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

February 29

Mallet

I have a use for a small mallet. Whats the smallest I can get?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

See Mallet. The smallest (but definitely not the cheapest) that Amazon sell is a dental mallet - slightly larger and much cheaper ones are also available, and other on-line retailers have similar product ranges. "Jewelers Hammer" is a useful search term. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No matter how small the mallet, there could be another one that's half its size. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on the length of the plank you cut it from. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The practical limit, then, would come when it can no longer be cut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't "Whats the smallest I can get?" refer to the smallest one that's commercially available? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There are people who make bespoke tools, so the smallest one you can buy is determined by the size you want it to be. You can have miniature tools made for dolls houses if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.93 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit more nuanced than that. The smallest possible "mallet" would (I'm sure) be some nanotechnological wonder made from a few dozen atoms. But our OP clearly needs this for some purpose - so we need a WORKING mallet...and that imposes some restrictions I think.

Let's think about the consequences of making a tiny mallet. I own a laser cutter, I can machine bits of wood to a precision of 1/30th of a millimeter and a 1/10th millimeter 'kerf'. I could certainly manufacture a mallet with a head that's (say) a 3mm wooden cube with (let's say) a 1x1x10mm cuboid handle pushed through the middle of it. But at this point, the resulting tool would be too small to comfortably hold - and it would be exceedingly lightweight. The objective of a mallet (or hammer of any kind) is to magnify the forces you can exert with your hands by turning a long-duration low-force swing into a short-duration high-force impact.

So the weight of the head and the length of the shaft become important issues for the mechanical advantage that the tool provides. If the mechanical advantage is less than ~1, then it's not really a functional mallet anymore.

Note particularly, that if the mallet is merely a scale model of a 'traditional' sized tool - when you halve the linear dimensions, you reduce the mass of the head by a factor of 8. So going from a 10cm head to my 3mm laser-cut mallet head reduces the mass by a factor of 37,000! So the impulsive force delivered by my micro-mallet is TINY...far, far less than you could get by pushing on something with your finger.

You can kinda fix that by not making a traditional wooden mallet - and going with denser materials. Of course at that point, what you have is a "hammer" and not a "mallet" - but still there comes a point where even the densest available metals don't give you enough heft for the tool to have any mechanical advantage.

So at some point, while I'm quite sure you could make a nano-technology mallet with just a few dozen atoms and claim the record for the "smallest possible" - I'm also rather sure that it would be functionally useless. So the quest really boils down to asking what the smallest functionally useful "hammer" is...and I'd bet that a watchmaker's mallet would be it.

Of course, your objective might be to limit the amount of force you can exert. That would kinda be the opposite of what a mallet traditionally does - but I'm sure there is a better way to do that with some different kind of tool.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A selection of mini hammers actually available on-line includes a tiny 2 oz. Toolmaker's Mallet and a 1.5 oz. hammer for model railroading, ship modeling, dollhouse miniatures, etc. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Barbie uses tools. She's too busy getting dressed. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 16:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the largest Mallet is of interest, that would probably be one of these. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a tiny hammer you can't buy on eBay, but it does exist! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

OP here. Well sorry I havent been back (busy). What I need is a small wooden mallet with a striking surface about 1.5 in * 1.5 in and a couple oz in weight for best effect I think. Where can I get one?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Such mallets are widely available - this is Amazon's offering, this and this are products from other retailers. Tevildo (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I only want to ripen my partners plums, not pummel them into mush!--31.109.183.147 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case, see CBT and Paddle (spanking). I believe a table tennis bat may usefully be employed in such applications. Tevildo (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reflex hammers are fairly small. LongHairedFop (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Still not quite right. Something like the paddle but with a bit of weight at the end would be ok. I need it to bounce off the plums a bit to transfer the correct momentum. TT bats are far too large to fit into the available space.--31.109.183.147 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March 1

