ones. How shiny you can make the artificial ones look is irrelevant. FiggyBee (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If they could be made indistinguishable, the price would still plummet. --Tango (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But they are distinguishable. Natural diamonds come out of the dirt, artificial ones come out of a factory. See what I'm saying? Their origin affects their value as much any other variable. FiggyBee (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes them different not distinguishable. Distinguishable means that, if you were given a diamond, you could tell which type it was. If you can't tell a natural diamond from a fake one then you can't charge different prices for them. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can - and it's not like it's unheard of. Books, art, and collectibles are just three areas off the top of my head where provenience can mean more than anything else. There's no reason diamonds or other gems couldn't also be the same way. DC comics have re-published Action comics number 1 several times, sometimes with only the most minor changes to make it obvious that it's a reprint. It would be trivial to remove those changes and publish as many copies of Action #1 as they'd like. Not only would those ersatz first issues not be worth anything in particular, they'd have no effect on the value of the real book. You could mail a copy to everyone in the world, so that there couldn't possibly be a demand for the issue, but the original book would still be more valuable than most houses (~$440,000 according to a quick googling). If factory made gems flooded the market, it would only create a side industry of companies that would certify that particular stones came out of the ground or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can not distinguish between two things you cannot charge different prices for them. Fact. In all those examples you can tell the difference between them. If they managed to make a perfect reprint so you that you couldn't tell the difference, then that would reduce the price of the originals because nobody would know whether they were buying an original or a reprint. There is no point certifying where a particular stone came from if you can't identify the stone - some people have started engraving serial numbers into stones to make sure they can be identified, that is really the only option if someone manages to make synthetic diamonds that are truly indistinguishable from natural ones. Serial numbers would mean they had to make diamonds that were indistinguishable from a specific natural diamond (assuming the person certifying them stored some detailed information about the stone), rather than natural diamonds in general, which would be a much harder challenge. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Confoederation Helvetica

What is value of 1963 and 1968 5 FR coin? Where will I find this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.217.193 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are those years particularly rare? If not 5 Swiss Francs equals roughly 5 USD.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Googling 1968 5 FR brings up some relevant hits, the gist of which seems to be that 1968 was just a normal issue year; it might be worth 10 dollars if it's in exceptional uncirculated condition, otherwise it's just a normal coin worth face value. FiggyBee (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hair washing

If i didnt wash my hair for 6 mnths or a year, how dirty would it get. would it cause me scalp rotting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.107.248 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No. See dreadlocks. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK den, why people wash there hair?--79.75.121.239 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't want to have dreadlocks. Also, dreadlocks isn't the only possible result of not washing your hair - see Polish plait (a term I only learnt after I felt I should read the article I linked you to!), which some people seem to like but sounds disgusting to me. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tango, you do wash "dreads" or your hair will stink, and you may well end up with scalp problems that attract vermin. Our article leaves this bit out for some reason, speaking almost nothing to the hygiene part. You don't brush or comb the hair, except to help the dreads' styling, but you do wash the hair and the scalp. Bielle (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a variety of approaches. Some do wash their dreads, some don't. It is advisable to make sure you clean off any dirt that gets on them, but the natural oils aren't a problem for many people. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but if you comb your hair but not wash, what happens?--79.75.121.239 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

