Science	Mathematics	Computing/IT	Humanities
Language	Entertainment	Miscellaneous	Archives

How to ask a question

Search first. It's quicker, because you can find the answer in our online encyclopedia instead of waiting for a volunteer to respond. Search Wikipedia using the searchbox. A web search could help too. Common questions about Wikipedia itself, such as how to cite Wikipedia and who owns Wikipedia, are answered in Wikipedia:FAQ.

Sign your question. Type ~~~~ at its end.
Be specific. Explain your question in detail if necessary, addressing exactly what you'd like answered. For information that changes from country to country (or from state to state), such as legal, fiscal or institutional matters, please specify the jurisdiction you're interested in.
Include both a title and a question. The title (top box) should specify the topic of your question. The complete details should be in the bottom box.

Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please don't post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers.

Be patient. Questions are answered by other users, and a user who can answer may not be reading the page immediately. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.

Do not include your e-mail address. Questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Edit your question for more discussion. Click the [edit] link on right side of its header line. Please do not start multiple sections about the same topic.
Archived questions If you cannot find your question on the reference desks, please see the Archives.
Unanswered questions If you find that your question has been archived before being answered, you may copy your question from the Archives into a new section on the reference desk.
Do not request medical or legal advice.
Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.

After reading the above, you may
ask a new question by clicking here.
Your question will be added at the bottom of the page.

How to answer a question

Be thorough. Please provide as much of the answer as you are able to.
Be concise, not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

Link to articles which may have further information relevant to the question.
Be polite to users, especially ones new to Wikipedia. A little fun is fine, but don't be rude.
The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please avoid debating about politics, religion, or other sensitive issues.

July 7

Recover Hard Drive Table Information From Previously "Mounted" Drive

I have three hard drives in my computer, connected to IDE1 Primary and Secondary, and IDE2 Primary.

The bootable drive (Seagate 200GB) is partitioned into 20GB (boot) and 160GB (data).

There are two drives I use for media, a Seagate 400GB and a WD 200GB.

I reinstalled Windows XP onto the 20GB boot partition and then SP1 so that I could accurately manage 137GB+ drives. Unfortunately, things didn't return (obviously) as they were before.

I previously had mounted the the WD 200GB (a drive for media) into a directory on the 400GB, effectively making it a "600 GB hdd". Now, however, the old 'mounted' WD 200GB drive isn't being properly recognized in Windows. It recognizes there is indeed a drive, but it appears as a blank, raw drive with no filesystem. All other drives (and partitions) are accurately displayed.

I used data recovery tools on the drive to see if my data had gone missing--it isn't, it's still intact. This leads me to believe (through my very ignorant knowledge of hard drives) that the tables which control filesystems are incorrect on the drive, possibly/probably due to it being 'mounted' in a hard drive directory previously. I've tried to Google for an answer here, but no luck, so I beg your assistance. I've tried the drive on multiple cables and IDE1/2 and master/slave, but no luck, Windows always fails to properly handle this one drive.

I refuse (unless that become my ONLY option) to let ChkDsk run its course on start up, as I've had it corrupt data on hard drives in the past when in similar situations. I think I need to force Windows to read this drive as the NTFS system it is.. but how? Or how to rebuild that table?

(I'm also aware that I could always buy a new HDD to copy the data to through a recovery program, but financially that isn't a good solution.)

If you need any other information, I will provide it ASAP. Thank you for your time!

--67.82.24.34 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)MCS[reply]

I'd need some more information to be any help. Here are some basic questions to make sure I understand whats what:

When you say you "mounted the the WD 200GB into a directory on the 400GB", how and what exactly did you do.
What system were the drives working under, when they worked? XP? XP SP1? NT? 2000? ...?
Basically, I need more understanding what's gone on. This is what I need, in summary:
1. How were they set up when it worked, and what system were you running?
2. How did they appear in Windows and under Disk management?
3. What filing systems were you using (FAT32/NTFS) for each partition?
4. What exactly did you do, or change?
5. What works and what doesn't work now, after changing it?
6. What have you tried to do, to fix or diagnose it, so far?

Answer those and I'll try to help you through it. Luck! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHP developing environment

I'm looking for a good (free) PHP developing environment. Any one got a suggestion? Oskar 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Eclipse IDE for Java work, but it is also compatible with PHP after a [free] plug-in is downloaded. I've found it nice, so that may be a good starting point. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Notepad++ in windows and Kate in linux. Jon513 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also use Kate in KDE and Nano when I only have a shell. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use TextWrangler on Mac OS X. It's awesome. --Fastfission 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try PSPad --83.161.99.21 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel sheet to powerpoint

how to fit the excel sheet in power point slide?..i m getting lots of problems doing this.

You have already asked this question on the miscellaneous reference desk. Please do not double post. Your question has been answered over there. Iola k ana|^T 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Gravity

Is it possible to achieve an anti gravitational effect on earth excluding the sensation aquired by allowing a plane to freefall. --74.136.8.13 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Anton[reply]

monkey--152.163.100.74 05:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you mean by an "anti-gravitational effect", but we feel gravity when we're in contact with the ground or some solid object in contact with the ground. People in free fall (whether it be onboard an orbiting satellite, in a malfunctioning plane, or on an amusement park ride) will experience weightlessness. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can achieve the effect of anti-gravity, but not anti-gravity itself. If you don't fancy the Vomit Comet, you could always ride a roller coaster, which is the same sensation but over a much shorter period of time, or sky diving. Scuba diving provides a similar sensation.--Shantavira 06:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also sit yourself on some super powerful magnets, and make it appear as if you are defying gravity, but arguably that's no more anti-gravitational than sitting on the seat in your car. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's a company that used to make anti-gravity pads, but they went out of fashion about the same time red/blue 3-D theaters did. 82.131.188.167 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

[Edit conflict.. grrr] I suppose you mean weightlessness. As Knowledge Seeker mentioned, you feel the weight when there is gravity acting on you and when there is something obstructing your fall towards the object that is attracting you. When there is nothing to obstruct your fall, you actually move freely (fall) towards the object and also experience weightlessness. So in effect, whenever you fall towards earth, (in a plane, in a freefalling lift, jump from a height etc) you experience weightlessness. An exception to this could be Lagrange_points. I thought that these are the points in space where the gravities of two bodies cancel each other but the article seems to suggest some deeper meaning. I am not qualified enough to explain these Lagrange_points --Wikicheng 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the Lagrangian points basically right, though they're really not an exception. As you mention, you feel weight when there is gravity acting on you; at Lagrangian points, the net force of gravity is zero, so naturally an entity there would experience weightlessness. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you are not weightless in freefall, weight is mass x gravity, you still have a mass, there is definately gravity, otherwise you wouldn't be falling. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expected one Lagrange point for a set of two bodies, somewhere in the middle where the gravitational pulls cancel each other. I was surprised to find 5 LPs and that too, not between the bodies!. I may need to read it properly to understand how --Wikicheng 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I read it. I am wrong in saying that the gravitational pulls cancel each other at the LPs. But nevertheless, you do experience weightlessness at those points. --Wikicheng 08:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I simplified it a bit too much; gravity does not necessarily cancel out at the Lagrangain points. I suppose the more accurate statement would be that an object at one of the Lagrangian points or at any other point in space would experience weightlessness, since as you point out there's nothing obstructing its path. It's just that the path at the Lagrangian points (or in orbit around Earth, etc.) is relatively stable an an object there won't soon arrive at a collision. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ye of little faith. Who are we to say we will never achieve a device capable of "anti-gravity"? As per the reader's questions, which seems to pertain to current technology, the answer is yes - the buoyancy force provides an excellent anti-gravitational experience; just jump in the ocean with a scuba tank, and eventually you will descend to a depth at which you are the same density as the water. At that point, gravity will be cancelled out. If you're looking for something which actually "blocks" the gravitational field, the answer is, not yet. --Bmk 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of immersion, would there not still be the effect of gravity making a difference in fluid pressures and distribution inside the body? --Seejyb 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - it isn't exactly like the absence of gravity, but some of the effect of the gradient of gravity is eliminated because there is also a gradient of water density; i.e. gravitational potential decreases downward, but buoyancy increases. In any case, I agree with Seejyb - it won't be exactly like weightlessness, but similar. I know NASA sends astronauts into big pools in spacesuits to simulate zero-G working conditions. --Bmk 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what the question is asking is whether gravity is polar like a magnet which to the best of our current knowledge it is not. But who knows what the case might be with anti-matter. Instead of particles attracting maybe anti-matter particles push each other away. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See gravitational interaction of antimatter. --cesarb 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about calculating Langrange points. Take up yogic flying, then you can help create world peace at the same time ;-) --Shantavira 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've heard that sleeping straight is good for health means on back...but sleeping opposite with your front facing downward is bad for health...how true is this????

sleeping

my question is "is there any rules exist for sleeping?"...means how to sleep?...wat are the ways to take most relaxing sleep?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.152.121 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read our very comprehensive article about sleep, then come back here if you have further questions.--Shantavira 09:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will help to sleep better if one stop thinking about "rules" for sleeping when going to bed.--Vsion 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, at the time you're trying to sleep, I find there's little you can do if you can't sleep. It's something that your body just does, and it's hard to force. Overall, making sure you go to bed at the same time every night, are relaxed (warm baths and warm uncaffeinated drinks can help, as can relaxing music), the right temperature and in calm surroundings. Block as much light from entering your room as possible. Try to quieten your mind, keep it from racing. Chanting/repeating some calming phrase in your head and concentrating on it can help. (For example, some prayer or pattern of prayer from your religion, some relatively long poem or nursery rhyme that you are very familiar with). If you are having trouble sleeping, and this lasts a long time, you might want to visit a doctor and ask his advice. Skittle 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Skittle said, try making yourself as comfortable as possible. Don't worry if you can't fall asleep--if you worry, it'll be even harder to sleep. Also, strangely enough, I fall asleep quicker if there is an intense light being reflected onto my eyelids (for example, in a sunny afternoon when the Sun is not shining directly into my window). --Bowlhover 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trying" to do anything at all will hinder the onset of sleep. Letting it happen is a much better approach. JackofOz 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis

Im sure that there is a simple answer to the question but not to ask is a greater ignorance than to not know. Would it be possible to create a divice that splits water (electrolysis)underwater and guides the bubbles into a tube to be used to breath underwater? Perhaps there is a problem with breathing pure oxygen.

Actually that's what submarines do - that's why they can stay underwater for years (problem is the food doesn't last that long) --mboverload @ 06:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it requires a lot of energy so don't count on using it in a diving suit. -Mgm|^(talk) 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Very large amounts --mboverload @

FROM THE SUBMARINE ARTICLE --mboverload @ 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With nuclear power, submarines can remain submerged for months at a time. Diesel submarines must periodically resurface or snorkel to recharge their batteries. Most modern military submarines are able to generate oxygen for their crew by electrolysis of water. Atmosphere control equipment includes a CO₂ scrubber, which uses a catalyst to remove the gas from air and diffuse it into waste pumped overboard. A machine that uses a catalyst to convert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide (removed by the CO₂ scrubber) and bonds hydrogen produced from the ship's storage battery with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce water, also found its use. An atmosphere monitoring system samples the air from different areas of the ship for nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, R12 and R114 refrigerant, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and others. Poisonous gases are removed, and oxygen is replenished by use of an oxygen bank located in a main ballast tank. Some heavier submarines have two oxygen bleed stations (forward and aft). The oxygen in the air is sometimes kept a few percent less than atmospheric concentration to reduce fire danger.

There is a problem with breathing pure oxygen, but seeing as when you breathe you don't use up any of the other compunds, or molecules in the air, you can re-use them. So as long as you start with a bit, its ok. Philc _T^E_C^I

13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, a person needs about 6 liters of oxygen per minute, and the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen takes a minimum of 1.7 volts. Are these numbers anywhere near correct?So what amperage wold be required (i.e, how much power) to liberate 6 liters per minute of oxygen at some reasonable temperature and pressure? Surely the contributors here can do better than "a lot of energy."Edison 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget rebreather article! 82.131.184.144 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sleeping in a dark room is very important, and the ideal temperature is 16°C. When I cannot sleep I read for a while, or go and edit Wikipedia. If you do this in a low light environment, then you will get sleepy quite quickly. -Wser 12:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Wikipedia Pages

There are two pages on wikipedia I have found in the past and can't seem to find anymore.

List of most edited wikipedia articles
List of the longest wikipedia articles

Any help? --Russoc4 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Special:Specialpages.
SLUMGUM yap stalk 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the offline reports at Wikipedia:Maintenance#Reports. --cesarb 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. --Russoc4 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many such pages can no longer exist due to software upgrades. //Ae:æ 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original question, the direct links would be Special:Mostrevisions and Special:Longpages. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

energy band

why energy levels are parabolide in shape in E-K diagrams?

Sorry, not sure what you mean. Please be much more specific and clear. Are you perhaps talking about the potential of a quantum harmonic oscillator? That's the only thing that rings a bell, but i'd rather not spend time answering without clarification. --Bmk 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

windows on ships

hi, in the UK we have this guy called stelios someone. anyway he runs a low cost airline (easy jet) in europe and last year launched a similar concept for cruises (called, easily enough, easy cruise). anyway, the cabins in this ship dont have windows -he claims this way he can reduce his costs. i cant actually believe this but neither can i see any other advantage in not having windows. is having windows (by which i mean the small circular port hole things, not vast great french windows looking out on to the horizon) expensive? if so, why? thanks 201.32.177.211 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand guess - his ships are cheap because they're converted freighters, and one of the ways to keep a conversion cheap would be to not add windows. But I really don't know. Shimgray | talk | 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, The cabins offer a simple bed and bathroom: most do not have windows (although that is changing to make all the rooms have windows). I suspect he charges less because he can carry more passengers by having more cabins (since they don't all have to be along the sides of the ship). Perhaps the extra cabins are going to have windows onto the corridor rather than onto the sea? Henry ^Flower 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it is difficult to understand that not adding windows is cheaper than buying windows, cutting holes in the ship, mounting the new windows, and then sealing them. If you don't add windows, there's no cost. If you do add windows, there is the cost of supplies and labor. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got three lettors for you: T, C, and O. Total Cost of Ownership. TCO. Just Google. 82.131.184.144 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I know that windows in the hull of a ship are round because square ones tear at the corners. But maybe round ones also weaken the hull, making it necessary to make it heavier or something. But even local reinforcements will add to the cost and if you offer travel at dirt cheap prices you need to cut every corner.

By the way, imagine ships not having to pay taxes on fuel, like airplanes. Airlines would go out of business in a massive way. But that's a different issue. DirkvdM 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather offtopic, but I strongly doubt it. Commuting by ship had largely died by the 1960's; plane travel was much, much more expensive then than it is now. In any case, you can buy a New York-London return plane ticket for 500 USD; even using a 40 knot ship and assuming Plymouth as a departure point rather than London, it still takes 72 hours to do New York-Plymouth. Feeding somebody half-decent food for six days (return) costs at least 150 USD or so. If you assume 20 USD per night for the cabin, that's another 120 USD. So that's 270 USD, conservatively, before we've even moved the ship anywhere. So, at a maximum, we're going to save in the order of 200-250 USD by taking the ship, at the cost of six days on the ship against one day (total) on the plane. Most international travellers earn considerably more than 250 USD per week. --Robert Merkel 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, you're talking about Europe-US. Those are the cheapest airfares around, I believe. In stead, try the Caribbean. Two, after the 60's, a new phenomenon arose, the budget traveller. There's loads of (mostly young) people around these days who have a fair bit of money (compared to the 50's), though not too much (compared to holiday making families) and loads of time. On a half year trip a few days on a boat won't make that much of a difference. And you don't get jet lagged. And it's not cramped. And you get to meet other budget travellers. And ehm, on international waters, so ... tax free alcohol?

I've been a budget traveller for several years, so I know what I'm talking about. A 300 euro trip to the Caribbean? Yeah man, cool! In Indonesia they've got these island-hopping Pelni ships that are a real cool way to travel and meet people. I suppose the 'meeting people' thing is the most important. Along with the price. DirkvdM 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've checked their website [1] and after starting in Europe, their next destination is ... the Caribbean. I had thought of this myself years ago, but I lack both the money and the entrepreneurial instinct to set something like this up. However, I could try applying for a job with them. Doing this trip and getting paid for it! How cool is that? Of course, I'll have to work too. Bummer! :) DirkvdM 09:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANCIENT BEER

I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ANCIENT PEOPLE WHO MADE BEER DIED FROM ITS USE. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE PROCESS THEY USED DID NOT FILTER OUT IMPURITIES THAT MAY HAVE MADE THE BEER TOXIC. IS THIS TRUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.127.28 (talk • contribs)

Please stop yelling (using all caps). There is no mention of death by impurities in history of beer, but it is rather silly to think that beer didn't have impurities or go bad long before refridgeration. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some truth behind that. Before the introduction of hops other bitter herbs were used to flavor and preserve beer, some of which were indeed toxic in large quantities. The keyword here is gruit. One must also remember that in former times people would consume large quantities of beer because it had been boiled and thus was safer than water. Dr Zak 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, my understanding is during days of yore, because beer is fermented, weak beer/wine was actually used as the common drinking liquid instead of water, which would often harbor microorganisms that would cause illness. So while deaths may have come from beer impurities (and don't forget ethanol itself is toxic in large amounts, like everything), probably beer saved more lives (or at least delayed deaths) more than it took. 128.197.81.223 21:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pathogenic (disease-causing) microorganisms can survive in beer. Therefore, beer (filtered or not) is not toxic, except in the case of alcohol poisoning, unless toxic substances are added (a la Dr Zak's herbs). In fact, homebrewers regularly consume unfiltered beer, and some styles such as hefeweizen are sold commercially without filtration. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that I should mention -- beer brewers are very careful to keep all equipment and wort (unfermented beer) as sanitary and microorganism-free as possible. However, the consequences of bacterial contamination are not potentially toxic, just potentially ruinous to the flavor of beer. Brewers of lambic beer are an exception; they encourage the growth of wild bacteria and yeasts. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tv documentary years ago on the workers who built the pyramids said that archeology shows that the workers diet consisted of onions, garlic, bread and beer. You could do worse. Also I'v read the statement that it was considered healthier in general to drink beer than to drink water in many European countries pre-20th century because the boiling as part of the brewing killed pathogens found in river water and some well water.Edison 20:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange

What chemicals does 2,4,5,T break down to? 2,4,5,T is one half of Agent Orange.

Burkholderia cepacia can break down 2,4,5,T in the chain shown here [2]. This [3] abstract claims that 2,4,5,T was broken down by non-adapted sediment microorganisms first into 2,5-Dichlorohydroquinone (as in the previous link) but then into 3-chlorophenol and phenol (but notably without apparent 2,4,5-trichlorophenol as an intermediate, unlike as in the first link). It is thus likely that the intermediates and end products vary from organism to organism, but it appears some steps are common, at least in the information from the two links above. As to what it breaks down to on its own, I do not know. 128.197.81.223 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article about a selectively bred organism, Pseudomonas Cepacia, which readily breaks down 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-T is very recalcitrant to spontaneous degradation, and are usually slowly broken down by natural soil bacteria. However, I did finally find an article here from "Inchem" that seems to deal significantly with the spontaneous (non-biological) breakdown of 2,4,5-T. To summarize, the article seems to say that when it travels through biological pathways, i.e. bacteria, the intermediates vary widely, but the end products are mostly carbon dioxide, inorganic chlorides, and water. However when 2,4,5-T is broken down through photolysis, i.e. sunlight, the end product is 2,4,5-trichlorophenol. This product will not be detected often because it is more easily metabolized than 2,4,5-T.

It may also be of interest that during the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, some amount of 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is also produced. If the reaction is carefully temperature-controlled, TCDD levels can be minimized. TCDD is (according to our article and [http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35857#Toxicity this]) a serious human and environmental toxin, although it is not a breakdown product of 2,4,5-T, just a byproduct of synthesis. --Bmk 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

How was metal mined in the middle ages?

I mean, I know they didn't have the technology to mine massive amounts. Where were metal deposits found and how were they mined? Much help appreciated! 162.40.192.43 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a few articles that may be of interest to you - foremost is smelting, a nice article which is really the answer to your question. Basically, most metals are found in nature as ores (another good article listing the common mineable ore forms of metals). Ores are just bodies of rock containing metals. Usually in ores the metals are trapped as oxides or sulfides, meaning they have been oxidized and are now salts. In order to extract them, they must be reduced, meaning something must remove the oxygen or sulfur or whatever has oxidized it and take away the extra electrons so it is a neutral metal again. This is accomplished with a reducing agent, which in ancient times would have been charcoal.

A miner would find rocks containing the ore, for instance hematite, the ore from which iron can be extracted, by the characteristics of the rocks, or by the characteristics of the places in which it is often found. He would probably break up the rocks into gravel or powder, then put it under a wood fire, probably in the bottom where there is little atmospheric oxygen. The carbon in the charcoal, when heated in the fire, would reduce the hematite (Fe2O3) into iron metal (in the case of oxides like hematite the carbon would be oxidized and turn into carbon dioxide). He would then probably wash the ashes and little bits of iron metal would be left behind. Once he had enough metal, he could melt them into a bar, make a nice sword, and smite all the poor souls who were still using wooden spears.

If you were looking for more specifics about the actual mining of the ores, there is some information about this in the articles about the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Hope this helps, and everyone else keep me honest - make sure that was accurate. --Bmk 04:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle Ages (I am assuming you in Europe) just carried on from Roman mining(see Roman Deep-vein Mining by Lynne Cohen Duncan on the University of North Carolina website). "Finding" was by seeing the ore or metal above ground (and remained so until modern geological techniques changed things - when was that?). The technique itself was still opencast (surface excavation) and deep-vein mining (tunnels), as in Roman times, with minor improvements in ways of mechanically managing water and ore. From the University of Nevada site: Copper in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Also Gold in the middle ages, by Rafal Swiecki. This page on Technology in the Middle Ages History of Technology, from the Department of Aviation and Technology at San Jose State University, gives information and good links. Interesting for me was the info that Saxon (German) miners were apparently "in demand all over Europe, leading to German terms being common in mining" (I'd like to know more about that too) and that the status of miners changed from that of serfs to freemen / artisans. The external links given have references to contemporary medieval writings on the subject, but these would be more difficult to come by. --Seejyb 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to learn more about Ozone Generators

I searched for information both here and on the web without success. I am interested in building an ozone generator. I do not want to build the small units built by pot growers but instead, the larger units used for shock treatments of homes for odor control. Something in the 14,000 mg/hr range.

I know the internal workings but am having difficulty with creating the corona discharge. I would like to build a tube designed corona discharge instead of the plate type. I attempted to buy replacement tubes from ozone generator manufacturers without success.

My questions to you good people are as follows: Does anyone have plans for a high output ozone machine that includes how to build each part (Obviously the corona discharge tube)? Does anyone know where I can obtain such info?

I attempted to search the patent office for them (my favorite search location) but have not had any luck finding anything. The commercial ozone generator sales companies guard their secrets and fight with each other but none will tell you anything and it is quite frustrating.

My reason for all of this is I want to start a business with the ozone machines but have a lot more satisfaction making them than buying them (and it is usually cheaper). I would be just as happy finding a source for the corona discharge tubes that I could purchase.

When you are not sure what to do, ask people wiser than yourself. So, I'm asking.