Enlistment in the military while pregnant

Suppose someone who is already pregnant tries to enlist in the military before the end of her pregnancy. In such cases, will the pregnancy itself result in an automatic disqualification from enlistment, or are there some military branches in some countries which do not disqualify enlistees solely for this reason? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why pregnancy would be a disqualification. In the Australian Army pregnancy disqualifies someone from fighting on the front line, but there appear to be no issues with them continuing to work on the home front, so it seems logical that pregnancy at the time of enlistment also should not be a disqualification: see this FAQ but this news story, and this more detailed description of Australian Defence Force policy on pregnancy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] suggests pregnancy is one of the things they look for during the medical test but not what they would do if it's detected. In both NZ and Australia, after enlisting there will be an Assessment day where your suitability for service including meeting the fitness requirements will be assessed. There's some description of the process in Australia here [2] [3]. While in NZ [4] [5] and I'm guessing Australia [6] they will make adjustments to your fitness testing during pregnancy but I doubt they will do this for assessement day. I'm not really sure how much control you have over the timing of this e.g. [7]. It may they have a special process in place for people who are pregnant they have a process in place to defer assessement day, or it may be they simply ask you to wait, I couldn't find any specific discussion. (I suspect it's something that rarely comes up. More likely is a woman finds out she is pregnant at some stage, after enlisting perhaps during the medical assessment on assessement day.) P.S. Of course if the lead time between joining and assessement day is very short, a woman who's pregnant when joining could potentially still meet the fitness requirements on assessment day presuming she's allowed to and her pregnancy isn't considered to mean she doesn't currently meet the requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In the UK you cannot join the military if you are pregnant, or if you have given birth within the past three months.{http://www.army.mod.uk/join/How-to-join.aspx } — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I would expect they should be able to sign up during that time, for delayed entry, after the 3 months has ended. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Delayed Entry Program, that's an American thing, not British. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article from 1994 about when the rules changed so that women were not automatically discharged when they became pregnant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

[8] about the US says "Air Force .... A woman could even be pregnant while signing up for boot camp" [9] discusses the policy change and says something similar. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Early pregnancy may not be a problem but basic military training is physically strenuous, so would probably be impossible or even dangerous after the first trimester of pregnancy. Per our Recruit training article the "boot camp" phase of training is three to four months long in most modern military forces. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why the hell is Later-no-harm criterion considered a bad thing?

Why the hell is Later-no-harm criterion considered a bad thing?
I means if the one I prefer will not win, it would be good that the best one between the remaining people win.200.217.25.234 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there some factual information we can give you? Wikipedia's reference desk is not the appropriate venue for debating the value of things like voting systems. The best I can direct you to is to read the article in question, and to read other articles such as the Single transferable vote (of which this seems to be a variant of). The main criticism of any ranked voting system (where voters give their preference to a slate of candidates rather than to selecting their single preferred candidate) is known as Arrow's theorem, which states that ranked order voting systems are universally flawed in the sense that no ranked-order voting system is capable of always producing the most preferred candidate among the community; there will always be the possibility of a paradoxical result (such as a candidate which received less first-place votes still winning the election). --Jayron32 13:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A practical example of Arrow's theorem is the 2008 Heisman Trophy voting. Tim Tebow had the most first-place votes, but because of the rank-order voting system, ended up in third place over all. --Jayron32 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not at all a "paradoxical" result- it's just that Tebow would've won using the plurality system, but didn't win using whatever system the Heisman uses. Arrow's theorem doesn't predict paradoxical results anyways- it just says that no ranked voting system can satisfy certain different criteria simultaneously. Whether or not various systems agree with the plurality system is not at all the point. Staecker (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to ask why it would be good for a system to satisfy the later-no-harm criterion? I'm not familiar with anyone who actually thinks later-no-harm is bad. I'm not sure that your interpretation "if the one I prefer..." is appropriate for the later-no-harm criterion. It simply means that if I vote for candidate A over B and this results in a win for A, but then I change my mind to boost B's ranking, while still keeping them below A, then the winner should still be A. This on the surface seems to be a fairly reasonable criterion. Maybe you could explain your objection a bit more? Staecker (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Staecker that you seem to have misunderstood the criterion. The criterion means that the one you prefer (and vote accordingly) should not lose because of your vote towards one that you prefer less. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Check out the condition for Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives, of which later-no-harm is sort of an extension. IIA says that this scenario is bunk, and should be avoided:

Waiter:Would you like some pie? We have Apple, Blueberry, and Cherry.

