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

October 24

IPC Training and Certification in Elelctronics

What is IPC Training and Certification in Electronics and how is it helpful in the manufacturing industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldertraining (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a great many meanings of IPC - http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IPC - quite a few of which could have something to do with manufacturing industries. A little precision might generate an answer. Wymspen (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

However you probably mean IPC (electronics). Why don't you read that article and let us know if you have any specific questions. Rojomoke (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Currency Converter website.

Any reliable source would be appreciated… 103.230.105.22 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one run by the Canadian firm OANDA. Does that meet your needs? --Jayron32 20:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You should define what you mean by reliable. Plenty of websites will do currency conversion with no attempt to falsify the exchange rates, but what does vary from site to site is how often they update those exchange rates. So, is once a day sufficient, or do you need more current info ? StuRat (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Another is XE.com. But as others have said, it's not really clear what you're looking for that a simple internet search for 'currency conversion' or something similar won't find. I mean heck, even major internet search engines like Bing and Google do currency conversion themselves. Since we have articles on both of those websites, there should be (and appear to be) WP:reliable sources (according to the wikipedia definition) mentioning them, but also a lot of others. Probably includes some we don't have articles on yet, both because the articles haven't been created and because we require more than a brief mention for an article. If you want to actually convert currency both the earlier mentioned websites are associated with such service, as will many websites that you find in a search. But which one works for you will depend a lot on where you live, what currencies your trying to convert, what form the original and converted currency is going to be in, how much is involved etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, note that you will pretty much never be able to convert currency at the spot price that you will find if you just look for a plain "quote". This price is a market average; brokers get their compensation from the bid-ask spread (usually just referred to as "the spread"). And since quotes vary among brokers and between different trades (for instance, brokers often will give a discount on large trades or to VIP customers), the only way to know what conversion rate you will actually get is to get a bid-ask quote directly from a broker. See our currency pair article for the general topic. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A possible exception is when buying something at a small store using a foreign currency. A couple reasons:

1) They tend to just use an average exchange rate on small items, and not update it all that often, because they make their money on selling the item, not the exchange rate spread. Of course, this could mean you get better or worse than the actual exchange rate.

2) Sometimes they will offer a better-than-the-exchange-rate deal, to bring in new customers with that currency. For example, in a nation where haggling is common, they might give a special deal to people from another nation where customers don't haggle, since that means they pay more and waste less time. StuRat (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of encrypted files

I have a notification on my desktop page saying my files are encrypted and I don't know how to get rid of it and it is there every time turn on my computer How do I delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.5.174 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If it lists a phone number to call to fix the problem, and they then want a credit card number, it's a scam. Your files aren't really encrypted. So, you can ignore the warnings. Hopefully somebody else can tell you how to get rid of them. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is extremely misleading. In some versions of ransomware the files can and will be encrypted. See Cryptolocker.--WaltCip (talk)

This is either actual Ransomware or an imitation of it (which hopes you'll try to pay them off even though your computer isn't really locked). Ignore any appearance of the message being "official" or having been done by some Police Force or similar – locking someone's PC like this is always a criminal act by the locker. Trying to pay for unlocking isn't a good idea as often they won't anyway, and they will also exploit your payment data to rob you. Such malware can often be cleared by rebooting your computer (preferably in Safe mode) and updating and running all the anti-virus/malware programs you have in turn (one may not clear it, while another may). You may have to repeat this a few times as, if the particular malware is new, it may take an update or two before the appropriate countermeasure is disseminated by the security programs involvesd.

You may also find that the message only appears when you use one of your internet browsers, while another doesn't show it (I've had one like this twice in the past fortnight) – you can then more easily use an unaffected browser to search for and download more antivirus programs. You should also be able to visit the website of your Operating System provider (e.g. Microsoft Windows, and run a recent anti-malware application from it.

If none of this works, take your PC to a professional shop to deal with it. (You may have caught the virus from a "dubious" website, but don't be embarrased – they've seen it all and far worse many times before.)