Thanks

--Diabolic 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very specialized and very dangerous (high voltage). You probably won't get much help here, sorry. --Zeizmic 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bigclive looks like the kind of guy who could advise you. This page has his an email address. --Seejyb 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning rod

I live in an area where the occurance of lightning is frequent. Although my dwelling is surrounded by electrical poles and large oak trees and other houses about 1 out of 3 rain storms will produce a lightning bolt that hits the main 4 inch cast iron vent pipe coming out of the roof from the bathroom wet wall. The burst must jump to the water lines in the wall because the lines are immediately filled with calcium and rust build up on the inside of the pipe which clog the faucet filters and produce very brown to dark black water which must be flushed from the lines for up to 15 minutes. Would installation of lightning rods near the vent on the roof prevent this from happening or has lightning picked my house and my main vent as its eternal grounding buddy? ...IMHO (Talk) 10:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's exactly what lightning rods are for, so as long as it is well grounded and extends well above the top of the pipe, it should do the trick. Incidentally, as flying aircraft are not grounded, why are they sometimes struck by lightning? I would guess because they just happen to get in the way...--Shantavira 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, could you replace the iron pipe with plastic?--Shantavira 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only at unreasonable expense although both water and sewer have long since been replaced with plastic between the house and the street. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lightning rod would probably not prevent strikes, but would divert the strikes so most of the current does not flow through the water pipes. Another advantage would be that the ligntning conductors would be designed to make sure no fire starts; with the water and sewage pipes, it's just a matter of luck that nothing more serious than dirty water has happened. The lightning protection system should of course be installed by a licensed contractor. Gerry Ashton 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half life of common medications

Is there a list of in the body half life for various off-the-shelf medications such as aspirin? ...IMHO (Talk) 11:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No easily accessible list, but if you google "generic name pharmacokinetics" (e.g. acetylsalicylic acid pharmacokinetics) and you will get links and refs (e.g. PMID 11837380). I am not sure what you will do with the data, as the primary use for half life data is for interpreting blood levels of a drug (for the drugs we monitor by blood level) drawn at a known time after dosing. alteripse 11:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm looking for parity data based on time from oral intake that can be adjusted for weight, medical condition etc. since such information might not only help consumers have a better feel for dosage, etc. but also might serve as a diagnostic tool in terms of observable half life deviation from normal, i.e., interval before return of pain or other symptoms, etc. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From practical experience with the difficulties doctors and nurses have with using pharmacokinetic data, I have a pessimistic suspicion that you could put random numbers in your tables and outcomes would be indistinguishable. I think that's why there are no consumer tables. For example, are you interested in drug level half-life or biological effect half-life or average duration of effect or FDA-approved dosing interval instructions? After single doses, or steady states? Duration of effect does not bear the same mathematical relationship to either blood level or biological effect half-life for every drug. Finally, you picked one of the worst possible example drugs: duration of analgesic effects are notorious for being dependent on far more variables than drug half-life. You are proposing a thesis project for a Pharm. D. degree-- make sure you get credit for it. alteripse 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of radiation on water

Can electromagnetic radiation (photons from lasers), Gamma, Alpha, or Beta radiation separate molecules of water into their constituent parts of hydrogen and oxygen in a manner that does not render water or its constituents radioactive? ...IMHO (Talk) 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we get to use a catalyst? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it requires that I take time off from work. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ionizing radiation (alpha, beta, and gamma) can ionize water. Not "photons from lasers", though, unless it's a gamma ray laser. It's a terribly inefficient method of separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, though. Most of the ion pairs just recombine immediately. —Keenan Pepper 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then its not like I could somehow use nuclear waste to generate hydrogen for fuel and oxygen to breath? ...IMHO (Talk) 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could possibly use the waste to generate heat (Hydrogen + Oxygen is exothermic), which could produce steam, drive a turbine, and then split some other water by electrolysis, but I doubt all but the highest level waste would produce more than a tiny bit of heat. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that gamma radiation is a high energy form of EM radiation, not a separate phenomenon. --Bmk 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side point: "So then its not like I could somehow use nuclear waste to generate hydrogen for fuel and oxygen to breath?" With the water you split you will not be able to use H as fuel AND breath the O, because the O is needed to burn the H. One or the other. --GangofOne 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could, in that excess oxygen exists in the atmosphere, so you can burn the hydrogen in air. That leaves the oxygen available for use in SCUBA tanks running trimix, for example. StuRat 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a side point, that was IMHO's point it seems. And Keenan already said it would be way too inefficient. Think about it. The energy could at most be that amount of energy in the radiation and if that were anything substantial it would be way too dangerous. Not that it isn't, but it takes just a little bit of energy do lethal damage to living tissue. DirkvdM 08:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

microbiology

how does a cell make a membrane protein, from dna to mature protein?

Please don't ask entire homework questions (I'm guessing this is a homework question, though i may be wrong). I can't answer the question for you, but you might find some information at membrane protein or by searching google. -Benbread 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to read the article on Protein biosynthesis. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an incredibly broad question, imo too broad to be homework. you want transcription, translation, translocon, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, secretion, cell membrane, integral membrane protein. a lot of work there, enjoy. Xcomradex 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chest hair

Why do I only have a single spot, about 5 cm by 5 cm, on my the left side of my chest that keeps growing chest hair? It's bugging the hell out of me. I want either a completely hairless chest or a chest that grows hair in a larger, symmetrical area. What can I do about this? JIP | Talk 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just happens that way at times. I suggest shaving it until it comes in more evenly, especially if you are a woman. :-) StuRat 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, that's so mean Stu =D --mboverload @ 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is lucky Stu answered first. I would have diagnosed him with unilateral pectoral hypotrichosis (or hypertrichosis, depending on which side he wants to consider normal), recommended unilateral depilation (or unilateral minoxidil) and charged him $200. alteripse 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, no Wikipedian discount? Tito xd^(?!?) 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the discounted fee. alteripse 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have traces of a third nipple that shows up as a small patch of hair on the side of the chest. TheSPY 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, hair grows around nipples (i.e., periareolar), not on them. Accessory nipples are not the same as hair patches-- they are usually reddish bumps along the milk line. alteripse 17:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hyperterminal

Hi, I'm interested in writing a program in Python/C++/VB 6.0 that people can connect to over the internet with Hyperterimal or another similar client. Wondering where to start...

I would like the program to accept commands from Hyperterminal, process them, and send back a result (eventually I hope to make a working, albeit very simple MUD)

Thanks, -Kyle

There are many ways. But why not start by experimenting with "telnet"? On the server machine, write some shell scripts or other programs that return stuff, then connect to that machine remotely and invoke those scripts. --GangofOne 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that might be a good starting point. Thanks,-Kyle

One thing to keep in mind is that, regarding the server, the simplest solution isn't the best. When supporting only a single client, a simple server can just accept a connection over a socket and wait for input from the client, then execute input when it arrives and send back the results of its processing. When multiple clients come into the picture, however, the server can't wait on a single client: you need to be a bit more clever and have it, e.g., cycle through each connected socket, buffering any input until it finds a newline character, then executing that particular client's command and continuing cycling. Likely you can find example code online to do this sort of thing. 128.197.81.223 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred between gulls and magpies

I've seen this happen a few times - gulls and magpies seem to have a mutual dislike of each other. Today I observed a magpie and a lesser black-backed gull stood on opposite sides of the roof, eying each other up aggressively. The magpie was chattering angrily, while the gull was giving it an icy stare and lowering its head to the ground as though to attack (as they do). Neither would back down and it ended up with both birds running headlong at each other and a session of squabbling, biting and flapping. The fight went on for a good minute or so.

This is not the first time I've seen this sort of thing happen. As well as individual fights, I've seen groups of magpies attacking groups of gulls, groups of gulls attacking groups of magpies, groups of magpies hassling lone gull fledgelings, groups of gulls hassling lone magpie fledgelings, both species chasing each other in flight, etc.

Anyone know why this occurs?

For the record (before anyone starts one of those 'who would win in a fight?' threads), the magpie came out on top. It seemed to have slightly faster reflexes and managed to evade most of the gull's pecks, whilst managing to inflict enough of its own to eventually cause the larger bird to lose its nerve. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, I see you still have nothing but gulls on that diseased brain of yours...time to administer electroshock therapy...BZZZZZZT. There, is that any better ? StuRat 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I mentioned magpies too! C'mon - it was too cool not to mention... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully positioned the electrodes to preserve the magpie portion of your brain, at least until that becomes a fetish and requires a second round of electroshock therapy. :-) StuRat 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww! Just answer the question willya? The suspense is killin' me... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any warfare, either within a species or between species, is likely to be over competition for a scarce resource (assuming neither preys on the other). Perhaps they are in competition over food, nesting places, etc. ? StuRat 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude. :) I've just been thinking about it now. Both species are known to eat the eggs of other birds from time to time, though it would take a *very* brave predator to attempt a raid on the nests of either of these species. I suppose that magpies do occasionally steal gull eggs and vice versa - which I suppose could go some way explain it. When both species come into contact, there is nearly always an instant agressive response, so perhaps they do perceive each other as a threat. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, aren't magpies notorious thieves ? Perhaps they steal nesting material from the gulls. StuRat 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a couple of occasions, I've seen them trying sneak up and steal (i.e. pluck) feathers from sleeping gulls, much in the same way as they have been known to pull fur from cats and dogs to line their nests. This annoys the gulls, as I'm sure you can imgaine (I cannot personally understand why they take such risks with species more than capable of killing them). --Kurt Shaped Box 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have more than enough reasons for gulls to hate magpies, I suggest the gulls attack and this causes the same response from the magpies. StuRat 00:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose magpies are called thieves by humans because they like shiny things, just like humans do (very much so, if you look at silver prices). If they would just 'steal' branches for their nests we wouldn't call them thieves because we don't give a ~~Stu~~rat's arse about branches. DirkvdM 09:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call anything that takes possessions of another animal a thief. I suppose one could argue for theft from a plant, as well, but since dead, fallen branches are typically used for nests, that certainly isn't theft. In the case of magpies, stealing fur and feathers currently attached to cats and birds most definitely counts as theft, and I don't blame those animals at all for being rather upset over it, even ignoring the pain. StuRat 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be called a thief if you don't know you are one? Something like the difference between murder and manslaughter. The intention also counts. How can a magpie know that a ring belongs to someone? I don't mean that animals don't know the concept of possession (else they'd be perfect commies :) ) but do they even know that the house they find it in is someone's possession? It's just a (fancy) cave that some other bipedal creature also frequents. For inhabitants of a house, we use most parts of it very infrequently, compared to other animals' 'homes' (nests, from a magpie's perspective). DirkvdM 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you even admit they can be called thieves for stealing feathers currently attached to a gull ? StuRat 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a view of a fair bit of feathered wildlife from my window and noticed that coots are also incredibly aggressive. They attack anything that comes near them (except for swans - they're not that stupid). They even attack their own young. I suppose a lot of birds do that to tell them to go live on their own, but the coots are really aggressive, pecking their heads hard and chasing them for a long time to do so. Once some ducklings came close to a coot, which started an attack but was stopped by a very brave duck mother. I was impressed (and so was the coot). Don't mess with a mother! DirkvdM 09:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a really horrific scene in David Attenborough's "Life of Birds" series in which parent coots systematically harass, attack and kill several of their own chicks. This apparently happens once they've decided which ones are the strongest and most likely to survive - the others are thus a drain on resources and expendable. I know that nature is 'red in tooth and claw (and beak)' but I was really distressed by it. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like magpies, so I'll comment on the gull question too. I wouln't anthropomorphize these birds to the point of describing them as harboring hatred or holding grudges. However, territoriality based on competition (both are scavengers, after all) is a probable reason for the behaviors. I see it with songbirds, too -- for example, starlings chasing robins. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, my freezer broke down yesterday and I ended up with a couple of loaves of soggy bread, which I threw out for the birds this afternoon. One of the local black-backed gulls was sat on the roof opposite, keeping an eye on the bread but showing no interest in eating it (as far as I know, gulls don't particularly like bread and will only eat it if they're hungry and there is no other food around). A couple of magpies flew down and started to eat, at which point the gull suddenly became *very* interested and started attacking the magpies. It swooped down, deliberately crashed into one of the birds and tried to bite its throat. The typical struggle, flapping, bickering and aerial chase followed, though this time gull and magpie were grappling with their beaks in mid-air, which was quite interesting to observe. You've gotta love gull logic - "This food is mine. The fact that I don't want or need it does not alter the fact that it is mine. Those that attempt to take what is mine are my enemies. I must attack my enemies". It seems almost human... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have this really interesting image of a little shed on a tiny island completely covered in gull feces owned by a tiny shriveled old Britain that has fed the resident gull population for so long that they have permanently taken up residence in his chimney and are starting to get possesive about who get's to be the "master's pet". freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lived the first two decades of my life in a building that had birch trees on one side and a somewhat lower building on the other. We regularly had crows or magpies nesting in the trees and gulls nesting on the roof of the adjacent building. Over the years, I made a couple of observations that seemed to hold almost always:

On the side with the trees, we'd have a pair of either crows or magpies, but not both. They'd compete over the same nest, which got rebuilt year after year, and one species or the other would win. Often the losing couple would try to build a nest in a nearby tree, but they rarely succeeded in raising chicks; either they'd be chased away while trying to build a second nest too close to first one, or they'd choose a less suitable place for their nest and have it destroyed by wind, squirrels, humans and/or other birds.
On top of the adjacent building, there'd be one gull nest, usually of herring gulls. Sometimes the smaller common gulls or black-headed gulls would try to build a nest at the other end of the roof; the herring gulls would drive them off or kill them. I never saw more than one herring gull nest on the same roof, although there usually was another one on top of our building.
The gulls did harrass the corvids, and vice versa. Usually the gulls seemed to have air superiority, but the crows and magpies had one major advantage; they were safe in the trees, where the gulls couldn't safely follow them. So the gulls and the corvids would coexist, if grudgingly.

All in all, I got the distinct impression that, when nesting sites are not too crowded, both gulls and corvids tend to avoid nesting too close to others of their own species, and will go to considerable efforts to drive away any other species which they percieve as competitors. Of course, this has to be conditional behavior; gulls nesting in crowded island colonies certainly can't affort such luxury, if they want to nest at all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MUD with largest player base

google searches have failed me. I'm looking for a list of the current largest MUD's on the net.

If http://www.topmudsites.com/ is to be believed, then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardwolf_MUD

is one of the largest?

Thanks, -Kyle

Wattage

How many watts is 120V 60Hz AC at 0.45 amps? What is the formula to solve such problems? Thanks. - MSTCrow 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see Power (physics) and Electric power --GangofOne 00:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears to be 54 watts, if I'm doing this correctly. - MSTCrow 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, assuming a purely resistive phase factor (which in fact you have to or else there isn't enough information in the question). Arbitrary username 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

memorize WAV (like "hi!") Watts = Amps * Volts. WAV. You have to have to have to memorize that. Hey there! wav.

July 9

Hatred between gulls and moonpies

The above question inspired me, how can anyone hate a marshmallow filled dessert? They're just so delicious, it boggles the mind--152.163.100.74 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blame the Jews. --George 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a Jew, and the idea of a marshmallow filled dessert sounds pretty gross to me. - MSTCrow 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonpies? Try a pav instead. BTW, what is it with gulls and maglevs? Grutness...wha? 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the gulls and magnetos that are the real enemies. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful advice: If a gull won't eat it, you probably shouldn't be eating it yourself. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But the reverse does not apply. Gulls eat all sort of shit that isn't safe for humans. JackofOz 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It always makes me wonder just how strong a gull's immune system actually is. They seem to be able to consume even the most putrid of matter without becoming ill - in fact they seem to thrive on it. Fun fact: gulls will not eat quorn (the one time I threw some to them, one bird ate a small piece, immediately horked it back up, looked at it suspiciously, then started protesting very loudly both to me and the other gulls), which leads me to believe that there is something very, very wrong with it. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best.. ?

Whast's the best place/method on the internet to find lots and lots of free high quality pr0n?--Question1 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia reference desk. Sorry. —Keenan Pepper 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - but you have to give him credit - he tried to ask it in sort of a scientific-sounding way. --Bmk 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Google Image, did you remember to turn SafeSearch off? That step is key. —Keenan Pepper 05:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a pron redirect. I thought it was a taipow (no, no redirect for that). DirkvdM 09:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.google.com -- Koffieyahoo 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go to www.discretesex.com or www.jonsvids.com =) many many free videos that lead to sites with even more free videos =))) -PitchBlack

Running MAC apps on a Windows box

Is there any way to run simple, terminal programs written for the MAC on a pc? Is there a virtual machine, or a compability layer or an emulator or anything? Oskar 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The title says Mac apps, the question refers to terminal scripts. Which is it? OS 9 or OS X? If OS X, terminal scripts are sh or bash scripts. bash can be run on Windows (somehow I assume you are not using Linux) if you get Cygwin. Or maybe I misunderstand your question, what is it you want to run? There exists an OLD Mac 7 emulator, "Executor"... --GangofOne 07:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new Macs are 80x86 based, so they're pc's in a sense, but that's probably not what you meant. DirkvdM 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

This IS a homework question, but id really appreciate if someone could explain HOW to do it (I've looked in the textbook and can't find the appropriate method) 'A runner, starting from rest, speedsup uniformly to a velocity of 6.0 m/s in 4.0 s. continues at this velocity for another 10s. and then slows down to a stop in 2.0s Draw the velocity time graph for the runner (done that) and determine how far the runner has travelled (This is the part I'm stuck with). Help is appreciated as i do need to study for the exam tomorrow. Thank you in advance.

Break the calculation into the three parts, each of which has a different acceleration (in one case, the acceleration is zero). Use s = u . t + (1/2) . a . t² (can't remember what formula this is, but you should have been taught it more recently than I was; it's one of a set of three). In fact, this formula makes more sense if you realise that your task could also be expressed as "give the area under the graph", but I don't remember being taught that. Notinasnaid 07:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah found it. See Equation of motion#classic version. The first three of the "classic" equations shown are so important you will be expected to remember them and use them during any exam. Notinasnaid 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I understand now thanks all.

you have a graph of velocity vs. time, so just take the area under the graph. Just look at the units, m/s * s = m. That's visually what the mathematics/calculus is doing. -Kyle

Hallucination

What is the specific name of hallucinatory effect of seeing animal or other creatures heads on a person (drug influenced or otherwise)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.221.200 (talk • contribs)

The closest I can find in the OED is zo'oscopy: a species of hallucination in which imaginary animal forms are seen.--Shantavira 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful word. That's why I love the OED. Perhaps you could use this as the basis for a more fantastical neologism, like monstroscopy; or a more specific neologism, like zoocephaloscopy: a hallucination in which animal heads are seen; more specific yet, circumcorporeal zoocephaloscopy: hallucination in which animal heads appear around a body—pretty close, eh? Bhumiya (said/done) 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even chimeroscopy, that of seeing hybrid creatures, perhaps. Confusing Manifestation 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does twisting add strength?

Is a twisted structure stronger than a non-twisted structure of the same basic shape? If built from the same materials, on the same scale, would this be stronger than this? I have a special fondness for spiral architecture and I was wondering if there's any actual advantage in it. Intuitively, I would think so, but I'm no architect. Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be talking about compression strength, so I would say no. There might be an advantage in making wind load more consistent, by not presenting a single flat surface which can act as a sail, but I suspect the cost savings of making a rectangular box would allow for enough overdesign to compensate for this. Spiral shapes do help in ropes under tension, to secure the strands together and ensure that the force is distributed evenly to the strands. In architecture, however, I suspect it's purely for aesthetics. StuRat 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

Not sure it's stronger for it, but you might like to see this famous example of twisting. The folk stories of "how" this happened are charming (Chesterfield). --Dweller 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laptops needing harddrives

Why do laptops still use harddrives? Would miniSD's allow for a more compact design and eliminate the point of failure that is inherent in spinning drives?

For some applications – some portable music players come to mind – the durability and lower power requirements of solid-state storage do make that option more attractive. However, the price per gigabyte of storage is still much higher for solid state memory compared to spinning hard disks. A hundred gigabyte solid-state drive would cost thousands of dollars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, and shortly we may start to see laptops without hard drives. We may eventually see the same thing in desktop computers, but the weight and size of hard drives is less of an issue there, and cost is more of an issue, so it may take a while. The heat and noise of hard drives is also a negative which will be fixed by going to SD cards. StuRat 17:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most hard drives have a data transfer rate much higher than even the fastest SD cards, if I'm not mistaken. Sum0 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is a limitation on miniSD and related technologies: they all use flash memory, which has a limited number of write cycles. Unless you are using an operating system designed to be used on flash memory, the repeated use (for instance, virtual memory, temporary files, and atime updates) will wear it down too quickly. A hard disk drive can be written to many more times than flash memory (and, in fact, the main factor on wearing it down would be either the bearings failing or stiction). Some modern systems are being designed with flash memory in mind; for instance, the OLPC project laptops (see $100 laptop). --cesarb 18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Write cycle limits are a problem but they are improving all the time. They are also getting better at fault tolerance so they will continue to work without interruption as cells go bad. Price per GB is also improving constantly. Samsung is working on viable solid state disks for small laptops and tablet PCs, as seen in this somewhat dated article Arstechnica. The key benefits to solid state disks are high g-force tolerance (translated: drop-proof) and low energy consumption (around 5% of platter type disks). In short, they aren't out yet but be on the lookout for this technology, it has the potential to dramatically improve portable computing.

Bumblebee stings

I'm puzzled by the evolution of this. Since the use of the sting kills the bee, surely the first bees to develop this mutation should by definition have not survived to pass on the advantage? --Dweller 19:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worker bees, the ones most likely to sting, never reproduce anyway. See: honeybee life cycle and bee sting. Dragons flight 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how have they evolved at all? --Dweller 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one breeding female per hive, the queen. Most of her children are infertile worker bees that do the grunt work and protect the hive. So basically, the queen evolved the ability to create an army of sterile slaves to protect her own genetic heritage. Dragons flight 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my (second) question. Since the workers cannot breed, how do they evolve? --Dweller 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'They' don't, they're all the same species, but the Queen that produces more effective worker bees, is more likely to live long enough to reproduce, where as a queen that produces ineffective worker bees, isn't as likely to live long enough to reproduce--71.249.9.254 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember from the article, the use of the sting only kills when used against mammals, not other bees, wasps, etc. Emmett5 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(bringing it back here) Not sure I buy that... a tiny freaky mutation in an individual might help its survival and therefore "protect" the mutation. But this individual is hardly going to make much of an impact on the survival chances of the queen. --Dweller 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because queens make the workers, mutations in her can allow her to create more effective workers. Hence workers evolve through evolution in the queen. Dragons flight 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionarily speaking, you can think of a hive as a single organism. The worker bees are like legs or organs of the queen, except they are physically distinct. It's sort of like asking why a macrophage (white blood cell) engulfs foreign bacteria, when doing so is fatal to the macrophage. It's not autonomous; it's part of its organism (i.e. you). Likewise, a worker bee is part of the hive organism because it does not reproduce. This idea taken to its extreme is called the gene-centered view of evolution. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that queen bees have smooth stingers and can sting mammals more than once without dying supports this view. The queen has evolved to survive, while the workers have evolved to be useful to the queen. Crazywolf 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not even sure bumblebee bees have hives. 2. Honey bees' stingers can repeatedly sting another insect, so I would imagine that most threats to bees come from other predatory and/or thieving (of their honey) insects, so it didn't make much sense to bother if the occassional bee happens to come across a mammal with much tougher and elastic skin and ends up kiling itself. - MSTCrow 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bumblebees do have hives, but they are small and do not resemble the honeycomb hives of honey bees.

2. Bumblebees' stingers are the smooth ones. Honeybees do have barbed stingers. And while honeybees are able to sting other instects in certain circumstances withuot dying, they have many predators which are not insects, see the predator section of honeybee.

It seems that the bumblebees evolved in a more individualistic fashion, what with their non-self-lethal attacks and ability to mate with non-queen females, and the honeybees evolved more as an organism, as described above.Tuckerekcut 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i remember correctly, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene makes a very elegant explanation for how hive communities evolve and why it makes evolutionary sense (from a gene-centered perspective) for drones and workers to sacrifice themselves for the good of the Queen. Rockpocket 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't read The Selfish Gene, Dawkins is exactly who I was thinking of when I wrote my response above. :) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated (finally), onoly honeybee workers have barbed stings - all other bees and wasps (including honeybee queens) that have stings can use them repeatedly. Even yellowjackets, which have very weak barbs, have not yet reached the point where their stings are suicidal, but they're headed in that direction. There is no dilemma, either, as others have noted: if a mutant female who produces sterile daughters ULTIMATELY leaves more fertile offspring as a result of their assistance, then that mutation will spread, as will any mutations that make her daughters more effective at keeping their mother alive and allowing her to produce fertile offspring. It doesn't even require a "gene-centered" model. It's called an evolutionarily stable strategy. Dyanega 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach

How come eating raw spinach makes my teeth feel funny? Does it have some kind of astringent? —Keenan Pepper 20:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the reason, but spinach does contain oxalic acid. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the blame is usually put either directly on oxalic acid which supposedly slightly etches the surface of the teeth, or the gritty texture is attributed to oxalate crystals leaching out of the damaged plant cells. Femto 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I know what that is. Thanks! —Keenan Pepper 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in a way, it's bad to eat spinach because it etches your teeth? Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just swallow it without chewing. Or get someone else to chew it for you. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as a cooking pot. Note he was talking about raw spinach. I'm not sure if that is healthy to eat anyway. DirkvdM 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this anything like the funny feeling I get on my teeth when I eat a pear? (which is why I don't) DirkvdM 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get that feeling whenever I eat barbed wire. --Dweller 10:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, for the million dollar question...is the spinach damaging my teeth or helping it? I read that spinach is high in magnesium and magnesium is helpful to tooth enamel.

sun-oriented structures

i am currently building a labyrinth based on thee design of the labyrinth at chartre cathedral. one aspect of the design is the suggestion by one author, richard "feather" anderson i believe, that the entrance should be oriented to face the rising sun at the summer solstice. i would appreciate help in determining the significance and meaning of the eastern orientation and whether there are other examples.

thank you for your consideration and attention.

bruce haggerstone

As stated in the instructions, please don't put your e-mail address on this page. That's begging for spam. --George 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

Leaders in thinking

I'm building the List of thinking-related topics, and I'm working on the "Leaders in thinking" section. I'm trying to find major scholars, researchers, and experts on thinking to add to the list. The emphasis is on thinking skills. So far I've found the following:

The list

Who else belongs on this list?

