Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 15

TWO WAY MIRRORS

I was just wondering if there was a way telling if I'm looking into a two way mirror so I can tell if my paranoia is real or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.37.198 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been taught that you put your finger on the mirror and look at the gap between your finger and its mirror image; but this Snopes column says that this is false, and toward the end has some tips. It ends by recommending you not test the mirror by throwing a chair into it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can block enough of the reflection from your side, you can see the light transmitted from the other side, assuming there's enough of it to see. Usually putting your head right up against it and cupping your hands over your forehead will work, though of course it depends on the details of the situation. Of course it's kind of obvious what you're doing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Cup your hands around your face as you hold it close to the glass, blocking most light from your side. If you can see through the glass to people on the other side, it's a two way mirror, if it's just dark, it's a normal mirror. When you discover your paranoia is not real, and the mirror is a mirror, please consider whether this is becoming a problem you should discuss with a qualified professional. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you discover it is in fact a two-way mirror, that is also something to take up a qualified professional. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've done this on occasion at places like Target, because it's really amusing to see the reaction of the guys sitting on the other side of the mirror. They are so used to being the invisible watcher that when they suddenly become the visible watchee it unnerves them. They do tend to get annoyed about it, though, so I wouldn't make a habit of it at stores you visit frequently.

P.s. These are called one-way mirrors. a two-way mirror would generally be called a window. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they are two-way mirrors. A one-way mirror is an ordinary mirror — it works as a mirror in only one direction. A two-way mirror works as a mirror in both directions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the Two-way mirror which should make it clear why it's called by that term. Presumably a standard mirror would be a "one-way" mirror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, you surprise me. It's a mirror in one direction but just a pane of glass in the other direction. It has a dual function, which is presumably where the "two-way" bit comes from, but you're suggesting that people on either side will see their own reflections, which is not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it isn't. This is a key misunderstanding. It is a mirror in both directions, and it is also a pane of glass in both directions.

The device has (in principle) no directionality whatsoever, in and of itself. If from one side it transmits 30% of the light, reflects 60%, and absorbs 10%, then from the other side it also transmits 30%, reflects 60%, and absorbs 10%.

The apparent directionality is actually all in your sensory apparatus. If you're in the bright room, the light is still coming through from the dark room. But you can't pick out the signal in your eye or brain; it's drowned out by the reflection on your side. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I must ask Barbra Streisand about this next time I see her. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, say hello to Babs for us. If I interpret the article correctly, a two-way mirror is a pane of glass with a certain percentage of reflecting material on it. If one side of the glass is brightly lit and the other is in darkness, it looks like a mirror to the one side and a window to the other. Presumably, if the lights were on on both sides, it would look pretty much like an ordinary window. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would actually be a Tinted window. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a really shiny window, maybe. If the light is equal on both sides, when you look at the mirror, you should see your reflection superimposed on whatever's in the other room.

I think part of the reason people have trouble believing that the mirror is nondirectional is that they don't have an intuition for how much brighter a bright room actually is than a dark one. If the bright room is 100x brighter than the dark one, maybe you think it's only twice as bright (the actual numbers are made up, but the idea should be clear), because your eyes adjust.

So when you look at the mirror from the bright room, your reflection is 100x as bright as the image from the dark room, which basically means you can't make out the latter at all. And conversely for why you don't see much of your own reflection in the dark room. But intuitively, you don't realize that the difference in the brightness is so large, so it seems that the mirror must somehow be doing something to make the images appear as they do, which it really isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A practical parallel I can think of: During the daytime on a sunny day, I can look out my office windows and it's unlikely any passersby will see me unless one or both of us is very close to the window. The reverse is true after sunset, when the building's lights are all on for the cleaning crew, and you can see into the building, but they can't see you unless they get close to the window and cup hands around their faces. The glass walls act as a two-way mirror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, your paranoia is real, but is it substantiated? To tell if you are being watched, stop looking at yourself. There is nobody "out there." Everything we see or feel is just a reflection of what we see or feel about ourselves. Interestingly enough, this can be called mirroring. schyler (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a practical answer to the OP's question is "turn the lights out". Then you should be able to better tell if that mirror is one-way or two-way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Solipsism is easy to misconceive, schyler, and there is something to be said for Objective reality. What I think the OP meant is: is his/her apparent paranoia actually astute observation and clever reasoning that can be checked by experiment, and how to carry out the appropriate experiment in this case. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly WikiDao! You're the only one who gets it. lol So, is there any experiment I can do do find out if its a two way mirror besides turning off the lights?

Terminology

As the two-way mirror article says, the term "one-way mirror" is used with the same meaning. Both meanings are logical. It is "two way" because there are two different ways it behaves: from the dark side you can see through it, and from the lighted side you can't. It is "one way" because, when the correct lighting is set up, you can only see through it one way. Repeating that one or the other term is wrong is not helpful to anyone.

--Anonymous, 06:33 UTC, November 16, 2010. 208.76.104.144 (talk · contribs)

I disagree. It's not a two-way mirror because it works two different ways. It's a two-way mirror because it's bidirectional, exactly symmetrical in both directions. People who say one-way mirror mostly don't understand how it works — they think it has some directionality, which it does not. --Trovatore (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for your opinions. I cited a reference that both terms are used. Please cite an authority for what you are insisting on, or shut up. --Anonymous, 14:37 UTC, November 16, 2010. 208.76.104.144 (talk · contribs)

You cited a reference that both terms are used. I agree they are both used. You cited no reference for the claim they are both logical. I say the prevalence of one-way mirror comes from the fact that people don't understand how it works. This is no more an opinion than your claim that it's logical. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please try to avoid using uncivil phrases like "shut-up" at the Ref. desk. Thank you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Look, a mirror is just something that reflects light, and so all mirrors are at least one-way. A normal everyday mirror will have some opaque backing behind the reflective material so that only reflected light is observed. If that backing were removed and the mirror placed in the center of a room, one could walk to either side of it and see both reflected and transmitted light.
• As two-way mirror indicates, what is meant by "two-way mirror" is the system of mirror (without opaque "backing"), light room, darkened room, and observer's eye (which adjusts to the level of light in either of the rooms it is in).
• See also mirrored sunglasses.
• It is possible that "two-way" is meant to refer not to reflection but transmission of light, which makes it not a mirror but a tinted window. "Two-way" seems more likely to be used in this case to mean something more like "dual-use" – the system of rooms-and-mirror is used as a mirror in one way, as an observation window in another. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that "dual use" seems to be the "more likely" explanation? 90.195.179.106 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Because "two-way" applied to "mirror" could mean that both sides are being used as a mirror. But that is not what is meant. What is meant is that one side is being used as a mirror and the other as an observation window, which is more like "dual use" than a literal interpretation of "two-way". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Both sides are a mirror. You just can't pick out the image on one side. But that has nothing to do with the mirror itself. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're just stating your opinion on why it's more likely to be "dual-use". I always thought the logical reason for it being called "two-way" is that it works both ways, but that's my opinion too. Unless either of us can provide a source, the etymology of this one can't really be determined. 90.195.179.106 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The OED says:

• "two-way mirror, a mirror which lets through enough light for an observer at the back to see through it, without being seen from the front."

and lists first use as

• "1967 J. GARDNER Madrigal i. 3 They directed total concentration through the sighting side of a two-way mirror."