After a while, combing becomes difficult, if not impossible, and your hair will smell awful. Tango's view notwithstanding, if you live and work or go to school in a western culture (and many others besides) and you are not a social hermit, you may find yourself with no job and few friends. I know numbers of people who wear or have worn dreads, and I know of none who did not keep them and their scalp scrupulously clean. Hair oils do attract vermin. Bielle (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you keep your hair scrupulously clean it won't form dreads, it is the natural oils that matts the hair together. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. The hairs in (clean) dreadlocks are mechanically "locked" together by weaving or rolling. As the lead of dreadlocks says, natural oils prevent locking, they don't cause it. FiggyBee (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A "polish plait" is a much more likely outcome than dreadlocks if you ignore your hair, especially if you're a european. A few years ago I grew my hair long, and at one point ended up with a horrible gummy lump of hair that I had to cut out after spending several days trying to unpick it one hair at a time (note, washing your hair without undoing your ponytail is a bad idea). These days, I keep my hair as short and maintenance-free as possible. :) OTOH, my partner, who's African-American, has dreadlocks. She has to wash and re-roll them every couple of weeks, which takes hours and is very hard work. FiggyBee (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When I was much younger I never washed my hair (my upbringing was remarkably lacking in certain key areas - this was one of them). No-one ever said anything, and nothing notable happened. Other than the occasional rainy day, my hair probably didn't get wet once in over six years. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't generally wash my hair so much as rinse it. I don't comb it, either, just a run of the hands. It is a little greasy, but it doesn't smell or anything. Nothing much really happens, otherwise. Aaronite (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I depends on your general lifestyle habits. The cleaner you are to begin with, and the cleaner you live for that year, the less horrible your scalp and hair will become. I myself have little need for shampoo (once a month); just the hot water is sufficient generally. Vranak (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some things I just never wanted to know. I think I am going to give up reading the Ref Desk late at night. Bielle (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwashed hair is stereotypically a haven for lice and such. In any case, I would try to keep a safe distance from someone who doesn't wash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know someone very well who does not shower. They will do a sponge bath of sorts with a hand towel if they have been doing any heavy activity but that's it. Their hair does not form dreads, plaits, or look at all greasy. Dismas|^(talk) 11:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You poor miserable squeamish souls. Shampoo strips your hair of essential oils; you want to keep those around unless you have a serious cleanliness issue. Otherwise you do get dry unmanageable boring hair. No fun at all. Vranak (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The solution to all of this would seem to be the skinhead look, which is becoming increasingly mainstream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from aesthetic and thermoregulatory considerations, your idea is entirely prodigal. Vranak (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have considered shaving my head, but I'm not convinced it is a good look for a middle-aged white guy.

But I have certainly heard that if you don't wash your hair it gets pretty nasty for a few weeks until your natural oils take over. It seems obvious that you would still need to comb it regularly to avoid the aforementioned Polish plait and occasionally cut it to maintain an appropriate length. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Times political sketchwriter Matthew Parris, and the BBC's political presenter Andrew Marr, both are on record as saying they never use shampoo. I'm sure if you go on the Times website and search there through Parris's articles you will find his thoughts on the matter. OR my grandfather never used to wash his hair either: he kept it pretty short (about half an inch to an inch) and grandma used to rub olive oil into his scalp to keep it from becoming scaly. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OR: I briefly dated a woman with a hair weave, and it didn't smell too good. Thus briefly. --Sean 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OR: A friend didn't wet his hair, brush or wash it over a one year period. It got pretty smelly, and had more than just dirt in it (also boot polish, powder, occasional creams and more). It itched and looked quite foul, but didn't result in any lasting conditions. Steewi (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 7 cats

Is it really true that any question that anyone may ask can be fitted into one of only seven categories (as here on WP). (This one is Misc BTW)--79.75.107.248 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If one of categories in "Miscellaneous", which means "doesn't fit in to any of the other categories", then: yes. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how a service such as this is set up. We could have hade it as only three categories:

• Life and Times of Britney Spears
• Life and Times of Paris Hilton
• All other subjects.

Fortunately, we didn't do that. We could also have had 50 or more categories; but we seem to have struck a reasonable balance between accessibility and functionality. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk page. The problem is that adding more categories reduces the number of eyes on each sub-desk - which reduces the number and quality of the answers. If any change is likely - it would be to eliminate some of the less-used desks. At any rate - this is the wrong place to discuss it - please read back through the talk page archives and if the answer is still not clear - then start yet another discussion over there. However, be warned - you're opening up a hornet's nest. SteveBaker (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

November 22

USS Indianapolis CA-35

How many Atomic bombs did the USS Indainapolis pick up at Mare Island, San Francisco to the Island of Tinian on July 26, 1945 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkyotter (talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indianapolis only transported (most of) Little Boy - the uranium projectile rings and the bomb casing. All of Fat Man and the remaining parts of Little Boy - the uranium target rings - were delivered to Tinian by air. BTW, according to our articles, the departure point was Hunters Point, not Mare Island. FiggyBee (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Firsts of Wikipedia

What was the first Wikipedia on Wikipedia? What was the first task force? and when were the founded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.107.188 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the first Wikipedia on Wikipedia"? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you means what was the first language to have a Wikipedia? If so, English. If not, I have no idea what you mean. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This was the first Wikipedia on Wikipedia, I'd say. History of Wikipedia has the founding date. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject, sorry. My typing skills are poor :) 76.211.107.188 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects were proposed by ManningBartlett in mid-2001. You can see the original proposal at [20]. As he states in the proposal, what became WP:WikiProject Tree of life was already in existence, although it didn't become known as a WikiProject until mid-2002. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Random numbers?