I'd appreciate any additions to this list. Thanks.

--Transhumanist 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Turing? Or is this just living people? —Keenan Pepper 01:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Or am I not really seeing what you're getting at? Dismas|^(talk) 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Experts on thinking" a little ambiguous? Perhaps you need to define the type of people that you want a little more tightly, eg. "Experts in human intelligence" or "Experts in cognitive psychology" etc. BenC7 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to add Richard Feynman, though this does seem to be a living-only list (otherwise there are a LOT of big names missing). Grutness...wha? 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a very neat idea for an article, although I'm not sure how you'd objectively qualify who belongs and who doesnt other than opinion. Maybe "List of leaders in thinking" and categorize it by field, since for each field one can probably identify respected "leaders". Look up the article or categories on genius which links to some well known thinkers, or look up category:philosophers? What'd heklp is if you define better what you are considering. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must include Freebytes in this list even if you are trying to be brief. I know for a fact he is a thinker, and this is not merely first hand research. There is information online indicating he is an expert thinker as well. Freebytes 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sciences

We might use some of Isaac Asimov's factual text books to help with the ideas, but I think something useful might be like a flow chart of who was first to come up with some idea in science, that is generally accepted today, like Neuton for physics. Then other science thinkers took what had been figured out by prior great minds, to come up with new theories, like Einstein. The great thinkers are the people who were first to figure out the details and communicate them effectively to the rest of the scientific world. User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy dreams...

Hi,

Sometimes when I am sleeping, I would be startled by the thought that I am tripping up in the stairs and my legs will involuntarily kick in respond to the thought. Then I would wake up.

Strangely this "dream" generates no image, i.e. I can not actually see stairs as I am having the thought of tripping up.

Can anyone explain why this happens and how can I stop having it?

--inky 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is called clonus, though the description in the WP article seems a bit different. My experience is not quite the same as yours; I usually have a dream that I remember at least a little bit of, and there's the sensation of falling and then of impact (I feel the impact in my whole body, not just my legs). As to how to stop it I have no idea; maybe just knowing that it's a common experience, and harmless (as far as I know), might put you at ease about it. --Trovatore 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a more specific article at hypnic jerk. --Trovatore 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who you calling a jerk? ;) Rockpocket 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Trovatore! --inky 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between solstice and the coldest/warmest average daily temperatures

Why is there a lag time between the winter/summer solstice and the coldest/warmest average daily temperatures? For example, the winter solstice is on June 21 for the southern hemisphere, but the coldest part of the year in my city (Melbourne, Australia) is in July. Similarly, the summer solstice is in December, but the warmest part of the year is in Jan/Feb. See here for average Melbourne temperatures. -- User:E! 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of the thermal mass of the earth and water of the locality absorbing (or giving up) the heat over weeks which causes the time lag. Although the most heat may arrive from the sun at the summer solstice, it is the combination of that and the heat that is already stored in the locality which will determine the temperature experienced. (Of course there's atmospheric and oceanic mixing and many other factors involved.) I see a parallel with the general experience that a day's high temperature is typically closer to 3pm than to noon. -R. S. Shaw 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date of maximum/minimum sunlight corresponds to the highest/lowest average equilibrium temperature. However, it takes time to reach this equilibrium, as has been said in Shaw's post. See the seasonal lag page - User: Nightvid

Thanks to you both. The seasonal lag page is exactly what I was after. -- E! 21:00, 11 July 2006 (AEST)

Gosh Numbers

Wikiscientists, if you are interested, please help determine this afd discussion about Gosh Numbers. Thanks! Bwithh 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical basis of miniaturization

Miniaturizing or enlarging object (or people) is a common theme in science fiction. Is anyone aware any theoretical framework which could accomplish this (not the actual machinery, but the physical processes involved)? The individual atoms and molecules would probably all have to be miniaturized, but I am not sure how this could be accomplished. I searched Wikipedia a bit and found Resizing (fiction), which doesn't really help. My quantum mechanics is quite rusty; I am not sure if electrons or quarks have radii in any sense that would need to be reduced. One problem one might run into would be violations of Heisnberg's uncertainty principle, though perhaps it would not apply or would be modified under different physics. In Isaac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage II, I believe the explanation behind the miniaturization was that Planck's constant was reduced as well, which would solve that problem. I really can't recall the format of electron wavefunctions, but I don't believe that reducing Planck's constant would size of the wavefunction (that is, the distance from the nucleus). Is there a term that one could vary to change the wavefunction in this matter? How about the electron mass? Presumably the quark and electron masses would all have to be decreased as well, otherwise you'd end up with a very dense object. Actually, maybe that would allow escape from the uncertainly principle. I lack any quantum-mechanical knowledge of the structure of nuclei, so I have no idea what would be involved in shrinking inter-quark distances to decrease the size of the protons and neutrons or what would be involved in decreasing the nucleus itself. Presumably, too, charge would be decreased too, right? Actually maybe that could provide the suitable modification to the electron wavefunctions? If anyone has any thoughts, please share. If this doesn't make sense, just ask me, and I'll be glad to clarify. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no theoretical basis for this; it makes no more sense than the idea that, exposed to radiation, an entire organism would mutate, or that if you're bitten by a radioactive spider you get mysterious spider powers. It just makes for good storytelling. Notinasnaid 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you're correct, but you might be misunderstanding my point. While of course one would not expect that a bite from a radioactive spider could rewrite genes in a concerted fashion throughout an organism, it is certainly plausible that someone with an altered genome, perhaps as part of in vitro fertilization, could have abilities normal humans don't have. I'm not interested in the mechanics behind any of the stories involving miniaturization, but rather if it is possible from a theoretical standpoint. Or are you saying that you don't think it's possible under any circumstances? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a Farscape episode, someone who had been miniaturised observed that this was impossible. Either everything was reduced down to the molecular scale, meaning she shouldn't be able to breathe normal air (the molecules wouldn't be able to interact) or the molecules remained the same size, in which there would be just a fraction of them, which would have meant that she had just a tiny brain, insufficient to think this through the way she did. DirkvdM 09:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been impossible in the episode, though I'm not talking about a specific science fiction work's portrayal of miniaturization. Interactions with the rest of the universe are problematic, and probably would depend on the putative physics involved. But the air problem isn't a barrier to miniaturizing a bookshelf, for instance, or a human in a space suit. right? In Fantastic Voyage II it was a submarine-type vehicle with an onboard life-support system. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with miniturization is that although people and objects look "big" on a macro scale, they are in fact comprized of billions of molecular level processes, and molecular physics is based upon universal forces and laws which are dependent upon scale. Thus, to shrink a person to 1/10 of their size, you have to remove 90% of their "contents". Since it's not obvious how individual processes like protein folding and synapse gaps could be "shrunk", and the balance between forces such as electromagnetic force, weak force and strong force and quantum interactions, vary according to scale, it's not clear if these molecules could be shrunk by any process. So you'd have to remove 90% of them instead. Remove 90% of the molecules in the brain? Would people's cognition not vary? So... see the problem? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I see the problem; it looks to me like you're just re-expressing my question.I am trying to explore ways in which the electromagnetic force and such could be modified. Of course it's not clear if molecules could be shrunk, but I'm wondering if anyone can think of a consistent quantum-mechanical framework for this; that's the whole point. Why are you suggesting removing molecules? That has nothing to do with miniaturization. If I chop a block of wood in half, I haven't shrunk the wood, just cut out part of it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He not only re-expressed your question but also part of my answer (you cheat, you! :) ), the point of which was that if you don't do this by miniaturising the molecules (and quarks and what have you), you're left with less space, so fewer molecules for the brain. But you do mean to miniaturise the molecules. You solved the lung-interaction by limiting it to objects or putting any person in some container. But then there would still be a contact layer somewhere (unless you miniaturise the entire universe) and that should have some strange effects. Can't think of which, though. DirkvdM 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an object is not based on the size of it's particles, but rather the strength of the forces they exert on eachother. You could just place a coefficient next to every distance or displacement variable in every physics equations. If you made that coefficient 2, then the person would shrink to half their height. There is plenty of room between the atomic particles for them to get closer together if the repulsive electromagnetic forces got weaker and the attractive ones stronger. I don't know anything about the strong and weak nuclear forces, but it's simple algebra that any equation can be scaled in this manner. Crazywolf 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory Futurama quote: "Oh my no, that would require extremely tiny atoms. Have priced those lately? I'm not made of money, leave me alone!" —Keenan Pepper 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers, and I hope I didn't come across snippy earlier. Yeah, DirkvdM and others, I think that science fiction traditionally ignores the problematic interaction between miniaturized and normal-sized matter, though without a theoretical framework, it's difficult to predict how such interactions might occur. Of course, the way the miniaturized people were able to breath air in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (or the dog eat an enlarged snack) is quite implausible. In Fantastic Voyage II', I believe there was a miniaturization field around the ship; it was transparent to light certainly, and not impermeable--occasionally an RBC would contact it too forcefull and become miniaturized. I wonder, too, how gravity would affect such matter. Or energy, too. Would the gaps in electron energy levels be less? Perhaps visible light would appear blue-shifted to miniaturized people. In any case, this speculation is getting too extreme even for me, so I'll stop. Thanks again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other means for shrinking.. though its highly theoretical and unsure if it "counts"...

Space-time itself is flexible. A procedure that flexed space-time itself, might solve the problem. Theres some big speculation on this in cosmology and the Big Bang. basically, the question is, is the universe expanding, or is space-time expanding. The former would be matter and energy moving into places it wasnt, the latter would be the fabric of space-time changing to create the illusion of space and time, in a limited bubble. Don't know if that helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ionic equation

Homework question-again im interested in HOW to do it.

HCl+ KOH -------> H2O+KCl

Now i am supposed to write an ionic equation for this. The problem is that KCl is soluble in water, and water is obviously a liquid. Im at a bit of a loss as to how to write an ionic equation without having any precipates.

Believe it or not, without precipitates, you actually get more ionic substances. If it's soluble in water, it falls apart into ions. Take a look at ionic equation and see which form you need to use. - 131.211.210.10 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So i take that the (unbalanced) ionic equation would be H+ + Cl- + K+ + Cl- -------> 2H+ O- + K+ + Cl- ?

What happened to the hydroxyl ion on the reactant side? You've got double chloride ions. And you should write water on the right as a molecule - H2O. It's a neutralization reaction. Even if you did want to write water as three dissociated ions, the oxygen would have a charge of -2, not -1. But it's best to write it as H2O. The K+ + Cl- on the right side is correct, though. --Bmk 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the instructions say to write a full ionic equation or a net ionic equation? A net ionic equation does not include spectator ions. —Keenan Pepper 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split up the left hand side into its component parts. You end up with two ionic equations: K+ + Cl- --> KCl and H+ + OH- --> H2O. It is not useful to write them all completely dissociated as you have done above, as it doesn't actually tell the reader what happened. BenC7 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full: H+ (aq) + Cl- (aq) + K+ (aq) + OH- (aq) -> H2O (l) + K+ (aq) + Cl- (aq)

Net: H+ (aq) + OH- (aq) -> H2O (l)

-- Миборовский 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an infinite nature to the universe?

As we all know scientists have dated the "universe" to approximately 13.7 billion years old. But is it possible that nothingness is a phase of universal creation, and state that it has existed infinitely rather then arbitrary 13.7 billion years? If not, is there a acceptable name by which the inexistance of the universe should be called?--John Brown 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soooo...what was BEFORE the creation of the universe? how were the gases and rocks (creation of bigbang?) there in the first place? what about before the gases and rocks. if there was absolutely nothing at one time in the universe, how did it get created at all? sorry about not answering the question :) -PitchBlack

There are currently no falsifiable hypotheses about what existed before the "big bang". So if you want to pick a name for whatever, if anything, came before, it's up to you :). --Bmk 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to call it "Bernard". --Dweller 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common counter is that, with the Big Bang, time was also created. Thus, the question "What happened before the Big Bang?" is meaningless, as there was no before. --GTubio 00:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that more proper than saying "time was created" at the big bang, it would be to say that the directionality of time (it passes, rather than just extending like 'normal' dimensions) is a direct consequence of the traumatic past event it points away from. This would mean that time would lose its timelike quality again at some point in the "future". The more you think about it, the more it appears that the universe is a vacuum fluctuation; meaning we just borrowed some energy to imagine we exist before we have to hand it back :) dab (ᛏ) 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you ask the question. As a personal persepective, I will die, and therefore my experience of the universe will be finite. In terms of how the universe actually is, the universe is also finite as it has a current limit of expansion. Do you mean 'Is space infinite'? --russ 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible says clearly that God designed and created everything. It's an interesting theory. --à 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how clever are magpies in comparison to gulls?

While I'm sure that both species are near the top of the tree when it comes to avian intelligence, which one is the most intelligent? Has there ever been any studies on this sort of thing? Magpies certainly look smarter on the surface to me. Their look and mannerisms seem to suggest quick-wittedness and curiosity, though I know this might not nescessarily be the case. Likewise, a gull's 'thuggish' look and mannerisms make it look less smart than it probably is. I mean, they have humans pretty much sussed out, don't they? Anyone have more info? The thread above has got me thinking. --84.66.226.181 11:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magpies are members of the crow family, which are widely acknowledged to be exceptionally intelligent. See this link, for example. When there is food on my lawn, magpies have the sense to come down and eat it while the gulls merely circle noisily overhead.--Shantavira 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that gulls are very wary of large piles of food dropped by humans. They tend to fly around or perch nearby for a while to see what happens - they like to wait for one bird to take the plunge and go first. If nothing bad happens to him/her, the rest of the gulls pile in to feed. A sign of intelligence (c'mon - would you trust a human to give you something for nothing?) or an example of herd-mentality stupidity? You decide. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the intelligence of gulls, I was once told an anecdote by a friend who works at the local landfill site. Apparently, every six months or so, the local council decides to 'do something about the gulls' at the tip, so the men with guns are dispatched to 'thin the herd'. According to him, the gulls understand the concept of 'gun' very well indeed and will flee as soon as the hunters appear. What was really interesting about this story was that the gulls apparently know the difference between rifles and shotguns (presumably after seeing several of their fellows being shot down over the years). If they see a shotgun, they take off en-masse into the air and fly as high as possible, out of the range of the pellets. If the men have rifles, the gulls panic and get out of the area as quickly as possible, keeping low to the ground, flying at high speed and zig-zagging, as though they know how to throw off their aim. I've never seen this at first hand but it's certainly an interesting observation, if accurate... --Kurt Shaped Box 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seriously need to start a separate "Gull" reference desk :) --Bmk 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a baseball game the other day which started at 2 PM local time, although the games usually start at 1 PM. When the games are over, the gulls swoop down to pick through all of the garbage left behind. They showed up an hour before the end of the game, apparently totally confused by the late start time. Apparently, they carry wristwatches. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats my groggy feeling after stretching?

sometimes, when i get a really good stretch (standing up, arms high up) i get a really groggy and tired feeling over my body for maybe 15 seconds. i dont really know why this happens. probably the best guess i can come up with, is that while stretching all those muscles, chemicals are released to relax you? or probably relax the muscle? somebody please clear this up for me. -PitchBlack

This is my guess, but I always assumed it is because it takes a while for the heart to start pumping fast enough to accomadate the active state you have just entered suddenly, and time for the pressure to psread arround the body. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called orthostatic hypotension. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled Task Manager

Someone (or more likely, something) has disabled the task manager in my Windows system. How can I restore it? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.50.38.173 (talk • contribs) 14:27, July 10, 2006 (UTC).

Your box has been rooted. Run a spyware and a virus scan. If that does not work, reformat and install Ubuntu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.179.101 (talk • contribs) 14:43, July 10, 2006 (UTC).

Could you be a little more precise? What happens when you right-click on the taskbar and select "Task Manager"? On a shared/office machine, the administrator can disable task manager for users of this machine - could that be the case? If you are using a standalone machine, as the above user said, first check for spyware/viruses, some of them disable task manager to make it harder to get rid of them. If that's not the problem, try the procedure on this page: [4] (for Windows XP). Googling your problem also yields some results: [5]. Good luck! — QuantumEleven 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of networked computers have the task manager disabled to disallow tampering. --Proficient 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can the fruit conduct electricity?

If it is so, why is that so?

Fruit conducts electricity because it is basically a fleshy bag of electrolyte solution; that is, water with salts dissolved in it (and a bunch of other stuff). It conducts because the charged ions are free to move and carry current. If you connect fruit to an electrical circuit, instead of free electrons, free ions take over in the fruit as the moving charges. See electrolyte for more info. Also, I think in some cases the non-liquid parts of fruit are responsible for conduction; I imagine orange peel for example is not a great insulator - it probably has significant conductivity. --Bmk 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a single-cell Voltaic pile from an orange, by just attaching copper and zinc electrodes. The voltage will be enough to light a small lightbulb if you wire it up. Also works with sweet potato. Works best with cooked and unpeeled sweet potato. --Kjoonlee 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE! Fruit batteries are far too weak to power even the most sensitive incandescent bulb. (Yet people who have never tried the experiment keep claiming that it works. It's a kind of gradeschool science Urban Legend.) To test a single fruit battery, listen to the clicks when you touch the wires from headphones to the battery's metal plates. On the other hand, three or four fruit-batteries in series can light up a light-emitting diode. LEDs require far less current than flashlight bulbs, but LEDs need about 1.6v before they turn on, while fruit batteries create less than one volt.--Wjbeaty 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - the "orange battery" is a result of another phenomenon - redox reactions. --Bmk 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acidic fruits such as oranges are much better conductors than non-acidic ones such as melons. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason cooked sweet potato is better than raw sweet potato is because the cell walls get ruptured after cooking, leading to more electrolyte and more current. I wonder if anyone's tried with cooked orange. --Kjoonlee 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Zalat and Jonathan Frutt did a thesis on this. They found that the best demonstration of this so-called Frutt-Zalat effect is obtained by mixing up some apples, bananas, oranges and melon, sprinkling with 0.1 molar cinnamon and clove mix, and attaching a car battery to it. Stand well back and ensure someone else takes the blame, as if you do this without due skill and preparation it will cause a minature black hole to be created as a byproduct :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deflating tyres

At a gas/petrol station, there is a machine to inflate/deflate car tyres, and ensure they are at the correct pressure. While using such a machine the other day, I noticed among the many instructions one which I couldn't immediately explain: "do not deflate hot tyres". This had me somewhat puzzled - why not? — QuantumEleven 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the combined gas law for a quantitative explanation. Basically, when tyres get hot, the pressure inside the tyre increases despite there being the same mass of air in there. The pressure on the placard is intended to indicate the correct pressure when the tyres are cold. --Robert Merkel 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right - so if you deflate tires while they are hot, then when they cool down - if it rains or something, then they will deflate further to below a safe pressure, and you could lose control of the car. --198.125.178.207 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks very much everyone! — QuantumEleven 07:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename files using VB .NET 2003

I need to write a program in VB .NET 2003 to search through a folder (and all its subfolders) and rename all the files ending in .mov to .txt. How do I go about doing that? Thanks, 86.41.166.192 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First maybe take a look at some of the file system functions here [6] that you can use to play with and select paths. You can find some sample code to get lists of subdirectories or files here [7]. Then you'll want to use the rename function [8]. That should be a good start. 128.197.81.223 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observable Ray of Light

I often find that while observing an isolated source of light I can see what appear to be rays or concentrated beams which are not directly incident on the eye. i.e I appear to see straight lines of light emerging from the source in divergent directions but only ones which point in directions at an angle from my frame of reference . Could someone explain this phenomenon.

Lens flare basically? 128.197.81.223 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are seeing are indeed rays of light, or rather the photons in the rays that are scattered. Basically, when a light source emits light in all directions, the emitted photons propagate along radial rays. However, when the source emits into a molecular medium like air, some photons are scattered. Therefore, if there is some isolated ray, such as one from the sun through a hole in the clouds or from a flashlight, you are seeing photons that were originally traveling along the ray, but then hit an air molecule or particle in the air and were scattered into your direction. --Bmk 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be referring to Rayleigh scattering, which does indeed occur, but is very likely not to be what is going on here. Part of what you're seeing may come from diffraction caused by your eyelashes. While you didn't specify, I imagine this most often occurs with a bright light source in otherwise darkness. I maintain that my analogy to lens flares is probably also somewhat correct: There are multiple surfaces in your eye off which the incoming light may be reflected, which could cause the effect that you are describing (or perhaps would only cause a hazy sphere around the light, but I expect you see that too). Here [9] is a bit o' text on a related phenomenon. 128.197.81.223 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about other optical effects - I'm not entirely sure what the effect is that the question refers too. I thought it meant the phenomenon of seeing a flashlight beam which is not directed at the observer's eye. Just to clarify what I was saying, the only way for photons from a light ray which is not directed at the observer's eye to reach the observer's eye (and therefore be seen) is for them to be scattered from the medium through which the ray is travelling. If a ray is travelling near an observer but not on an intersecting path, and it is not scattered from its medium (for instance if the medium is vacuum), the observer will not observe it at all. That is essentially why space looks black when you're in space. --Bmk 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The link [10] does relate to exactly what I was referring to. I have to say I preferred to think of it as Bmk suggests rather than as explained in the article. Nevertheless I would like to verify my understanding of this explanation. According to what i understood the straight lines or rays I see are produced within the eye by light passing selectively through diffracting layers of the cornea and tears or fluids just over the cornea. Is this accurate?

I wrote the eyeself.txt article (now moved to eyeself.html .) Yes, the "rays" come from the eye, but mostly they come from reflections off the eyelashes, while some vertical stripe "rays" come from the fluid meniscus at the edges of your eyelids. Hold your eyelids wide open. If the "rays" vanish, they were from eyelashes. Or do the opposite: squint your eyes almost closed, and the "rays" become larger and more numerous.--Wjbeaty 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unknown pain

Dear sir/madam, My husband is a diabetes patient and he is not under medication. For nearly a year he is suffering from pain on the right side of his body below the chest region. We couldn't guess the cause for the pain. I doubt whether his kidney is getting affected. Kindly help me with some possible suggestions.

Thanking you. Anu

It is possible that someone on this reference desk can give you useful information, but it should be noted beforehand that any information here is not a substitute for a licensed medical professional's care; you should see a doctor if you can. I hope you find a solution that can help your husband --Bmk 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an RN, and I second the opinion that your husband should see a physician and that my comment here is not a substitute for that advice. However, upper right quadrant abdominal pain is likely a sign of either cholecystitis, which is inflammation of the gallbladder, or cholelithiasis, which is gallstones. Does the pain get worse after he eats, especially when the meal is fatty? If so, the gallbladder is probably the origin of the pain. A kidney infection would likely produce right flank pain, in his back, not in the front.

It won't get better on its own, and complications are possible if left untreated. Please take your husband to see a physician as soon as possible, because he may need surgery. Good luck. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should go to the doctor. --Proficient 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many time it takes for a dog carcass to decompose

How many time it takes for a dog carcass to decompose? My problem is the following: I have buried my deceased boxer in a field about one year ago, however, the field needs to be ploughed. Is there any change of disintering the dog's carcass? Mário 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are many variables that can affect the decay time for your dog. You can look at decomposition if you'd like. It says there that decay time underground is about 8 times slower than decay time on the surface. In my opinion, your dog's skeleton will certainly still be there, but i would guess that most of the soft tissue is gone by now, especially if you live in a warm climate. If you live somewhere colder, there's a chance decomposition is still taking place. --Bmk 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I live in Portugal, it's warm here. In 2005 a severe drought affected the country, but 2006 has been a rainy year, if that matters. Mário 21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about it, except from seeing deer carcasses in the forest, but my guess is there isn't much left except bones. And I think rain would speed the process. Someone else might have a better/more educated guess, though. --Bmk 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpses in a bog can mummify to a Bog body. It hardly decomposes there partly because there isn't enough oxygen for it. If the field has been ploughed before, not too long ago, that would have loosened the ground and let air in, which would help the decomposition. DirkvdM 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably only bones are left. --Proficient 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quicktime DAT/IDX files

I have an old CD-ROM with a lot of Quicktime media stored in a pair of files called VAULT.DAT and VAULT.IDX. Is there any way to extract individual video files from these files? I've tried Googling around but not found much which was helpful. --Fastfission 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that the quicktime files are stored in a database which comprises .dat (the data) and .idx (database index) files. You may be able to find some software to access them, but I can't recommend one offhand. If the database is a B-Tree of the proper format, this [11] might help you. 128.197.81.223 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

water supply for trees in urban environments

The rainfall in urban areas is generally diverted to the storm-water system, and never reaches the soil. The trees in the cities are usually growing from relatively small openings in the concrete - much smaller than the footprint of the tree's root system. How do urban trees get the necessary water? Is their root system/physiology different than their "natural" counterparts'? -- Nikola 69.5.153.125 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search didn't yeild an answer to your question, but Urban Forestry lists lack of water as one of the possible challenges of urban forrestry, so your question seems a valid one. A solution probably has to be found on a location by location basis. Some possible solutions would be to pick a species of tree that can survive with little water, position the tree so that it recieves runnoff water from buildings or the storm water systems, or to simply water the trees regularly. Crazywolf 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that municipalities typically irrigate their trees. This is usually the responsibility of the Parks Department or a similar department. The trees' root systems, of course, extend under infrastructure like sidewalks and roadways. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Groundwater, Water table and so on. In britain, where I live, if you dig down deep enough you will eventually reach water, like a well. Even when you're not deep enough to reach the water table the earth is still damp, and even if its surface is covered the moisture still slowly passes through the soil so that no parts are left dry. I expect its different in a desert though.