Customer:Thanks, I'll have a slice of apple

Waiter (to others at the table):Sorry, I forgot we're all out of the Cherry

Customer:Oh wait, in that case, I'll have Blueberry!

Anyway, I think if you can see why it's philosophically good to have IIA criterion met, it might help you see why L-N-H is also good. Another thing to point out is that nobody designs a system to fail IIA or LNH, the challenge (per Arrow) is to design a system to fail as few of these desirable criteria as possible, or to fail in the most graceful way possible. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that your pie scenario isn't actually an analogy to a voting system, which aggregates individual preferences into one societal preference. The pie scenario shows that preferences can be nontransitive fail IIA even in an individual when preferences are probabilistic (it occurs, for example, when the customer weights apple as a 3 always, cherry as a 1 51% of the time and 5 49% of the time, and blueberry as 2 56% of the time, 4 22% of the time and 6 22% of the time). IIA is not just desirable in an abstract philosophical way; it failed spectacularly in the 2000 US presidential election, when Gore would have won easily if Nader hadn't been in the race. Mnudelman (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the pie example what I am talking about is:
Waiter:Would you like some pie? We have Apple, Blueberry, and Cherry.
3 Customers that are together: First prefer in order apple, blueberry and cherry (he HATES cherry, would really prefer to eat a pie with piss over it). Second prefer apple, blueberry and cherry in order, and third one prefer cherry, apple, and blueberry in order. They they say their favorite ones and the most said thing. Apple is selected.
Waiter (to others at the table):Sorry, I forgot we're all out of the Apple
3 Customers that are together: They say their favorites that aren't apple, and the most "voted" one wins. And so blueberry wins.
Anyway, the first guy vote made blueberry win while his preferred choice was apple. The thing is, he totally hates cherry, so it became a positive thing, because his vote avoided a cherry pie.
The idea, is that voting is not ONLY about getting what you like but not getting what you hate. Not getting punched in the face now as some example is preferred to actually receiving 5 cents now (when the 3 options where, receive one now, getting punched in the face now and receiving one dollar at the year2030) cent201.79.77.24 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In the simplest case, suppose we have candidates 'A' and 'B' who are in total opposition to each other and 'C' - a compromise candidate. What should happen if 51% of people prefer candidate 'A' as their first choice and 'C' as their second, 49% want 'B' as their first choice and 'C' as their second? Is there a case to be made for having a system in which 'C' gets the job? It's a matter for debate whether it's better that 51% of people are utterly happy and 49% are miserably unhappy versus 100% of people being fairly happy. You can spin the numbers lots of ways: Suppose 51% want 'A' as their first choice and 'C' as their second, while 49% put 'C' first and 'B' second. Now, you can make 51% completely happy and 49% very unhappy - or you can make 49% completely happy and 51% only slightly less happy.

Mathematics and logic can't tell you whether 'A' or 'C' should win in those two scenarios. It's a very human decision as to whether 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' is a principle that's best handled by giving a small majority everything they want - or forcing the majority to somewhat dial back their demands so that far more people can be almost as happy. If we could measure happiness, we could argue that we need to produce the best "average" happiness - but in mathematics, there are three ways to calculate an 'average'. Should the right choice optimize the mean happiness, the median happiness or the modal happiness? There is no arithmetic/logical reason to prefer one over the other - it's totally a matter of morals and 'soft' measurements of the relative value of universal semi-happiness versus a 50/50 split between utter happiness and misery.

IMHO, the best solution is to optimize to let 'C' win in both of the scenarios I posted. A system where the majority gets to be super-happy and the minority get dumped on is the kind of system that allows slavery, abuse of minorities and racial cleansing.