I read something that if I tell a computer to generate random numbers, the result won't really be random. WHy not/ THX in advance --Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.196.191 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Traditional random number generators, at least, start with a "seed" which is based on the timestamp. Ask yourself how you would create a set of random numbers. For example, by putting 10 numbered objects into a bag and withdrawing them one at a time. The trouble is, a computer can't quite do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A software pseudorandom number generator can only perform arithmetic on a "seed" value, a number that is given to it at the start. They can't conjure up numbers out of nowhere (for that, you need a hardware random number generator). Also, if the algorithm used isn't very good (RANDU for example), the spread of "random" numbers it produces may be less than ideal. FiggyBee (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it can—that is, if you can program a computer (or robot) to bang on its own keypad for a while. Seriously though: by definition, any number generated by an algorithm is is not random; therefore, for instance, if I take the example above and bang on my laptop's keypad, I would have a truly random string of numbers (and possibly a broken laptop). However, since computers can only operate by algorithms using seed values (see Random number generation), they cannot generate true random numbers. Intelligentsium 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Long story short -- any process you think of that can generate random numbers is inherently pattered. There simply aren't any truly random (i.e. bizarrely non-predictable) phenomenon out there that can be harnessed for this purpose. To paraphrase Einstein, God doesn't play dice. Vranak (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Einstein was wrong, God does play dice. There are truly random quantum processes and they can be used to generate random numbers (the number of clicks on a Geiger counter in a given second, say). --Tango (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's debatable. For example see quantum suicide. Rckrone (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of randomness in nature. Computers aren't quite "in nature", though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quantum suicide only affects things which can result in the observer ceasing to exist. It says nothing about randomness more generally. --Tango (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you lads actually read the article on random number generation before contradicting myself or Albert. Vranak (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no question that computer random number generation is typically not random, but Tango is right that actual randomness exists in the form of quantum measurements. The assertion that God doesn't play dice is wrong. There's no reason that you couldn't build some hardware to take advantage of that, as Trovatore discusses below. Rckrone (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Until such time as such a device exists, God does not play dice! Vranak (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? It exists now. It's even a "device" in the Linux sense -- /dev/random, as I said before.

Of course the entropy estimate for /dev/random is meant to defeat some vaguely realistic opponent, not one who knows the entire wavefunction of the universe. If you really want all the entropy to come from the collapse of the wavefunction, you probably have to take the bits out slower. I don't know how much slower. Just the same, in principle, /dev/random is producing truly random bits, just maybe not as fast as it appears to be. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright I see I am over my head. This is why I quit Computer Science after two years! Vranak (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between computers, which are physical objects, and algorithms, which are mathematical abstraction. It is certainly possible to get a physical computer to produce (truly) random numbers, if you provide it with the needed hardware. If you need a lot of them, you might want to hook up some sort of thermal noise generator, like a diode of some sort, and feed the output into a hash function that acts repeatedly on the same data in ciphertext feedback mode. This can concentrate the entropy (information theory) in such a way that you can then pull out bits that are truly random to a very good approximation.

If you're happy with a slower rate, you don't need the diode; it's enough that the computer have access to ordinary peripherals such as hard drives and keyboards. A daemon will observe things like the access times to these and feed it into the entropy pool as above. On Unix/Linux machines this entropy pool may be accessed through /dev/random. Update: I just looked at the article, and apparently it's true-random on Linux, but not necessarily so on some other Unices.

The thing is, for most non-cryptographic applications, we actually don't want truly random data. We want values that can be reproduced. For that purpose the PRNGs are ideal (and also much faster). --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also only a limited number of random numbers available. For example, if the algorithm outputs to a single byte there will only be 256 possible values. The seed will set the start point and, if the algorithm has perfect coverage, each number will come out just once before the sequence repeats itself. During testing, the seed is usually set to a known value like zero, in order to produce a predictable sequence. When shipped, the seed is often set to a value based on the current timestamp to give a seemingly random start point in the sequence. Astronaut (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A "random" number generator that produced each possible value just once before repeating would be very obviously non-random, and would probably not be random enough for most applications. Algebraist 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Computers are intended to be deterministic machines - all randomness is carefully removed from their design. It is possible to generate long sequences of numbers that appear random - and perhaps stand up rather well to statistical measures of randomness - however, they are always, without fail, deterministic. We call these sequences "pseudo-random". In some situations (perhaps in a computerized game of Poker) it's important that the game does not produce the same sequence of numbers every time it's run - but apart from that - so long as the numbers it produces are statistically unpredictable - pseudo-random numbers work just fine. So some source of non-deterministic data is required to pick the first random number to be generated - and everything after that is done deterministically. One commonly used possibility is to time some event outside of the computer - the time between starting the program and the user first clicking on the mouse or keyboard, for example. You can measure that accurate to (say) a millionth of a second and (for example) use the last few digits of that number that to set up the 'seed' for the random number generator. After that point, the numbers are pretty much perfectly random as far as any outside observer can tell. Sometimes, the position of the disk platter in the hard drive is used, sometimes the latency in a network packet sent to some remote server. Sometimes all of those things added together along with...oh I dunno...the number of microseconds until easter plus the phase of the moon...or something equally crazy. It doesn't really matter what the seed is - so long as it's not always the same and so long as it's not possible for an end-user to force it to come out to a known value.