Farmers and others sometimes use a plastic sheet as a mulch. This provides more water for the plants as it stops the soil from drying out. So what you have described could be beneficial to trees. --81.104.12.1 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

Electrochemistry

Would it be possible/useful to stick a strip of magnesium to an unpainted part of a regular car body to protect it from rusting (i.e., as a sacrificial anode)? BenC7 01:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rust article, this would only work if you put the magnesium in an area where it was in contact with both the steel that was being corroded and the water that was doing to corroding. The cathodic protection article implies that this would be a bit complicated, though, as you would have to make sure that the electrochemical potential of the sacrificial anodes is sufficient to eleminate the electrochemical potential of the steel body of the car when they interact with water. Galvanizing the steel or covering it with paint is probably easier. Crazywolf 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right - any spots where water is touching the car, but is not connected by water to the magnesium is not affected by the presence of the magnesium. --Bmk 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what Crazywolf is saying about the potential differences. But Bmk, the water is obviously the water in the atmosphere. This would mean that you can only use a sacrificial anode where it is partially immersed in water and not, say, on a steel beam sitting in your backyard. Are you sure about this? I have a feeling it is just due to the potential difference, as you can purchase electronic devices for your car that provide it with an overall negative electric charge, which is what the sacrificial anode does. And the device is not in contact with the atmosphere. (I hope I am saying that clearly enough.) BenC7 10:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, the metal gets "protection" because a potential-diff is placed across a molecular thin film between the layer of water and the metal. This e-field is so high that it halts the electrochemical reactions in that layer. The e-field in that has a staggeringly huge value, like volts per picometer. To create a similarly high surface-field in humid air with no complete circuit, the car would have to be charged to unattainably high voltage with respect to ground (WAY higher than teravolts.)--Wjbeaty 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I have gathered is that the magnesium has to be in contact with the water in order to have the electrochemical reactions that result in it's giving the steel the negative charge that protects it. It is still probably possible to protect the car from the rusting properties of humid air, if not that of rain, with enough sacrificial anodes placed on the underside of the body and spaced properly. It might be worth exploring, especially for valuable older cars that have lost their rust protection, but would be difficult to rustproof again through galvanizing. Crazywolf 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they use zink on ships. Off the top of my head, that's a lot cheaper than magnesium. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a few metals that you can use for a sacrificial anode. I had no particular reason for picking magnesium. I just saw this thing on telly where a guy (chemist) used a pencil sharpener, which he said was mostly made of magnesium, to protect a long, thin wire that was suspended on floats out at sea. I wondered what the difference was between that wire and a car -- otherwise I'm sure we would all have sacrificial anodes on our car that we would replace every now and then. So I was basically looking for the reason why we don't do that. BenC7 10:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diet problem

Does anyone here know the real solution of the diet problem, how to meet all your nutritional needs and spend as little as possible? Since supplements such as Ensure use added vitamins and minerals as sources rather than whole foods, it appears that the micronutrients must be very cheap. We need water (essentially free), calories, ess. amino acids, ess. fatty acids, and micronutrients. The cheapest source of calories is probably something like unprocessed soybean oil, which also meets fatty acid needs, at around 30¢ per 2000 kcal. Protein probably costs a minimum of around 20¢ for daily requirement (if from soybeans bought in bulk - my calculation). So 50¢ per day of macronutrients, what for micronutrients? -User: Nightvid

not that simple. for one, soy protein (along with most plant protein) doesn't have the right amino acid composition to be a complete dietary protein source, to do the same thing you'd need to substitute something derived from animals (BSA or whey protein?) or maybe fungi (somesort of mushroom?). fungi would also help with the micronutrients too. Xcomradex 03:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking plankton. —Keenan Pepper 03:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm...no need to resort to animals for protein or anything else. There are millions of vegetarians to attest to that; they're all healthier than everyone else, anyways. I'd say the cheapest and healthiest way to solve "the diet problem" is to eat real food. Where do you think the supplement industry people get most of their vitamins and whatnot? Mostly extracts from plants or animals - just with more processing. Much better to go straight to the source and skip the inevitable denaturing and factory-grade chemicals.

Eat whole grains, lots of vegetables, especially nice dark green ones, and you'll be fine. Maybe a B-12 pill once in a while (or just don't wash your vegetables; B-12 is produced in soil bacteria. The reason meat eaters don't need extra B-12 is because they eat animals who spend their time licking each others' crap). If you have to, have some meat on holidays. Some periodic fish intake isn't unhealthy, but watch out for that nasty mercury and lead that tends to build up - yum!

Being vegetarian is very cheap; just take a look at the menu at a restaurant once in a while. The meat options are often a good 150% more expensive than the vegetarian ones. Meat eaters are paying for 10 or 20 times more vegetables than vegetarians, in the form of animal feed. It's not a new, or radical idea. Just people don't like to give up their greasy burgers and slabs of steak - heart disease apparently is yummy, after all.

As a side note, there have been studies (i'm too lazy to look up links) about how long people can survive on potatoes, olive oil, and water - a long time. Potatoes are a very complete food - lots of stuff packed in there, especially if you eat the skin (the olive oil was for extra calories). --Bmk 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt bad saying all that without any backup, so here's a link to the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine. And here are their very illuminating FAQs about vegetarianism. Just to quote from the FAQ "How can I get enough protein?", entitled "The protein myth". "A variety of grains, legumes, and vegetables can also provide all of the essential amino acids our bodies require." Also, "With the traditional Western diet, the average American consumes about double the protein her or his body needs." Keep reading downward - a lot of good oldfashioned scientific myth debunking on that page. --Bmk 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

key word: variety of legumes, grains etc. a single vegetable source isn't enough, where as meat is a one-stop shop. not that i'm knocking vegeterianism, i'm just pointing out if you want a single source it has to be meat, or meat-like (fungi, or plankton... good call keenan). no doubt it will still be cheaper to buy multiple vegetables than one meat. Xcomradex 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bmk, vegetarians healthier than everyone else? I once attended a rainbow gathering (for about a month), where all food was vegetarian. And I saw some people there who didn't look too healthy, one even with a malnutrition-potbelly. The effect it had on me was that I got a bladder infection because of all the sugar in the fruit. It took me over a year to get rid of it. Maybe you can live a healthy vegetarian life if you're very careful about your diet (as a vegetarian you have to be), but your statement is definitely not true. DirkvdM 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those supplement manufacturers make pretty good profits. Go to the source and you're already off much cheaper. Supplements and vitamins are not a good replacement for real food (vegetarian or not). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all are missing the point. The question asked how to spend as little as possible, not how to eat healthy foods and lose weight. It's a much more interesting question than the ubiquitous question that you are all answering. Right. To throw in my answer, I would add that there are a number of AA supplements out there that you could easlily use. The ones that bodybuilders use are pretty expensive, but I have also fun into a soy-sauce-looking bottle in a chinese food store simply called "AMINO ACID SAUCE" (no joke!) that was pretty cheap and contained all of the essential AAs. The full entourage of vitamins and minerals do appear to be available in knock-off brand supplements.

His question was: "Does anyone here know the real solution of the diet problem, how to meet all your nutritional needs and spend as little as possible?" Go to a cheap shop, and take items that are on discount. If you want to meet your nutritional needs while spending as little as possible, supplements won't help. They're more expensive than the actual food they are replacing is. That's what I'm saying. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up the AA composition, and soy protein does have ALL the essential AA's in it-it's 60% bioavailable based on the limiting AA, so it is still a very cheap way of getting all your AA's. What I'm really trying to figure out is the micronutrients, since the macronutrients are relatively simple. -User: Nightvid

A few people mentioned that plankton and fungi are "meat-like". How are they related to meat? I'd also like to say without any ill will that DirkvdM's anecdote about his personal bladder problems do not strike me as a convincing argument about the benefits of a vegetarian diet. More convincing would be a study, like the Oxford Vegetarian Study. Apologies for sidetracking the question --Bmk 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plankton is an animal source (see Antarctic krill) and like all animal protein sources, it would be complete protein. I don't know that fungi would be "meat-like" except possibly culinarily speaking. As for the healthiness of a vegetarian diet, that really depends on the specifics of each diet. There are vegetarians who eat terrible diets. I know one who eats virtually nothing but white bread, cheese, and sweets, and I'm sure it will catch up with her soon. (Obviously she is not vegan.) On the other hand, I as a meat eater have what I would consider a very good diet -- lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains balancing the amount of meat I eat, and little refined sugar. However, the typical vegetarian probably eats a more nutritious diet, if they pay attention to their protein needs, than the typical non-veg, since in search of variety they usually eat a huge range of different foods. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree - simply being vegetarian isn't enough - variety is another good key --Bmk 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bmk: fungi - "Indeed, fungi are now thought to be more closely related to animals than to plants...". this is true at a biochemical level too. and of course, quorn. Xcomradex 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mooon craters.

Is the moon still being hit by meteorites or has this activity now ceased? If these 'strikes" still take place have astronomers ever witnessed such an event and how frequently do they happen?

Sabaco 04:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Meteor_impact_on_the_Moon

fyi, thirty seconds searching wikipedia would have saved you thirty minutes waiting for an answer

Xcomradex 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon. --Proficient 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leitz edinger projection apparatus.

Does anyone have information on a leitz edinger projection apparatus.

Bold and CAPS text make you look stupid, and I'm sure you don't want that so I fixed your question for you. I felt lucky with Google and I found quite a bit of information. Unless, of course, you are Bruce Allen. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your comments butI have all the information from the internet, I was hoping someone had some personnal knowledge.[reply]

It helps to be a little bit more specific when you ask your question. Something like "I've done some research on the internet about Leitz Edinger Projection Apparati, but I still don't know this thing about it and does anyone know?" might get you a better response. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of current in the coil

Imagine a bar magnet moving towards a coil, with north pole nearer to the coil. Now there will be a current induced in the coil (anticlockwise, looking at the coil from the magnet's point of view). When the magnet is moved, even the south pole moves towards the coil and hence the south pole too induces some current in the coil (albeit of a lesser magnitude, due to the larger distance from the coil). Now the question is, in which direction does the SP induce the current? In other words, will the currents induced by the NP and SP aid or oppose each other?

One of the arguments is that the SP moving towards the coil induces current in a different direction than the NP moving towards the coil (like the case where a bar magnet moving towards the coil with the SP nearer to the coil would induce the current in the clockwise direction). But the other argument is that the direction of current will be the same because the direction of the line of magnetic flux is the same.

Which argument is right? --Wikicheng 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should describe more or provide a diagram of the positions of the coil and magnet, because the answer depends on the arrangement. Faraday's law of induction says that the induced current along a closed path is determined solely by the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through it. So what you must ask yourself is, what effect does the movement of each pole have on the flux through the loop? -User: Nightvid

First of all, I think you should read a little bit about permanent magnets at magnet (not all of it - it's rather in depth). You can't treat the "north pole" and "south pole" of the magnet as "sources" of the magnetic field - they aren't. If you cut the magnet in half, you would have two north poles and two south poles. The key is the permanent dipole magnetic field that the magnet generates. You should also read dipole, and look at the illustration to help you visualize. Now, the key here is Maxwell's equations, specifically Faraday's law of induction (this is also a very useful article to read).

Faraday's law states that the closed line integral of the electric field (essentially the induced voltage around the coil) is equal to the negative change in magnetic flux. The magnetic flux is the magnetic field integrated over a surface bounded by the coil. So, if you imagine the magnetic field lines emerging from the magnet from the north end, you can see from the illustration in the dipole article that the field is stronger as you approach the magnet. So, the magnetic flux through the coil increases as the magnet approaches, meaning the voltage is induced in the negative direction, which, if you consider the north pole to be pointing "up", is counterclockwise. Hope that helps! --Bmk 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about the issue again, any infinite plane has magnetic flux of zero (Gauss's Law-Absence of magnetic monopoles), so what's actually happening is the magnetic field inside the magnet must be going backwards! Because the field is created by the angular momentum of the electrons, it is essentially equivalent to a giant number of atomic "solenoids", and remember that the field inside a solenoid is "backwards". Since this reverse field must balance the entire external field out to infinity, the plane integral through the loop of wire, being finite, must be "backwards" itself. -User: Nightvid

The n-pole induces a current, and the s-pole induces an OPPOSITE current. Why? Well, suppose we bring the n and s poles very close together (shorter magnet) and then thrust this through the coil. If the induced currents were in fact opposites, then the induction effect would be weaker. And the induction effect would go to zero if the n and s poles were superposed (in a zero-length magnet.) However, if the n and s poles induced the same polarity of current, then a zero-length magnet would create DOUBLE current, not zero current.--Wjbeaty 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This (Wjbeaty's answer) was exactly what I was looking for. Does this mean that if I need to generate electricity by moving a bar magnet in and out of a coil, then it is better to use a longer magnet? (Because if I use a shorter magnet, then the currents generated by the opposite poles tend to nullify each other. But in case of a long magnet, the effect of the pole farther from the coil can be ignored?)--Wikicheng 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please help me answer the following

good day. i'm doing a research on bacteria. i can not find or have a hard time finding out the following: 1. how to identify the methods in examining unstained living bacteria and its advantages. 2. discuss the methods of examining stained bacteria in a fixed preparation; in simple, differential and in special staining. 3. how to collect specimen on: blood, feces, CSF, upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, in urine and in the genital tract.

thank you.±--Larry jr 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Larry. I removed some signatures. One of them is enough. About the question:

I don't remember investigating living bacteria myself, but the advantages should be clear. There's things you can't investigate in death organisms.
I'm not going to do your work for you. Every text book about microbiology will explain the methods these stainings use and how to examine them (usually with a microscope. We have a nice little article about differential staining.
Again this is something a book you're learning from should probably tell you. Try googling for "protocol collect specimens bacteria <whatever source you need to know about>". - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sepsis

breif backround about sepsis?

Please write any future questions in full sentences and try searching before you ask a question. See sepsis. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis. --Proficient 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent term for BSS in UMTS world

What is the equivalent term for BSS (Base Station Subsystem) in the UMTS (3G) world?

Laparoscopic excision of moderate endometriosis

What is a laparoscopic excision of moderate endometriosis? A friend of mine recently got that, and has generally been feeling more down than usual ever since. So I'm curious as to what this is exactly, and what it means to the person who has it done to them? Mathmo 09:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endometriosis#Treatments and Laparoscopic surgery are good starting points. If you want more specific information, then try [12] and [13]. If you have access to a university library, you can probably get the full articles.-gadfium 09:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFTER EDIT CONFLICT:::Laparoscopic surgery is surgery with tiny incisions. Endometriosis is the propagation of uterine tissue in the abdominal cavity. So they performed a kind of D&C in her abdomen, scraping uterine tissue away from organs, and/or muscles, and/or whatever, without cutting her open, but rather by making tiny incisions and guiding the instruments with the use of cameras. If she is under the care of a physician and s/he knows of your friend feeling down I wouldn't worry about something serious like a slow bleed, but even laparoscopic surgery is still surgery, so she might just be recovering. Or she might be adjusting to the changes in hormone levels due to less uterine tissue? (I don't know if this is an issue, but it might be).--Anchoress 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

holy shit supermans coming

Is this real, or someone's conspiracy theory? 87.97.8.96 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the amount of references, I would say it's real, but you'd have to check if those sources are reliable and not written by someone with an agenda. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the general gist of it - that Imperial Japan conducted all manner of horrible experiments on Chinese prisoners - is pretty well established. Whether all of the specifics in that article are true I'm not sure. The Japanese of that period were not exactly the nicest people in the world. Try List of Japanese war atrocities. --Robert Merkel 12:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm especially interested in whether these parts are just someone's conspiracy theory:

“

[...]Many experiments were performed without the use of anesthetics because it was believed that it might affect the results.

[...]

Prisoners were amputated limb by limb to study blood loss.
Arms were cut off and reattached to opposite sides.
Limbs were frozen and sawn off.
Stomachs were surgically removed and the oesophagus was reattached to the intestines.
Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were taken out.

[...]

Prisoners were placed into highly pressurized chambers until they died.
Frostbite experiments were conducted on prisoners to determine how long humans can survive when exposed to extreme temperatures.
Temperature experiments were performed to determine the relationship between temperature, burns and survival.
Prisoners were placed into centrifuges and spun until they died.
Animal blood was injected into humans.

[...]

”

The above are just some statements especially suspect to me (I added the emphasis). What is the article for allegations (or convictions) at Nurenburg of Nazi criminal experimentation on Jews? 87.97.8.96 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Unit_731#Politicization_of_history. A Japanese court acknowledging the truth of the allegations is good enough for me. --Dweller 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi experimentation article is Nazi human experimentation. --Fastfission 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know, nothing here Nazi human experimentation strikes me the same as "Stomachs were surgically removed and the oesophagus was reattached to the intestines" or "Arms were cut off and reattached to opposite sides." Am I missing something? (btw, thank you Dweller, Fastfission and also Robert Merkel and Mgm for your answers.)15:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, both in Japan and germany of that era, such experiments were the case. I can't say if those, specifically, were, but in general, yes. People did some exceptionally horrible things to people, in the name of "experimentation on subhumans who we don't have to care about", whether Russians, Jews, or Chinese. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that torturous "experiments" such as food/water deprivation, low and high pressure, hypothermia and extended holding in water, frostbite and altitude, animal blood, chemical weapons, and the like were all documented in Nazi Germany too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, FT2. I wonder if the U.S. has ever done anything similar that we know of? 82.131.185.74 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

history is written by the winners. Xcomradex 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is not a soapbox. Please give factual answers rather than offensive innuendo. The actual answer is: No, nothing anything like this that we know of. -- SCZenz 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no? See this site, which includes a number of experiments either sponsored by the U.S. or which at least took place there. Granted, none approach the scale of Unit 731, but many are similar to some conducted by Unit 731; for instance, an entry for 1942 reads "Harvard biochemist Edward Cohn injects sixty-four Massachusetts prisoners with beef blood in U.S. Navy-sponsored experiment." --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point. Xcomradex 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a wartime atrocity, but Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a pretty sickening account of an unethical experiment in the US. Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse doesn't involve surgery, but I'd describe it as an atrocity.-gadfium 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Operation_Midnight_Climax Dr Zak 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and before accusations of anti-americanism come out - Ronald Maddison. Xcomradex 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Much phosphorus chemistry done at Porton Down was declassified after the War, and was published complete with tests on human subjects in the Journal of the Chemical Society in the early 1950s. Dr Zak 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And its not just the Anglo-Americans, the SADF and Khmer Rouge face allegations of mistreatment and unethical human experimentation. Rockpocket 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, eg Operation Coast. i'd say everyone has their dirty little secrets, the only difference being the depth of the coverup. if its a vanquished enemy, then it all comes out eventually. even if it takes fifty years - Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group. Xcomradex 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my user pages, I recently hypothesized that the convenience of using Google/Wikipedia to find unfiltered masses of information, especially compared with the time, knowledge, and intellectual ability required to evaluate the relative reliability of snippets of information, may have the paradoxical effect of decreasing knowledgeability among the general public. What good, I wail, does it do us to even pay lip service to policies like WP:CITE if such potentially powerful information resources as Google and Wikipedia are not routinely used as guides to material to be found in the nearest research library (or hopefuly, even the nearest public library). Not to beat up on the OP, but I think his/her question is a case in point: the article cited contains numerous printed references which would suffice, if consulted, to confirm that the activities of Unit 731, which do indeed at first sight appear impossibly lurid, are indeed accurately described in the article. Oh yes, as a voracious reader, it so happens that I have already read some of the cited books, but anyone with access to a good on-line university library catalog can verify on-line that the bibliographic citations are accurate.---CH 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

302 windsor ford V8 torque specifications

hello im an apprentice motor mechanic and i need help rebuilding a 302 windsor but do not have the torque specs or much other info for that matter if u can help it would be greatly appretiated gibbo_22@hotmail.com.rob.

Turns out we have a pretty nice article about windsor engines - it looks like there is a section on the 302. Look here: Ford Windsor engine. Good luck --Bmk 13:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little unknown dead critter

Some mis-directed little mammal found its way into my backyard somehow, and my dog saw this as a wonderful opportunity for practicing her hunter-killer skills (ignoring my commands to just leave it alone). Once she really got ahold of it, she killed him pretty quick.

It's not a mammal that I'm familiar with, so I thought if I posted a few pictures of it here maybe someone could identify it. It looks like a burrowing animal, like some sort of gopher, but none of the ground squirrels I was able to find pictures of via Google Images really looked like it—it is a beefy little guy, not lithe like a squirrel. I'm in the greater Boston area if that is of any help.

So, if you can stomach a dead (but pretty cleanly killed) critter, here are the pictures: laid out on its back, detail of face.

Thanks. --Fastfission 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How big is it? It looks a little like a mole, based on the claws and teeth but it's hard to tell. --LarryMac 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bag he's in it a standard supermarket bag, probably a foot in length or so. Which puts his body about 8 inches long or so without the tail. I've gone over all of the rodents on Commons and he looks most similar to a marmot or a groundhog to me. --Fastfission 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the parallels between this image and the scene just witnessed are incredible! (Even the dog looks similar). --Fastfission 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor little guy. He was probably just trying to figure out how much wood he could chuck (if he could, of course). --LarryMac 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea why he chose our yard out of all of the more hospitable (and dog-free) yards in the area. But thems the breaks for small mammals; our dog wouldn't dare miss an opportunity to go after them (which sometimes has awful consequences, such as the two times she went after skunks). --Fastfission 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nose doesn't look like a mole, and from the teeth I'd say it's some type of rodent. Do you have a pic of the tail ? StuRat 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly a type of burrowing marmot. I would agree that it's most likely a woodchuck (a.k.a., groundhog). Mind if I ask where you live? – Clockwork Soul 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best I have of the tail is the first one—it was bushy but not too bushy. I'm in the Boston area, but far enough out that we sometimes get critters in the backyard. --Fastfission 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the "face", definitely not a mole, and location and size would appear to rule out the suggestion that this might be a dead marmot. (In the U.S., marmots typically occur in mountainous regions; if you lived in an area where they occur you'd probably be familiar with their whistling call.) I think your dog killed a woodchuck.---CH 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibus and Coffee

What is the link between the two? What are the effects? why is cannibus sold in "coffee shops" in amersterdamn?

Thank you - SIXsixSIX

The last time I was in Amsterdam, if you wanted a smoke in a 'coffee shop', you had to buy a coffee/other drink/snack from the establishment. They didn't like it if you just went in, sat down and started rolling your own... --Kurt Shaped Box 19:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any chemical link between them. They each act on completely different receptors and have much different effects. I guess the closest link would be that they are both legal mind-effecting that have low addiction potential, almost no overdose potential, and appeal to a wide range of people in similar demographics. Crazywolf 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty nice to have a coffee and a donut with your spliff. I personally find that ganja makes food and drink taste better. There is one place where you can have a full English breakfast and a joint on the side... --Kurt Shaped Box 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good couple of paragraphs in our Coffeeshop article. NB, the correct spelling is Cannabis. --LarryMac 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security of cordless telephones?

I bought a dual-handset DECT phone today. Now I've got it home and plugged it in, I find myself wondering about the privacy/security implications of using a cordless phone. Would it be possible for someone to intercept the radio waves and listen in to my private calls? What if someone nearby had the same type of phone? Would they be able to pick up my calls on their handset? --Kurt Shaped Box 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes - unless you have a very expensive counter-espionage telephone handset that encrypts the signal before sending it to the base station, anyone with a frequency-tunable receiver in the frequency range of phone handsets can drive by your house and pick up your signal. In fact, if you have some kinds of wireless speakers or other wireless devices, occasionally you'll pick up your own conversation over those devices too. Of course, phone handsets aren't very powerful, so anyone spying on you would have to be pretty close to your house to get a good signal. That's to the best of my knowledge - someone correct me if I'm off the mark. If you're very concerned, you can always step into a Faraday cage as long as you bring your base-set with you. But that kind of negates the convenience of the handset in the first place.

