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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Akrabbimtalk20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Jayron3200:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean like [2] that's a fairly common practice on news sites and news papers as a way of showing both people involved in a single picture (forgot to add, and giving due prominence to the person of most interest to the story) Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Wednesday or Thursday - look at the local weather forcast and ski report on the internet
Thursday afternoon or Friday morning - seek out accommodation and book it
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.
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)[reply]
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 me15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway to permanently correct personality flaws?
This question appears to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to clarify your question. Thank you.
Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it.
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.”
"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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The original 5 Francs coins were made with silver (0.835 ounze) until 1967 and again in 1969. Therefore the coin from 1963 is worth something around 15 USD due to the current silber price (18.61 USD/oz). Indeed, in Switzerland, they get traded at about 9 CHF / 9 USD. The 1968 coin is from the first coining with Cupronickel. This might give it a very small higher value than the 5 CHF face value. 84.72.151.222 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you went six years without washing your hair, it probably didn't get wet even when it did rain -- hair oils do a decent job of waterproofing. --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
An interesting point, according to [3][4][5], it's fairly common Sikhs including those who wear turbans (and therefore their hair is likely to be fairly 'protected' from the environment although it may also cause problems for the same reason) do wash their hair a few times a week. Of course they do have religious reasons why they would want to keep their hair clean so it may not be just because their hair gets dirty. Also not using shampoo =/ not washing your hair, I know of some people who prefer to use soap for example. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As the OP, I can now say that that was a pretty stupid Q and the answer is obvious. What I should have asked was: why is 6 cats plus misc all that is deemed to be needed. I am not suggesting any change- just musing.--79.75.21.130 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no stupid questions, only stupid questioners. :) :) :) And the answer is not at all inherently obvious. That's why there have been debates and discussions on the matter. The simple answer would be that these categories seem to be a reasonable balance at this point, between too many and too few. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The desks are the way they are because they are a reasonably even split of the traffic. Over the past week, we had close to 300 questions: 44 Science questions, 46 Misc, 65 Computers, 23 Math, 64 Humanities, 36 Language and 27 Entertainment. My gut feel is that this is perhaps an unusually high number for Computers - but otherwise, pretty typical. None of those are unmanageably large - we have plenty of people to answer even 10 questions per day per desk. So there isn't really any pressure to split them up. The two that are small (math and entertainment) have questions that we mostly agree are ill-suited to being merged elsewhere. The math desk requires a rather different kind of respondent - the threads are longer and much, much more detailed. The entertainment questions tend to annoy the heck out of respondents on the other desks ("Identify this actor/music/movie please?" gets old, fast!) - I think we're all happy to have it off in it's own area. But in any case, what would you merge them with? Math merged with science would make science bigger than any of the others...Entertainment merged with Misc or maybe Humanities...again, too big. I can't imagine any other merger combo's that would work. So those aren't going away and they aren't going to be merged with anything else. Should we split some up? Well, computing isn't usually that large - and splitting it would be really tough ("Theoretical Computing" and "Practical Computing"? "Programming" and "Not-Programming"?) - nothing like that really works. I suppose we might split up Humanities - but when we've discussed that in the past, we never found a split that we felt would be 50/50 and wouldn't result in all of the same people simply having to patrol both desks. So we can't split any - and we can't merge any. Hence, it seems that we have just about the right split. This does get discussed fairly regularly - the result of the discussion is pretty much always the same - do nothing. It's not like there is a major crisis going on - so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Intelligentsium03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Algebraist18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, a picture's worth a 1000 words so I got hold of these pictures of the design I'm on about: the first - [8] 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) - [9] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The picture of the one-piece sideways toilet you linked to looks very unusual to me - I've never seen one like that and so I'm not surprised that the people in the shops don't know about it. A real specialist part. However, you might be able to assemble something that will do the same job. Many toilet bowls these days end with a horizontal pipe that does not extend backwards very far (in many cases other parts of the toilet extend back further, so the pipe is not the furthest-back part of the design). See eg this picture where the pipe is visible coming out the back of the toilet. You can also get "pan connectors" that fit directly onto such a horizontal pipe, and make an immediate 90º bend. See this or, if you needed to cheat another inch or two, this turned horizontally. Putting such a toilet (probably not that exact one, as it's meant for a corner, but was the first one I found where the outlet was visible) and such a pan connector together, you'd have something that ought to fit in the space of your strange 90º toilet. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are going to need a plumber to fit a new toilet (would definately not advise trying to do it yourself, if that is what you are thinking), why not ring around a few plumbers to see if any of them understand the problem? Hopefully you would pay a trade price through them rather than a retail price if you bought it yourself. 84.13.162.136 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fitted a new toilet in my bathroom a couple of months ago. It's not especially difficult. In fact I refitted the whole bathroom, and while it was hard work, no individual part of it was difficult as such. Except tiling; I got a pro in for that as it's a real hands-on skill I don't have time to learn.