It's very, VERY hard to come up with a system that is fair, correct and affords the best choice to the most people...which is why we don't have such a thing.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not just very very hard- mathematically impossible. (probably- depending on exactly what you mean by "fair, correct and ...") Staecker (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I meant when I said "Mathematics and logic can't tell you whether 'A' or 'C' should win in those two scenarios.". SteveBaker (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your example with the pies doesn't seem to have anything to do with later-no-harm. Do you have a specific question about your example? Staecker (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP asks why anyone would not want LNH? I prefer to answer this more widely - is there any voting system that everyone would like? No possible voting system can simultaneously guarantee that the majority of people gain maximum happiness and assure the maximum happiness averaged over all of the people. Those are often contradictory requirements. Since there are definitely some people who prefer "majority rules" - and definitely other people who prefer to aim for compromise candidates that everyone can tolerate - you can't find any voting system that all people will want because they have different outcomes. So it's guaranteed that some people will reject the principles of LNH...just like any system you could dream up. SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan's really low taxes

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP From the list it seems among first world countries, Taiwan has the lowest taxes by far especially when offshore centers like Hong Kong and oil producers that collect revenue from royalties are excluded. The percentage of taxes as a part of GDP is so much lower than the average first world country, it would seem to even upend assumptions about what is the minimum necessary level of revenue for a first world government to function on. What's the on the ground reality like in Taiwan when the government collects so little revenue? Muzzleflash (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily mean they don't collect enough tax revenue to provide the required services. You could also generate the same results from having very high per capita GDP. GDP and necessary government expenditures do not necessarily scale with each other. --Jayron32 16:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

But comparing Taiwan to other first world countries, it really stands out in how low this figure is compared to everyone else. That's why I assume that surely some kind of very different level or model of government services must be provided in Taiwan. Muzzleflash (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) True, but Taiwan doesn't have a particularly high ranking for GDP per capita (32nd in the first of the tables in that article). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility: Does the Government have other sources of revenue which are not counted as tax revenue (such as direct revenue from government owned buisnesses?) --Jayron32 18:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Another thought: what about GDP per square meter? My point is that high density usually has a benefit of depressing the per capita cost of government services, for things like roads and pipelines. Taiwan is pretty high on this list of GDP per area [10]. Come to think of it, why don't we ever hear about GDP per capita per area? I think that would highlight why certain countries are able to provide comparable services at different relative tax rates. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That's been an issue in Detroit, where, due to white flight, 2/3 of the population left for the suburbs, leaving mostly poor people. Thus there's no longer enough revenue to maintain the roads, keep the streetlights lit, provide police and ambulance services. There have been proposals to shrink the city down to an area to match the current resources and population, but that would require moving lots of people, which seems impractical. Getting the suburbs to pay a portion of the upkeep of Detroit is also a political non-starter. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I understand GDP per capita, I understand GDP per area, but what would "GDP per capita per area" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Example: USA has 53,041.93 dollars per capita. Divide by 9,857,000 km² equals $0.0058 per head per square kilometer. The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area has $1.4 trillion GDP divided by 20 million people. 70,000 dollars per capita divided by 17,405 km² is $4/head/km². The Vatican wins with $831,354.545/head/km². I think GDP per area is more useful. Upon seeing what the edge of the suburbs was like I found out that exurbs don't have high pressure sodium streetlights but very dim low pressure sodium ones instead. (the least electricity per lumen at the expense of the ugliest and least white color ever. If it doesn't reflect 589.3 nm yellow-orange light (like a Crip) then it's won't be lit). There are no sidewalks of course and the blocks are twice as far apart as the city/inner burbs cause they can't afford to build more streets. They didn't bother to remove all the soil from the road and the trees are crooked because they're natural not planted and they couldn't be too picky about distance from the centerline to have anything resembling enough trees. Large parts of Manhattan have less efficient metal-halide streetlights because there's enough GDP per capita to afford whiter streetlights. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Some factors that may be relevent:

1) Taiwan has a very low fertility rate of just over 1 child per woman ([11]). Thus education expenses are much lower per capita than in other nations.