Wit directional antennas, they could pick up your signal from quite a bit further away than the distance your phone can be from your base and still work. If you put the base in the corner of your house and put a directional antenna like the ones at www.freeantennas.com on it, you could block off the signal from being heard in that direction, at least.

For your second question, someone with the same type of phone would not be able to pick up your calls because they are all tuned to their unique frequency for that exact reason (unless you bought your handset from a really dumb company).

Another thing to consider - people like NSA officers can pick up your calls anyways on a cord phone - nowadays they don't even need an individual warrant for your phone tap. --Bmk 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Box is less concerned with the NSA than you or I, as he lives in Britain. (Is that right, Kurt Shaped?) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. It's no biggie and I have no reason to believe that anyone would be trying to deliberately intercept my calls. I was more concerned about neighbours/people in the other flats accidentally hearing my conversations on their phones... --Kurt Shaped Box 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The must common security risk is giving out credit card info over a cell phone. Always use a land line for that instead. StuRat 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very valid point. I'll definitely use my old standard phone if I'm going to be doing any of that... --Kurt Shaped Box 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as bad as people make it out to be. If your phone uses spread-spectrum (DSSS or FHSS), then your call is quite safe. While not encrypted, it is spread across multiple frequencies (either all at once or time-sliced) and so without very specific equipment your calls are safe. This is often used in the 2.4 GHz (and higher) phones as the phone have to share the frequencies with lots of other devices (WiFi, microwaves, etc.) and this technique reduces the interference. If your phone is older or cheaper, then interception is easier. Modern cell-phones that use any sort of digital (as opposed to) analog network are also very difficult to intercept where older cell-phones using analog networks are very easy to intercept. —Bradley 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you worried the gulls will overhear you arranging fights with magpies for them? =) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picture the gulls and magpies using his credit card info to buy weapons in an ever escalating arms race, LOL. StuRat 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative effects of ameteur massage

Is there a situation where massaging a sore muscle can make it hurt worse in the long run? Crazywolf 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The type of massage where you ram an elbow into the muscle could hurt, but a light touch massage can't hurt anyone. StuRat 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removed irrrelevant duplicate comment; now in its own section (about MP3)) -= Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, but when I tried that my girlfriend complained that the jukebox was crushing her neck. Also, I copied your question to its own section Crazywolf

The kidney region is sensitive. I've never had a massage, but I've been in many fights (mainly required combat training). It doesn't take much of a punch to the kidney to cause a few days of soreness. I assume that too much sharp pressure will cause a similar lingering pain. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So true. I once had such a hard massage there that the next day I had blood in my urine.--Anchoress 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling off a building?

Are there any statistics of how likely I am to die if I fall off the 24th storey of a building versus, say, the 4th storey? I live on the 24th storey of an apartment building (technically the 23rd actually), and I'm curious approx. what are the odds of survival or death if I were to fall off.--Sonjaaa 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hardly anybody can survive a fall of more than six storeys onto hard concrete." claims [14]. I find that pretty reasonable. Your chances of surviving a 24 storey fall are very low, I'd wager. I'd suggest not falling off, if you have the choice. 128.197.81.223 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, well, if I had the choice I'd be a millionaire. DirkvdM 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it depends on the manner of landing, but in all likelihood your body will stop in a foot or less. Figure 240 feet fall / 1 foot stop = 240 g's. A 150 pound man at 240 g's would have an impact force of 36,000 pounds - roughly the weight of 20 cars! Your chance of surviving is probably less than 1% under those conditions. -User: Nightvid

I would guess that concrete or hard soil are pretty much lethal at that height - there might be a one-in-a-million chance of survival if you happen to land just right by some freak chance, but you'd certainly spend a very long time in hospital. Water might be survivable if you manage a perfect dive, but at that speed, you'd very probably still break either your arms or your legs (and probably also inflict some more damage on your body). You could try decreasing the water's surface tension by throwing out lots of soap before you jump, assuming you have the time for that. Your best bet for survival, however, is probably several feet of very soft snow - so depending on where you live, try to fall out the window in winter :P -- Ferkelparade π 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling from beyond 4 or 5 stories brings on the "worst case" scenario: a speed likely to kill regardless of the type of landing made. The only suggestion (as per the discussions that have been had in the past) is to try to land in a tree. A tall/wide enough tree can provide the gradual deceleration needed to make it down alive. Of course, this assumes the tree itself doesn't kill you first.

I read about a kid surviving a fall of the 11th floor just this morning in the paper (that's 12th floor to you Americans I think). It all depends on the circumstances: the spot you land and how you land. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this story [15], then it's 11th floor to us too (since the story is from the states). It may be worth noting that the original question-asker didn't mention landing on the ground. One could fall off the top of a 24 storey building and land quite safely atop a neighboring 23 storey building. :) 128.197.81.223 22:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or if a flock of birds breaks your fall on the way.--Anchoress 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question was asked a few months ago and I suggested aiming for a car. That should break the fall quite well. Although a tree is probably better, but more of a chance-thing - you have to hit the right branches. Of course, if you fall from the fourth floor and can catch a tree that would be the best choice. DirkvdM 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... can you repeat why you are asking? For the record, as a method of attempted suicide, jumping off a building in an urban area is not only very chancy but rather irresponsible. I recall an incident in which a suicide on the campus of University of California, Berkeley struck another person upon impact-- that person was fortunately not seriously injured, but easily could have been). If you want anecdotal evidence, try

Rasenberger, Jim (2004). High steel : the daring men who built the world's greatest skyline. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Rasenberger emphasizes that steelworkers who die or are seriously injured in falls often fall less than three stories, but on the other hand, some have survived falls of more than one hundred feet. It all depends, apparently, on how you land, and on what. If you want more reliable and less obnoxious methods... well, sheesh, don't look on the web for anything involving a life or death decision!---CH 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate way of calculating falls is from the Earth's acceleration due to gravity. Jumping off at a height of 80 feet on Earth would result in a speed of around 55 miles per hour as you hit the surface. Since that's the speed of many speed limits in highways, any additional height above that is surely not worth it. NealIRC 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Inside a Building

Suppose you are inside an elevator & you realize something has gone haywire & it seems to be crashing. If you can jump up, or climb up, and get a good grip on something in the ceiling, then when the elevator hits bottom your fall will be broken into pieces.

The bottom of the elevator car gets demolished, along with crushing anyone standing on the floor.
The rest of the elevator car takes some deceleration in which the top of it is much less violent than the bottom
You cannot hold onto the roof due to the forces of acceleration, but you somehwat slow your fall, by the pressures on your arms and hands as you lose your grasp of up there.
When you land on the mess at the bottom, you need to bend your knees like a parachutest, then roll in the wreckage.
If you are lucky, you will live, with only a few broken bones, while anyone else in the elevator who did not do what you did, they are all dead.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has been tested on the television show MythBusters, with unfavorable results. The show revealed that humans can only jump at ~10 m.p.h., which doesn't cancel out the huge speeds attained by a falling elevator. Hyenaste ^(tell) 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do with MP3 CDs

I have created an MP3 master with 33 audio essays, running about 4 1/2 hours amd 187 mb. I've been given a Data ISO and a Jukebox ISO. Which would be the most versatile in creating a disc that could be played on laptops, iPods and MP3 compatible CD players? Thank you. Tucker

If I were the last man on Earth

Frequently, I hear on fims 'I wouldn't sleep with him if he was the last man on Earth'. If I actually was the last man on Earth, and there was one last woman, would we be able to repopulate civilisation given the lack of genetic diversity and the need for inbreeding involved? I assume the answer is 'no', but would it be possible nevertheless? --russ 23:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. The lack of genetic diversity would be a problem, but humans have such an advantage over other species at this point due to our intelligence that I would bet we still could survive. Hopefully, the first generations would also get a boost from whatever was left behind the disaster from the old human race. Eventually genetic diversity would reappear as a result of mutations. StuRat 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that if only two people were left on Earth, unless they happened to be right next to each other, they would have a heck of a time locating each other, unless they both happened to be HAM radio operators. StuRat 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a B-movie to me! —Keenan Pepper 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty good non-B movies have had the "last people on Earth" scenario, too... check out The Quiet Earth for one. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the only 2 people left were brother and sister? Or mother and son? Or grandfather and granddaughter? Brings a fresh new meaning to the song "If You Were the Only Girl in the World". JackofOz 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would make a big difference. If the last 2 people weren't brother and sister, the next generation of couples would be (or father and daughter, mother and son), so you'd have the exact same problems. Keep in mind that a lot of the huffuffle about inbreeding comes from the fact that it's a cultural taboo, and not because of the health risks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A brother and sister would have 68.5 unique chromosomes, on average, while two totally unrelated individuals would have 92 unique chromosomes. StuRat 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually one benefit to inbreeding, it rapidly removes recessive gene disorders which result in offspring who die or are unable to reproduce (such as sickle cell anemia). Thus, the prevalence of the bad gene is reduced much faster from the gene pool. StuRat 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not entirely true to suggest the health risks are inconsequential, though. As many as 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins (who share ~~25%~~ 12.5% of their genes, compared to brother/sister/parent/children, who share 50%). As a consequence British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses, According to the BBC. Now imagine the health effects if the level of genetic relatedness was ~~double~~ four times that seen in first cousin marriages, you can see why incest is illegal in most countries. The reason it is culturally taboo is because, historically, it leads a reduction in genetic fitness which manifests as disorder and disease.

StuRat is right in that it will weed out the recessive alleles pretty quickly, but that is not exactly an advantage when you have a single founding pair. I would rather risk propogataing a few recessives to build up my population, rather than risk killing my entire F1 generation to get rid of the recessives. Moreover, recessive alleles are the currency of evolution. In other words, being European, i would personally choose a randy young Bantu or Aboriginal lass to repopulate the earth with, rather than my sister! Rockpocket 03:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that BBS doesn't know what they are talking about, but I can't find where they got their information, and there is an easily found peer review article on this very subject published in nature reviews genetics that suggest much lower effects. I'm going to finish reading it and then summarise what it says and provide a reference to it when I'm done. Until then, don't put too much stock in what BBS says about an issue as controversial as this one. Crazywolf 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, first cousins share 12.5% of their genes on average, not 25%. Please verify your facts a little bit in the future, especially if they are particularly politicized, like these. Crazywolf 04:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found out where BBC was getting their 13 times number, but their statement was simply not true. A representative study of births was done in Birmingham, which compared British Northern Europeans and British Pakistanis. .04% of the Northern European couples were related, while the relatedness of the British Pakistanis in Birmingham was equivalent to 70% of the couples being first cousins. Only 57% of the couples were related, but some had parents that were related. The Northern Europeans had a 4.6% prevalence of genetic disorders in the first 5 years of their life, while the British Pakistanis had a 7.9% prevalence. So they had less than twice the congenital birth defects of Northern European children, of which 25% of this increase was not related to the the relatedness of the couples. That is a substantial increase, but certainly not 13 times as much. The 13 times figure came from a misinterpretation of genetic disorder as meaning only recessive genetic disorders, which make up a small fraction of the genetic disorders in the Northern European population. Unfortunately, the study wasn't large enough to determine whether the difference in recessive genetic disorders was related to factors other than the relatedness of the couples, as too few of the British Pakistani couples were unrelated for significant comparison. Genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nature Reviews Genetics, Mar2002, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p225, 5p

Crazywolf 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. I apologise for repeating misleading information from what is normally a well respected source. I simply recalled reading about a study on the BBC a few months back when i noticed the question and figured the BBC's report didn't quite tally with the suggestion that the health risks of consanguineous children are secondary to cultural factors. I think the wider point remains valid, irrespective of the BBC's innaccurate reporting of the primary source. I take issue with the suggestion that my comments were "particularly politicized". The health implications of consanguineous children strongly inform public health policy in many countries. Irrespective of cultural or political opinion on the matter, it makes much more sense to outbreed a founding pair, rather than inbreed, if reproductive fitness is your goal. Both human and animal models bear this out. I'm not sure what political agenda you inferred from that, but i assure you, there was none implied. Rockpocket 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The political agenda I was speaking of was that of was the effort to get cosanguinous marriages outlawed based on irrational moral judgments rather than the a rational assessments of the costs and benefits to those involved. I was not suggesting that you had a politcal agenda, but rather that the BBC article almost certainly did, or was at least based on ridiculously mistaken information. The journal article suggested that the ethnic populations that supported cosanguinous marriages could be helped a great deal by genetic counselling, and this is a much better alternative than forcing them to abandon part of their culture. Crazywolf 21:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Honey, we have to repopulate the Earth". Sounds like a great excuse to have sex. --mboverload @ 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needing an excuse to have sex is not a concept with which I am familiar. Must be some new-fangled American thing. LOl :--) JackofOz 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no Christians have jumped in to tell us that if we did it once, we can do it again :) --Bmk 02:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, that exact thing is happening in the Utah FLDS community, where apparently 50% of the polygamist sect is directly descended from one couple, and since both ancestors had the same genetic disorder, a disproportionate number of offspring in the community is affected. Link HERE.--Anchoress 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two humans is not diversity to have a viable population. Take the issues facing the Pitcairn Islands (where all the inhabitants trace their lineage back to 6 or 7 people), and magnify the problem a hundredfold. Raul654 04:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the population of Pitcairn Island hasn't all died off, have they ? This is my point. Humans have such an advantage over other species due to technology that they would have to have an extremely serious genetic disease to all die off. StuRat 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as our new Adam and Eve can breed successfuly and raise at least some of their children to child-bearing age, a viable population could be eventually achieved. Of course, it would mean saying goobye to monogamy, accepting strict eugenics and controlled breeding, accepting a high level of infant mortality, maximising the children borne to women with successful blood lines, euthanasia to conserve scarce resources etc. etc. - not pretty, not fun, and definitely not civilisation as we know it, but possible. Gandalf61 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarce resources ? With only a few people left on the planet ? Perhaps locally scarce, but the solution there is to spread out, not kill each other. StuRat 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that resources could be scarce because of the collapse of society. With millions of poeple, everyone can specialize: farmer, teacher, builder, etc. With just a few people, everyone has to be more of a generalist, which leads to inefficiency. Also, some infrastructure would be impossible to maintain. 2 or 4 or 8 people can't keep the power plant running and the water system pumping, and the sewer system working... Without that type of infrastructure, efficiency would plummet, and resources would very likely become scarce. Johntex\^talk 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that small numbers of people would not be sufficient to maintain the infrastructure. However, the solution to this is by no means to kill off some of the few people there are. At worst, they should be sent off to go find resources elsewhere. StuRat 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This came up in the recent question about the last person on Earth (just one there), where I commented that supermarkets would still be full of canned food and bottled water, so resources would be plentiful for the first few years at least. Someone else, however, said that power stations would keep on running by themselves. Wind power certainly, and hydroelectrics and nuclear probably. They sounded quite serious, but I find this hard to believe. For one, nuclear reactors only contain fuel for about a year, I thought. DirkvdM 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (where did you suddenly get common sense from ?). Almost all power generation methods involve moving parts like turbines, which means the parts require regular lubrication, or will fail. Solar cells are an exception with no moving parts. StuRat 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come you suddenly acknowledge my common sense? :) DirkvdM 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming an intelligent and resourceful person, with access to a collection of how-to book and a wide range of stores, electricity, water, and waste management could be releatively easily jury-rigged. Solar power cells aren't too hard to set up and require little maintanence, if you can find a warehouse or store with a collection of them. And many rural homes require only electricity and replacement parts to provide water and waste managent, and could be kept running a long time. --Crazywolf 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interresting that the most hi-tech energy source is the simplest to operate. I suppose that's because its energy source is omnipresent and directly produces the desired form of energy (are solar panels unique in this respect?). But electricity is essential to our modern society. This question, however, is about a breakdown of society. Electricity isn't quite as essential as water, food, housing and clothing. And a mate. 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

July 12

sepsis

what is the simple explanation about sepsis of newborn?

i have a case study...and I am asking for a good reference about my topic...

Please remember that the Reference Desk is manned by volunteers who visit in their free time. Patience is appreciated and there is no need to ask a question more than once. Try searching Wikipedia for sepsis, and return here if you have more specific questions. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always cringe when I hear "Reference Desk volunteers". I'm pretty certain most of the people here aren't volunteering their time, but rather have nowhere better to go, though that's just semantic ; ). freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just offensive. You should think hard about making such an inflammatory statement. If you have such a low opinion of the people who bother to answer questions, or of Wikipedia itself, maybe you should extend your "long distance relationship" with the site to somewhere like Alpha Centauri. JackofOz 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JackofOz; Freshgavin, that's rather rude. In the first place, engaging in an activity one enjoys does not preclude it from being volunteering. In the second place, while I cannot speak for others, my life is certainly busy and I have other things to do, but the idea of contributing to human knowledge appeals to me and I will gladly sacrifice some time when I can to write articles, answer questions, and assist in the functioning of the community, because I think it's a good cause. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a smiley. It was a joke. I found it funny. Folks need to calm down a bit. —Bradley 04:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of a communication is the response it elicits. (Anyway, it's 2 against 1. So there.) JackofOz 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 on 2. if someone's that sensitive about something, its probably because its close to the truth... Xcomradex 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have little tolerance for incivility or disparaging other editors anywhere on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't understand what the purpose of your statement is. Are you implying that I was lying about how busy I am? Perhaps I go on extended Wikibreaks and such just for show? The danger of Freshgavin's comment is not of course its impact on me; it doesn't really matter whether other Wikipedia editors realize my coolness or not. It is important, though, that visitors to the Reference Desk, especially those who aren't regular visitors, realize that contributors here volunteer their time out of goodwill, and that one should maintain the appropriate respect and gratitude to those who are helping one out without any expectation of a return favor. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have offended you, and you are right to lash back at my comment. I didn't mean to imply that people weren't volunteering their time, and with a little more thought it is evident that many people on Wikipedia selflessly give a large amount of their time to activities in a manner very similar to volunteering, with noble and humble intentions. When I hear the word "volunteer", it conjures up images of my experiences volunteering, many of them containing acts of a much less "noble" and "humble" nature, which is I guess why I have tried to avoid using the word before now. My apologies. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. No hard feelings, Freshgavin. JackofOz 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I never knew that such an obvious joke could elicit so many angry responses. --Bowlhover 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's obvious is not always obvious. JackofOz 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial gravity

Another question based on an assumption: Assuming increasing gravity is a piece of cake, what would happen if the gravity of the moon were increased to equal that of the Earth? For the purposes of the question, I'll imagine that an object of incredibly high gravitational attraction is inserted into the center of the moon. Would the surface of the moon experience any structural change? Is there any theory to suggest that the moon doesn't have to smash into the Earth (due to it's suddenly increased mass or percieved mass)? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain about the effect on the moon's surface, but but if the mass of the moon were suddenly increased in such a manner, its current orbit would certainly become quite unstable. Unless the momentum of the earth or the moon were otherwise modified, it seems certain that the two bodies would collide. Depending on how quickly the moon's mass were increased, the resulting effect on Earth could be devastating to civilization as well, even before the collision. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the size of the moon would reduce. Then the earth and moon would come closer, due to increased gravity. Then the orbits of both earth and moon would change. May be there is a possibility of Earth and Moon orbiting each other like a pair of binary stars --Wikicheng 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that with increased gravity, the moon must have increased mass, which gives it more inertia. So, it would go into a much wider orbit as it takes more gravitational pull between the Earth and moon to bend its path. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what momentum the added mass has when you add it. Since we know of no way to just "magically" change something's mass, we don't actually know what would happen if one did. If we want to be scientific, we have to stick to known-possible things like dropping rocks on (or into the core of) the moon, and then we have to ask whether they're all falling on one side or so. If the rocks were put at the Moon's orbital velocity before being added, the orbit wouldn't change because it would be just like the new rocks orbiting independently. --Tardis 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would increase the current mass of the moon by a factor of 81 (current mass: 0.0123 Earth masses). Even if the orbit remained unchanged, this would increase the tidal effects of the moon on Earth, which would be quite severe, I would think. I'm not sure how to quantify how the effects would manifest, however. Ocean tides would certainly be increased, but I do not know to what degree. I would expect earthquakes as well. —Bradley 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal sands on the moon would be cool. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to apply the laws of physics in a situation where they have been violated. Interresting that someone named 'Tardis' came up with this first. :) DirkvdM 08:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think of Gravity as a force that push's away the moon and the moon pushing away the earth. Its not the size of the moon but it weight. The weight of the push,that keep's it away. Like a rock on a string going around and around, the force is not an attraction it is a pushing away. With out this pushing away the moon and the earth would be one.

Both would orbit around a central point. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which species?

I took these pictures yesterday in southern Ontario, Canada:

http://72.136.70.187/IMG_3963.JPG

http://72.136.70.187/IMG_3981_increased_brightness_and_contrast.JPG

http://72.136.70.187/IMG_4006.JPG

(You can go to http://72.136.70.187/toads_original to view the full-sized photos.)

Can someone please identify what species these two toads belong to? Thanks! --Bowlhover 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it's just an American toad. I'm not convinced there's another Bufo in Ontario. --Aranae 04:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

password to folder

Hi I know that you add passwords to a folder using a compressed folder, now I installed winRAR. Can anyone direct me the exact instructions of setting a password to a folder? Thanks

Depends on your operating system. Try variations of this search. Weregerbil 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Sun & Moon together

I would like to know why on some days we can see both the sun and the moon in the sky? Does this mean that the people on the opposite side of the earth cannot see either? Is that then new moon for them? If it makes any difference, I am in Knysna on the south coast of South Africa.

Thanks so much.

--Guppythane 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see them because they are both there...well.... some people think that the moon is only in the sky at night, but that's just wrong. You just notice it more at night. Many nights have no moon (and yes, when you don't see the moon (and the sky is clear), people on the other side of the world probably can).

Each month, the moon goes right round the sky. When the moon is full, it is opposite the sun, and you can't see both at the same time. As the moon turns into a crescent shape it is getting closer to the sun. Finally, there is a "new moon" and the moon is very close to the sun and cannot be seen. Then it starts to get further away. Scientists can predict where the moon will be on a given day, even in hundreds of years time. Notinasnaid 08:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to see both the sun and the moon during the day, people on the other side of the world can't see the moon not because it is new moon for them but because the moon has not risen for them yet. For example, if you are seeing a waning gibbous moon in the morning sky, it is also a waning gibbous for those on the other side of the earth, they just won't be able to see it for a few more hours until it rises above their horizon.

P.S.: "(and yes, when you don't see the moon (and the sky is clear), people on the other side of the world probably can)." This is true unless it is a new moon. If that is the case, nobody can see the moon no matter where they are in the world unless there happens to be a solar eclipse in progress in which case one can see the moon passing in front of the sun. --Nebular110 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an illustration of the above take a look at Lunar phases. Check out the "see also" material too, e.g. planetshine. Weregerbil 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The moon rises and sets just like the sun. Its cycle is not 24 hours, so it is not tied to the sun's cycle. In fact, it repeats the cycle every 29.5 days. Sometimes it is up at the same time as the sun; sometimes it is up while the sun is not. What is tied to the sun as well as the lunar cycle is the phase of the moon. When the lunar cycle has the moon rising at the same time as the sun, you can't see the moon at all, and it is termed a new moon. New moons are therefore never at night (although you won't see the moon at night during a new moon because it hasn't risen). Likewise, full moons are always at night. Half moons either rise during the day and set at night, or rise at night and set during the day, depending on whether they are waxing or waning.

Question: Does anyone know how many times the moon rises and sets during a cycle? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforests produce Oxygen?