In some situations, it's desirable that the random numbers DON'T start off from a random point each time. I write computer games for a living - and for us, it's highly desirable that the exact same sequence of numbers are generated every time while we are testing the game. So when one of our game testers reports a bug, we can reproduce it perfectly by replaying the game from the start using the exact order and timings of his user-inputs (which we carefully record during play). If the random numbers come out the same when we reproduce it - we can find and fix the problem. When the game is played 'for real', we initialise the random number generator with some time-based thing - and the numbers are really, truly different every game for 'real' game players.

A few computers have been built with truly random numbers built in at the hardware level - the idea of using Schottky noise to produce truly random numbers from quantum processes can be exploited fairly easily using custom electronic hardware. But pseudo-random numbers are good enough for almost all applications - so this has been limited to a very few, super-specialized applications.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you might have taken a glance at what I wrote, which covered the same ground, but (for once) more comprehensively. In particular it is not just the seed that is supplied nondeterministically, for extremely widely used schemes like /dev/random. Entropy is supplied nondeterministically to the entropy pool on an ongoing basis, and random values are extracted only as fast as entropy goes in.

Responding to Astronaut: You seem to be thinking of very old PRNG schemes, used in the days when memory was enormously more expensive than it is now, where the entire state of the RNG can be known from a single output. That is not even close to true for modern techniques — a much larger state is kept, and updated each time a random value is needed. For example /dev/random has a maximum entropy content of 4096 bits on my machine, so we can deduce that the RNG state is at least 4096 bits (it may well be much larger than that). Even if you stopped supplying any new entropy, but kept taking values out, it would not need to repeat until 2^⁴⁰⁹⁶ iterations. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of particularly old random number generators and I am aware the "perfect coverage" I described is actually far from ideal. My intention was to simplify my example for the benefit of the OP. Astronaut (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, it's not only "super-specialized apps" that use true-random numbers. You need them every time you check your bank statement.

What happens, at least conceptually (in practice I imagine there are other complications I don't know about), is the following: Your browser looks up the bank's public key somewhere (exactly how this is validated I'm not sure; it's a key point of attack so I'm sure much skull sweat has gone into making this hard to hack). Then your computer generates a random session key and encrypts it with the bank's public key, and sends it to the bank. The bank decrypts the session key, and now the two of you can use an ordinary symmetric cypher to send data back and forth securely.

But if an opponent could predict your session key, he wouldn't need to break the public key cryptosystem used to send it to the bank — he could just steal your data, and eventually your money, by using the session key he knew you'd pick.

So in Linux we have /dev/random which nicely deals with this sort of situation (I don't know for sure whether browsers working in Linux specifically access /dev/random, but if not, they probably do something similar). I expect the Windows and Mac kernels also have some such functionality.

What wouldn't surprise me is if the Windows version were a little less paranoid. /dev/random is designed to give only as much output as there is entropy fed in. That means that an attacker who could intercept all previous outputs of /dev/random could still not do any better than random in guessing the next output. That's actually going a bit overboard -- say you visit 32 secure websites, generating a 128-bit session key for each, out of a 4096-bit entropy pool. In theory, if an opponent could listen in to all of those transactions, that could be enough to reconstruct the PRNG state and predict your next session key. In practice I suspect that that problem would be considerably more difficult than breaking RSA, which would be a more direct way of stealing your money. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Windows appears to use CryptGenRandom for these purposes. Algebraist 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oblig xkcd --121.127.200.51 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this kind of paper have a name?

The gray kind of paper usually used in coloring books and crossword/sudoku penny press-type publications that you see at the supermarket. It has a different feel to me than newspaper, so I don't think it's that. 71.161.45.144 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recycled paper / unbleached paper (Kraft process)? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsprint? Newsprint can come in versions that are thicker than that used in newspapers.