Trade vs retail pricing for parts in the UK is a dying concept; the cheaper merchants are happy to sell to anyone, and the old-fashioned ones that maintain a protectionist "trade only" policy are generally more expensive hence not worth dealing with anyway; I know "trade" sparks and plumbers who've moved to Toolstation etc rather than the local merchant for this reason.93.97.184.230 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When asked to choose between 0 and 9, 7 is the most common result according to various studies (see page 373 here [10]). The authors - Thomas Griffiths and Joshua Tenenbaum - suggest that people are reluctant to pick numbers that have some obvious property that makes them stand out (or equivalently to pick numbers which are members of a specific subset), e.g. start/end of a range; multiples of 2, 3, 5; powers of two - they use this to produce a mathematical model which closely reflects the actual distribution. 7 comes into none of their categories (it is prime, but fewer people can spot a prime number than an even number). Although the authors don't consider numbers above 9, 37 is also a number with few obvious properties, while 20 has many (being a multiple of 2 and of 10). The paper has some references to other studies which you might check out. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, [11]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If it's a memory issue, consider seeing a doctor. If it's just an issue of not paying enough attention, just try to focus. Falconusptc12:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See our article on concentration, it might have some help on how to concentrate. Perhaps speak more slowly, to allow yourself to think of what you're saying. You can also google "memory games" for help, to see just how your memory is; since we don't know what the context is, as far as what things you're not remembering, and how long ago you forget, we really can't say whether it's normal or not to forget. For all we know, you could talk to the same personf or 2 hours, in which case it's very hard to remember everything. :-)209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Richardrjtalk email05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Jayron3206:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Monacktalk10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron hit the nail on the head. They are less polluting because they are electric (or at least the pollution isn't produced in the centre of the city, where eveybody breathes it in, but in a power plant); more efficient (electric again, although you can get electric buses also); carrying more passengers per vehicle, which cuts down on traffic and makes them more efficient (again). DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the obviousness of maintaining a streetcar system being more expensive than maintaining a fleet of busses. Installing tracks and overhead wires is a one time investment while busses continually wear down their tyres and engine parts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Streetcars continually wear down their tyres and motor parts, too. Of course, the difference between busses and rail is that generally a rail operator picks up all the infrastructure costs, whereas bus operators' roads are provided by the taxpayer. FiggyBee (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a shell game; in North America, transit companies are all public agencies that usually get most of their budget from taxes and intergovernmental transfers. Roads are usually paid for by general-purpose governments such as states and municipalities, but some of that is reimbursed through gasoline taxes set aside for road improvement. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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... --Jayron3205:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Reference Desk has a policy of not doing your homework for you. I'd suggest asking your teacher for a couple of examples to get you started. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just consider various online data sources. A neat one is the Public Library of Science. Their mission is to make "…the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource." There are countless others. I think if you start typing a few general search terms into Google, you should turn up a few more. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, almost all web sites are online data sources. My home page has data (mostly about me) - and it's online. I think you are being asked something much more specific. You need to ask for qualification. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Steinbaugh a Jewish name14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
How so? Stein is German for "stone". Bach is German for "stream". There's nothing inherently Jewish or Yiddish about the words or the name (none of the Steinbachs in the English Wikipedia are listed as being Jewish, as far as I can see). FiggyBee (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are electric shavers less painful or atleast quicker?
I absolutely hate shaving my face due to the slight pain it causes and it also consumes about 15 minutes.
My skin is quite sensitive and sensitive foams or gels does not help either. Iam left with warm water to soften hair
and i use the famous razor that most guy use and iam happy with that.
It is still painful since i dont use foam or a gel.I am thinking about trying electric shavers. i dont care about how clean the
shave is, if my pain is reduced and it s quick, i would be relieved. Please say, can electric shaver be of any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.192.46 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're a little unclear. Do you mean you have a reaction to shaving foams and so can't use them? In my experience, wet shaving with foam and a sharp, multi-bladed razor is the least uncomfortable way of shaving. I find electric shavers uncomfortable, but nowhere near as bad as trying to wet shave with water alone. A beard trimmer (like a mini hair clipper) is comfortable, but won't shave closer than stubble, and won't work well if you want to shave more than once a week. People's mileage with shaving varies greatly, so your best option may be to simply try an electric shaver and see how it works for you. Try a specialist shaver shop if you want advice and the possibility of returning it if it doesn't work out. FiggyBee (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried talking to your doctor? There might be suitable soaps/foams/gels available on prescription that would work for you even if standard sensitive products don't work. My experience with electric shavers isn't good, but that was with a really cheap one - I found it didn't get a close shave and it was quite painful since it seems to rip hairs out as much as it cut them. More expensive shavers are probably better. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used a very high-end electric shaver once and was surprised at how easy and relatively painless it was. One of those expensive deals with the three revolving circles and all that. That being said, low- and even mid-range ones are entirely the opposite experience. This is just anecdotal of course. I too would look into better gels/foams—I find shaving with water to be MUCH harder than with a foam of some sort. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oscillating battery powered razor Wikipedia discusses electric shavers but calls them electric razors. The brand with 3 revolving circles is Philips. I have used foil shavers from Remington and Braun and both were satisfactory. For happy shaving use only light pressure and keep the cutter and foil clean. The Braun battery shaver can be washed in running water or in an optional storing bath. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Remington shaver has three circles. One advantage of electric shavers is that you don't necessarily need to be in a specific place (like a bathroom) to do it. Somehow, the two shavers I've had both catch the hair immediately when shaved, and none falls out (always been a mystery to me). I normally shave while watching TV in my bedroom. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're allergic to something in the shaving creams/gels, consider the old-fashion shaving soap and shave brush. It gives lather and lubrication without all the extra compounds from shaving creams. Don't worry, you don't need to use a cut-throat razor, it works perfectly well with modern (multi-bladed) safety razors. -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between cutting yourself shaving (which should be a very rare experience with an electric shaver) and it just being slightly painful/leaving you sore. At least with cheap electric shavers, the latter is more than possible. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had a good experience with electrics, though they were admittedly not the highest quality. The problem with most gels and foams is that if they work to soften the stubble they will also work to soften the skin - at least in my experience. I have very sensitive skin and found the best solution was to shave in the shower. While I now have a beard, I still shave under the neck, etc. in a hot shower. If you find that just too weird (it takes some practice to shave without a mirror), my next preferred option was to use hot-hot-hot wash-cloths to soften the stubble first and as I shave and then a hot shower afterwards. It would seem logical for a hot shower to further irritate the skin, but it was not so, at least for me. Matt Deres (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the advantage of electrics is comfort and speed. It's a lot harder to nick your face up with an electric. The advantage of regular razors is a closer shave. If you're a young teenager, it might be best to go with an electric, which is what I used until college. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same problem - electric razors didn't help - gazillion-blade razors...worse - cut-throat razors (they aren't called that for nothing you know!). After 30 years of hassle - I decided to grow a beard - best decision I ever made. I can trim it about once every couple of weeks - and it's completely painless. You can either use a beard trimmer or (with a little practice) scissors. If you've never tried it - give it a whirl - it only takes a few weeks to find out and if you don't like it - it's gone in 10 minutes flat! SteveBaker (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd second that. Don't worry about how itchy and uncomfortable it is for the first few weeks, either; it really does go away. Also, and I'm sure this has never influenced a young man at any time, women dig facial hair. And don't let 'em tell you they don't, cause they do - as most men usually find out immediately after shaving off a month-long growth. "What? You shaved it off? I was just getting used to it!" Matt Deres (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been painlessly dry-shaving my non-bearded & moustached portions with the same cheap two-head Phillishave shaver for over 30 years - the oscillating beard trimmer has gone blunt, but the main rotary heads are still fine. A useful way to minimise discomfort is to ensure your facial skin is absolutely dry and to dust it with talcum powder, which provides dry lubrication. A dry disposable safety razor can be used for those few elusive bristles that lie the wrong way so that the shaver won't pick them up. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. If it had ever become difficult to use I'd have bought a replacement shaver, but it never has. Years ago, not all products were made with the built-in obsolescence now ubiquitous: for example, I'm also still using a Hoover Constellation vacuum cleaner, once my mother's, that's almost as old as I am, i.e. around 50 or so. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions are always answered here, that way we can share the answers with everyone. There are a wide variety of ways to download music (some legal, some not - we won't give you advice on the latter!). How do you intend to listen to the music? That might impact on which method is best. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search reports more free music download sites than you are likely to need. A popular format for music is an MP3 file. WARNING Never download anything from websites without having a freshly updated virus checker on your computer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person may simply be asking how to copy mp3 files from their PC (iTunes?) to their flash drive. If that's the case it's you simply use the My Computer interface to drag and drop the files. I can't vouch for them but there are some instructions for "iTunes" here. APL (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I sneeze?
Whenever I go to my local buffet restaurant I have a sneezing fit shortly after finishing my meal. I sneeze 15-20 times within a span of three minutes, often quite loud and messy. When I am finished I am fine and do not sneeze again for the rest of the day. This mainly occurs at a particular chain restaurant ... I seem to be OK when eating at other places. Furthermore, this phenomenon never occurs at home, and never during the meal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.31.103 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It stands to reason that sneezing serves first, last, and perhaps always to expel something unwanted from the nasal passages. Since those are connected to your mouth, perhaps there are some gases or other particles emanating from the food you are eating. Are some of the dishes spicy, or well-seasoned, or particularly flavorful? Vranak (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could do an experiment where you go to the place for a while and do not eat anything. That could help you differentiate whether it is something that you eat or something else. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Christmas, my roommate and I want to drive from NY to see the Grand Canyon but someone told me that it will be closed? If so, couldn't I see it anyway? Does anyone have any suggestions which route to go? Also, what are the things we defintely need to bring with us on this car trip? I'm so excited!--Reticuli88 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the Grand Canyon any time of year. Your someone may have been confused by the fact that visitor and park ranger services are closed on the north side of the canyon during the winter (because they get too few visitors; the vast majority of visitors start from Tusayan, Arizona and Grand Canyon Village, Arizona on the south rim). FiggyBee (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get to Tusayan from I-40 you'll cross the Coconino Plateau which is pretty high (over 7000 ft) and which can get rather snowy (so either a 4-wheel-drive car or snowchains are advisable, although you probably won't need them). Given that you've come so far, both Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly National Monument are within striking distance. Personally I found the canyon rather underwhelming, but I was awestruck by Death Valley in winter (it's pleasant during the day, below freezing at night); it's a full day's drive further west (Beatty, Nevada is a decent place to stay when visiting Death Valley, particularly if you're on a budget), but Las Vegas is on the way. In the high desert (Flagstaff, Coconino, Tusayan) you'll find it sufficiently cold that you'll be wearing your NY clothes. Bring ample batteries and memory cards for your camera, as you'll find no shortage of things to photograph but a distinct shortage of stores to buy such (there's a store in GC Village, but it's expensive). If you go to Monument Valley, remember that no alcohol is sold in the Navajo Nation (and the NN is half the size of New York State). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk03:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The North Rim is closed from October on, but the South Rim (which has more facilities and is lower in elevation) is open all year. It'll be cold at the rim although if you descend (i.e., walk 4000 feet vertically) to the level of the river, it'll be quite warm at the bottom. From St. Louis onwards the road parallels old US 66, and if you get off the interstate you'll see lots of evidence of the old road. It's about the closest thing the US has to ancient ruins - abandoned motor courts, dying towns and such. The Grapes of Wrath will seem much more relevant there than it did in high school. Acroterion(talk)04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little off-topic, but "it's about the closest thing the US has to ancient ruins" is very inaccurate and a little offensive. Indeed, ruins left by the Ancient Pueblo Peoples abound in and around the Grand Canyon itself. FiggyBee (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to emphasise "it'll be cold". I once flew to a conference in Phoenix, where it was 40 degrees C (100F) so I packed only my business suit and shorts and T-shirt. Afterwards I drove to the Grand Canyon. Nobody told me it was a mile higher, and I ended up wearing almost every piece of clothing I brought with me. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While amazing any month of the year, the Grand Canyon is particularly awe-inspiring in winter, although as mentioned above, the North Rim is closed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One point on the "if you descend" bit: the upper levels of the trail are likely to be covered with ice, possibly with a layer of snow hiding the ice. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps suggested 2 routes:
I-78, I-76, I-70, I-44, I-40 Distance: 2,400 miles (note that stretches of I-40 are above 6,500 ft and could be affected by snow/ice)
I-78, I-81, I-40, I-30, I-20, I-10, I-17 Distance: 2,800 miles (longer and more southerly, but might avoid the snow for longer)
Note that driving those kind of distances can be difficult. Even if you drive for 10 hours per day (doing 2 spells of 2.5 hours each), it will still take you 4 days to get there and you'll be very tired when you arrive. I doubt you would be prepared to keep up that gruelling schedule for long. Then there's the cost of gas (perhaps $800+) and motel rooms to consider. You will find it easier and quicker to fly to Phoenix, AZ and rent a car for a few days; and it could be cheaper depending on the days you fly (I know christmas is a bad time for cheap flights). Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disarming the factory alarm system on a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee
How do you disable it BY YOURSELF?
We bought it used and it didn't come with the remote and we can't afford to send it to the dealers because they will charge us an arm and a leg. --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an answer for you, but there is a specialist Jeep Grand Cherokee forum here that appears to have plenty of traffic from owners and enthusiasts. If you ask your question there, somebody may be able to help. Good luck. Karenjc17:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the method to calculate quickly in your head instead of using a calculator?
How do those seemingly mental math geniuses do it? Are their brains really programmed differently, allowing them to do what seems to be mental magic? What gives here? Maybe they have integrated circuits instead of dendrites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spranykot (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many shortcuts for doing various things, like "to multiply a number by nine, just append a zero and then subtract the number". You can learn a bunch of them and do quick math in your head for a variety of situations. Here is one of the many books on the topic. --Sean20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a guy, Scott Flansburg, known as "the human calculator" who used to turn up on Carson and apparently still makes the talk show rounds. He's a normal guy (not a savant) who has catalogued a number of tricks and is a whiz at doing what the OP would like to do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many years ago I was invited to a "student" party where much alcohol was being consumed and music was blaring loudly from the stereo system. One of the guys was a computer programmer in the early days of business systems computer operations. Someone asked him to do his party trick which he pleaded not to have to do. But he was pressed into doing it. He lay on his back on the floor and asked 5 people at random to each give him a number from 0 to 9 which formed the first of 2 five digit numbers. He then asked for another set of 5 digits from another random 5 people to form the second 5 digit number. He then asked to be ignored while we all got on with the party. He closed his eyes abd began multiplying the two 5 digit numbers together. A few of us did the calculation on paper without discussing the results with anyone else and watched over him to make sure there was no trickery. About 30 minutes later, he shouted out the answer which we wrote down as he spoke. His answer was exactly the same as those we had calculated on paper. He then got to his feet, breathed very deeply, and got extremely drunk. Amazing. 92.22.171.217 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even drunk, 30 minutes sounds pretty slow to me. It is impressive to be able to do it at all, but if you can do it I wouldn't expect it to take that long. I'm not sure I've ever tried multiplying two 5-digit numbers together in my head, but I reckon I could do it faster than that. The difficult bit for that problem isn't knowing lots of tricks (unless you get lucky and there is a trick for that particular pair of numbers), it's remembering all the numbers as you go along (since you will have to do long multiplication, there's no way around it). I have a very visual memory, so I write them on a mental black-board, but you should use whatever works for you. --Tango (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango you just made boast that you could perform some mental feat in under 30 seconds, but then you admit that you've never tried it? Wouldn't your comment have been much better informed if you'd taken the mere 30 seconds to try it? APL (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am by no means a math genius, but I can usually do basic arithmetic in my head, often faster than a calculator. The trick is to break a number into easy to work with parts, and then keep track of remainders. Generally I round one of the numbers to the nearest convenient multiple of 10 or 5, and then keep track of how much extra I need to add or subtract to the answer to compensate for my approximation. Its just a matter of practice. Eventually, you figure out instintively which tricks to use. --Jayron3221:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One additon trick I recall from Flansburg is "left hand addition". That is, add the high-order columns in your head first, and go left to right, as it's easier to keep track of. That's opposite from the method taught in school, but there you've got paper to write on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, it's a combination of practice, technique, and natural aptitude. You can train in