What are the scientific evidence that Rainforests, as an ecosystem, produce a surplus of oxygen? --DelftUser 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, surplus? More oxygen than they use? How do they use oxygen? (Notwithstanding the oxygen used when they're burned down by farmers, lol).--Anchoress 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respiration and decomposition. Trees die. For an area to be a net source of oxygen (= net carbon sink) it either tree growth has to exceed death (common in young forests), or carbon has to be accumulating in the soil (again, common in young forests, also in wetlands. Soil carbon stocks in the tropics is uncertain, probably higher in the seasonal tropics than the ever-wet tropics. Deep soil carbon and highly recalcitrent carbon (stuff that decomposes very slowly because it's not attractive to microbes) is the big deal. Guettarda 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)

Your question is good. It means you've realized that as a tree gets larger and larger, the amount of surplus oxygen it produces decreases. Most people incorrectly believe that the larger the tree, the more surplus oxygen it creates. This has little to do with carbon dioxide consumption (the larger the tree, the more it consumes). I would love to find a graph that shows average tree size and average oxygen production. But, getting to your question, the quote I see all the time is that 40% of oxygen comes from rain forests, 20% comes from the Amazon alone. With those percentages, perhaps you can google the source of them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]

Jean Pierre H. B. Ometto, Antonio D. Nobre, Humberto R. Rocha, Paulo Artaxo & Luiz A. Martinelli. 2005. Amazonia and the modern carbon cycle: lessons learned. Oecologia 143: 483–500

The difference calculated from these two methods would imply a local sink of approximately 1.6–1.7 Pg C year�1, or a source of 0.85 ton C ha^-1 year^-1. Using our crude extrapolation of LBA values for the Amazon forests (5 million km²) we estimate a range for the C flux in the region of -3.0 to 0.75 Pg C year�1up>-1.

In other words, counting deforestation and carbon sequestration, the Brazilian Amazon is either a source of sink of carbon; if it's a carbon sink, it's a net source of oxygen, if it's a carbon source, it's a net sink of oxygen. Guettarda 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why if it is a carbon sink, it is a net source of oxygen? Is not possible for an ecosystem to be a carbon sink and an oxygen sink? I am very skeptical that 20% of produced oxygen results from the Amazon forest! does that number takes into account the oxygen used in the Amazon?! If all other sources of oxygen in the world would be eliminated, and all consumers also, except the Amazon would there be more oxygen after a year or less?? --DelftUser 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]What they are saying is that they found conflicting results based on different methods of estimation, and that their best estimate is that the true value is somewhere between being a moderately large sink (3 Pg per year) and a relately small source (0.75 Pg per year) of carbon (mostly due to deforestion). So the answer to your question is "maybe". On the other hand, saying that 20% of oxygen is produced by the Amazon is a totally different question, because that is a question about gross oxygen production, not net. Guettarda 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I want: net oxygen produced by a rainforest as an ecosystem! I like to dispute the idea that Rainforests are important for human survival, some environmentalists like to claim that they produce oxygen and I just wanted to check so next time I can show them that what they say is wrong! --DelftUser 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it wouldn't be accurate to say that. While the idea of rainforests as "the lungs of the world" is oversold, it isn't wrong. To say that the estimate is between -3 and + 0.75 suggests that it is a net source (the mean of that estimate would be negative; assuming it is symmetrical, it would be around -2). This is the most recent (and broadest scale) study I can find - there are earlier studies (based on increases in aboveground biomass in the eastern Amazon) which suggest significant carbon uptake by living biomass. It's one of the problems that this study was unable to reconcile - the difference between estimates in carbon uptake based on eddy covariance (estimating the fluxes of carbon and oxygen across a stand of forest) and measures of standing biomass. The other side of this, of course, is that it includes carbon output by deforestation. If someone speaks about the importance of rainforests for human survival, they are talking about the forests as forests, not the forests being destroyed by deforestation.

The other point of this is that the oxygen concentration in the air is a dynamic process - without plants to replace it, oxygen would continue to be consumed by decomposition and reactions with minerals. It's a very reactive compound. In addition you have to think about the trees as standing stocks of carbon, and forest soil as an even bigger stock of carbon. There is a difference between digging up the forest (and its soil) and shipping it off-planet and the common way of removing forest, which is cutting, burning, and converting to pasture or cropland - which continue to be major carbon sources for decades as the carbon stocks are decomposed away. So your friends are right, even if it is potentially for the wrong reasons. Guettarda 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are right then where is the scientific evidence for it! The study you cite above is about carbon and not oxygen, I am aware that oxygen in the atmosphere needs replenishing but I am convinced that it is done by phytoplankton, Algae and other plants in the ocean and not by rainforests! I suspect that rainforests consume all they produce, if not more. --DelftUser 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "where is the scientific evidence for it". The article I referenced provides just that. Carbon is fixed through photosynthesis, which releases oxygen. (see photosnthesis) Basic reaction of photosynthesis is: 6 CO₂ + 12 H₂O + ATP + NADPH → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6 O₂ + 6 H₂O - you have one molecule of oxygen released for evey molecule of carbon fixed. An oxygen molecule weighs about 2.5 as much as a carbon atom. Aerobic respiration consumes one molecule of oxygen for every atom of carbon released, C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂ → 6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Energy released (2830 kJ mol⁻¹). Anaerobic respiration can release carbon without consuming oxygen, so equating carbon fluxes with oxygen fluxes is necessarily conservative.

The range provided by the paper suggest that Brazilian Amazonian forests are a net producer of oxygen. The mean of the estimate is around -2 Pg of carbon, which would equal +4.5 Pg of oxygen. Their estimate also includes an estimates 0.10–0.40 Pg C year^-1 released through deforestation, logging and forest fires (which are, in this system, human-caused). It isn't enough to conclusively say that the Brazilian Amazon is a net source of oxygen, but that's a (marginally) more reasonable conclusion than saying that it uses as much or more oxygen than it produces. In addition, this study is conservative. Most previous studies have estimated that the Brazilian Amazon to be a net carbon sink (= net carbon source).

In addition, you said "I like to dispute the idea that Rainforests are important for human survival". If you want to look at it that way, then even if they are a net oxygen sink, they are still important because the alternative is a huge oxygen sink. If you argument is based on oxygen and carbon for human survival, you need to look at the full budget. Guettarda 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you meant "net carbon sink = net oxygen source". DirkvdM 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that the question is about the ecosystem and not just the trees! rainforests are full of animals who burn oxygen; so the question now: is the net sum of the total rainforest positive or negative? Until now I haven't seen any scientific evidence that it is positive. On the question of human survival please note that I don't consider CO2 (in the atmosphere) as a polutant, nor global warming as an environmental problem but natural change that human beings should (and will) adapt to. --DelftUser 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I found the article you've cited I'll read and see if it answers my question, thanks! --DelftUser 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in this [16] all the carbon in the earth was here from the beginning. The only real carbon sink is in the formation of carbon sediments. We can create a temporary carbon sink by creating more lumber, either in houses or trees. We liberate net carbon by burning sediments. Even over a small cycle of a thousand years, natural processes have fiddled with the carbon cycle a lot more than we have. The other cycle that is just as important to the climate is the free-water cycle, which again has varied tremendously over the larger time scale. --Zeizmic 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whether you are talking about historical or geological time scales. Pretty much all the free oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by photosynthesis. Vegetation cover changes with climate change, and while the carbon held in living biomass is a "temporary" sink, forests exist for thousands of years. Even if a large proportion of the carbon turns over on a decadal time scale, the fact that there are trees there for thousands of years means that the forest (but not the individual tree) exists as a carbon sink on a millenial time scale. Charcoal produced by burning biomass is stable even on a geological time scale (I know someone who studies Cretaceous fossils which are simply charred plant bits). Carbon in sediments also enters through biological processes (be it as calcium carbonate or organic carbon). Recalcitrant soil carbon turns over on a millenial time scale as well. So it's really an oversimplification (to the point of being wrong, basically) to sat that the only "real" carbon sink is carbon sediments. Guettarda 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simplification, but not wrong. A 'sink' is something that increases carbon storage over time, like a drain. If a forest is increasing it's lumber storage over time, and no forest fires, then it is a sink (but doesn't exist!). Most forests are dynamically stable. If the black soil organics are increasing over time then it is a sink, like an active Dinosaur swamp, but those are sediments. --Zeizmic 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delftuser, you make it clear that you first draw your conclusions and then want to find the reasons to support. Not a very scientific approach. DirkvdM 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to listen if you have something to say! Do you? Anyway I found what I was looking for: “It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen” (from the algae article). --DelftUser 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trees are made of carbon compunds, thats all the evidence you need surely, as it got the carbon from CO2 therefore leaving o2. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you even understand what we are discussing here! --DelftUser 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Rifles

I've read the articles on rifles and British rifles, but I can't quite figure out the answer to this. During the Peninsular War, what kind of rifles did the British army use, if any? Also, what kind of bullet, and how were they loaded? What range? I've been rewatching old Sharpe episodes, and I wonder whether they're anywhere near accurate. Black Carrot 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker rifle was in limited use along with the more common Brown Bess musket. Rmhermen 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algal bloom

Hi folks. The post about the Amazon got me thinking - I have heard from a few places an idea put forth by some global warming researchers, and I was wondering about what y'all think about the pros and cons. Basically, the idea is to dump huge tankerloads of nutrients into the oceans to encourage a gigantic bloom of algae or zooplankton, which would trigger a huge wave of photosynthesis and a dramatic drop in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I think the nutrient usually cited is iron - perhaps that is a common limiting nutrient in algae growth? This strikes me as both rather brilliant and incredibly foolhardy and dangerous, and i can't decide if it is more stupid or brilliant. Care to comment? --Bmk 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The process is called iron fertilization (a thorough article that you should find helpful). --Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That certainly hits the nail on the head --Bmk 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

botany

why do the trunks of some trees twist? i don't think this can be due to climatic conditions as i have witnessed it deep in a forest. is it physiological and does the condition have a name? azu fletcher

I don't know if it has a name, and I am not a botanist, but I do have one idea. Keeping in mind that trees grow from the inside out (i.e. the tree starts as a tiny sapling and the trunk grows wider with each season), a twist in a trunk likely reflects that the sapling was twisted somehow when it was young and still twistable. It could be due to something like a second sapling growing up next to the current tree, resulting in their branches running into each other and one giving the other a bit of a twist. Just a thought... 128.197.81.223 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be due to other trees or vines. It could also be that a tree that grows "deep in the forest" today used to grow in the middle of an exposed field. Have a look at thigmomorphogenesis and reaction wood. Guettarda 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are pretty basic - you might want to try google as well. Guettarda 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gravity

a stone falls from a ledge and takes 8 seconds to hit the ground. The stone has an original velocity of 0m/s. How tall is the ledge in meters? what formula would I use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.175.113 (talk • contribs)

formula = g/2 * t^2

with g = 9.89 m/s^2

--DelftUser 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do homework for you... -- Миборовский 22:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it 9.81 m/s^2 ? --Shanedidona 01:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what formula is that? --Shanedidona 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the acceleration due to gravity, g, is 9.80665 m/s². I don't know if the equation has a name, but it's basically the equation of a position of an object moving in one dimension undergoing constant acceleration, with the initial velocities and positions set equal to zero. It's an extremely common equation in physics and algebra. y''(t) = a, so y'(t) = at + C = at + v₀, so y(t) = ½at² + v₀t + D = ½at² + v₀t + y₀. Setting the initial velocity and height to 0 gives y(t) = ½at². — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the equation one of the Newton's Three Laws of Motion? Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 11:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

science

when an automotive battery is fully charged the sulfric acid and water mixture will have a specific gravity of about???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.175.113 (talk • contribs)

Close to nothing? Gravity is an extremely weak force compared to say, EM. -- Миборовский 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong science. he means specific gravity. Xcomradex 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at 70 deg F (damn imperial units),

    Open Circuit          Approximate           Average Cell
   Battery Voltage      State-of-charge       Specific Gravity
        12.65+               100%                  1.265+
        12.45                 75%                  1.225
        12.24                 50%                  1.190
        12.06                 25%                  1.155
        11.89                  0%                  1.120

Enjoy. Xcomradex 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Didn't see that. -- Миборовский 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Light Squared

Why does the speed of light squared happen to give the conversion from matter to energy? What is special about the the speed of light? - PSB

You may find this article useful: E=mc^2 128.197.81.223 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it's not just the speed of light (actually it's only the speed of light in a vacuum), it's the fastest speed that makes sense, and it's a kind of conversion ratio between distance and time. In special relativity, distance and time aren't independent quantities. Imagine if we used one unit to measure length and a different unit to measure width. If you turn an object 90 degrees, the length becomes the width and the width becomes the length, so it's silly to have different units for them. In special relativity the same thing happens with distance and time. Two events could be separated in time but not in space to one observer, but to a different observer whizzing past, they are separated in space and much closer in time. The only thing that remains the same for all observers is the spacetime interval, which can be measured in units of either time or space. The speed of light in a vacuum is the conversion factor between these two representations. —Keenan Pepper 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In a very real sense, in special relativity, light goes at c because it's the conversion factor between space and time, not the other way around. And the conversion factor between space and time also appears in converting between mass and energy. -- SCZenz 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naproxen

Does naproxen change the effectiveness of the birth control pill?

i doubt it. a google of 'naproxen contraception' shows its recommended for pain while on contraceptives. Xcomradex 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwalk Virus and kidney problems/complications?

My best friend just called me to say he's had it for the last three days and is quarantined. Thing is, he's had kidney failure in the past. He wouldn't listen to any advice I found for him anyway ;-| but can anyone fill me in on recovery time, residual effects etc? He figures he got it from fruit or vegetables at the market; I haven't seen any info on an outbreak locally, which there are sometimes in hospitals and old folks homes; are individual occurrences in the general population documented in any way?Skookum1 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Norwalk virus group. No mention of kidney problems associated. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So important to have been returned

I am Taiser Aborashed.My research was appreciated from the ministry for health of syria in 2001 for Basel Assad Prize in hazards reduction, depends upon a kind of a communication that occures in accordance and continiously since 26 years and up to now,between me at my space and time and/with who are in front of me at the screen or and the microphone of the audiovisual devices which are in front of me,at my side in direct broadcast and/or transcending time. Please if you let me know if you could get me some possibility at your foundation,I would be grateful. I am sorry I could not attend the third international conference on early warning: (Removed email address EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME), as I am a participant and to contribute its outcome.

Best Regards, Taiser Aborashed

If you're looking for a job, try the "Contact Wikipedia" link in the box to your left. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a position open on the Board. ---CH 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD picture

can you burn a picture into the information site of a CD, like Lightscribe (exept that thst this would be on the information side of the disk and wouldn't need a particular brand of drive) --Shanedidona 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DiscT@2 can do that, however, for obvious reasons, only on areas of the data side where there is no data. — QuantumEleven 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to use a Yamaha drive? --Shanedidona 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

optimum mph for best mpg

What would be the best speed on the interstate for a large block full size pickup and a SUV in N.E. Texas. The pickup will be driveing with tailgate up.21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Thanks

This looks rather similar to another post. We would need to know the vehicle model and the exact engine, transmission gear ratios, and wheel sizes to hazard a guess. StuRat 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to figure it out experimentally. That is, drive 55 on the highway from one fill-up to the next, then 60 the next time, then 65 another, and compare the number of gallons of fuel and elapsed mileage to get the mileage at each speed. If 60 gets the best mileage, then maybe repeat the experiment with speeds of 57, 60, and 63 to find the ideal speed more precisely. StuRat 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes linear or near-linear response with no surprising discontinuities or local minima/maxima. :-) Johntex\^talk 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the manufacturer would have information on efficiency vs. MPH. --Shanedidona 00:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are, you're going to get local minima at around 10-15mph, 25mph, 35mph, and 50-55mph, corresponding to first, second, third, and fourth gear. Which one is the most efficient depends on wind resistance, internal rolling resistance, road friction, and drivetrain design, but I'd bet on either 25mph or 35mph. --Serie 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nuclear power plant

hello, i would like to know which nuclear power plant is on this picture : File:Nuclear powerplant-01.jpg. thanks

It's the Byron Nuclear Generating Station in Ogle County, Illinois. --Bmk 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you! After the long search I just did before finding it, I hit refresh and there you are! :) 128.197.81.223 22:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - better luck next time --Bmk 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

Firefox Question

I usually use a mouse with a scroll wheel to navigate firefox. This is especially useful, as clicking the scroll wheel on a tab closes it, while clicking it on a link opens the link in a new tab. However, I have been unsuccessful at getting this function to work with that button on the laptop that is roughly analogous to the scroll wheel on a mouse (is there a name for that button?). Does anybody know how to implement these features with a laptop mouse, or is this impossible? JianLi 00:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unless the scroll button is working in Firefox but performing a different function, this is probably a hardware issue or a global (OS level) issue. Does the scroll wheel work in other apps? Does it do anything in Firefox? (sometimes it's set to go back or forward or something like that)

You forgot to say what OS you're using. In Linux, you have to make sure you're using the right driver. The regular PS/2 mouse driver will work with a touchpad, but it won't support the extra things like scrolling. I use the Synaptics driver on my Thinkpad and it works great. —Keenan Pepper 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a middle click. --Proficient 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does red fade in the sunlight?

What makes the color red susceptible to fast fadinmg in the sunlight? What is the molecular structure of the red pigment, and how does the sun affect gthat pigment to made the color fade. Does it change the red molecule? If so, what change is made? The red ink printed on paper seems to be very fast in fading -- does this depend on the quality of the ink? The red color in a Polaroid photo seems to resist fading. I've seen street signs on which all of the red has completely faded.

Just what is happening to the red?

it depends on the type of red dye. the reason the dye is coloured in the first place is that the dye has been chmeically designed in such a way as to selectively absorb certain wavelengths of light, leaving only the red to be transmitted or reflected. the energy gained by the dye molecule from the light has to be gotten rid off, normally the molcule can lose the energy through vibration or rotatation, but sometimes that energy can go to causing a chemical reaction instead. this reaction changes the structure of the dye, so it no longer absorbs the right wavelengths of light. on the bulk scale, you slowly observe a fading red colour. Xcomradex 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photons that things that reflect red absorb (i.e., not red) are of higher energy than the photons that things that aren't red absorb (i.e., red). In particular, if we assume that dyes have a relatively large bandwidth and only gradual changes in absorptivity, things that are blue should reflect some violet and UV, and things that are red should reflect some IR but absorb lots of UV. And UV photons are typically energetic enough to dissociate organic molecules (and others; see ozone). So that's why (if I understand correctly) red is preferentially destroyed. Xcomradex's answer is of course correct in terms of how any dye is destroyed, ever. --Tardis 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anemia

What are the symptoms of a person who is anemic?

Go to the wikipedia article on anemia, and scroll down to the section called "Signs and Symptoms". You could also look at Iron Deficiency, because that is often a cause, and therefore the symptoms can go hand in hand. My favorite is pagophagia. --Bmk 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd answer, but I don't have the energy at the moment. StuRat 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms Anemia goes undetected in many people, and symptoms can be vague. Most commonly, people with anemia report a feeling of weakness or fatigue. People with more severe anemia sometimes report shortness of breath. Very severe anemia prompts the body to compensate by markedly increasing cardiac output, leading to palpitations and sweatiness; this process can lead to heart failure in elderly people.

Pallor (pale skin and mucosal linings) is only notable in cases of severe anemia, and is therefore not a reliable sign.

copied and pasted Crazywolf 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual library ?

what is a virtual libary, what are the functions and importance of virtual libary.

It's a virtual library. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a homework question. From Wikipedia: "Virtual Libraries are a libraries that consist only of resources available in a digital format, which can be accessed locally - stored on a hard disk - or through computer networks - public or private." Or just follow the link the person above provided. --Proficient 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVING FAT FROM MILK AT HOME

i AM FROM iNDIA.WE GET LOW FAT MILK FROM THE DIARIES. THE MILK FROM DAIRIES ARE NOT ORGANIC.I GET GOOD FRESH MILK BUT IT CONTAINS 5.5% FAT. WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO REDUCE THE FAT CONTENT AT HOME?

                                                            A.V.RAMASWAMY

Don't shout and buy skimmed milk. -- Миборовский 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your milk is not homogenized, you can let it sit for a day or two and skim off the fat. But if it is, you would need a centrifuge to seperate the milkfat from the rest of the milk. Crazywolf 06:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated freezing may also cause the fat to clump together, but be sure to pour some off and crack the top, to allow for expansion. StuRat 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I assume from your question that lowfat milk is not available in your part of India. This used to be the case in the rest of the world, too, until the health risks of a high fat diet became apparent. Initially, lowfat milk was cheaper than whole milk, as it was left over when cream was produced for ice cream, etc. Later, as demand for lowfat milk increased, the price became the same as for whole milk. StuRat 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what they are saying is that low fat milk is available, but not low-fat organic milk. As far as that goes, I would say that low fat milk is better for you than high fat organic milk.

You might look into whether you have access to any alternative food stores to the generic dairies.

It is also possible to buy powdered milk, which has a long shelf life, which you then mix with water (preferably clean fresh boiled water) to get the drinkable milk. I guess you could use excess water it down.

Some places, Goat's Milk is a suitable substitute for Cow's Milk. May I ask a delicate question about Reincarnation? It is my understanding that one of the primary religions of the people of India have people being reincarnated as various different animals depending on how good we are in this life, in which a Cow is at the top of the ladder. Within that religion, is it inappropriate to be consuming food products that came from that animal? User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume so. --Proficient 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. Of course, there is a prohibition against eating the flesh of a cow (since you'd have to kill the cow to do it) but other food products (milk, yoghurt, ghee) are not only not prohibited, they are used in religious ritual. (And of course, there are the famous milk-drinking statues.....) - Nunh-huh 08:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anatomy

A decrease in blood pressure triggers a barorecptor reflex that leads to increased ventalation. What is the possible advantage of this reflex?--69.180.243.11 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds suspiciously like a homework question... IANAD and have never done any real anatomy so this is an educated guess (confirmation would be good). I'd say blood pressure decrease may indicate less blood bein circulated. Hyperventilation increases oxygen supply to the bloodstream. Therefore, hyperventilation with blood pressure drop would ensure that the amount of oxygen reaching the brain and other vital organs wouldn't decline to dangerous levels. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right on. Low blood pressure, caused by many things -- dialated vasculature, blood loss, etc. -- means the brain may not be getting enough oxygen. Baroreceptors trigger a large hormone-mediated response which does a lot of things, including increasing ventilation, which, in turn, bumps up the oxygen level in the blood. That's the quick and dirty.

Cost of modern hollow clay block plant.

In India, construction industry is in boom but it is inhibted by low quality and irregular supply. I have done some work on the subject and find that low price is a great price advantage brick has gives it cpmpetitive edge over other substitute products. Increasing demand for agricultural land and general ecological conerns including conservation of sub soil water resources have led to initiation of policies, which seek to restrict use of top soil for non agricultural use. There is also the issue of utilizing ash generated by coal and lignite based thermal power stations in India. In this background there is need for a cost effective technology which has advanatage of low energy consumption, low material consumption, low CO2 emmission and finally and very importantly low initial capital outlay. Can I ask your research and reference to give me access to information on manufacturers of hollow clay block machine munufacturers / suppliers ( new and old.) Any further clarification can be referred to me.

Ashim Kumar. AD/118-D Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-910110088. India. (email removed to prevent spam)

Interstate Brick is a company that manufactures hollow bricks, check the structural bricks section. These bricks have large rectangular holes taken out of them, similar to concrete cinderblocks. Higgins Brick is a company that sells cored bricks, which are bricks with cylindrical holes in them. I wasn't sure which of those you wanted. I found these two companies from the list of clay brick manufacturers at WSCPA manufacturers and I am sure you can find more companies that have the information you need there. Crazywolf 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say circular holes are best, as they facilitate quicker drying and baking, but don't lead to stress concentrations, which potentially cause fractures, like square holes would. Also, during construction, properly aligned holes can allow for either permanent or temporary poles to be run through the bricks, to hold them in place while the mortar dries. These could also be useful for running wires in a brick wall. StuRat 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, you could look at so-called earthships (weird name). Cheap material (possibly free), prevents CO2 emissions by burning cartyres. Just labour-intensive, but in India that is probably not the biggest problem. Als the advantage of heat preservation doesn't really help in India, although the article suggests that a 'wrong' design helps lose the heat. DirkvdM 09:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound runs ahead of video in movie.

A friend of mine had a movie in his computer, which was playing fine. So I got it on a cd-rw, but on my computer, there are various portions where the sound "runs" ahead of the video, and especially, towards the end of the movie, the sound runs 15-20 minutes ahead of the video. But on his computer there is no such problem. So what is happening? Any solutions to solve this? Thank You---Nikhilthemacho.

15–20 minutes? That sounds like more than a simple A/V synch issue to me. How exactly does it get that far off? Is the sound higher pitched than it should be? Does it gradually shift out of synch or does the audio ever abruptly skip ahead, or the video pause while the audio continues? Also, it's difficult to help unless you say what OS and video player you're using, what format the video is, things like that. —Keenan Pepper 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try burning at the slowest speed. Make sure everything is connected properly. --Proficient 04:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World map in a single file.

Hello, does anyone have a link or know of websites which have the map of the whole world in a single image file. There are millions of websites showing maps of regions, but I couldnt find one as per my requirements. And I wish the image file should have large dimensions so that the clarity is also of acceptable limits. Thank You.

See commons:Category:World maps.-gadfium 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on exactly what you want, you should also look at the subcategory commons:Category:Blank world maps.-gadfium 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your links, but i would like to have maps which are "political" in nature, i.e. show the names of all countries, and boundaries.(I think they are called political maps).And the map should be clear, because many maps are there, but they are too cluttered.