Which establishes that the term refers to a use of an inherent property of a ("partial") mirror. The term has directionality of use as part of its definition: in one direction it is used as a mirror, in another as an observation window, as already stated. You and Travatore are saying that it could work like a mirror from either direction, which I agree with and have also already stated. But what the OED and I are saying is that what is meant by "two way" is that it can be used in two different ways, one of which ways is as a mirror. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither of them speaks directly to the reason for the term. The OED gives a definition (kind of a bad one, but anyway), not an etymology. The Gardner usage similarly does not imply a reason for it to be thus called.

It kind of sounds like Gardner may not have understood the gadget, in spite of calling it a two-way mirror. And in fact, while I think most people who call it one-way mirror misconceive it, I suppose that's probably also true for those who call it two-way mirror. The difference is that one-way mirror tends to reinforce the misconception, whereas those who ask themselves how it's a "two-way mirror" may, if they think about it, hit on the right answer. That's the most important reason that it's the better term. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It ought to be called something like an "observation mirror" or "security mirror", perhaps. A "one-way window" makes more sense, in a sense, but then people would have the same problem about how it is not really only "one-way" but could in fact be used as a window from both directions. The "way" qualifier is meant to describe its use and not its physical properties, though, and I agree it should do so less ambiguously. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? Its use is an "accident" rather than an "essence" as Catholic theologians would say; it's not intrinsic to the device itself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by the OED definition which, like it or not, is the OED definition (which is usually considered a reliable source). The definition is not "any plane mirror that is permitted to reflect light from both its sides" (which is the opposite of what is meant) but rather "a mirror which lets through enough light for an observer at the back to see through it, without being seen from the front" which is pretty clearly about use. The distinction the qualifier is "meant" (rightly or wrongly, poorly or well) by definition to make from just the word "mirror" is in how it is used to distinguish it from just any mirror and not about a physical property that it has that distinguishes it from just any other mirror. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As I say, I don't think it's a very good definition, but in any case it makes no claim to be the reason for the name; it's just trying to convey what object it is that the name signifies. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I lost my high school diploma and certificate

hi,well,i lost my high school diploma and certificate when i was moving to a new place,i graduated from canoga park high school in 2008,canoga park is a los angeles neighborhood, i need them to go to college,but i don't know how to get replacements or a copy.i want to attend university in Mexico,they ask me for my high school certificate but i lost it,i want to get them back.so can anyone help me and tell me what to do,please.thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.112.48.34 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You will have to call the school high school office on the phone and ask them what to do. You're not the first person who has needed this, and they will be able to help. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The high school keeps such records, get in touch with them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Du'oh =) ResMar 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

but do i have to pay a fine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.129.82 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Any situation where you could conceivably need to prove your high school education will require an official transcript anyways. That pretty piece of paper looks nice in the frame, but it doesn't actually do anything for you. Any job you get or college you apply to will want a copy of your official high school transcript, sent directly from your high school. And, once you have a college degree, no one will care one bit about your high school at all; they'll only want a copy of your college transcript. --Jayron32 04:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your situation may differ slightly but from my experience, Jayron is right. When I applied to my first college, I had to submit a form at my high school that told them where I needed transcripts sent to. When I applied to my second college, I submitted an online form with my first college and they sent my college transcript to the second college. I think my high school diploma is at my dad's house but I don't know where. I've never needed it. And nobody has ever asked to see any diplomas. In short, nobody cares about your diploma, they only care about your transcript. Regarding the "fine", no there should be no fine. But you will probably have to pay $10-20 for each copy of your transcript to cover the high school's cost of keeping the records, looking them up, sending them out, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fines are for people who've done something wrong, broken some law etc. There's no law against misplacing your diploma, so there's no fine. But they might charge an administrative fee for the cost of replacing it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. There might be some kind of transcript request fee. I know there usually is at the college level, anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what are these transcripts whereof people speak? I don't think we have them in Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a record of what classes you took and the grades that you got in them. It will include your overall grade point average as well. Dismas|^(talk) 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, we have an article. Dismas|^(talk) 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no we don't have those (the ECTS mentioned in the article is for HE, not FE). We don't have grade point averages either. I would be very surprised if schools kept such records for any significant period of time, to do so would be contrary to the principles of data protection. We take exams and get certificates, the examining boards can provide confirmation of the results on request, subject to satisfactory proof of identity. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 16

Pilots being screened by TSA

Resolved

In reference to this article, I sense that the pilots and their union have an excellent point -- we're worried that the pilots are going to bring a box cutter onto a plane, and then we give them a plane that can be used as a weapon of so much greater magnitude that I can't even imagine the multiplication factor involved. If the federal government allows pilots to pilot planes, why won't they let them through check-in? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's the whole social theory of how democratic governments like to keep the populace (at least a bit) scared, as it makes them more malleable, less questioning, and more likely to return that government at the next election. Fear of terrorism, capped by the War on Terror, in recent years has been found to be an excellent tool to achieve this. So yes, most likely the government also realises the farce of this situation, but by alerting the population to this 'risk' and then showing that they are effectively acting to 'prevent' the risk they gain points with the bulk of voters who only think superficially about most issues, and of course any major opposition party is reticent to point out the folly of the situation for fear they'll be seen as being 'weak on terrorism' and also because it would limit their own 'effective' actions. Manufacturing Consent is an interesting place to start for this type of reasoning. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While on one level I agree that it's a stupid policy, there are sound reasons to screen everyone who wants to get to the secure side of the airport. Remember that a hypothetical pilot with terrorist leanings may want to bring down a plane, but would prefer not to bring down his own plane. One pilot can crash one plane; one pilot smuggling several pounds of Semtex past a security checkpoint can bring down half a dozen planes by handing off the explosive to suicidal accomplices. (Actually, if they use timed detonators, none of the accomplices has to die. Alternatively, with a long enough time delay, one patient pilot with a bundle of explosives can bring down several airliners all by himself.) Of course, the type of screening that is carried out needs to be carefully examined.

Patrick Smith is a commercial pilot who writes the Ask the Pilot column on Salon.com. As someone who depends on airport security every day, he argues pretty convincingly that the focus on three-ounce bottles of liquid and any conceivably pointy object is massively misplaced: [1]. (There is a sad-but-amusing tale in the linked column about airport security confiscating an airline dinner knife – the blunt butter-knife-esque implement that cabin crew give to you on the plane with which to eat – from his luggage.) Smith observes that terrorists are far more likely to be able to bring down an aircraft with explosives (based both on the historical record, and on the way that passengers and crew would respond to a 9/11-type hijacking attempt now) and that it would make much more sense to focus on explosive sniffing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem then becomes verifying that someone is in fact a pilot. You can purchase a pilot's uniform easily on the internet and credentials would likely be easy to forge. Thus it makes more sense to simply screen everyone even though the entire screening process is blatant security theater. anonymous6494 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the concern with allegedly "pointless" security checks misunderstands the economics of this.