Art supply stores sell newsprint drawing pads. It is relatively inexpensive; the paper is a little more stout than that found in newspapers. It has a good "tooth." That means it takes charcoal and soft pencil (graphite) well. On the downside it is not archival. That means it won't likely last very long. In a few years it may become brittle. Its color may change too. It is made of wood pulp, instead of for instance cotton, and bleaching agents are used, which linger in the finished product, and cause the likely eventual embrittlement and color change.

Of course, I am not sure if this is the type of paper you are referring to. Well-stocked art supply stores (or even online) can help you to find out a lot about paper. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers from a century ago used thicker paper than they do now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing that determines how glossy the surface of paper is is the amount of calendering done. The high-gloss paper used in many magazines is supercalendered, so fine details print well, but this paper doesn't take pencil or felt-tip pen marks well. The paper you're asking about is unsupercalendered, but I don't know if they go to the other extreme and use uncalendered paper or what. --Anonymous, 05:55 UTC, November 23, 2009.

SidewaysToilet Pan?

I've recently moved into a new place and the bathroom is quite small so a regular toilet (like the one in this picture http://www.wickes.co.uk/Toilet-To-Go/invt/190476&temp=largeimage&layout=popups) won't fit properly. In my old place I had a toilet pan that had a waste/refuse/toilet pipe? (don't know what the actual porcelain part on the pan itself that the metal pipes attach to is called) which went sideways and it is exactly what I need. However I don't the term for those toilet pans and hence I can't search for them either - whether it is online or in retailers, the people have no idea where to get one or even what I'm talking about.

Any help with finding a manufacturer or store that deal with these types would be greatly appreciated. Failing that, a specific term for these toilet pans that gives results in google would be of help too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is squat toilet. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its called the toilet bowl in UK English. Gosh, your bathroom must be tiny. I would have thought it would be against Building regs to build them that small. Bring back Parker Morris Standards. 92.29.150.5 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are toilet bowls which are affixed to the wall (and not the floor). They have a P-trap (instead of an S-trap) which connects to the outflow pipe in the wall (probably 30 cm up from the floor). You can save a bit of space by using one of those as there is no "gap" between the back of the bowl and the wall. On the downside, they generally require the flushing cistern to be built flush into the wall. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not very good at desciptions - it's a regular flush toilet alright, its just that the layout of the room doesn't allow the door open fully against the wall since it hits the current toilet which is literally jutting out :p. What I'm talking about the Back of the toilet where you attach the metal pipes. They're usually straight or going down to the floor depending on the toilet design, right? Well the one I'm on about is just like those but instead of going straight or down, the back part is at a 90 degree angle either to the right or to the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Saniflo masher toilets? Perhaps have a look at their products and see if any look familiar [21]. I don't know who else makes this sort of thing. 86.144.149.168 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a picture's worth a 1000 words so I got hold of these pictures of the design I'm on about: the first - [22] the small pipe on top is the cistern, with the lower one being the one that takes the contents of the toilet out to the main sewage pipe. MY MAIN Point is the fact that the toilet's "nozzle" for lack of a better word is facing at 90 Degrees to the toilet itself making it fit better into the space! I've provided a second picture of the other side in case you can't see there's a bend (well tried to anyway most of the picture is taken up by the dirty pipe) - [23] the pipe is perpendicular to the toilet so that means the Nozzle isn't straight - it's on the side. I hope I've finally managed to communicate across what I'm looking for exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.27 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Metal pipes? There would be a small pipe for the cold water into the cistern, usually a small overflow pipe, and then the sewage pipe itself. Is that what you mean please? You could try asking plumber's merchants like Plumb Centre if they have any. Edit: I have realised that your first picture is rotated 90 degrees from the vertical. Still a nauseating image anyway. Perhaps you need an old-fashioned style of high-level cistern as well. 84.13.162.136 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Random Number Psychology

Some time ago I heard of a research study that asked a large pool of participants to select a "random" number from 1 to 100. Because human beings aren't really random, then tended to choose some numbers more frequently than others (the point of the study was to look at these psychological biases). If I recall correctly, 37 was the most frequently chosen "random" number and 20 was the least frequent.