Some of the maps there would seem to me to meet your criteria: Image:World_map_pol_2005_v02.svg looks fairly uncluttered]], showing political boundaries and major cities. Image:World map CIA 2004 large.jpg shows political boundaries and major physical features. Image:World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg shows both, and is possibly what you are referring to as being too cluttered. Image:BlankMap-World.png shows political boundaries without names, and is mostly useful if you want to create a world map with various nations shaded to show the distribution of x. You can also look at the "External links" section of our article World maps, but depending on what you are doing with the maps, the licences may be an issue.-gadfium 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a single map of the entire Earth will have major distortions, since the Earth is a sphere, and a sphere can't be flattened into a plane without distortions. This is why a series of maps is typically used instead. Antarctica particularly is messed up badly by most maps of the Earth. StuRat 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-industrial float glass

The industrial float glass process was invented in the 19th century and put to commercial use in the 20th. So far so good. But it would be surprising if the basic idea of floating molten glass on molten metal really was that recent. So when is the float glass principle first known to have been used, or experimented with?

And I meant to sign my question, too. --Rallette 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem surprising at all. This process doesn't strike me as particularly obvious, and there are no obvious corrolaries in other areas of manufacture. Crazywolf

Considering that it's important to remove oxygen during the process, and oxygen wasn't discovered until the 1770's, this would have been difficult to do much earlier. StuRat 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might find some information related to your question in hindsight bias Crazywolf 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY PLS HELP ME??? THX!!

i want to find out how much of pressure an average woman aplies on her shoe... how do i do so ?

pls help...... --203.124.2.17 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first, read pressure. then pick reasonable estimates for F and A. Or find them experimentally. dab (ᛏ) 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how much pressure glass can withstand?? Thkx...

let's think. A wine glass . . . won't hold up a woman, no matter what shoes she is wearing. Bullet-proof glass . . . will. Let's have a little more detail about what kind of glass you're thinking of.

glass used to make glass slippers... i dunno wat glass b cause im supposed to find outmif cinderella can dance in glass slippers ... and answer it with some proof... can u pls help??

Somebody asked this question a few months ago. It's not easy to dance in any sort of slippers, and certainly not glass ones. If Cinderella slipped she could suffer some very nasty cuts to her feet. If you're planning a pantomime, get some polythene or acrylic ones made instead.--Shantavira 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That very much depends on what kind of glass. That question can barely have a practical answer. --Proficient 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

food habits of animals

how do smaller animals eat other animals which are larger than itself?

How do you eat a cow? In small bites. It's the same whether the animal is a human vs. a cow or a cheetah vs. a gazelle. Dismas|^(talk) 10:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that snakes can't chew their food, so they expand to swallow it. This can lead to an explosion if they are overambitious.--Shantavira 12:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Panels Efficiency`

Is it possible to focus all incoming raiation on some black material so that all the photons is converted to heat which can then be converted to energy?

Light energy can be focused pretty well with a Lens (optics). Practical application and example: burning ants. In theory this would work as you said, and some people do this, as in Solar cooker. I'm not sure what you mean by "convert heat to energy" as heat is a form of energy. If you mean electricity, you could cook some water, let it boil, and turn a turbine, but it's a whole lot more efficient to create electricity directly with a Solar cell, a brilliant little device that allows light to push electons. Moving electrons is, after all, electric current.

I think it depends on how you measure efficiency. Wikipedia's article on solar panels lists average efficiency at 12% and you also have to consider the considerable cost of the solar panel with its use of semiconductor materials. Something like a solar power tower focuses sunlight to a central point where it heats molten salt and uses that as the energy storage medium to be later used to convert water to steam. I'm sure lots of energy is wasted, but I would expect an energy/cost payback to be faster with this technology as it is overall much simpler if you count the infrstructure to produce it.

Also note that focusing light on a single point is quite dangerous, as anyone getting in the way can be blinded or burnt. StuRat 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant converting all sort of incoming photons to heat energy,so that the fixed radiated wavelength is fully converted to electricity..

There are some errors in your assumption. Heat has multiple wavelengths (when it becomes infrared radiation). Besides, I'm not aware of anything like a photoelectric cell that works on infrared wavelengths. Heat energy therefore can not be converted into electricity with 100% efficiency. In fact, the usual method, a steam turbine, has a fairly low efficiency. StuRat 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about having two theoretical prefect black bodies,first for general photon radiation,second one for the many heat wavelenghts and then an optical filter to allow only required wavelength to pass,reflecting the rest back?

Maxwell equation modification

We know from maxwells equations for time varying that Div X H = J + ?D/?t and Div X E = -?B/?t....."?" stands for del,partial differentiation operator.But in first equation J = dI/dS or current density stands for the rate of change of charge q.So should not there be an analogous quantity in the second equation which stands for magnetic dipoles density applicable only to conductors say M=?m/?s or magnetic dipoles per unit area cross section?because guess first equation can be viewed with q in mind in the similar manner..

q stands for electric charge, or electric monopole charge. There are no magnetic monopoles found as yet. If you'd ever find one, publish an article and you'll be famous on the spot. Here is some more information. Greets, David

12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no magnetic monopoles,but how about a single unit charge moving about a point that constitutes a unit magnetic field?

The Amount Of Pressure Glass Can Withstand

Can Anybody tell me the Amount of Pressure Glass can Hold... Sorry but i cant seem to be able to find anything on the web... Can sum1 pls help me??

It isn't clear what measure you are looking for. The thicker the glass, the more pressure it can hold; construction techniques will also be relevant, and the type of glass. I can't see that there is an upper limit. Notinasnaid 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of the glass and type of pressure are also critical. For example, a glass sphere (like a marble), could withstand huge levels of air pressure. StuRat 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another exampler: A teardrop shaped piece of glass can withstand hammer blows on the thick end but will shatter if the tail end is scratched. Rmhermen 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at glass. --Proficient 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural levitation

Criss Angel could somehow levitates and "travel" accross a building. Eye witnesses are available beneath the gap between the buildings and both on the buildings. How could it be done? Thanks! See Video

well, his feet aren't moving, and he seems to be surrounded by blurry matte lines, I think it's magic--152.163.100.74 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest explanation is that the witnesses are shills, paid to say they see something that they really don't. StuRat 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the same thing with C3P0, and there were thousands of Ewoks there to corroborate :) --Bmk 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope it's something more than just shills and post processing. If that's the case, then it's just boring TV. I'd like to know the mechanics of the trick, but apparently that can never be discussed. —Bradley 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mechanics of the trick looks a lot like standing on a green screen, or powerful magnetic space monkeys, that would be my second guess--64.12.116.74 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many carbon-fiber spiderweb strands does it take to lift 200lbs? And would a big cluster of transparent balloons be visible if it was at the end of a 1000ft tether?--Wjbeaty 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THat's nothing. I've seen David Copperfield levitate across the Grand Canyon. Try to figure out how he could do it without camera tricks or post production editing. There's usually a very easy way to do something seemingly impossible. Just think a little outside the box. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course he did it by camera tricks and post production editing. Then there probably won't be a vert easy way to do it. --Crazywolf 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a logical scientific explanation for something,
- (or even an explanation we might not know enough science to evaluate),
then it is not supernatural. User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Niven wrote a delightvul "The Magic Goes Away" in which he theorized that magic was a non-renewable resource. If there is any validity in his theory, then this might explain stuff in history, such as Dragons that we have a hard time explaining scientifically today. User:AlMac|^(talk) 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A camera trick goes a long way. --Proficient 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lead paint? second hand smoke? germs? baby boosters? alchohol during pregnancy? STDS? blah, blah, blah

If all the stuff that people have been doing for years is REALLY bad for you, then how come we're not all dead? What are the real chances that this shit will actually kill you? small i bet--Crbbydemds 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those aren't very serious risks, like lead-based paints, while others, like "germs" do kill millions and could kill billions if we didn't take actions to prevent it. The main reason for the increase in life expectancy in the last few centuries is the widespread use of water purification systems to remove or kill "germs" in the water. Without this, people end up drinking water contaminated by raw sewage and dying from whatever the last person had who defecated into the water. One of the silliest concerns is mercury in thermometers, which, unlike methyl mercury, is quite stable and safe. Some environmentalists would have us treat it like plutonium, however. StuRat 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at only the risks of "dying" is quite narrow minded. The hazards you listed--and many, many others--don't always terminate "life" but more often do reduce "quality of life". For example, abosorbing a small quantity of lead in your bloodstream is unlikely to kill you but, above a specified threashold, can make you life less enjoyable. Therefore, if your life is nothing more than staying alive, then indeed you don't need to worry about most of these hazards. But if enjoyment comes into play, than start pay attention.--JLdesAlpins 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you listed STDs on your list. There's no question that AIDS is bad for you...you don't doubt that do you? And alcohol during pregnancy can do some nasty stuff - see fetal alcohol syndrome. Do you doubt the harmfulness of germs in general to human health? I'm not sure how to start. Perhaps you could read about smallpox. Just one example of some nasty microbes. Another horrible horrible way to die is from ebola. --Bmk!

Don't forget Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The placenta is a marvel of protection but it's no match for a boozehound mother, and babies born to substance abusing mothers lead very diminished lives.

I didn't forget :) read my post again - also it's nice to add a signature - type four tildes (~) to add a signature and a date. --Bmk 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paint causes a large number of problems, particularly in young children, even though it doesn't seem to be a major cause of death. Second hand smoke is a factor in many deaths. Germs such as bacteria and viruses cause many diseases, many of which are deadly, although we now have weapons, including vaccines and antibiotics, against many of those. I don't know what you mean by baby boosters. Alchohol during pregnancy often causes serious conditions in the baby, including fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect. You're unusual if you have never met anyone suffering from those. Sexually transmitted diseases are sometimes curable (such as gonorrhea) but often not (such as AIDS, which is deadly). And we do see large numbers of people dying of AIDS, especially in Africa -- so many that it is affecting population demographics. Why are we not all dead? Because first, each of these factors carries only a risk of illness or death, not a guarantee, and second, many people avoid some or all of these things insofar as it is possible. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is very basic. Over the course of time, people have taken a variety of risks, from walking under dead trees (could fall on you and crush you) to speeding down the highway stoned on pot while turning around the backseat to smack your misbehaving kids. Some of those things did indeed prove deadly to some people and those people are all dead. If you want to increase your chances of living a long time, do as few risky things as you can. Or, you could just decide you don't believe any thing can kill you and take your chances. Johntex\^talk 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more basic: what does "risky" mean? What do we mean by "dangerous?" I suspect that this is the OP's actual question. And in that case it's a matter of relative risk. For example, suppose we chose car-driving as our standard for common and well-known "acceptable risk." Then we can ask how dangerous all the other examples are in comparison to driving a car to work every day. --Wjbeaty 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)day.[reply]

We are all dead. You just have to wait a little while. Add in heart disease and fist-hand smoke and I'll put pretty good money on something on that list getting you, too. Crazywolf

Many people do indeed die from said circumstances. We're all not dead because there are preventative measures that one undergoes. --Proficient 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two important factors here are accumulation and quantity/concentration. Heavy metals like lead accumulate in your body. A tiny bit won't kill you instantly (as you seem to suggest), but if you're exposed to tiny quantities regularly all your life then it will probably affect your health and shorten your life. About the quantity, that's a very common mistake. People hear that certain things are good or bad and then draw absurd conclusions like that one should not eat any fat or take shitloads of vitamin C. Any substance that is present in nature is something we evolved with and therefore probably healthy in the right quantity. A bit of arsenic or alcohol is healthy. To much (or too little) is bad. And way too much (for too long) is often deadly.

Germs are a special case because being exposed to them builds up resistance. So the shielding of kids from every sort of germ since the 50's or so caused an enormous rise in allergy. As for second hand smoke. If you mean from cars if you live in a city, yeah that's a serious health threat, comparable to first hand tobacco smoke.

If you wish to know the greatest risk to your life, you have to take into account not just the death toll, but also the age at which people die. About half a million people get killed by cars (directly) every year, at an average age of around 35 or 40. That's a loss of 20 million life years every year. I don't think even the big killer malaria is that deadly. DirkvdM 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans used to die early because their drinking water was heavily contaminated by lead from lead pipes etc. But they thought early deaths were normal and did not realise they were being poisoned.

I have had similar thoughts about Acrylamide, which is produced by frying, baking, and roasting. I have been trying to avoid it - a large proprtion of the daily dose comes from coffee. Boiled food or raw food (except olives, prunes, and prune juice) does not contain any. (I think it may be related to the browning of food, and I've been worried if currants, sultanas, raisins have it as I eat these everyday).

By the way, while I think of it, some months ago I added some content to the article on Acrylamide that balanced the complacent attitude of the 'author' (criticised for being so in the discussion). Then I found that the author had removed all my content and covered this up by saying the edit was just about a changed URL. The same author had had his request for promotion to admin status denied as their were suspicious circumstances regarding his nomination. I have avoided looking at the acrylamide article since because I'm too busy to article, and dont want to become involved in a 'war' or be upset by it.

--81.104.12.4 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind direction in weather forcasts

When a weather forcast says "West wind around 6 MPH", does that mean that the wind will be blowing towards the West, or blowing from the west? Do different agencies have opposite meaning for this?

There's a standard convention for all weather reports. A west wind is a wind coming from the west. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth

Hey. I'm getting a laptop shipped in a week or so. It comes with a MiniPCI card that can do 802.11 networks, and I want to say it's Intel PRO but I don't know if they make those in MiniPCI.

Anyways, I read somewhere that you can hack an 802.11 card to support bluetooth. Is it really possible to do this easily? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not possible. See Bluetooth#Air interface for brief comment on this. —Bradley 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Eukaryotic Organelles to Prokaryotes

ATP synthase enzymes are found in the prokaryotic plasma membrane and in mitochondria and chloroplasts. (1) What does this suggest about the evolutionary relationship of these eukaryotic organelles to prokaryotes? (2) How might the amino acid sequences of the ATP synthases from different sources support or refute your hypothesis?--Patchouli 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short amount of time to familiarize yourself with the instructions at the top of the page. We're pleased to help out with most questions, but I'm afraid that we have to ask you to Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the homework rule, but I posted it anyway for a good samaritan to answer. I don't mind if it goes unanswered.--Patchouli 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't want the reference desk to build a reputation as a place to bring homework questions. Hapless, helpless, or hopeless students would swamp the page with "Well, they answer homework questions sometimes, it's worth a shot" or worse "They ignored me yesterday, but I can repost today and try again" type posts. If you want us to go to the trouble of doing part of your homework, please try to at least paraphrase the question and (better yet) attempt your own answer rather than posting verbatim. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I surmise that ATP synthase enzymes moved from plasma membrane of prokaryotic cells (earlier) to the mitochondria and chloroplasts of eukaryotic cells (later) in the course of evolution. In other words, the mitochondria and chloroplasts of eukaryotic cells evolved from the plasma membranes of prokaryotic cells. (2) The similarity of amino acid sequences of ATP synthases from the plasma membrane of prokaryotic cells to those in the mitochondria and chloroplasts of eukaryotic cells could support this hypothesis.--Patchouli 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how? If I were wondering that same thing, I might take a look at endosymbiotic theory... :) – Clockwork Soul 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinitrophenol for Weight Loss

Dinitrophenol (DNP) uncouples the chemiosmotic machinery by making the lipid bilayer of the inner mitochondrial membrane leaky to H⁺. Explain how this causes weight loss.--Patchouli 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By making the user waste time trying to get other people to do their homework? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd lose weight too if you had a leaky H⁺. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since we share in the work, does everyone on the reference desk get a share in your degree too? i could use another. Xcomradex 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three homework questions in a row, impressive. Try and think for yourself, though - what direction would H⁺ travel in if the inner membrane was "leaky", what would the effect of that be on the PMF? And what effect would that have? --Saintmocha 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then the H⁺ would diffuse into the cell. The proton-motive force wouldn't be there to perform work. But I don't see how the absence of a gradient can cause weight loss.--Patchouli 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer and Wine

(1) How do you suppose fermentation was first discovered? (2) Why did wine prove to be a more useful beverage, especially to a preindustrial culture, than the grape juice from which it was made?--Patchouli 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define your use of the term "useful beverage"? Dismas|^(talk) 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" meaning greater demand by consumers.--Patchouli 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grape juice doesn't tend to store well when you don't have good refridgeration--little creatures like all the sugar that is in it. When it is fermented, on the other hand, all the sugar has been turned into alcohol, which we humans like but the critters tend not to. Probably it was discovered when someone stored some sugary liquid in just the right way to end up with an intoxicating beverage. Digfarenough 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably whenever 'the ancients' made grape juice, some of it ended up fermenting, and some people liked it, and figured out how to do it on purpose. --Bmk 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermented beverages were discovered by accident, and the first one was probably mead (fermented honey and water) followed by beer (fermented malted barley). They were more useful than unfermented beverages because the alcohol is a preservative. In fact, no pathogenic organisms are able to survive in beer or stronger alcoholic beverages. See also History of beer and Wine#Early_history --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the story of an alcoholic who survived the bite of a venomous snake.--Patchouli 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't he also trampled by pink elephants ? :-) StuRat 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely reason (without citation) for alcohol becoming a commodity is that it allows drunkeness, which many cultures regard as giving them a closer relationship with god. Many civilisations lick toads, eat fungi, consume plants for the explicit reason that they wish to become closer to their god(s) outside the normal reality. The most likely cause of consumption of alcohol is through the eating of decaying foodstuffs which was later encouraged and developed upon, though the evidence for this is lost in time. Apart from this, we have learned to enjoy the physical properties of fermenting organic fluids, even though we do not fully understant the processes at work. --russ 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is different from many other drugs in that the way it is produced is relatively complicated, which makes the question rather valid. The explanation I heard once is that some distant nomadic ancestor stored some grain somewhere for when he returned there, did so a few weeks later, hungry, finding the grain had gone bad, but eating it nevertheless because he was hungry and discovering it had a rather nice side-effect. This would have required just a little bit of alcohol, as is still the case peoples who haven't evolved with alcohol, like Indians and Aborigines. DirkvdM 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated how? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For beer that should be obvious. But even wine takes some preparation. You can't just eat or smoke the grapes to get the desired effect. Even coffee is simpler (you can eat the beans). And opium is also simper I beleive (though I'm not sure, really). DirkvdM 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some forms of alcoholic beverages are complex, but others are incredibly simple. Apple cider turns into hard apple cider with no effort whatsoever, for example. And apple cider is just squished apples. StuRat 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd first have to turn the apples or grapes into juice. Ok, that's fairly plausible. And then let it stand for long enough to go 'off' without going 'really off' (excuse my primitive language resulting from not precisely knowing what I'm talking about :) ). And that is a bit less obvious. My point is that all the other drugs can be detected through direct consumption. Once you know the drug is there you can start experimenting and find new (more pleasant) ways to digest it. But alcohol isn't there in the first place. You have to create it. And that has to happen by accident. It's not surprising that there are (at least) two peoples who never figured this out. DirkvdM 09:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alcohol production is self-limiting, as the alcohol eventually reaches a level that kills off all the bacteria. Even a caveman could manage to squish a few grapes. And don't worry, I'm used to you not knowing what you're talking about, by now. :-) StuRat 14:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do better than that. Right now, I don't know what you are talking about. But that doesn't matter because you don't seem to know what I am talking about (how do I know that if I don't know what you are talking about, so what am I talking about? - Ok, I see your point ... ).

Anyway, the question is not whether he would be capable of doing it but why he would squash grapes and let the juice to rot if there are no obvious advantages. DirkvdM 08:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Management of animal tissue culture wastes

How to manage and decontaminate the animal tissue culture wastes? Are these wastes hazardous in any way.

That depends. Biosafety level 1 culture wastes are unlikely to be harmful to humans, but may represent a hazard to some other organisms. Level 2 organisms generally represent a modest risk to humans. (I'm going to assume that you aren't dealing with Level 3 or 4 organisms, because you would have received proper training before they let you anywhere near that stuff.)

Your institution (hospital, university, or company) ought to have a policy on handling and disposing of biohazardous wastes; you should speak to your institution's biosafety officer for detailed instructions. Typically, liquid wastes are treated with bleach (sodium hypochlorite solution) or another disinfectant; after an appropriate time to allow the disinfectant to work these wastes can be poured down the sink. Solid waste is often autoclaved, then sent to regular landfill; incineration is sometimes used. (There are companies which specialize in the handling and disposal of biohazardous wastes.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was more technologically advanced (during the same age)

neanderthals or cro-magnon?

no-one knows. the Neanderthals disappeared, but maybe that was because the invented contraceptives? dab (ᛏ) 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals had bigger brains, but size isn't evrything. A major disadvantage of neanderthals was that they were built more for strength (and to withstand the ice-age cold) and less for agility. Technology in those days often required agility. Neanderthals could only stab their spears, not trow them (not the right build), so when the forests started to disappear their techniques wer no longer useful. They might have copied the spears of the Cro Magnon man, but not used them. So it also depends on what you mean by 'advanced'. 'Adapted' is a more important word. DirkvdM 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to the hypothesis that neanderthals had more physiological limits (larynx) to the way they could verbally communicate v. cro-magnons. Discovering a technology is one thing, but to keep improving on it for generations, there need to be some level of communication sophistication. So assuming that both species were technological equal at some point in time, the cro-magnons may have develop their technology further in time, thus gaining a definitive advantage.--JLdesAlpins 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Neanderthals could communicate (and verbally too, probably), but you don't need to communicate to develop a technique. Just trying for yourself and showing each other is enough. DirkvdM 09:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

light travel delay and grammatical tense

I've been editing a few galaxy articles, and I was wondering if there's some kind of standard: If an event, such as two galaxies passing each other, really happened several million years ago, but due to light travel time, looks like it's happening right now, should it be written in the past tense, or the present tense? Should I propose a standard be created for light travel time? Either way, it should be uniform throughout wikipedia. --Bmk 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"covariant grammar", sweet, you should suggest that at WP:RD/L :) dab (ᛏ) 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current observation is in present tense. The actual event is in past tense. For example, we are observing a bright light, from a star that exploded a billion years ago. --Zeizmic 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh dear - this reminds me of a wonderful piece of gibberish by John Clarke about a sports event. it was discovered that the clock at the venue was 20 minutes fast, so rather than starting on time and being 20 minutes early, they decided to start 20 minutes late and be on time. Because of that the live radio commentary was replaced by a message saying that, since the event had already finished, live commentary would be transmitted as soon as it hadn't started yet. Grutness...wha? 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

physics

Please explain string therory in laymen's terms.

Does this help? --Ed (Edgar181) 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a lot of good (and not so good) books on the topic. Your local library or book store will have several or them. If you find those interesting, you might move on to [The Road to Reality] by Roger Penrose. It tries to be popularly accessible while not shying away from the fancy math. A tough slog, but a good book. --George 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you assume that Elementary particles have no structure, then there are no obvious constraints on which fundamental particles should exist. String theory is an attempt to explore the idea that each particle has a specific "structure" that can be thought of as a vibrational state of a "string". If a few simple assumptions about these hypothetical strings can be found to make verifiable predictions about particles, then the theory will have some pragmatic value. --JWSchmidt 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the 3 part show "Elegant Universe" or read the book. I found it very accessible and fun!--Sonjaaa 08:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contains! sulphites

why does it say "contains sulphites" in all the bottles of red wine i get given at this time of year?? (end of term!!)

The article sulfite has some answers. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just beat me to it. Xcomradex 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is sulphur dioxide may trigger allergic reactions and aggrevate aesthmatic reactions in some people. In the EU this statement is illegal, as ingredients listings in alcoholic beverages are forbidden by law, however many supermarket chains put this information on regardless as a check against people having a reaction and sueing them. It should be noted that sulphur dioxide is a necessary component in the manufacture of quality, stable wine and is allowed in limited amounts even in wines labelled as 'organic' (i.e. without the use of chemicals). This is because it is very difficult to produce wine of any real quality without it. The SO2 is used not as a preservative, as the article on sulphur dioxide states, but as a way of preventing wine from becoming unstable and becoming bacterially infected, losing colour, becoming fizzy, or developing many other faults which would render it unpalatable and unsaleable --russ 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "preventing wine from becoming unstable and becoming bacterially infected" exactly what a "preservative" is supposed to do ? StuRat 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is is illegal to print ingredients on alcoholic products in the EU?? --Bmk 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are afraid California will make a copy that's just as good for half the price, using Mexican immigrants as workers. StuRat 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true that listing ingredients in alcoholic products is illegal?? I always assumed that these were one of the few products where not listing ingredients is legal, and that manufactures take advantage of that leniency to inhibit competition. Alf Boggis 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatloaf safety.