Consider that the people who you have working airport security are probably not the brightest tools in the shed. Why not? Because bright tools are expensive, and in the United States, we have a huge need for security screeners. So there's going to be a trade off there. Either we pay the kind of money that is required for having a very sharp, very clever, and very discerning force, or we are hiring people who are OK but not exactly brilliant. This isn't their life's work, in other words.

When you have a group of not-exceptionally-security-gifted people, you want them to be doing a very rough heuristic for threats. They are just looking for the obvious things and putting more eyes on the ground. They have been given very general instructions and told not to try and make exceptions about them, because they aren't trusted to make good judgment calls. So you end up with idiocy like the liquids ban — not because the threat is actually so large, but because it's easy to implement. "No liquids over 3 oz." is a rule that anyone with half of a high school education can implement. "No liquids of a suspicious character" is not. Obviously you don't want all of your security handled by dullards — and it's not. But having the dullards do a preliminary check probably does increase security to some degree, at least along very obvious lines.

So that's one issue of what's going on here. The other is that if you are going to make a security system that grants exceptions to people in a special category (like pilots, or people with top-secret clearances, or FBI agents, or what have you), you then also have to make a system that can verify that these people are who they say they are and that their credentials are up to date. So that's some extra expense for what would otherwise be a tiny bit of convenience for the group in question.

Now, presumably the airports do have ways of checking that various people showing up in pilot's uniforms are pilots and are supposed to be there. The question is whether they have those checks at the security gates or not. You could imagine having a separate door for pilots to get in without screening, but that still requires someone there to check their credentials and let them through. Why set up a separate system? So the pilots can bring through box cutters? I mean, what's the point?

Sure, it's "illogical" in a strict sense. But from a practical point of view, what's the benefit of not screening the pilots? The pilots go through security quicker? They already can jump the line. I'm having a hard time seeing the "benefit" to not just applying the blanket rule. And the "cost" can be high: leaving open a security loophole at the basic, "do we let you in the door without checking you" level seems like a recipe for problem, esp. for the sort of attack that TenOfTrades suggests (where the pilot is a conduit for smuggling materials through security — which could be done for a lot of reasons, include extortion). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow -- some great responses. Thanks, guys! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lost questions

I asked a question here a few days ago, and it seems to have dissappeared, I suspect it has been archived. Where would I go to see the answers I received?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found it now. Turns out I just had to follow one of the red links that actually do go somewhere. Why didn't I think of that before. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a quiche and a frittata?

My hubby is on a low-carb diet, and he didn't want to share my slice of frittata because of that. But he did happily eat a crustless quiche I made for dinner last night. So what's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nutritionally, I can't imagine there's much of a difference provided any other fillings were the same. Both of those dishes are basically egg-based, with minimal carbohydrates unless you add something high-carb as a filling. ~ mazca ^talk 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To me, quiche lorraine is made in a pie shell. "Crustless quiche" seems slightly self-contradictory to me (would you make a crustless rhubarb pie?). But the recipes for the egg part are also probably a bit different -- maybe the linked article has more info. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both originated as peasant food, not haute cuisine, so the difference between your mom's quiche and my mom's quiche is probably at least as great as the difference between any random quiche and any random frittata. The OP is essentially correct here; there will be familial difference between recipes, but essentially a quiche is a frittata with a pastry crust. Lots of foods that come from very different cultures "converge" on very similar end results; consider the similarities between, say, polenta and grits, or between a luau and a Southern U.S. barbecue or between sauerkraut and kimchi or between moussaka and eggplant parmigiana, or... you get the idea. --Jayron32 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you google-image-search the two names the main difference seems to be a baking tin and frying pan. Richard Avery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding quiches, it is not unusual to see recipes where you mix a heavy dairy product like creme fraiche with the eggs, unlike with the frittata, which is usually only based on whipped eggs. I am not familiar with the low-carb diet, so I don't know if this makes any difference, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Riddle