the first two - I have a fair amount of natural aptitude at this sort of thing (other kids used to race me against pocket calculators at high school), and it's easy to find ways to practice (on long car journeys, if I'm bored I try factorising car number plates in my head -usually pretty simple since where I live they're all three- or four-digit numbers). As to technique, there are huge numbers of shortcuts (the 37/27 method and 7/11/13 method help with factorising, for instance (7x11x13=1001, so 37744 must be a multiple of 7 (37744-37037=707, which is a multiple of 77). Similar tricks are possible with a lot of different numbers and problems (multiplying 77*83? It's 80 squared minus 9). But -as always - if you're going to learn the tricks of the trade, the best thing to do is to learn the trade first (by practicing). As to natural aptitude, that is a harder one, and some people are just luckyy. I have slight synaesthesia - I hear maths as music (something I share with Richard Feynman, though my intellect to his is like a sand dune compared to Everest). FWIW, I tried multiplying two random 5-digit numbers together a couple of minutes ago as per above. Took just under four minutes. There are tricks :) Grutness...wha?23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain more about this: "As to technique, there are huge numbers of shortcuts (the 37/27 method and 7/11/13 method help with factorising, for instance (7x11x13=1001, so 37744 must be a multiple of 7 (37744-37037=707, which is a multiple of 77)." Why would the factors of 999 and 1001 be of general use? And what is the significance of 37037? 92.24.170.160 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37037, like any number that is XY0XY, has to be a multiple of 1001 - in this instance it's simply an example to show working. As such, if you want to know whether a large number is a factor of 7, 11, or 13, one way of doing it (the easiest way for 7 and 13) is to remove as many multiples of 1001 as possible and then factorise the remainder. For instance:
Is 10725741 a multiple of 13?
Take out 10015005 (clearly a multiple of 1001) and you get 710736
Take 710710 (clearly a multiple of 1001) and you get 26
26 is 13*2, therefore 10725741 is a multiple of 13
Daniel Tammet is a rare example of a savant who is not otherwise crippled by other mental conditions and is able to describe much of what he can do. He has a kind of 'mathematical synaesthesia' where numbers seem to him to have shape, color and texture. Oddly, he directly perceives prime numbers as being particularly 'smooth' so that he doesn't have to consciously try to factor a number to see if it's prime - it just "feels right". In a documentary about this remarkable guy, he made clay models of the numbers as he sees them - and some properties of the shapes give him 'instant' short-cuts in many calculations. He has mental pictures for almost every number up to 10,000 or so. It seems that having an intimate familiarity with numbers really helps these people. If you've learned all sorts of odd facts about particular numbers - you can use those facts to make very close guesses to answers to tough problems that you only have to correct in the last few decimal places. Richard Feynman taught himself quite a few of those party tricks - and despite not being a savant by any stretch of the imagination - was still able to do incredibly difficult calculations in his head just by being familiar with enough 'points on the landscape'. Knowing things like all of the primes, squares, cubes, triangle numbers, factorials up to some large limit really gives you a head start on some of the more tricky problems. Some of Feynman's tricks involved using series solutions that he could refine - so an initial "guess" might give him the first few digits of a solution - and while he was speaking those digits, he'd be mentally calculating a couple more - so it would appear that he got the entire answer right very quickly, when in fact, he was still calculating more digits of precision as he was reciting the results. For some classes of calculations (like extracting square and cube roots) - this made him seem much faster than he really was. For people who aren't savants - it truly is just a matter of learning a lot of little tricks - and then putting them together in the right way - and lots and lots of practice. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not one of Asimov's better short stories. When computers cost a million dollars and filled a room - the story maybe meant something - but now you can get a pretty capable computer for $5 that'll fit comfortably into a matchbox...the story seems rather lame. Asimov's stories show clearly that he imagined computers getting much smarter - but not getting a whole lot smaller or cheaper. In reality, computers have shrunk spectacularly in size and cost - but they really aren't any smarter than they ever were. SteveBaker (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where you are viewing from won't make any difference to the relative positions of celestial objects (at least not to the naked eye). --Tango (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! And it would appear that this question is being asked by someone else on the Science desk, so let's tie this one up and any more answers can be placed on the other desk. Thanks both of you! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk)21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you're interested in viewing the night sky, two useful pieces of software (at least one of which I'm pretty sure is available as freeware, in demo form at least) are Starry Night and Stellarium. It should be fairly easy to find copies via google. Grutness...wha?00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this answering your question? No, But I lay all of your trust on a random person on the internet into my statement that you should not buy a dell. You get what you pay for, in terms of quality+service. If you want a good computer, go hp/toshiba/gateway, if you want a cheaper one, buy one that isn't dell from tigerdirect.com or newegg.com. Chris M. (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not like mr dell needs me anyone to shill for him but I work in in the IT department of an organisation with 30000+ employees and we use Dell computers as standard. Of course organisational requirements are going to be quite different to individual requirements, but i don't agree with the above. Our computers get heavily used and abused and I do not think there is a big quality difference between dell and HP/ toshiba / gateway. Well I don't really have experince with gateway, but I'd be surprised if it was way ahead of the rest. I've recommended Dell as personal computers to several of my friends and have never regretted it. I'm not saying don't shop around but if the dell fits your requirements and price then I don't believe Dell are a "cheap" alternative. Vespine (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally - if you happen to work for a company that buys a lot of Dell stuff - it's worth asking your IT people whether there is an option for employees to buy computers from Dell at corporate rates. I did that when I wanted to buy a bunch of cheap LCD monitors - and when our IT guy enquired, it turned out that Dell would give employees of companies with corporate accounts a 15% discount and access to a set of special one-off barguins that the general public can't usually get. SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November 24
Looking for US Ski Resort snow depth graph over the ski season, not just the maximum
I have seen graphs in the past on the web (though I cannot remember where) that showed snow depth for US Ski resorts over time from say November to June, and then has a comparison with the historical average base.