Disclaimer: I have no particular IT expertise, I've merely had to deal with this sort of thing several times over the years, and so far have always been able to sort it out myself – If you're not confident, go straight to the professionals. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have really important and high value information on your computer, then yes, get in a professional. Hopefully though, this may be a bit of malware inserted by a Script-kiddie. They are amateurs and often can be easily defeated. Remove “Your personal files are encrypted” virus (Guide). In future, keep a backup of all your files (you need three copies before it is classed as a back-up and now with the cloud this is simple and inexpensive). Also, run all Windows on Virtual machines (running on Linux), so if this happens again, one can just wind-back to the point before the malware arrived. --Aspro (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 26

List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Looking over this list, I noticed that there are many heads of state from various countries around the world. I also noticed that Barack Obama isn't listed anywhere. Was there a reason why the Obamas were not invited? †Dismas†|^(talk) 00:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is to be believed, extra security for the president is the reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there were no non-Commonwealth non-royal heads of state on the list. Rojomoke (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, there are no non-royal heads of state on that list at all. There are heads of government from various commonwealth realms, but those are all countries which have retained Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. There isn't a single foreign president anywhere on the list - just a few ambassadors. Wymspen (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! †Dismas†|^(talk) 19:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Gender preferences in religious names

Things may have changed of recent years, but traditionally, sisters in Catholic religious orders took a religious name. The standard form was Sister Mary X, where X was a saint's name. The saint might have been female or male, hence Sister Mary Patricia and Sister Mary Patrick were equally likely.

When it comes to male religious who took saints' names, they seem to have always preferred male saints. I've never heard of a Brother Mary, Brother Felicity, etc.

Am I wrong, and if not, why the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not unheard of for Catholic men to have "Mary" (or equivalent) as part of their name - for example Joseph Mary Plunkett, Edward Mary Joseph Molyneux, George Mary Searle, Giuseppe Maria Tomasi or José María Olazábal. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a two - way traffic, for example Maria José Canhoto who has sung for Portugal three times in the European Song Contest. 86.128.234.239 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's contribution deleted]

Here is at least one example of a two-named Christian religious figure with a traditionally male and female name. --Jayron32 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And the exception proves the rule. I want to know why it's common to find Sister Mary Leos but not Brother Gertrudes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What kind of published reference are you looking for? If you can direct us to the sort of information you seek, and if such information is likely to have been written by someone already, we have a better hope of helping you locate it. --Jayron32 23:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The sort of information I seek is, I would have thought, pretty self-explanatory. Is this difference in approach simply a tradition, and if so, how did it originate? Or is there something more formalised about it, e.g. in canon law. I really wouldn't know where to begin searching for this. --n Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's contribution deleted]

Except the Mary tends to get dropped in some contexts. I went to a convent school for a few years, and in a situation where every nun is Sister Mary something, we'd just cut to the chase and call them Sister something. I had a Sister John, a Sister Benedict, and a Sister Lucina. They all had Mary as well but that tended to be dropped in inter-child discourse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how widespread this convention is or was. I've never heard of it, which is worthless testimony except that I'm Irish. This nun's blogpost traces the history of the "Sister Mary Foo" convention at her own convent (the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Monroe, Michigan). An order devoted to Mary would have a greater incentive to use "Mary" in names than one devoted to some other saint or aspect. The post concludes "If you have a Mary naming custom in your community or personally, let us know", which at least shows it is not universal. Maybe the teaching order that ran JackofOz's school were one of only a few that had such a convention. In which case, the original question is moot. jnestorius^(talk) 16:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

October 27

NATO reporting name for PAK FA

As far as I know, the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) does not have a NATO reporting name. Any idea as to when, and if, it will get one? Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably when it enters active service. Rojomoke (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This page has Type: Su-50 PAK-FA, NATO Reporting Name: "Flatfish". However I can't find anything more reliable to back it up. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Suicide / Crisis Helpline Vounteer

Hello. I am looking to volunteer for a suicide helpline, or organisation that deals with people in similar emotional or psychological crises, in the UK but am unable to work for the Samaritans due to being a serving police officer, which excludes me due to potential conflicts of interest regarding confidentiality. I'm struggling to think of / find similar organisations that I can work with. Does anyone have ideas or suggestions? Thanks! 2A02:C7D:A0E:4100:ACA4:6B0A:7A38:2843 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, near to you is the May Tree organization [1]. Even then though, the question of a potential conflicts of interest may still arise. It may be worth inquiring (from a professional) as to what your legal/moral duty 'actually' covers. After all, even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans. Doctors and other medical professionals also have the Caldicott Report protocol of confidentiality for guidance when it concerns the safety of others. If you can find out exactly where you stand, you may find that this is not an impediment. As a police officer, you would be very useful to such an organization. Not wanting to criticize the Samaritans in any way at all, because the volunteers do a great job. It is just some of them (I think ) have come from walks-of-life where they have not witnessed a real life crises – if you know what I mean – and all the real life complications that someone finds themselves in. Your experiences may be able to defuse issues earlier. Or there is Help a rough sleeper. Catch them before they become suicidal. So yes, go for it ! --Aspro (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Samaritan view on why they don't accept sworn police officers is here [2]. Here is their policy on confidentiality [3].