A fire broke out in a prison. Most of the prisoners made it out safely, but they were severely injured, both physically and emotionally. The king therefore decided to reduce the remaining time for each of the surviving prisoners by half. Here's the problem: What about the convict who was serving a life sentence? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like either an extremely nebulous moral question, or a puzzle that's not satisfyingly solvable due to a lack of specific information. In either case it doesn't seem particularly suited to a reference desk. ~ mazca ^talk 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a riddle that I read in a book somewhere, but it didn't give an answer. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not really supposed to solve riddles here, unless we can find citable sources or a wikipedia article that have solved or discussed the riddle. That said, you know, if I knew the answer I'd just tell you. Can you remember what book you saw it in? It might have given an answer. OP deleted a '?' from what turns out was a statement that the book did not provide an answer, not a question WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the king could simply knock a year off the life sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If, in retrospect, it really was a life sentence, then the sentence couldn't have been reduced and he must have died in the fire. Haus^Talk 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But the king decided to reduce the remaining time for the surviving prisoners, so those that died in the fire do not present a problem really. It's the "reduce the remaining time" that's supposed to be the riddle (it's not a death sentence but a life sentence, ie. lacks a firm end-date). And the answer is to simply reduce the time remaining for the prisoner serving a life sentence to zero, and set that prisoner free. (There may be other unsourced solutions, too, but where is this riddle coming from?) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The riddle says the king reduced the remaining time, he didn't rub it out. So he could take a year off everyone's sentence, and reassure the lifer that he'll be set free one year before he dies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The only way to do that would be to set the guy free for a year right away, then lock him up again for life. How do you know a year beforehand that it is time to set the prisoner free for a year before he dies? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a way to do it, although he would obviously remain on "house arrest" or probation during his free year. However, note the revision below, of reducing it by half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was supposed to be reduced by half. Sorry about the confusion that created. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My answer still works. The lifer was sentenced at a particular point in time. When his life from that point on is half over, he could be released. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bugs, you cannot divide an unknown quantity in half. I cannot think of a solution right now in that case. It would still be nice to know where this is coming from. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would. I've got a hunch there's additional missing information. However, for a solution to your specific question, see below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the king releases the prisoner and kills him when he has been free for as long as he spent in prison. Haus^Talk 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's one solution, you bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the prisoner has been in prison sixty years already. Or just a year, but dies of wounds from the fire after a month of freedom. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the king cannot know when the life-term prisoner will die, there is no way to cut the time remaining in prison for that prisoner exactly in half. Unless there is more to this than so far revealed, the king will have to make an exception in that case and that is the solution to the riddle. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The king can know, if he plays it right (and if he doesn't, he shouldn't be king). Let's say the guy was sentenced when he had just turned 25 and the fire happened the next day. The king then tells the lifer that it is up to the lifer himself to decide when he will die, and the king will split the time difference. The catch is, the lifer must die no later than the appointed day. So the lifer must decide how long to keep himself in prison so that he'll likely die of natural causes before having to be put to death as per the agreement. He might think 75, and have himself released on his 50th birthday, to be put to death at 75. Or, he might figure that 95 is better, so he wouldn't be released until he turns 60. Or, to take no chances, he might think 125, and be released when he turns 75. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wellll... these solutions are not implicit in the question, and do not cover all cases posed by the question. At this point, there is either a self-evident answer consistent with the information given (only one I can think of is "make some exception because that can't be done"), or there is a reliable source about all this to be found somewhere. The answer so far is that there is no real answer but a lot to say about that, which falls under some policy guideline or other as something to try to stay away from... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) With respect, that's the silliest thing I've read this year, Bugs. You've turned a life sentence into a death sentence, which is as far removed from reducing the guy's sentence as you can get. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A better way to say that would have been, "With all undue respect..." The answers to riddles of this type usually depend on a trick of some kind, and I don't think there's enough information in the (apparently paraphrased) wording presented here to determine the answer. Although when or if we do know the answer, I might think differently. But there's nothing in the riddle that says the life sentencee died, so we can't assume that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, criminals serving life sentences are often eligible for parole after either 15 or 25 years. See [2]. Many countries have similar systems. Just though that I might, you know, bring a reference to the reference desk. Buddy431 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the king in the riddle is an absolute monarch, he is not bound by his decision and can do anything but cut the remaining time of a life-term prisoner in half without knowing when the prisoner will die (or anything else that is not possible). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As King of the Internet I decree that User:WikiDao be imprisoned for life! APL (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Strike that, I'm using my royal prerogative to cut his sentence exactly in half. From this day hence User:WikiDao will spend every other day in prison, and every alternate day free. APL (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoo! That's the answer APL! I feel excited! schyler (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Riddle me this, then. ;) (jk, no answers to that please:) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually the answers to such riddles are solved by dispensing with some implicit assumption. There's a rather straightforward solution if you dispense with the assumption that all time in prison must be served consecutively. Simply release the prisoner for a year, and at the end of his furlough, lock him up for a year. Repeat until he dies. This way he spends half of the rest of his life in prison, however long his life may be. If the plus/minus year error concerns you, shorten to alternating months/weeks/days. Quibbling about errors of less than a day is probably pointless, as it is unlikely that someone is standing by with a stopwatch for the prisoners with a fixed term who had their sentence reduced. -- 174.21.246.194 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - just noticed APL's response. -- 174.21.246.194 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, yes, quite right, halving the time into infinitesimally small alternating intervals would arrive at the best approximation of the decreed amount of time to be spent in prison – however tedious and painstaking, but more-or-less acceptably do-able if by royal decree. Is there a source for that solution, though? Just curious. More specific than "calculus". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To throw another spanner in the works, I vaguely recall that this made it into The Man Who Calculated, where the mathematician came up with the alternation, realised that for accuracy you had to alternate infinitely often (and even on days are you really free if you have to go back to prison every other day?) and decided the way to do it was house arrest (ie a state halfway between prison and liberty) 128.232.241.211 (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The king cuts the guys legs off and frees him, keeping the legs in prison. It's so obvious. Googlemeister (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a legal question, and therefore requires a jurisdiction to be answerable. --Sean 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that the only way to cut short a life sentence is divorce... ;-) gazhiley.co.uk 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical query: Is "marriage" a word or a sentence? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 17

2010 Infinity M35X/technology package

I have asked Infinity Consumer Division how many 2010 M35X with the Technology Package have been produced and they did not have an answer. I purchased a 2010 M35X in Nov. 2009. Infinity brought out their new model the 2011 M series and begun to sell them in March of 2010. My question based on the above is: How many 2010 M35X with Technology Package were produced? Short production?. I would appreciate your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.251.137 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say they did not have an answer do you mean they told you they don't know/can't tell you or they didn't answer you? Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Why is it that every time I add that he was a terrorist someone deletes it and threatens to delete my account? He bombed buildings. He is a terrorist. It's a simple factual statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.236.171 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it is not a Neutral point of view. This subject in question highly politicized and therefore you must 'walk on eggshells' when using terms like terrorist. You've heard the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Well, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot. Indeed, the American Patriots of the thirteen colonies were "terrorists." Think about it. schyler (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it couldn't possibly be as simple as you imply. "Bombed Buildings" does not equal "Terrorist". The definition involves intent. (And typically civilian targets.) "Bombed Buildings" could cover everything from a military attack, to resistance fighting, to mere vandalism.

I don't know enough about Ayers to give an opinion, and that's not what the ref-desk is for. (Neither is it for appealing consensus on articles, by the way.) APL (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it up on the talk page, not here. You probably want to familiarize yourself with the Contentious labels guidelines first, if you want to be able to discuss the matter without being simply ignored. My suggestion would be to argue that others have often referred to him as a terrorist (with citations provided), rather than simply saying he is or was a terrorist. That approach skirts the ontological, is-he-or-wasn't-he question altogether and the subsequent neutrality question. But I don't have any axe to grind on the issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that you are assigning values to his character based on his actions. That shouldn't be done. The article should (and I note, does in this case) report on what actions he has committed, like "bombing buildings". Wikipedia should not decide how such actions affect the kind of person he is. Your feeling that his actions make him a terrorist is colored by your own worldview; someone with a different worldview may see him as a patriot instead. Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a position on either of those worldviews, so the article shouldn't use words like "terrorist" or "patriot". It should just report on the actions he took, and leave it to the reader to formulate their own feelings on those actions. (full disclosure: I personally know the subject of the article at the "have had dinner with his family" level. However, the above analysis applies to any article in general, and not this one specifically). --Jayron32 16:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is one of Wikipedia's "words to watch", being a "contentious label". Even someone like Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the men who crashed an airplane into the pentagon on September 11, 2001, is not labeled a "terrorist" by Wikipedia. He's labeled a "hijacker" and even a "experienced and respected jihadist" (from Osama bin Laden's point of view, that is), but not called a terrorist by us. When sources label someone like him a terrorist, we usually try to make sure that we're reporting only what the source has said, and avoid making our own judgement on the matter. And this is for a man who is pretty universally considered a terrorist except among a small group of religious extremists. You can imagine how we're going to deal with someone like Ayers. Buddy431 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ayers' early protests were about the Vietnam war, where American forces bombed buildings. For consistency, we must call both terrorists, or neither. HiLo48 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding something contentious to an article can be unproductive. You should discuss it on the article's discussion page and find some resolution. --Sean 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a question for the OP. Was Menachim Begin a terrorist? For starters, see (to quote WP), "the Irgun’s bombing of the British administrative and military headquarters at the King David Hotel." 63.17.93.42 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions about typeball

Just about everyone of a certain age and technical bent will recognize the artifact pictured to the right. I have two questions about it, neither sadly answered in our article about the IBM Selectric typewriter:

what is it made out of?