2) The military is another major expense for most nations, but, in the case of Taiwan, the biggest military threat is mainland China, and there's no way they could hope to defend themselves from a full scale attack from there, so they must rely on allies, like the US, to protect them. In this situation, they have no use for much more than a token military. They have also historically relied on 1 year of required military service from all citizens, meaning they didn't need to rely on high pay to attract recruits. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan spends 2% of GDP on defense which is in line with the world average. Muzzleflash (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In the unlikely event of anyone deciding to provide a reference rather than indulging in the usual RefDesk speculative chat, one might start by comparing how much the Taiwanese government actually spends (overall and by sector) with other countries. (No, I'm not volunteering). 78.99.59.159 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of us provided refs. You did not. So, apparently you would rather complain about a lack of references than actually provide any. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

According to this analysis by the other side, the reason for the low personal tax in Taiwan is simply political tension: tax rates reduced during the time of massive economic boom, and then incentives were built in to encourage a higher birth rate, and then for more than a decade Taiwan experienced a long period where political power was split - the party controlling the presidency usually did not control the legislature, and as each side tried to cripple the other politically and/or win popular support, there was only downward political pressure on the tax rate. The article also confirms what you (OP) observed: it reports that by the reckoning of Taiwan's tax office itself, Taiwan's overall tax burden as a percentage of GNP is the lowest amongst the four Asian Tiger economies (12% in 2010). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So they try things like the government doing some entrepreneurship and fines and fees so only 70% of revenue is taxes. They put only 7% into pensions (much less than the US which is fairly low on taxation in the industrialized world) and their money is worth twice as much by purchasing power parity than by exchange rates so it'd go much further in country (Taiwan is not poor by first world standards!). They are an export-heavy economy like Japan so they would prefer devalued currency to encourage people to buy their exports. I don't know how they did it but apparently they succeeded. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

the whitest man in argentina

Why does searching "the whitest man in argentina" in Google Images return images of a very black man? I'm aware it's some kind of internet joke, but could you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinsPatelpoo2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Know Your Meme is a pretty comprehensive source for tracking the history of these things. I think this is the meme in question. The man's name is Malik Agar, and in actuality, he has nothing to do with Argentina, near as I can tell. The picture and meme is intended to be a sort of Don't judge a book by its cover thing. Forget, for a moment that the person isn't white (and isn't Argentinian); I think his picture was used as a random "black person" picture along with the ironically worded title. --Jayron32 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

KYM's "Argentina is White" article may be more relevant, but it doesn't say much. -- BenRG (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 3

I have a question about the disability called down syndrome?

How common is it for someone with down syndrome to smoke Cannabis, dyed their hair a funky colour, pierce their nose or tongue, or do things that regular people do? Extreme things? 208.181.190.136 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Down syndrome has a variable presentation. Overall, not very common, but good luck to them if they do Richard Avery (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If "regular" people do these things, how "extreme" can they be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do blank journals/diaries ever have ISBN numbers?

131.131.64.210 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you checked at your local bookstore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Here's one. Here's another. 184.147.122.76 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Or if you google "blank journal isbn" you'll see that the answer is "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, because all the ones I saw at my local Barnes & Noble had none. 131.131.64.210 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So it appears that the answer is, "Some do and some don't." Maybe the ones on the internet need it for some purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The former must be for those volumes filled with really blank verse. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

According to the ISBN organization, there is no official rule that books MUST have an ISBN, but it points out that some point-of-sale devices in bookstores and such may require one, and without one, libraries may not accept the book and the inability to search on it will limit your sales. So there are definitely reasons why you might want to put one on a blank notebook. On the other hand, in many countries (including US and UK), it costs money to reserve an ISBN - $125 in the US and 125 pounds in the UK...so I suppose if there was only a short manufacturing run, using an ISBN might increase the price of a short-run print of a notebook noticeably. Since there are both costs and benefits - it's clear that some printers will do it and others won't. SteveBaker (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Libraries have blank books you can check out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia popularity, google

If wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular websites, as stated in the article then why, when i type in "w" at google, I get walmart, "walgreens", "weather", but no wikipedia, until i type in "i", as in "wi"? I thought google wasn't giving preference to paid advertised websites except when specifically marking them as advertised? Thanks.144.35.45.43 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here [12] is a discussion of how this part of google works. Our article is at autocomplete. When I type "w" into google, the first completion option is "would have auxiliary", probably because I performed that search yesterday. I suspect few other people will see that first.