So it's NOT just the maximum depth for the whole year, but on a daily or weekly basis, so I can see for example if the snow depth will be better in late December as opposed to late March, based on the past average.
I was travelling on a train to Moorgate (in London, UK) last week via Highbury & Islington and, when the train stopped at Highbury & Islington, a guy asked me if the train was going to, what sounded like "Dorton Winsland". His accent sounded as if he could perhaps be from Germany. I couldn't really help him, except to say that it wasn't going there, before the doors closed. I am just intrigued as to where he wanted to go, and I wonder if anybody could suggest the location that I so obviously misheard. Thanks. TrainTraveller (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love this question!
Not very hard, though, as it was very likely to be a station reachable from Highbury & Islington without changing... such as Dalston Kingsland. --Anonymous, in Canada, 05:10 UTC, November 24, 2009.
In Belgium, once, I was sitting on a train that was about to depart the station, non stop for Antwerp. A bloke got on and asked me in French if the train went to Anvers. I replied, in my dreadful French, that I didn't think so. He got off. When I got to Antwerp and saw the signs on the platform, I felt both stupid and remorseful. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm (still, some years on) more bothered about that episode than many incidents of lack of thought that have affected people I know and like, or even love. I'd hope the guy either never realised or just thought "bloody tourist". What bothers me is that he might have thought I did it deliberately. I'd love a chance to put it right. Maybe in another life. --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that something good came of him missing that train and he is now thinking how fortunate he was on that particular day — how a chain of unexpected events led to something wonderfully fortunate in his life, and he now wishes he could thank that stranger who seemed to have set that chain of events in motion. All aboard for Dorton Winsland! Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, next time I need a fictional British railway station (which happens more often than you might think), Dorton Winsland is so it! :D FiggyBee (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, Bus Stop? Put yourself in the shoes of the French tourist, and ask yourself whether you'd prefer to be given helpful information or unhelpful information. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Aznavour
I would very much like to have an address to which I can send a letter to Charles Aznavour, the French singer, and to his agent for the purpose of attempting to commission him to write a song for me, not for any commercial reason but for a purely personal one. Any help that you will be able to provide toward that end will be immensely appreciated. Thank you. (personal information removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.128.175 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Added new section. Matt Deres (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your personal information; you don't want that stuff floating around on the internet, do you? If anyone can answer you, they'll reply here. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone called me on my cell phone with an "Unknown" phone number. I did not pick up the phone because didn't know who was calling and the caller left no voice message. When I try to call back I just get a "Warning, Unknown" error message box. Is there a way to trace these types of calls? 70.171.22.194 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)PhoneDude[reply]
I get 'unknown number' on my phone all the time from various callers. If my wife is at home and she calls me at the office from our landline, the caller display on my office phone reads 'unknown number'. She is not withholding her number, of course. Also, if I call someone from my office extension, the receiving party gets 'unknown number' on their display. It annoys me because it means that if I call someone from my home, say, the receiving party will not know it's me, will probably think the caller is withholding their number and will not reply. --Richardrjtalk email08:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct response would be: with current technology and rules of physics as they are currently understood, anything moving at or in excess of the speed of light (other than light) would be a violation of an apparent law of nature. Answering whether it would affect our health in any fashion is like asking if space aliens possess greater or lesser intelligence than we do -- we cannot possibly know until we meet them, if they exist. Vehicles would follow the same line of thought. Remember, atoms were indivisible until we divided them. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that people always like to carefully hedge their answers to the question of faster than light travel. The scientific principles involved are every bit as reliable as most other physics principles. Yet we don't carefully hedge our answers to questions like "Why is the sky blue?" or "Will the sun eventually turn into a red giant?" or "Is the moon made of green cheese?" - so why be so cautious here? Relativity is very well tested - and the equations it produces have very definite consequences.