The typeball is hard and light. Hard so it will type clean letters without wearing out; light to reduce its rotational moment of inertia so it can be moved quickly. (Boy, did those things move quickly!) It seems to be both harder and lighter than aluminum. The friend who was recently examining one with me suggested it might be magnesium or a magnesium alloy. Anybody know?

Seem to remember that these where injection moulded plastic which were then metal plated to make it look like one was getting one's moneys-worth. Chrome looks good and is both hard and wear resistant to boot -so my money's on that. If you have a sharp scriber, you might find you can remove some of the plating from the inside. Alternatively, throw it hard at a concrete floor and it should shatter.--Aspro (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

what are the serrations along the bottom skirt for?

As shown in this second view, there are triangular serrations along the bottom edge of the thing. They're pronounced and clearly deliberate. I'm virtually certain they're not any kind of "gear" involved in the rotation of the typeball as it's positioned for typing. So what are they for? —Steve Summit (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My memory, vague as it is (that's a problem with being old enough to remember!) tells me that the balls were intended to be quickly interchangeable (to give different fonts, etc) and the serrations were related to locking the ball in position. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the serrations help the typeball turn with sufficient speed and accuracy for its use. I'm not an engineer but it would seem to reason that having more "gears" down below would assure a consistent fit and high degree of "grip" on the ball, which would be necessary as its job is to turn accurately at high speed. (Note that I have revised my opinion below.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I used to love typing on a Selectric, you could go incredibly fast and it gave a wonderful feedback. The serrations are there to ensure registration and to prevent rotation. I think there was an index notch in the post that supported the ball, but it wasn't substantial enough to counteract the impact force and rotation, long term. Can't say what the material was, but a magnesium alloy would be a good guess. Acroterion _(talk) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the index notch is visible in this image, but I think the serrations are typical IBM overengineering to ensure that it would stay put. Acroterion _(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It took me a little time but I finally found the dang IBM patent on the thing: 2895584. It is of note that the original patent required no serrations. I suspect, contrary to what I wrote above, that the serrations do not lock in — the ball has to rotate on more than one axis, which would make it pretty hard to do if its bottom was locked in, yes? Perhaps it is just aesthetic, branding or something along those lines. (I've added the patent, along with the design patent for the appearance of the typewriter, to the typewriter's page.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ours disappeared fifteen years ago. As I remember, the post rotated about its axis, moved up and down to align the type row and tilted to strike the ribbon. Acroterion _(talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The patent shows it actually being able to tilt, which makes sense given the spherical nature of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is a moulded item, and sort of spherical in shape, the dentilation round the bottom may simply be there as evidence of sliding guides being used to insure the mould segments come together correctly and are securely engaged. You would not be able to extract finished item of this shape otherwise. Several tons of pressure would be required to force the plastic in and you really do not want things to move about. Hot plastic shooting across the factory floor can ruin your day. --Aspro (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

While researching this, I found a fascinating pair of videos that describe exactly how the element was rotated and tilted. -- http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/11/the_mechanical_glory_of_the_ibm_sel.html -- No luck on the specific question, although one site I found indicated that if the wrong character was being typed, to check for broken teeth.

That makes sense. If they register the mould segments they can also serve to register the typeball through all its 22 positions. --Aspro (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous links, and now I've heard of a Whippletree (mechanism). Acroterion _(talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've played around with looking for more IBM patents on this. What's interesting is that none of them have serrations at all — I doubt they are necessary for proper functioning, and may, as speculated, be an aspect of the design process or maybe storage or aesthetics. Here is one from 1960; here is another from 1960; here is one from 1965; here is one from 1959. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some free flow guesses - (i) Aesthetics - the triangles flow with the raised text; (ii) heat transfer/money - the removed material from the serrations caused heat transfer problems or saved on material costs so it was removed while retaining the required design/manufacturing height; (iii) the points of the triangles allow the typeball to sit flat as a stand-alone product and a flat bottom would have been too hard to mold flat; (iv) the serrations allow/cause air to flow into the typeball (A) so the typeball doesn't get stuck on a flat surface like a plunger (B) to cool off the high spining ball; (v) balance - the triangles are microdifferent from each other for a give batch of typeface balls to balance the high spinning ball similar to weights put on an automobile tire; (vi) safety - they discourage you from sticking your finger under the installed typeball. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do all but one bottom radiating rib have a Sprue (manufacturing) mark?

Why do all but one bottom radiating rib have a Sprue (manufacturing) mark (see this image? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tipping Computer Technicians in NA

In North America, is it customary to tip computer technicians from, say Rogers Cable or Time Warner Cable, that come to your house to fix and/or install your high-speed cable modem? If so, how much?

Thanks Acceptable (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My cousin formerly worked as a technician for Rogers Cable (and for Bell Canada), hooking up cable outlets, phone outlets, and such. He rarely got tipped in cash. When he did get a gratuity, it was almost always non-monetary, such as a beer or some food or (with surprising frequency) sex with the lady of the house. If you feel you're getting particularly good service, I suppose you could pick whichever of those options you're comfortable with ;) 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you trust your cousin on the sex bit? It's not uncommon for people (particularly males) to greatly exaggerate such matters... Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the North American compulsion to tip for service does not extend to cable installers or computer technicians. Like all people, however, they will certainly appreciate the offer of tea, coffee, juice, and/or cookies. (If they turn down your offer, don't be offended; remember that they often make many service calls in one day – connecting a cable modem should be a pretty brief visit – and there's a limit to how much food or drink that most people can or want to consume.) You can offer beer if you want to, but I wouldn't recommend it — they're almost certainly not permitted to drink on the job, and usually they're going to be driving between service calls. If caught, they could face disciplinary action or dismissal. Offers of sex are at your discretion, but please wait until the end of the service call (so that a rejected offer doesn't lead to ongoing awkwardness) and use protection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For yourself or your IT equipment? Prokhorovka (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

220dc convert to 220 ac

I need to conveert 220dc to 220ac is this possible? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.54.210 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two obvious ways: 1) A motor-generator. The motor part works on 220 volts DC, and turns an alternator which produces 220 volts AC. The downside is, it is heavy and expensive,it makes a little noise, and since it has moving parts, it is subject to wear. It has losses, so you get less power out than you put in, and gives off heat. 2) An inverter, which electronically switches the DC on and off with solid state electronics to approximate a sine wave, and uses a transformer to turn out AC at the desired voltage. Again, it can be expensive, the more so as the kilowatt rating increases. No moving parts, long-term stable operation with minimal maintenance. It should be more efficient than a motor generator set, but still has some losses and gives off some heat, and it may hum a bit. You would be well advised to consult an electrical engineer to help you select a good solution. A vendor of inverters might be able to advise you. I see lots of low power 12 vcd to 220 vac inverters when I Google "220 inverter." You might have to look around for one which starts with 220 vdc. Where do you get such an odd power source, with no AC on site? If there is AC, you only need a transformer to step it up or down to 220 vac, at a far lower cost than an MG set or an inverter. Edison (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember that 220 V AC is the average (RMS) value. It is $220*{\sqrt {2}}$ or 311V peak for a sine wave, which is the most common AC waveform. An AC signal RMS voltage will deliver into a resistor the same amount of energy as the same voltage DC. CS Miller (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Putting on the pedant hat) The average value of a sine wave is zero. Edison (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(Putting on the pedant ten-gallon) I think you are confusing the average and the arithmetic mean. I was referring to the quadratic mean, which is a type of average. CS Miller (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is misleading to say "The average value of a sine wave" is the RMS value, without any such modifier as "quadratic." RMS and "average" are not interchangeable terms. It is worth clarifying in a Ref Desk response, since beginning physics or electronics students are likely to confuse the various types of voltage measurement circuits. Edison (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