Autocomplete also varies by region, language, etc. Just because Wikipedia is a very popular website does not mean it is popularly searched for. Many users already know the address or have it bookmarked. WP:OR if you search for almost anything, then put a space then a "w", you will often see /[topic] wiki/ or /[topic] wikipedia/ autocomplete, because people do commonly search things like /wizard wiki/ [13]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well put. My understanding is that very many people end up at Wikipedia, but comparatively few people search for it. That is, someone searching for material on their favourite band or a local company or their new car are very likely to see WP in the first few results of their Google search - without having typed the word Wikipedia in there. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that happens for me on my mobile. On my laptop, I already have Wikipedia open in one of the tabs, so will just search directly here. But if on mobile I'll just put in my search term, betting that Wikipedia will be one of the first results (which is often what I'm looking for). Only if it's not in the results will I edit the search term to throw 'Wikipedia' in there. Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Toilet cubical doors

I can't speak for the US (where most people here originate from) but here in the UK if you visit any public convenience whether that be municipal or private (pubs, bars eateries etc) it's always a real squeeze actually getting past the door without bumping into the toilet bowl itself. Obviously, for hygiene reasons one (usually) doesn't want to brush their legs against the bowl.

So why is it that the doors open inward, and it's so tight that the edge of the door practically touches the toilet bowl. Saving space can't be an obvious explanation especially at larger venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's a tight squeeze when the doors open inward. I even had to stand on the toilet to get the door closed, in one case. I prefer to use handicapped stalls, since there's room for a wheelchair in those, which turns out to be just enough room to not have to touch the walls or toilet when closing the door. As for not opening outward, I assume that's because they are worried you might hit somebody when you leave. Also, if the latch fails, and the door opens outward while you are on the toilet, there may be no way to grab it, while if it opens inward, it will just run into your knees and you can push it closed with your foot. As for why they are so cramped, it's just a case of toilets not generating revenue, I suppose. The same reason airplane seats are now so cramped you can get a deep vein thrombosis from them. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The handicap doors open outward so that a wheelchair can fit in the stall while still being able to close the door. But back to the original question, I have rarely felt so cramped in a US stall that I felt I needed to even think about getting up on the toilet to be able to close the door. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OP, a truly cubical door would be quite something, but of virtually zero practical value. You mean cubicle. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Har har, and to think all this time I was consciously trying my hardest not to mistake bowl for "bowel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.51.253 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't want them to open outward and risk smacking some unsuspecting passerby. Inward is safer. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The people who design them don't seem to have the same goal as both I and the OP, that is, to use the bathroom without ever touching any surfaces (which I, for one, assume to be covered in fecal matter). For example, I wrap a paper towel around my hand to push the door open, flush with my shoe, use a toilet seat cover, and take my pants off and hang them on the hook in the stall rather than risk them touching the floor. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope there are no disabled (not "handicapped") people desperate to use the cubicle specifically reserved for them while you are carrying out all that shenanigans. --Viennese Waltz 06:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some people who might regard 'all that shenanigans' as a disability. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that people with OCD are entitled to use disabled toilets? --Viennese Waltz 19:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike handicapped parking spaces, handicapped bathroom stalls are rarely reserved for the handicapped only. There are often only 2 or 3 stalls total, with one being handicapped-accessible, so there would be a shortage of stalls if nobody but the handicapped could use those stalls. My solution would just be to make them all handicapped-accessible, which would also mean we could use them without rubbing against the walls and toilet to get in and out. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, as I said before, it's disabled not handicapped. Secondly, you are quite wrong - of course there is an expectation that only disabled people are allowed to use disabled toilets. If there's a "shortage of stalls", well tough - you'll just have to wait. --Viennese Waltz 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you find a law to that effect and supply a reference ? StuRat (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, dunny cubicles often seem to be too small. I don't know about worldwide but in Australian there seem to be many more people wearing backpacks, and that adds to the 'squeeze' in a cubicle. 220 of ^Borg 10:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Any number of people have asked the same question on various internet forums - the consensus seems to be (as User:Clarityfiend says above) that it avoids hitting other users who might be passing-by as you open the door. See for example: Why Do Doors Open Inwards? and Why do airport bathroom stalls open inward?. A contributor to the forum of the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors says succinctly: "so you don't smash someone in the face that is coming down the hallway while You are exiting the bathroom...." [14]. I don't have any problem getting in and out of British toilets, but then I'm a skinny bloke, also blissfully unencumbered by any hygiene obsessions. Washing your hands afterwards should do the trick, unless you're planning to eat your lunch off your lower trouser legs :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you ever touch your clothes, then your hands will have whatever they have on them, too. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, looking at the empirical evidence, I'm still alive and have thus far avoided any diseases worse than the 'flu. Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