The answer is the clearest possible categorical "No!" You definitely can't travel faster than light - period. We can't answer the hypothetical "What would it be like if you could?" because the math simply won't allow you to calculate the consequences of this impossible situation - you wind up with an answer that involves the square root of a negative number - which is meaningless in 'real world' terms. The question is much like asking "What would it be like if 2+2=5?". So - let's stop being coy - lightspeed is the cosmic speed limit - no exceptions! SteveBaker (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because if you ask why the sky is blue you're asking for our current scientific knowledge. If you ask about an FTL drive you're asking about potential future knowledge. One is cut and dry, the other is by its very definition is unknowable. If, for some reason, I asked "What will scientists think about the color of the sky 1,000 years from now." and "Can NASA make an FTL drive for the shuttle right now?", you would get hedging on the sky answers, but none on the FTL answers. APL (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the article faster-than-light for a detailed discussion. While some physicists have offered theoretical methods for faster than light travel (e.g. wormhole, though it is uncertain whether they are traversable, and they may produce enormous tidal effects that would tear apart anyone travelling through them), other physicists believe the Chronology protection conjecture makes travel faster than light impossible under any conditions (basically the principle holds that the universe always intervenes to prevent travel back in time, and faster-than-light travel is equivalent to travel back in time). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you have any more questions about space travel, you should ask on the Science reference desk. I also noticed on reading the faster-than-light page that quantum theory may allow things to travel faster than light as long as they don't transmit any information, which would suggest you'd get really scrambled if you made the journey.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems at least for now, the most important thing about the speed of light is that it is also the speed of information transference, i.e. it is by definition that which cannot be exceeded. There's a metaphysical puzzle in there somewhere I'm sure. Vranak (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That disambig page isn't as helpful as it could be. Seems like it should include some basic definition of bondage, since the specific links make sense in the context of them all being about 'tied'. I'm not sure how it could best be phrased. Anyone have suggestions? 86.142.224.156 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I have progressed with the disambiguation. But one particular article presents a problem: Le génie du mal. It says: "[...] placing Lucifer into bondage", where "bondage" clearly means Lucifer actually being physically restrained. However, it's not for sexual pleasure, but instead to keep him prisoner and to stop him from harming mortals. Therefore I think none of the entries on the bondage disambiguation page match this meaning. JIP | Talk19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it's because our OP wishes to get the article through Featured Article review and that's the sticking point. In theory, in Wikipedia, if you're unable to improve something, you just relax and wait for someone else to eventually come along and do that. But getting an article through the Featured Article process can become something of a personal crusade - and it's a very tough thing to do (trust me - I've done it twice - it's painful). When the reviewers simply come back with some sort of vague "The alt text for the images isn't good enough" thing - it can be exceedingly hard to know what to do to fix it. But sadly, I agree that the ref desk isn't the best place to ask this question. The Help desk was a good choice. At this point, I'd look at whatever WikiProjects relate to your topic and see if anyone there can help you. I would try asking on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma and Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather - all of whom should have people with a strong interest in pushing this article to FA status and the knowledge to do what is needed. I suppose you could also look back to see if any other weather-related topics made it through the FA process recently - then find the principle author(s) of those articles and make a plea for help on their personal talk pages. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how depressed you feel, if you're just a bit down, have you got any good games or films? Maybe if it's a nice day get some fresh air with family. If it's serious depression then seek professional medical assistance. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the focus off yourself can help too. Volunteer for something, or do something nice for someone else. As Prokhorovka said, if it's serious depression then seek professional medical assistance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion for a quick fix for mild depresssion when acute clinical depression is not suspected, is to play a really soaring piece of music such as Handel's Zadok the Priest, or his Water or Fireworks music - superb. But if you want a good giggle to lift your spirits, listen to any of the Irish Gag albums. You couldn't be depressed after that.92.22.18.125 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exercise has been known as a good way to make you feel better mentally. My exercise of choice is to go to the dog park. A border collie will give you better results than a toy poodle in this case :) 206.131.39.6 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A safe place to be?
During World War 2, when conflict seemed to affect all the continents, oceans, and countries on earth, I am curious to know where was the safest place to be, relatively speaking. I am thinking of a place least likely to be involved in any fighting, bombing, threats of aggressive invasion; most likely to continue to have unimpeded access to food, electricity, water, housing, sanitation, health care and education etc., and a place where one's sovereign status, personal and family safety, property and savings and investments would be secure, insofar as was possible. Was there such a place? And if so, does such a place exist in today's scheme of things? Thanks 92.21.224.236 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. public was under rationing - there was more available then the English received but certainly no " unimpeded access to food, electricity, water, housing, sanitation, health care and education etc.," Many products including shoes and tires were rationed. 35 mph national speed limit if you qualified to buy gas and hadn't exceeded your ration. However Attacks on North America during World War II were very limited. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the above (although Canada would be good too, for similar reasons). If you preferred a neutral country, you could look at Switzerland during the World Wars and Sweden during World War II; there was some risk of German invasion and blockades would have limited supplies of some goods but it would be better than most of Europe.
Less desirable: Spain was neutral (Spain in World War II) but in the grip of a fascist dictatorship, so you probably wouldn't want to go there; Argentina and Brazil were in a similar situation to Spain with fascist-leaning governments or military dictatorships, but more political instability. Australia was threatened with invasion; New Zealand was also threatened, but most of the fighting was well away from it, and it was never seriously attacked. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australia was bombed, though. On the other hand, some parts of the country were out of range. But on the third hand, as a participant in the war I'm sure there would've been rationing going on. --Anonymous, 20:02 UTC, November 25, 2009.