Also while this is off topic, your claim on priests is unsupported by any references and simply isn't true. The Catholic church for example views the confidentiality of the Sacrament of Penance (i.e. the Seal of the Confessional (Catholic Church)) as absolute. It's true that the civil laws if any which sometimes protect these religious views may not be absolute, e.g. Confessional privilege (United States) (although I'm not sure of the US [4] as these seeming to be still tested) or Priest–penitent privilege in England reflective of the fact that other parts of society disagree with this view, but that doesn't change the church's view.

Breaking the seal is grounds for automatic Excommunication (Catholic Church). It doesn't matter whether the penitent is a serial sexual abuser of children who the priest believes is likely to continue to do so (perhaps because it's their fourth confession). Or tells the priest they're going to release a dirty bomb or deadly bioweapon in Hong Kong. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (As mentioned in our article, the priest could stop the confession in exceptional circumstances, but they still can't reveal what was said.) How people personally feel about the Catholic Church's view is too offtopic and irrelevant to discuss here. Other religious traditions may not be so strict, but the claim "even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans" is clearly not true when one of the major branches Christianity explicitly rejects any such duty.

To make this more on topic, this does relate somewhat to the OP's dilemma. If someone is considering becoming a Catholic priest they need to reconcile themselves with accepting the absoluteness of the seal of the confessional. If they are unable to do so, they're unlikely to make a good Catholic priest and anyone from the church would surely tell them that, or potentially even try and stop them. The Samaritan view is similar and seems quite resonable, someone cannot have sworn to "prevent all offences" while simultaneously needing to maintain confidentiality except when compelled by court order or when they receive report bomb warnings or info possible acts of terrorism.

P.S. Note that as per the sources especially the last 3, the confidentiality mostly applies even when the penitent themselves want the priest to break it. In the Louisiana case, it was the child who was abused rather than the abuser who revealed the info during confession and want it to be revealed now (not sure what they said they wanted at the time). The priest can and I think even the Catholic Church agrees should counsel the the penitent to tell the police, a parent (where suitable) or someone else, and it seems can even offer to accompany the penitent. But they still can't reveal what was said. The only thing I'm uncertain of is whether, the priest is able to encourage the penitent to talk to them outside confession while making the penitent aware of what this means and how it will help the priest better assist the penitent.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, how, exactly, is a "confession" that one plans to set of a dirty bomb and act of contrition, and how could it be covered by the seal of confession? The priest cannot absolve someone of a sin he says he plans to commit, and I unsee how this would be considered an act of penitence. Given the priest can require that a murderer confess his crime under normal circumstances as a condition of absolution, I do not see a priest granting absolution for a crime not yet committed. Is there a source that says admissions of planned crimes are covered by the seal of the confessional? μηδείς (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[11] explicitly mentions it. Not linked before but [12] also does and in fact seems to semi answer my question above, it seems the priest can explicitly ask for the info to be repeated outside confession. [13] again not linked before sort of mentions it. And I never said anything about a priest granting absolution as it was besides my point. (Actually the source mentions the obvious, absolution can't be granted which I did read while replying but already knew anyway.)

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of how the seal works (which to be fair, seems common). It applies to anything said during the sacrament of penance. It doesn't have to be a confession per se, and a confession outside the sacrament would not generally be covered (although I assume there is some leeway for when penitent felt that they were in the sacrament).

Once you appreciate that, you should understand all my earlier sources imply it even if they don't explicitly mention future crimes. (They go into detail about how almost nothing can be revealed. (Small exceptions like revealing some details but nothing which will identify the person, with the permission of the penitent to seek advice on the situation.) What they don't say is that only parts of the penance that are actually confessions are covered. (Note also a number of them mention child abuse and often imply it's likely there is a strong risk of future crimes.)

Besides, if a priest can't even reveal, after the fact and with the full permission of the penitent to a court what the penitent (then child) told them about the abuse without breaking the seal, why would they be able to reveal what a sinner told them in confession (even if part of the sin was ongoing)? Remembering that as bad as the church is at times, there's a fair chance the modern church would recognise the child almost definitely was not a sinner at least in relation to the abuse they suffered so couldn't be confessing there. (If the details are accurate the advice the priest provided seems to have been very poor, but it's not clear to me it went as far as suggesting the child was a sinner due to the abuse.) As the comments in one of the sources mention, even lawyers don't generally have to keep confidentiality when the client who's confidentiality is involved doesn't want it, but the church seems to mostly reject even this.