220V DC is a lot of batteries! it may be easier to use a petrol-engined generator with a 220V AC output as these are probably more widely available.MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Fitzpatrick photo

Is there a way for you to update/change the photo currently shown for Ryan Fitzpatrick, Buffalo Bills quarterback? We have had several complaints from fans regarding the "action" photo being shown. A different action photo, perhaps of him throwing the football, would be more appropriate and appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.245.205 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The topmost photo from our American football article. Colorado State is playing ... Navy, of course.

I'm not sure who the "we" in your "we have had complaints" is, but generally, Wikipedia relies on its contributors to provide photos. If you have access to a better photo that meets our guidelines (short version: licensed for commercial use and alteration), feel free to upload it and replace the photo in the article. Please note that virtually all photos common to sports media don't meet these requirements. (Also, for convenience: Ryan Fitzpatrick and File:Ryan_Fitzpatrick_Bills_vs_Jets.jpg) — Lomn 17:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I "second" Lomn's comment that very few freely licensed sports photos are ever made available for Wikipedia editors to use in articles. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't send photographers to NFL football games to take great photos from the sidelines, unfortunately; and all the photos from Sports Illustrated and ESPN and the NFL itself are all copyrighted and not freely licensed. It's so bad that many of our sports articles rely on photos from the US armed forces, which are in the public domain by law; so the Navy and Army football teams get a lot more exposure on Wikipedia than anywhere else. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• In all seriousness, that is a picture of Ryan Fitzpatrick throwing the football. If you go to the File:Ryan_Fitzpatrick_Bills_vs_Jets.jpg page and scroll down, you'll see the original image from which this picture has been cropped. In the original, it's clear that Ryan Fitzpatrick has just released the football, which is in the upper-left corner of the frame, despite the attempt of Jets defender Harris to block the pass. It may not look graceful, but it is a real action shot. --M@rēino 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OT here I know but I figure someone would know. Isn't the proper thing to do when cropping in that way to upload a derived photo rather then replacing the original? Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a "real action shot" but one that appears to be specifically intended to make fun of its subject (look at its title on Flickr). I'm not a Bills fan nor a Fitzpatrick fan specifically, but I have to agree that this photo is not suitable. If there's no free substitute, then maybe just go without a photo until someone can take one. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I take it back about the title — it's making fun of the defender, Harris I think, not the quarterback. Just the same. The cropped version still looks like it's making fun of Fitzpatrick. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the hottest/coldest temperature in Connecticut?

The all-time hottest temperature is 106˚F in Danbury,CT. It happened on July 15, 1995. All sources say it, except wunderground.com which shows it was only 97˚F on that given day. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KDXR/1995/7/15/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

The all-time coldest is -32˚F which has been recorded at several locations. The most recent was Coventry,CT on January 22, 1961. Also, Falls Village, CT and Norfolk,CT have reached this temperature on February 16, 1943. Some sources say that a -37˚F reading was recorded in Norfolk on February 16, 1943, but that hasn't been made official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherboy96 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange fruit

I was in Seattle this last week, and while there noticed a weird fruit on an unidentified tree. They looked a bit like strawberries, only slightly bigger, and when you broke them open, the inside smelled almost like pumpkin. No one I talked to had any idea what they were, and none of us were stupid enough to try them. Anyone have any idea what this could be? Sorry for the vagueness, but they were fairly nondescript, as far as fruit goes. --69.144.28.36 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Strawberry tree? --Sean 20:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but you might find out from the Seattle Tree Portal at www.seattle.gov/trees. There is a place at the bottom of the website where they take questions. — Michael J 20:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a mulberry tree?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Post letter online

Which website lets me post a letter online? That means, I write the letter, upload it as a PDF, and then pay the website to put it an an envelope, attach a stamp and send it (then it gets received like any other letter). I remember it costs UK£0.70 by credit card, or something ridiculous like £1.12 by debit. --81.98.97.252 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling "post letter online" shows many such companies. --Sean 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. (And yes, I could have found that one myself.)--81.98.97.252 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 18

2 Anchors?

Why, in these days of financial restraint - whether public or privately funded - which have to be financed in any case by the public purse - do we need to listen to two news announcers - tell us there has been, "an accident on the "Freeway between Botswana and Guantanamo Bay" - sic? In other words, why do the junior reporters need to be there to provide verbal phrases betwen commas and and periods/full stops? If I read a newspaper, I would be annoyed if the story was constantly being interrupted by an announcement that "we are now going to our correspondent in New York." 92.30.47.24 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read a newspaper then. I don't see where this is supposed to be the complaints department. If you don't like how your local TV station presents the news, call them. We can't really change anything here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Huntley-Brinkley Report, it's all Bill McAndrew's fault. NBC's director of news saw that a local news program with two anchors got high ratings, so he brought in Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. Besides, somebody has to laugh at their lame jokes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question is not entirely clear? But are you asking why there's typically two anchors behind the desk on a typical news show? Besides the obvious variety it brings to an otherwise boring program, they intentionally try to have at least two anchors so that they can alternate stories or segments and not have to talk for an hour straight.

Or are you asking why there are segues between segments and not just abrupt cuts? Newspapers have headlines and bylines to introduce stories. That doesn't really work in a video format so they use a more conversational way of doing things. Television news is supposed to be somewhat casual anyway, if you want serious information you're going to need a more textual format like a newspaper. (Even then...) APL (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(OR)Having a male and a female announcer creates a illusory parental environment for lonely TV viewers, just like many of the TV ads they also broadcast. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

4G, 3G, 2G; our network is better because it has a higher number of Gs!