Worth noting is that all of Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand had conscription — so if you were a male of the appropriate age, there were very distinct risks to your personal safety. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect conscription to be limited to citizens of the country (or maybe to British subjects in the case of Commonwealth countries). --Anonymous, 20:03 UTC, November 25, 2009.
Dublin was bombed in 1941, probably by accident (and that article notes a few sporadic accidental bomb drops in other parts of the Republic during the war). The Germans had a rather handwavey plan to invade the Republic as an adjunct to Sealion, and the IRA had their own plan to invade Northern Ireland (which would, had the Germans cared for it, surely have involved wholesale land battle on the border). In general, as the The Emergency (Ireland) and Irish neutrality during World War II articles note, Britain and the Republic both feared a German invasion of the South, and in turn the Republic feared the British would invade them to forestall the Germans. Had Sealion succeded and Great Britain fallen to the Axis, Ireland would surely have either had to Finlandise to the Nazi bloc, or (given the questionable nature of its neutrality, and the substantial numbers of Irishmen fighting in the British forces, numbering some 38,554 in the regular forces) been occupied wholesale. So I think the Republic entirely fails the OP's criteria "a place least likely to be involved in any fighting, bombing, threats of aggressive invasion". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The questioner also wants security, protection of private property, human rights, good housing and healthcare, etc, and most of South America would not offer that: most South American countries had military dictatorships or fascist-leaning civilian governments in the early 1940s (e.g. Brazil). Chile and Argentina had military coups, while Peru and Ecuador fought a small war in the early 1940s (see History of Ecuador). Colombia was perhaps experience a brief lull between violent episodes, and Venezuela was more politically stable, but it still may not have offered the luxuries and quality of life that would satisfy someone from the developed world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom
I realize this is an almost impossible question, as freedom is subjective. But, overall which country could be considered the most "free" in terms of laws, government spying on citizens, cctv, internet censorshit etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.114 (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough call because it's so subjective. One person would describe "The Freedom to Bear Arms" as a freedom - others would regard the inability to be protected from people with guns to be threatening and a kind of anti-freedom. Think also about the freedom to have an abortion - a highly controversial "freedom". How about the freedom to drive your car at any speed you want - versus the freedom to be safe while driving at sane speeds. These issues (and many more) mean that freedom isn't a quantity that you can measure and put on a simple 1 to 10 scale. It has multiple dimensions and will be evaluated differently by different people depending on what's most important to them at the time. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The extreme right takes it further, as "the right to protect yourself against a tyrannical government." That notion is more theoretical than practical, given that the government has tanks and atomic bombs and the like. Freedoms get abused. Free speech and free press are abused constantly. And the right to bear arms also gets abused. Although I like to fall back on the time that ersatz Presidential candidate Pat Paulsen was asked if he believed in the right to bear arms, and he said, "No, I believe in the right to arm bears." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian Life Expectancy Paradox
According to both the UN and CIA World Factbook, the life expectancy in the Palestinian Territories is around 73-74. This is 10-20% above the world average and a very respectable figure. How? I know a fair amount about the area and issue yet this still shocks me. I can't believe the Palestinians live so long, isn't the bombing, lack of food, medical attention, deaths due to internal conflict and so on a perfect storm of anti-life-expectancy problems? How do they overcome this? What am I missing?
The Palestinian Territories healthcare and violence aren't that bad by world standards, and 73 isn't that high. The world average life expectancy is dragged down dramatically by the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa; the only non-African countries with a life expectancy at birth below 60 are Laos and Afghanistan. Consider also that accurate statistics don't go back very far (the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics did their first ever census in 1997), and the data the CIA and UN use may well be incomplete or just plain made up. FiggyBee (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine has modern high-tech hospitals, just as the rest of Israel does. Those hospitals aren't always operating at 100% due to bombings and blockades, but even 80% of a modern high-tech hospital is better than the essentially non-existent healthcare in rural Africa, for example. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli life expectancy is 78 male, 83 female against Palestinian figures of 72/75 (list of countries by life expectancy - UN figures). Lebanon is 70/74, Syria 72/76, and Egypt 69/74, so Palestine is below Israel but not far from the regional average. Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Casualties suggests casualty figures in the 1990s were less than 100 deaths per year, and even in the past few years maybe 500 per year, from a population of 4 million, so the conflict is not killing a demographically significant amount of people. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Palestinians also receive more foreign aid per capita than any other people, although this may have changed with all the money the US is pumping into Iraq and Afghanistan now. And there are a bunch of NGOs working there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filling a kettle through the spout
Is it a bad idea to fill a kettle through the spout if it has a filter? Or does it not matter? I'm not entirely sure what the filter is for - filtering water as it enters the kettle or as it leaves or both? I guess it is useful for filtering water as it leaves because of calcium carbonate deposits that build up with boiling. 86.147.229.239 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably depends on the quality of water you have in your home, or if you use bottled or spring water. My kettle doesn't have any opening other than its spout (without a filter), so I have to do it that way, and I have seen no problems from it. (OR) — Michael J22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://news.9msn.com.au/img/2009/national/2111_rann_po_sp.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1386/dsc00261y.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4217/dsc00263qe.jpg){kind=link}