While I fundamentally disagree with the Catholic church's view (I'm less certain about issues like psychologists but priests are primarily there supposedly as intermediaries to deal with religious view on penance and absolution), their view isn't exactly surprising. If you start having loopholes where the priest can decide something isn't a genuine confession or they're referring to future acts or whatever and so confidentiality doesn't apply, that could arise in many circumstances, e.g. the aforementioned child rapist but also things which may not even be crimes, e.g. an adulterer. Which goes against the view of the extreme importance of confidentiality

And remember, since it's the church, we're talking about sins not crimes. AFAIK, there's virtually no situation where you could have seriously considered using a dirty bomb without having sinned. But in any case, while my terminology was a little loose, the situation could arise when someone has already planted the bomb (in fact, unless it's an automatic timer, it's still arguably a complete plan), or produced the bomb or whatever i.e. cases where there have already been both crimes and sins. I'm not sure how much absolution can be offered when the person isn't willing to try and stop the bomb, but it's a moot point.

P.S. As mentioned earlier as per our article, in some limited circumstances a priest can refuse to take confession. However while unsourced, it seems from what our article says these are faily rare. I imagine in any case where the penitent appears to be genuinely seeking absolution, even if the circumstances suggest action on their part is needed if they are truly repenant they need to hear it out. I assume the priest can try and direct the penitent to only confess their sins rather than seeking counselling as the later isn't the purpose of the sacrament. But I'm not sure if even if the person appears to be simply boasting (but with the trappings of the sacrament) whether the priest is supposed to simply refuse to hear in the first instance. Let alone if they're doing some weird mix of seeking absolution (considering this is the Catholic church so even such thoughts are likely to be sins) and counselling during something clearly sacramental. After multiple visits of apparent boasting it may be different.

I am aware that the Catholic church does sometimes simply decide the sacrament never happened, e.g. as sort of happens with matrimony. But I can't see any suggestion this ever applies to penance, in fact everything I read makes me fairly sure it doesn't really. The closest I've seen [14] [15] [16]. But while the church seems to have simply accepted the claim it wasn't sacramental, there's no suggestion they would have if e.g. the penitent told them that they revealed the info in the confessional booth, said "bless me father for I have sinned" before starting and the priest talked about absolution at the end. I'm not suggesting any of this happened in that case, simply that there are certain things which would make it unlikely the church would be willing to accept it wasn't sacramental.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. I didn't disbelieve your earlier post, but I am still trying to get my head straight about a man who gets in the confessional box and says, "Forgive me Father, I plan to sin" and announces that he is going to set off a dirty bomb, but wants absolution before the fact. Child molestation is more of a disposition, and the priest might suspect it will continue, but the molester is asking for forgiveness of past acts. My point was that it seems really not to count as an act of contrition in the "plan to" case, even if the would-be bomber is kneeling in a confessional booth as he admits his intentions. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OT, but such a scene occurs in one of Ian Rankin's Inspector Rebus novels. The priest advises the potential criminal "that gun belongs at the bottom of the Forth" (or words to that effect), but there's no question of him contacting the authorities. This is fiction, of course, but Rankin is a novelist who likes to do his research. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I though I had chosen my words very carefully when saying: “After all, even a priest that hears confessionals -in absolute confidence- has a recognized duty sometimes, to conform to a strict protocol of disclosure when it concerns/ affects the well being of other humans.” but obliviously, from the comments above, is was too superficial. What I was alluding to: is though the seal in itself need never to be broken by a priest; as they take the privilege of being able to hear confessionals to the extent that their honour in this comes above all else. However, if they detect a modus operandi of some considerable misfeasance. They don't break the seal when discussing the modus operandi, with others which are also shepherds of their flock of sheep. Nothing discussed in the confession has to be repeated in order to make the concern and worry become clear to all, and without mentioning names, all will know where to focus upon. Don't think any tricks-of -the-trade of RC are being unfairly divulge here, as they are well known about. So, I didn't even imagine my comment would create the debate it has done. Am not, in any way going to comment on this further for obvious reasons, in that we have gone way off topic. Just wanted to clarify. Finally, coming back to the OP's question. A British police officer (as the OP knows) use discretion even when on and off duty. An thus, his experience may be very useful to a charity in when comforted with a difficult situations. A clear summation of a situation could prevent the need for lots of blue flashing lights having to be called to the scene because things got-out-of-hand. For many a time, when someone gets into crisis, they get confused by lots of conflicting advice – but if someone can calmly tell them what the law actually is they calm down. There is a simple psychological explanation for this: Cognitive dissonance. When someone in crisis doesn’t know what to believe they can not reason properly and come to terms with the right things to do. Knowing where they stand, diffuses the instinct of digging their hole even deeper. As the OP may be aware of – in any crisis there may be two other sides of the story that has driven this person to this point and s/he needs to be informed (or reminded) that the law there for them also. Think the OP's experience may be of much help to people who find their between a rock and a hard place. He mentions that he is most interest in emotional or psychological crises. He doesn't say it, but I think he has the capacity of empathy also. So, I urge the OP to go for it. --Aspro (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• A homeless charity like St Mungo's or, more explicitly religious, Street Angels, might be very happy to have a volunteer who has experience of working with and helping people on the street. However, I suspect even they might not be happy to have a serving officer - apart from the conflict of interest, a lot of vulnerable people would be distressed and probably refuse help if they thought the charity was some kind of con to turn them over to plain-clothes police (even though that has absolutely no basis in fact). Smurrayinchester 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• CALM (The Campaign Against Living Miserably), is a UK based organisation aiming to reduce suicide rating amongst young men. The don't take volunteers for their help line, but do provide outreach in Manchester and London.