Can I ask what the hell they are talking about? I feel like I'm being bombarded with commercials for carriers touting their Gs without ever telling us what the hell they are talking about: "We have more Gs so we're better." Gigabytes maybe? Anyway it sounds like snakeoil because they use it as a magic statement rather than saying anything substantial.--141.155.159.27 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Been involved with IT for over 40 years. Many times while products have evolved I've seen reference to 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation versions of whatever is being touted. They usually stop around 4 and move on to another new piece of jargon. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned at 3G and 4G, the letter G is short for "generation". 1G wireless technology was the 1980's era cell phones (remember the big honking cells with the huge antennas, or "car phones" with the wired antennas you mounted on the roof?). 2G wireless technology began in 1991 with digital voice encryption on the GSM standard and the first SMS texting capabilities. 3G wireless was the first broad-application-based wireless service; 3G was the first standard to effectively encorporate media beyond telephone in the wireless service, things like mobile internet and mobile TV. 4G refers to IP-based wireless communication, which is a distinct break from 3G, which was basically using cell-phone protocol to give internet access. 4G flips the standard; where 3G provided internet over cell phone, 4G is fundementally a wireless internet service over which you can also make phone calls. Each G represents not only a massive increase in data throughput capability, but also a fundemendatal difference in data transmission standards; each basically represents an entirely new network from the ground up, with its own infrastructure, data encryption and transmission standards, etc. etc. --Jayron32 06:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that the first generation of anything is only ever described in that fashion in retrospect. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that 4G is currently an evolving standard and isn't actually implemented anywhere yet (outside of some misleading marketing fluff). See 4G Predecessors and candidate systems for the contending technologies and standards. You may also see the term 'LTE' (Long Term Evolution) mentioned a lot in the near future. Although this is a real network technology with real, usable equipment and has more capacity than '3G' it isn't yet '4G'. Blakkandekka (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting anecdote of some real life "snake oil" being sold: when Cell C relaunched their marketing campaign with new branding etc., they heavily advertised their "4G" broadband network which was nothing more than marketing jargon as it was still 3G products and network speeds they were selling. Presumably they wanted to indicate that their products were somehow "better". After about a week of their new ad campaign we suddenly didn't see any more use of the term "4G", most likely MTN or Vodacom raised a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority to have the claims removed. Zunaid 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In the context of iPhones, Apple do use G for gigabytes: this is different from the 1G - 4G mentioned above, but naive users might be confused. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

doesn't make sense, ColinFine, my iphone 3G does not have only 3GBs of memory --85.119.25.27 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the iPhone 3G was called 3G because it had 3G (more specifically W-CDMA) network support (sometimes else most smartphones before the iPhone already had but Apple didn't implement possibly because their US network provider still had limited support). For a long time people were calling the iPhone 4 iPhone 4G even tho it was rather unlikely it was going to have 4G since as Zunaid mentioned non network currently available supports the ITU's 4G requirements. Fortunately Apple wasn't that silly and it was simply called the iPhone 4. Of course the term 4G can have different meanings and in some countries networks are advertised as 4G even though they don't meet the ITU's requirements (usually wimax which may be used for 4G one day but doesn't meet the requirements yet). Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. Forgot to mention that EDGE can be 3G although I'm not sure if the iPhone's implementation meet the requirements but it's possible technically the original iPhone did support 3G according to the ITU's definition. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I was misremembering. I chose a 16Gb rather than an 8Gb iPhone 3G, and was thinking of that. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, you can do what Telstra do, and market your services as Next G. You'll always be ahead of the competition :) /87.96.197.64 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just today (November 19), the Chicago Tribune had an article about this trend of carriers calling their networkd "4G", even when they don't comply with the standards. [3]. Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

use of piezoelectric material

how one can implement piezoelectric material in the electric circuit to generate voltage? describe with figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rananjaysingh436 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

However, see our piezoelectricity article. In short you thump the crystal. CS Miller (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Location based learning

Will schools and places of higher learning be done away with in preference for online learning in the future? AdbMonkey (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. schyler (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already happening. The Open University is an example of an institution that uses online learning to the full and also gives opportunities for face-to-face contact. Wikiversity is a great institution but I wouldn't rely on it alone quite yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. See WP:CRYSTAL. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Our E-learning article doesn't seem to touch on its many disadvantages when compared to going to university — isolation, lack of dating opportunities, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Distance learning is also relevant, and also lacks discussion of disadvantages. Perhaps this is because the competing model is so standard as not to have a name? Learning face-to-face, even in the lecture format, has the huge advantage that the audience is communicating back to the speaker. Even if no one asks questions (and questions are really important), the speaker can adjust the presentation on the spot in response to the facial expressions in the crowd. And being on location means having after-class conversations in small groups, which is immensely useful. Two people and a whiteboard works amazingly well. Paul (Stansifer) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Where education works best is when it is responsive; where the students can make contact with an educator (Professor, teacher, grad student, tutor, etc.) or with each other, and learning can proceed with two way communication, such that the instructor can adjust for problems the student is having, the student can ask questions to probe for additional information. Students can work together to fill in each other's holes. And the sort of communication that occurs between people, in a real-live-can-touch-the-other-person-setting cannot really be replicated online; a good teacher can see when their students are learning from body language, tone of voice, etc. The problem with the modern Huge Mega State University education is lots of classes, especially the general 101-level classes, are taught in a completely impersonal manner: Lectures of hundreds of students, often with little to no extra support outside of class. If a student gets enough of that kind of learning, eventually they say "I could teach this shit to myself", and turn to distance learning. Distance learning is probably not any worse than the 1000-student lecture, but its cheaper and more convenient. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (And also that crystal balls don't work.) This is going off of a Harvard or Yale article that I read that showed evidence that location based learning was a thing of the past. The article also cited Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as someone who also said this. So, I am not looking for opinion, or a soothsayer. I am looking for empirical evidence that would support the notion that universities either are or aren't going to be done away with, and an expected time frame for this to occur. I am not asking for an airy fairy guess on the topic, but real evidence. I would think this topic would be particularly important since it would mean an enormous change in the nature of education, and to those who work in the field. But perhaps I shouldn't be asking on wikipedia, not because this matter isn't pertinent, but because most users would not have any more of a clue than I do. AdbMonkey (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that Universities are not going to be done away with. Think of distance learning as an alternative to, rather than a replacement for, classroom learning. There are some people for whom, for whatever reason, a traditional university education, with classrooms and teachers and keggers and football games, doesn't work. Prior to the internet, these people were pretty much stiffed; either they went to University or they didn't get that education. With the advent of online learning and other distance learning models, it provided an additional outlet for teaching outside of the standard university setting. But there's no reason to believe it will replace the unversity. Indeed it is quite likely that many people who are successful at distance learning would NOT have been successful at a university, thus distance learning may not be "poaching" students from universities, it may just be educating different students. The microwave overn and the crock-pot didn't cause houses to stop being built with traditional cooking ranges; they provided alternate means to cook, but did not replace the traditional oven and stove top. Its the same deal here. --Jayron32 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But the microwave did facilitate a change in food habits, along with easily available fast food. The number of Americans who regularly make home-cooked meals has certainly shrunk since the 1960s and 1970s, which quite a number of commentators (e.g. Michael Pollan) have argued has had extremely detrimental effects on American nutrition and health. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's frankly unclear what the future of higher education is going to be, and people at the bastions of the old guard are very uncomfortable with that uncertainty. I personally suspect that the University of Phoenix is going to be the model for how most Americans get higher education in the future, rather than the Harvards and Yales and MITs. That doesn't mean that the university will go away. But I would not be surprised if, over the next 50 years, the gap between the "old guard" university experience and the "run of the mill/state school" experience gap widens, and would not be surprised to see digital learning play a part in that. The economics of distance learning are clear, and if the economics of education becomes the primary issue, then it's clear it will be embraced even if the quality of education suffers. I don't personally see this as a good thing, but pedagogically I am clearly a dinosaur. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