March 4

Yasuma musical inst.co. est 1950 in Japan

When did Yasuma stop making acoustic guitars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern voyager (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This page: http://hub pages.com/entertainment/Japanese-Manufacturers-of-Made-In-Japan-Badged-Guitars-from-1950-to-1980 (it's on the blacklist, so remove the space between hub and pages) claims that Yasuma still exists, but builds guitars which are branded for Yamaha instead. Other sources I find say that Yasuma stopped making Yasuma branded guitars after a lawsuit in the 1970s by C.F. Martin claimed that the Yasuma-branded guitars took too many design elements from Martin Guitars, see here. None of these are really great sources, however, and I'm not sure which to believe. It is clear that the Yasuma brand of guitars stopped being produced in the 1970s; but whether the company continued on producing guitars under other names, I can't find definitively. --Jayron32 14:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Any refs?

Any references yet to people doing a 'Donald' when trumping?--31.109.183.147 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "doing a Donald" (having intercourse with a cartoon duck?) and by "trumping" (playing a card of a special suit?) and it might be possible to answer the question. Edison (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Trombone Trouble. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As the OP locates to the UK maybe they are referring to this. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As in "Partner, why did you donald my ace?" —Tamfang (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

music

was listening to this

youtu.be/ZhP6F-vxeZI?t=1m42s

and realized i heard it somewhere. then remembered it's here

youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4?t=1m32s

they arent quite the same but with this much similarity isn't this plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How many percents of the universities have studies on Saturday?

In addition, is it considered common or acceptable to study on Saturdays in your countries? 93.126.95.68 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I live in the U.S. and attended a public university. In the U.S. there generally aren't regular classes or other academic functions on the weekend. There can be the occasional exceptions. I think I had some weekend study sessions, if I recall correctly. But let me point out these were some of numerous sessions held on different days by different teacher's assistants. The scheduling was up to the TAs, as long as rooms were available, and some students wanted weekend sessions because it made their schedules easier. Also facilities such as labs may, depending on the school, be open on weekends or just Saturdays, for people doing "self-directed" things like lab work. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting help for mentally ill person

How do you assist a mentally ill relative who's not even in the same region as you? Like, how do you contact authorities to get aid when you live on opposite sides of the country? I really believe this person needs to be held under an involuntary psychiatric hold, I fear she may hurt herself and her child. 74.12.214.104 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Contacting the police department where she is located would be the thing to do, but they would need some kind of proof, like a letter or e-mail where she says she intends to harm her child. If you have no such proof, you might contact her friends or relatives in the area, and maybe they can help. (I actually had a similar situation, where a woman who I play a MMORPG with was showing signs of mental problems. I managed to contact her husband via a mutual friend and let him know. She was previously hospitalized for mental health issues, so this made her husband more willing to believe me. ) StuRat (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, in general, you call the authorities for where the person lives. I can't speak for every place on Earth, but at least here in the U.S. it's pretty routine for police departments to publish their phone numbers. Just asking a search engine for "city police department", replacing "city" with the name of the city in question, has a good chance of getting this information for places in the U.S. One caveat is that rural areas that are not incorporated generally don't have a local police department; in this case it's usually the county sheriff's department you want (or parish, in Louisiana). --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)