Breathing Space Scotland is based in Edinburgh, and covers Scotland.

A Websearch for 'anti suicide helpline uk' will provide organisations that you might be able to volunteer with. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

October 28

Inventory Days on Hand calculation

How do you calculate inventory days on hand without COGS? All guides I've been able to google always include COGS as part of the formulas, but is COGS always necessary?

Can I simply take the stock level at a point in time divide by the sales volume for a period of time then multiply with the number of days (in the period matched with the sales volume) to get an idea of DOH.

The data I have: ending stock figures at present time and monthly sales (past realized and future budgeted)

For example: Stock level end of Oct (now): 100

Sales by month (actual): July: 80, August: 100, September: 120

Sales by month (planned): Nov: 120, Dec: 180, Jan: 150

--> past DOH = 100/(80+100+120)*90 ~= 30 days

--> forward DOH = 100/(120+180+150)*90 ~= 19 days

What do you think about this method of calculation? Any problems/disadvantages compared with the traditional method? I'll be checking often for input. Thank you so much!

Abbreviations:

COGS = Cost of Goods Sold[17] = Beginning Inventory + Inventory Purchases – End Inventory

DOH = Days of Inventory on Hand[18] = 365 / Inventory turnover

AllBestFaith (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're studying accounting at college, as it sounds like you might be, it would be good to run this past your teacher first. --Viennese Waltz 12:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses! I guess I wasn't clear that my above examples used only stock volumes (not stock values). I'd like to calculate DOH with data on volume only (no data on value), is that possible to calculate like I presented above? (COGS is not possible with volume-only data)

I'm by no means an expert, but I do run the calculations for weeks on hand / days on hand at my company. In a snapshot view, you can calculate your DOH simply by dividing the QOH (quantity on hand) by the ADM (average daily movement): I currently have 40 cases, I move 10 per day on average, so I have 4 DOH. Calculating forward and backwards is still doable performing the same calculations, it's just complicated by the fact you need to derive the quantity and movement numbers first (and that is not always easy if you're discussing multiple SKUs). What you've got above has the right idea, but shows no planned purchases (i.e. you would have no sales in December because you sold all your stock already). So, at the very least, you would want to factor purchases and to do it correctly, you'd want the sales and purchases planned out in detail (otherwise the exercise is a little pointless). Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

October 29

WP:

USB 3.0 Hub ports

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing § USB 3.0 Hub ports

 – 47.138.165.200 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Elections

What would happen if BOTH the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect get arrested on felony charges after being elected but before taking office? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the U.S. here...then they would be arrested. Being arrested doesn't make the President not the President anymore. Neither does being convicted of a crime. The President and Vice-President can only be involuntarily removed from office by impeachment and removal from office by Congress. Now, they might choose to resign, and if they didn't it's likely Congress would begin impeachment proceedings, but that's speculation. If they did both resign before being inaugurated, it looks like the Speaker of the House (or, if they're unable, whoever's next in the line of succession) would become President: see President-elect of the United States#President-elect succession. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)