AdbMonkey, you're now here regularly enough that it is a bit disingenuous for you to complain so frequently (as you've done about several of your questions so far) about how you guess WP just can't answer your question for you. This is a free service: use it at your own risk, and take what you get (consistent with all WP policies and guidelines, etc.). BTW, do you have a source (and please read WP:RS as to what is considered a reliable source at WP and how to reference it) for your recollection that Harvard or Yale or someone said something about this, so we can see for ourselves what was actually said and then try to explain that to you in that context? Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! AdbMonkey (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

November 19

Charging US 110V electronics in the UK

Can I use a UK hotel bathroom 115V "shavers only" socket to charge my US cell phone with its simple 110V charger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OSFHFS (talk • contribs) 07:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask OSFHFS, why you want to? Is it because of the difference in 'Mains' power voltages/frequencies between UK(220V/50Hz) and US? (110V/60hz)? If your phone uses a switch mode 'plug pack' or adapter, and it can safely plug into, or with an adapter will fit UK power sockets, it should work. This is because 'switch mode' power supplies can work with a wide range of supply voltages and frequencies. I have one in front of me now, an Australian socketed (2 angled pins) 'Switcmode AC Adaptor' that specifies 100-240VAC 50/60 Hz. There is no technical reason, allowing for physically different connectors, that I could not use this adaptor in the UK or US.
♦ Short answer, yes you should be able to use the shaver socket if your plug is compatible, and if you have a switch mode charger for the phone.
♦ An adapter that uses a 'simple' transformer, rectifier and voltage regulator circuit, will not be useable in a country with different mains voltage/frequency. Addendum: Unless it is designed to be so, possibly with a 110/240 selector switch. See also Linear power supply - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If it says "shavers only", how can they know that you are not using it for other purposes? Quest09 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They can't. But it will have current rating that doesn't support heftier devices, and will probably trip if you put something on it which draws too much current. I know the shaver socket in my bathroom in college 30 years ago was rated at 85mA. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Electronics Police" in the UK are extremely capable. They can even tell if you are watching the telly without paying a fee. How much easier to tell if you are powering something else (A drill? a charger? a vibrator?) from the "Shaver Only" outlet. Edison (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Phone chargers tend to draw only small currents (similar to shavers, my charger is 30mA at 240v) so there should be no problem. The cut-out is often thermal, so it will just switch off after a few minutes, then come back on, if it is slightly overloaded. Dbfirs 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure its 115v? There's a high risk that its just the normal 240 volts, and your equipment will be fried. 92.15.27.119 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cassette problem

I have a large collection of C60 and C90 audio tapes. Sometimes a tape will stick in the mechanism of my Sony player. The heads are cleaned regularly with a commercial cassette head cleaner. The tapes all seem to be in good condition and play normally until they stick. What could be the problem (and solution) please?Froggie34 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning the heads will not make much difference. You need to clean the rubber pinch wheel inside the player with a damp cotton bud, and I also find it helps to firmly tap the offending cassette, flat, onto a hard surface. However, this is a common problem inherent in the technology and I suggest you copy any valuable recordings before they get mangled.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As above. Tap and also run through without playing to loosen up spiral. Could be that your tapes are suffering from the Sticky-shed syndrome. Have a look at Tape baking too.--Aspro (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Contact info for migraine surgery articleShawn42981 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! I am a severe migraine sufferer and I read this article about migraine surgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migraine_surgery I was wondering if there is any contact information I can have to ask what doctors perform this surgeryShawn42981 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is probably not the best place to obtain referrals for a medical procedure. You would be better off asking your doctor about whether surgery is a good option for you. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Game Link Cable Questions

I have two questions; 1) what is the bandwidth rate of a Game Link Cable, and 2) the Game Link Cable article says that "The Game Link Cable socket and connector design influenced the design of IEEE 1394/FireWire" however the reference is a PDF which I can't view on the computer I'm using right now, and FireWire article doesn't talk about it and I can't find any other references with goggle. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.190.107 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For (2), the PDF is like a PowerPoint presentation (it's a bunch of bullet points) and the statement is presumably "Connector based on Nintendo Gameboy". That's all it says, and there is no reference or supporting documentation. I call dubious, only because it's 5 words written by "some guy" with no support. (The connectors do look superficially similar.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of renaming this thread. We have an instruction at the top to not call questions "Question" or "Query" or similar (for the obvious reason that every question is a question, and if we let everyone call their question "Question", the whole website would just implode within minutes, and we couldn't have that, could we). Turns out your "question" was 2 questions anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 20

usx stamp on smith wesson 38 caliber pistol

I have a smith and wesson 38 caliber safety hammerless pistol which has the letters usx stamped on the left side. I'm trying to find out what the usx stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.93.124 (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is supposed to stand for "United States Express Co."[4] But the best way to learn about the gun is to contact S&W with the serial number. Rmhermen (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Printed form of Ars Technica

Does anything similar to Ars Technica exist in magazine form? Something like Popular Mechanics, but with a little more emphasis on science news and less on gadget reviews. --The Dark Side (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple TV News Readers

It now seems to be the norm for newsreaders around the Globe to come in sets of 2, usually with a member of each gender making up the team, and each of them speaking one sentence at a time. Why is that practice necessary? It adds nothing to the news item being reported, it doesn't make it more interesting, and for me at any rate, it is extremely annoying. Imagine if that was how you were spoken to at work or in the pub - you would explode. And it is a sheer waste of money. But maybe the news stations think we dim folk who are watching can only absorb their news items in one-sentence soundbites. Or am I missing something here? Ta. 92.30.229.2 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but you are free to not watch those news programs that you find offensive or uninformative, and even to seek your news from other media modalities altogether. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the answers to your previous #2 Anchors? Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nil - I had forgotten I had already asked this question. Mind you, it was late first time around and I had had a few G+T's. Cheers (hic). 92.30.229.2 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen a news show where they alternate sentences. And I can think of many which have only one anchor. Perhaps you need to search for a different channel? Rmhermen (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle identification

Hello fellows!

Does anybody know who is the manufucturer of these two vehicles and which type is it.

• File:CU-Juggernaut crane on a flatbed railroad car.JPEG
• File:Wheeled bulldozer in 1973.JPEG

Thanks for helping. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Was/Is Smokey Bear effective in reducing human-induced forest fires?

I'm looking for studies on the subject.--72.178.134.134 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)