Does anyone know about this study? I would like to find the original publication. Dragons flight (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 37 is the first prime number that doesn't get regular usage. Everything up to 31 gets used as a day of the month. 32-36 are not primes! And 20 sticks out like a sore thumb when it comes to ordinary numbers. I think that solves that. Vranak (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Except the OP wasn't asking for an explanation - they asked for information and references regarding this study. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I am happy to provide one regardless, dear sir. Vranak (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know of any direct references, but I can remember being taught in intermediate psychology at university that 37 was the two digit number picked most frequently at random by experimental subjects. There seems to be a potential academic source in a reference at this site, though I haven't seen the original paper, so I don't know if it has any experimental evidence. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Casey Stengel said a lot of things that seemed random but were actually thoughtful on close examination. Perhaps it's not a coincidence, that his uniform number was 37. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

joseph greiner

Good morning, I am a WWII enthusiast, during my investigations I have come across a picture. I am unable to load it here as I am unsure of how this is done, th picture can be viewed on google if you search for the above mentioned name. The picture is of 2 native american gentleman standing next to a cross or what appears to be a grave the large cross that makes up the headstone reads joseph greiner and has a swastica on it. Now when one thinks about the ratlines, and nazi's escaping europe and fleeing to south america, it would appear this may be the grave, or something like that, of a nazi. Can anyone shed any light on who joseph greiner was? That is what I would like to know. who was joseph greiner. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.35.133 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The person died in Brazil in 1936, which was 9 years prior to the time Nazis from the defunct 3rd Reich fled to South America. Joseph Greiner was a member of the German Jary expedition which was involved in a lunatic plan to occupy French, British and Dutch Guyana to establish a German colony. Some of the zoological samples taken by the expedition are still on display in Berlin. The whole plan was dumped by Himmler in 1937 (French Guyana was a colony of Vichy France and the whole scheme was crazy, anyway). Reference: Spiegel.online, [24]. If you read German: Jens Glüsing: "Das Guayana-Projekt. Ein deutsches Abenteuer am Amazonas". Chr. Links Verlag, Berlin 2008, 240 Seiten. 19,90 Euro. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

November 23

Talk

I have a bad habit of repeating things I have already said during conversations. I do not seem to remember what I had told them prior. How can I stop this habit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.213.180 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Advantages of streetcars over buses in Toronto

Our article on the Toronto streetcar system says citizens' groups "succeeded in persuading the TTC of the advantages of streetcars over buses on heavily traveled main routes" in 1972.

What were those advantages? The only advantages I know of streetcars is 1) They can go off the street onto unique rights-of-way for a partially light-rail system; 2) They can run down narrow corridors and 3) They produce less in emissions.

But Toronto did not have any light-rail in 1972 (and still has very little); Toronto does not have narrow streets like some European city centers; and emissions were not that big of an issue in 1972.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of keeping a streetcar system seem obvious -- the cost to maintain more than 100 miles of track, several garages and a whole separate division to service the vehicles, and the inflexibility of streetcar vs. bus lines.

So what were the arguments that convinced Toronto to keep its streetcars in the early 70s? Now that urban rail is so popular again in North America, it may seem like a farsighted decision, but what was the rationale back then? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Toronto, but one of the main advantages of streetcars in general – as hinted at in the quotation you give – is that they are much better than buses in heavy traffic, i.e. they don't get caught up in traffic jams. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

They sure do when they don't have their own isolated right-of-way, which is the case on most of the Toronto system. I believe the main advantages are considered to be that (1) they carry more passengers per vehicle and (2) they don't have to change lanes back and forth every time they make a stop, which allows traffic to interfere with buses. --Anonymous, 06:01 UTC, November 23, 2009.

Besides producing less emmissions, they also consume lest fuel, and for a large city public transportation system, even small reductions in fuel spending can result in large savings in terms of total dollars. While in 1972, most cities weren't thinking as much about polution and global warming and that sort of stuff as today, the reduction in fuel consumption could have meant a significant factor in making that decision. --Jayron32 06:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP lists the "inflexibility" of street cars as a disadvantage but many people consider this its major advantage. Laying streetcar tracks signals a major commitment to a particular route that can be a catalyst for economic development. Builders are reluctant to make major, long-term investments based on a bus route because those routes so frequently change. —D. Monack ^talk 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another advantage is that they use a signalling system, which makes it easier to keep frequent services well spaced. Warofdreams talk 10:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

online data sources

what are online data sources and their usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish6007 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand your question a bit? Online data sources are places on the internet where you can find information. The can be used by people who have need for information. The question is way to vague to provide a better answer than that... --Jayron32 05:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ya thats what i want help regarding various online data sources..and their diff diff usage in diff fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish6007 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)