I left some freshly made meatloaf out last night for about four or five hours at 75 F. Is it safe to eat? It's been in the fridge since then. Should I microwave it for a while to make it safer? Would that help much? grendel|khan 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The safe recommendation is to toss it out, but cooking the hell out of it should certainly make it somewhat safer. If it smells bad or has changed colors, I'd toss it. Also, if it was left uncovered or exposed to insects (flying or crawling) I'd toss it. StuRat 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was uncovered. Darn, and it was such a delicious homemade meatloaf. Doesn't smell funny or anything. I thought that bringing the temperature to 212 degrees sterilized things; is it not the bacteria content that would be the danger? grendel|khan 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I don't think that would do much against endospore forming bacteria, on second thought, 212 degrees what? degrees C, degrees F, or just plain old K? hopefully not K, I don't think freezing bacteria does much ;-)152.163.100.74 01:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin isn't measured in degrees. DirkvdM 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a vegetarian (lol) I'd say it's probably OK. Thoroughly reheating it should kill any microbes, and IMO that amount of time wouldn't be enough to cause the meat to decay (the other reason it's not healthy to eat food that's been sitting out). I frequently leave food sitting out overnite, not meat of course, but it's always OK. I'd just be cautious about anything that can't be heated, like potato salad, or something that can actually rot overnight, like milk or food that's already several days old. And don't worry, this answer isn't a cover for 'one less meat eater', lol. And BTW I feed my dog raw meat, and I frequently leave it out overnight to defrost it, up to 12 hours, it's room temp when I'm done, and she never gets sick.--Anchoress 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it would probably be OK, particularly if it was cooling during the 4-5 hours that you left it out. Microwaving would probably help. BenC7 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you purchased that meat at your grocers, it was covered in varrious kinds of bacteria. You then cooked it to an internal temperature which (hopefully) killed most, but not all of that bacteria. So what kind of bacteria was it? In ground meat, the biggest bacterial enemy is a certain strain of E. coli, which innoculates the meat when it comes into contact with fecal matter (pretty common) and gets mixed in by the grinding process. So some of that bacteria was left in the meat even after cooking, it's a fact of life. The moment the meat started cooling down, that bacteria started growing again. Now, with bacteria like salmonella sp. and listeria sp., this is not a big deal, because they grow very slowly. escherichia sp., however, grows very rapidly. So in the five hours that the meat sat out, this pathogenic bacteria could have gone through, at most, 30 generations (some strains have 20-minute doubling-times). To put that in perspective, that's 2^30 times as many bacteria as you started with. If you got a meatloaf with just 1000 bacteria in it (a ridiculously low number) and killed 99.9% of it by cooking, you could still have more than a billion bacteria after 30 generations under ideal conditions. Even if you cook that meat again, killing 99.9% of the bacteria in it, you would still have a more than ample pathogenic load to make you sick. I don't think I would eat it. By the way, where did you get 212°? Bacteria (in the real world, there are some that can overcome this temperature barrier, but...) 121°C is sufficient to kill everything (that is the temperature an autoclave reaches). Also, the comments given by the vegetarian above, though undoubtedly in agreement with his or her observations, may be hazardous. Don't leave your meat out overnight (defrost it in the refrigerator), and don't be fooled into thinking that the process of "rotting" or "decay" in meat or milk or any foodstuff is anything other than bacteria in action. (perhaps you were thinking of rancidity Anchoress?).Tuckerekcut 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC), MS Microbiology.[reply]

Hi Tuckercut, point taken. I will, however, continue to defrost my meat outside, I've done it for 6 years with no sickness, no reason to change. And as for the milk thing, I don't think we're in disagreement, perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. There are two things at work, microbe infestation, which can make you sick, and food that is rotten, which can make you sick. Even completely sterile rotten food can make you sick. The food may have become rotten through the work of microbes, but if you kill the microbes the food is still rotten. That's what I mean by milk, etc. Some things, like cheese, fruit, etc, can survive room temperature exposure for a long time before rotting. Other things, like milk, will rot very quickly after reaching room temperature. Is it because of microbes? News to me, but I don't doubt you. Would the food still make you sick after killing all the microbes? Yes. That's what I'm trying to say. :-)--Anchoress 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

212 degrees Fahrenheit is the boiling point of water. Therefore, any food with a high water content, like meat loaf, can only be heated to that point. To heat it beyond that temp would drive out all the moisture and burn the meatloaf. StuRat 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not instantly. And the thing with microwaves is that they work pretty instant. Loads of heat in a short time is what they're good at. DirkvdM 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microwaves only rapidly heat small objects. They would take forever to cook a 20 pound frozen turkey (and it would be inedible when done). StuRat 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that would help would be to cut off the exposed outer layers. The interior should have had less bacterial exposure. StuRat 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preceeding comment is unfortunately incorrect (sorry StuRat!). The bacteria coming in from outside is inconsequential over this timeframe. The nasty bacteria is already in the meatloaf. Cutting off the outside will not decrease your chances of ingesting pathogenic bacteria.Tuckerekcut 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The cooking process should have killed off any bacteria in the interior. StuRat 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[inserted here to simplify flow of argument] The cooking process, specifically increasing the interior temperature of the meatloaf to about 75°C, would not have killed all the bacteria in the meatloaf. To do that, one would have to raise the temperature to at least 121°C (~250°F) for at least a few minutes, which would result in a dish that would not be, as the question asker stated, "...a delicious homemade meatloaf," but, more likely, a perfecly functional doorstop. The cooking process really just kills enough of the organisms to be safe to eat, I would guess about 999 out of every 1000, but that still leaves a lot of viable organisms to act as progenitors. As an undergrad, I remember that one of my professors worked with a bacteria (Archaea, actually) sampled from hot springs in Italy, that grew best at 75°C. And the infamous T. aquaticus, from which scientists get Taq polymerase, grows in the boiling hotsprings of Yellowstone National Park, and is perfectly happy for small stints at 95°C.Tuckerekcut 17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the cut of meat. For whole cuts, most of the bacteria were on the surface to begin with. Cooking the meat kills everything, and cutting off the outer layers or cooking again will make it fairly safe. For ground meat, the bacteria are mixed in with the meat, and cooking only kills most of them -- the interior of a meatloaf or a burger patty doesn't get anywhere near as hot as the surface of a grilled steak. Once the temperature drops to a safe level, the surviving bacteria start growing again, and this growth is throughout the meat. --Serie 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toss the meatloaf. Remember to refrigerate it next time. Food poisoning can result both from live bacteria and from toxins produced by those bacteria, even if you've killed the bacteria (by cooking) after they've produced the toxin. Meat dishes are often contaminated by Staphylococcus aureus, which produces a heat-stable toxin. Enteropathogenic E. Coli, another frequent contaminent of meat dishes, also produces a heat-stable toxin (as well as various heat-sensitive toxins). In general, if you get sick 4 to 6 hours after eating, it's due to preformed toxin; if you get sick 12 or more hours after eating, it's due to the bacteria proper. - Nunh-huh 08:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My criterium has always been the smell. If it doesn't stink it's ok. And if meat stinks a little and has a slimy surface I rinse it and cook it extra long. I've never had food poisoning. Then again, I have always done this, so I've built up resistance. DirkvdM 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely don't eat the meatloaf without heating it ... I would be suspicious of it even if you did reheat it as much as possible. Also, it will not be a tasty meatloaf any longer if you overcook it that much. So, just toss it and chalk it up as a lesson learned for next time. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to not take a risk. --Proficient 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tossed the meatloaf because, on further consideration, eating it would fail the "emergency room test", meaning that I'd feel real stupid waking up in the ER and explaining that, well, the meatloaf was tasty and some guys on the Wikipedia reference desk said that it might be okay if I reheated it heavily. I find that this keeps me out of all sorts of trouble. grendel|khan 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Sweet Meatloaf - July 13-14, 2006 --Anchoress 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

CSS issue

I'm currently doing some template work at another wiki, and have come across a problem that my very limited knowledge of CSS won't fix.

I have a template that's currently aligned right (an info-box), as well as a template that's aligned center (a bottom-page link banner). They're both div-based, for the most part. The problem is that the very far right of the link banner appears to be overlapped by the info-box. You can see the issue here.

What I'd like is to set the CSS so that the link banner will render on the page further down from the info-box, so that there is no overlap between the two templates at all. Is there any way of getting CSS to do this? Or will I have to manually enter all the blank lines to do what I want to do on each page? -- Kirby1024 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put computer-type questions on the Mathematics page, not the Science one. But then again, here I am. You should be able to use clear:both; in that case in the CSS for the linkbox. In any case, you should never have to enter a whole mess of blank lines; they may or may not be necessary for people with different window sizes than yours. What you want in terms of a line break is the (deprecated but still widely-used) <br clear="both" />. grendel|khan 01:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, almost forgot, a fuller explanation is available over here. grendel|khan

If he put the question on the Math RD, he would have received a useless answer about the mathematics of detecting overlap in bounding boxes. Posting computer questions in the Science RD gets answers that you can use. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was unsure as to which help desk was appropriate, but I'd seen other computer questions further up, and thus had assumed. But thankyou very much for the information! -- Kirby1024 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a camera flash cause a fire?

Once, I was taking a picture with my camera while wearing leather motorbike gloves. I put my hand over the flash to take the picture. When I shot the picture, my glove sizzled and sparked brightly and when I looked at my glove, there was a smoking little shallow hole (not all the way through the leather). It is still there on my glove.

However, I've been met with skepticism when telling this story.

Has anyone else experienced this, or beleives it to be likely or at least possible, and will back me up here?

Thank you.

--Asia

Under normal circumstances, a camera flash can't start a fire. However, if there's a short circuit, then sure -- a spark could ignite something. — Lomn | Talk 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old one-time-use flash bulbs could (and did) start a fire. Over time, they were encased in plastic, which was actually rather handy because you could plug a 4-6 bulb pack into the camera and take multiple pictures without changing out the bulb. Of course, that certainly not the type of flash bulb the questioner is referring to. So, I should just shut up and go to bed. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather odd what happened to you. --Proficient 04:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd happens. DirkvdM 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rather sadistic person I know made a "taser" with a camera flash, and the spark was enough to singe paper. It was also very painful I'm told... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger camera flashes put out many joules of light, easily enough to start a fire if concentrated on one spot. It would depend on the size of the flash capacitors. Also: I've seen a device which prints out contest win/lose ticks by heating some thermal-printer paper on the ticket using a photoflash tube. This paper typically turns black at around 100C.

Universal proxy

I'm looking for a simple freeware program for Windows that acts like a proxy for any protocol, and that lets me see the incoming\outgoing connections and what its being sent and received. I've been trying to find one but I can't figure the right keywords. :( Any suggestions? 201.48.96.40 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a proxy but if you want a packet sniffer then Ethereal (software) and its recent fork Wireshark are pretty popular ones. The packet sniffer article lists several others. Weregerbil 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's what I was looking for! Thank you ^_^ -- Anon

Cool as a cucumber

Apparently, the expression cool as a cucumber arose because the inside flesh of a cucumber can be up to 20° F cooler than air temperature on a hot day.

This sounds like a complete load to me, because I know what thermal equilibrium is. However, a quick Google just finds hundreds of pages saying the above and no pages actually explaining the mechanism for this astonishing thermodynamics-defying feat. Anybody know if it's actually true, and if so, how does it work? Cheers. Maelin 03:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it's because they came from somewhere cool, like the "root cellar" (this was before refrigeration), which was significantly cooler than the air temp above ground. Perhaps they are good thermal insulators, so hold the lower temp for quite some time. StuRat 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or because they're so gross when they're warm that they are never eaten unless cold.--Anchoress 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or cooked? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumbers contain a lot of liquid and maybe they 'sweat' just enough to stay cool without 'dehydrating'. DirkvdM 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evaporative cooling would be my guess too. On a dry day, its easy for an object to maintain a temperature lower than it's surroundings, while still abiding by the laws of Thermodynamics. See Swamp cooler for practical applications. Although fwiw, I've grown many cucumbers and never have I seen one 'sweat'. And, might I add, "Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled" --Jmeden2000 13:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they don't sweat, especially when waxed. StuRat 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said " 'sweat' just enough to stay cool without 'dehydrating' ". In which case you wouldn't see the sweat - it evaporates instantly, without any excess visible. Also, are we talking about cut cucumbers? In that case the waxing wouldn't matter much. Assuming cucumbers are waxed, I never heard of that. DirkvdM 09:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a widespread practice to wax them in the US, although you can also get them unwaxed. The waxed ones are shiny and the unwaxed ones are dull, that's usually the only way you can tell which are which. StuRat 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps cucumbers contain a lot of water, which in turn has four times the specific heat capacity of air - perhaps it simply cools down at night, and takes a long time to heat back up... same would apply to oceans, watermelons, etc. - Saintmocha 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Average age at which Americans lose their vrginity

I'm not sure whether this question should go under humanities or science, but where would I find credible studies about the age at which American males first have sex, on average? I couldn't find links to such information on wikipedia, and I'm not sure where else to look. Thanks.

Time magazine had this statistic in one of their 2005 editions. I think the median was around 15 or 16 (although this very much depends on the definition of sex). Raul654 04:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most unassailable source for data on American sexual behavior is unfortunately over a decade old now. It is the National Health and Social Life Survey, the only large-scale, statistically representative survey of American sexual behavior ever (that I'm aware of). You can find an overview here.

Two books came out of the project: "Sex in America: A definitive survey" is meant for the general reader and can be found in many libraries. "The Social organization of sexuality in the United States" is meant for academics, being chock full of statistical discussions and the details of survey design; of course it also has more raw data than the other book. You can find it at most university libraries and perhaps very large public libraries.

The General Social Survey, a long-time project of NORC, asks a few questions about sex (and many other interesting things you might want to read). You have to get the data yourself, though. Various sites make it available online. This is the survey's home page at NORC, which you might also find useful. --George 05:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone convert this into JPEG or PNG?

Well, yesterday I had put up a question about political world maps. Though volunteer "gadfium" helped me a lot. But the problem is that my computer is not very high end : 500MHz, 192Mb RAM. So the "svg" file, which I found very useful takes a long long time to open in Internet Explorer, and even after it opens, scrolling the image hangs up my computer. I searched google to find "svg" to jpg or png converter programs, bcoz I had to install svg viewer softwares or plugins to view that file. And being on dial-up connection, its difficutl to download a 15-18 mb application (the size of 3-4 programs which i found on internet).

So if someone could convert the following image to "jpg" or "png" format, it would be great help. I know I am asking for too much, but if someone could help me. After conversion, I wish the volunteer who does it provides a link to that image, either on wikipedia or on rapidshare (but no megaupload plz). The link for the image is : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/World_map_pol_2005_v02.svg

Thank You - Nikhilthemacho.

Here: [17] --Ring0 06:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much, but how did u do it?

I used Inkscape - an open-source vector graphics editor [18].--Ring0 10:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You use IE (and therefore msWindows) and your computer hangs. Gee, that's new. My suggestion is too obvious to make. DirkvdM 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, there's a less known reason, so I'll say it anyway. Linux was originally developed for 'small' computers (slow and with limited resources), so if that's what you have, Linux is the way to go. And you'll probably get a free image editor like gimp with it, installed by default. Out of the box functionality. And of course it's free. DirkvdM 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative way would just to let Wikipedia's image rendering software do it for you. If you pasted the following text into any window and clicked "Show preview" it would render the SVG as a 300px-wide PNG file for you to download: [[Image:World map pol 2005 v02.svg|1000px]] You can change 1000px to whatever you want. But don't "save page"—there's no reason to if you are just using this for your own purposes. --Fastfission 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Network Printer

I just got a new laptop and a wireless connection in the same day. They both work beautifully, but im having trouble getting my printer, attached to another computer on the same wireless connection, to work with the new laptop. How do i do it? i tried to change the printer settings to allow for sharing. I looked aimlessly around the "my network places" folder of both computers. it should be metioned i have xp on both. the printer, if it matters, is an hp 3015 thanks

Details please. Have you gone through the "add a printer" process on the laptop? Are you getting error messages? --LarryMac 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have the latest drivers. --Proficient 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Belt

I would like to know if there was any reliable scientific information regarding the "Photon Belt".

Many new-age web-sites have made some rather interesting and way-out conclusions about what happens when it comes into range of Earth and i am understandibly skeptical about their claims. Most state that it will have/will encounter the Earth at some time between 1986 and 2012. This coincides well with end-of-days prophecies, millenium bugs and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. The Belt's effects are said to be anything from a complete spiritual awakening, an Electro-Magnetic-Pulse phenomena to Psychic powers being awakened in Humans. I understand that these people are drawing information about the Photon Belt from a scientific source but i have been unable to locate any hard evidence myself. Thanks in advance.

Ways to defeat the photon belt:

Wear sunglasses

I have lived through all the "end of the earth" shit. I don't see why that'll change anytime soon. --mboverload @ 08:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand that these people are drawing information about the Photon Belt from a scientific source but i have been unable to locate any hard evidence myself."

translates to:

"They have no scientific sources and are making it all up" Crazywolf 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it up? In a political debate, lying or ignorance is perfectly acceptable if it lets us win. :) But in a scientific debate the goal is to get to the truth, and if we're dishonest or ignorant, we'll defeat ourselves and lose the debate. So... suppose a widespread New Age belief exists which is based on "channeling." Suppose we lie about this, and insist that the New Agers are just making up the belief. (Or suppose we haven't even bothered to look into the issue, and we DON'T KNOW that the belief originates in "channeling.") Or suppose we try to turn the debate into a joke by sneering at it: "wear sunglasses." In that case we've discredited the skeptic position, and we're not to be trusted. The New Agers (and the greater audience) will scornfully dismiss us as ignorant liars, and rightly so. The arch-skeptic Ray Hyman of CSICOP has a bit about ways skeptics can turn their whole audience against them: [19] 'Especially' see #7 in his paper "Proper Criticism." Ridicule, sneering, and jokes at the expense of our opponents might make us feel good, but these are logical fallacies. They're common tactics in political debate, but are shameful when used in scientific debate.--Wjbeaty 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon people. Somebodies got to know more than NASA surely?--Twangus-Apparatus 09:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the oddly titled The Photon Belt could do with some objective input and removal of a certain amount of nonsense (or just deletion).--Shantavira 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the photon belt we could say:

Channeling (mediumistic) doesn't work. All the received info just comes from the channeler's subconscious. (But this is a claim, and it requires evidence before we can accept it.)
or... there is no solid evidence that Channeling works. Whether it's real or not remains unknown, so we should ignore all "channeled information."
or... Channeling is real, but is not to be trusted. It easily lets evil entities spread lies and sow confusion, interfering with this world. If we believe in Photon Belt, it's at our peril.
or... Channeling is real, but some "channelers" have no ability, and their information is pure delusion. Yet there is no easy way to sort the reputable channelers from the mild psychotics. How can we tell if Photon Belt is a genuine warning or just a delusion? We can't.
or... if the world is about to end, and there's nothing whatever that we can do about it, then what good does it do to know the facts in advance? Should we all just commit suicide in order to avoid worrying about it?

--Wjbeaty 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to have a "belt" of "photons" is for them to be circling very close to a black hole. This is pure and utter bullshit. --mboverload @ 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Label for particle mass

When, by whom and where was the first use of eV/c2 for mass? Thanks, 58.167.220.164 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a really old physicist to answer this one. However this site [20] mentions that the eV was first used in 1912, I don't have access to the paper but I doubt that it gets used for particle mass as it is an article about the photoelectric effect. This letter [21] from 1940 which I do have access to is about a more consistent set of units and mentions that eV/c^2 is a derived unit for mass. So 1940 or earlier. JMiall 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angioplasty

Just curious - during balloon inflation in angioplasty, is the blood flow of the coronary artery in question is occluded? In that case, presumably the duration of occlusion is short enough for it not to be of concern? Thanks. -- Saintmocha 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. - Nunh-huh 08:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) -- Saintmocha 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help pls...

pressure is equals to force by area ... if the force is human weight, how to convert it to force??

Mass in kg * 9.81 m/s/s = force of gravity Crazywolf 08:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be helped by our article on weight. You are probably trying to convert units of mass to units of force, so the section on "Units of weight and mass": In general, to convert mass in kilograms to weight in newtons (at the earth's surface), multiply by 9.8. - Nunh-huh 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, what we normally call human "weight" is, in fact, mass - and what is the relationship between force and mass? Force might help. Remember, the acceleration in question is due to gravity, which is the reason for "9.8" keeps appearing everywhere. Good luck. -- Saintmocha 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, most people weigh themselves using pounds (Lb), this is actually a weight measure, as pounds are a measure of FORCE. In the UK, however, I have heard that people are sometimes measured in stones, which is in fact a measure of mass. In the rest of the world, humans are almost exclusively massed ("weighed") in kilograms, which is indeed a measure of mass. The SI measure of weight is the newton. Thus, pounds and newtons are measures of wieght (equivilent to the force of gravity on the person), and stones and kilograms are measures of mass.Tuckerekcut 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pound (mass) states that most of the time pounds is a unit of mass, not weight. - Dammit 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing everyone else read the question wrong, and you're really asking about the pressure on a person's feet. If you find the contact area of your feet with the ground, then divide your weight, in pounds, by that area, in square inches, you will get the average pressure, in PSI, on the bottoms of your feet (the part that touches the ground, that is). StuRat 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the contact area between your feet and the ground by stepping on watercolor paint, then graph paper. Count the number of squares covered with paint and multiply by the area of each square. StuRat 22:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP - OEM vs Retail

I am in the process of buying the components for assembling myself a new computer, and, amongst many other things, I need a copy of Windows XP. Doing some shopping around (such as on Amazon.co.uk), I found to my surprise that many of the large retailers sell OEM versions of Windows. Some more searching around found me the license I'd have to adhere to, and reading through it, the main differences between the OEM and retail versions of XP seem to be that OEM is designed for 'system builders', it doesn't come with support, and that it can never be transferred to another machine once it's been installed and activated. I'm building a system and don't need support, so it seems like a good deal (for 30 quid cheaper, too!).

My two questions:

As an individual assembling a computer for his own personal use, am I eligible to buy an OEM version? It appears to be geared towards people/companies who pre-install XP on custom-built machines for resale, and while a reading through the license, it doesn't seem to prohibit the use I'm planning to make of it - but I wanted to ask.
How is 'can never be transferred to another machine' handled with respect to Microsoft's Product Activation? While I have no intention of using it on any machine other than the one I'm building, I am worried that if, in future, I swap out too many components (ie I do some upgrades), XP will refuse to run. I know that with retail versions, if this happens, you can call Microsoft and 'convince' them that, yes, the machine is still the same (with one exception), but this (from Microsoft) seems to suggest that, with an OEM version, this is not the case, and that too many hardware changes would force me to splurge out on yet another copy of XP.

Any help with these would be greatly appreciated :) — QuantumEleven 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't concern yourself with legal mumbo jumbo. Why do you care, it's cheaper. Go out and buy it, there's NO difference between the CD that comes in the box and the OEM one. --mboverload @ 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before recently, Dell stopped offering backup copies of Windows XP and only offered backup partitions which did not always work and were hard to activate. They have recently started offering backup discs. Anyway, we had to obtain a backup copy of Windows XP home four our desktop. We did get it and we were able to repair our Windows installation. Now, my laptop is licensed to use XP Pro, but as I said, it didn't come with a backup disc either. Instead of having to get another disc from Dell, I decided to reinstall Windows on my laptop using the same disc. It worked fine. Apparently the Dell OEM copies don't care how many times you install it. They don't ask for CD keys either. I also have a suspicion that the disc isn't even right protected, but I haven't had a need to copy it. --Russoc4 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to worry about. The OEM will work. As mentioned, many times a key is not even needed. --Proficient 17:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal use standpoint:

you can purchase an OEM copy of Windows so long as you purchase meaningful hardware with it (a motherboard is Microsoft's suggestion). This is not enforced in practice.
Again, the motherboard is the key "this is the original computer" component. MS will reactivate the OS by phone if you tell them you've replaced any other combination of components. They will also reactivate if you've had to replace the mobo with an identical model (due to fault/damage/etc) They may replace it even if you've upgraded the motherboard, as the whole mess is, in practice, loosely enforced for single-license copies. — Lomn | Talk 07:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [22] is a pretty extensive FAQ on MS's OEM operating systems. — Lomn | Talk 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much everyone. — QuantumEleven 08:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon dissappears?

If our Moon were to suddenly disappear, what would be the consequences for life or systems on Earth? I know things like tides would be affected, but would it be a disaster? Or would everything adapt well to the lack of the moon? I'm wondering if its effects on Earth and Earth's denizens is subtle or more essential...

http://www.google.com/search?q=if+we+had+no+moon --mboverload @ 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but there are species of which the females use the moon to correct their biological calendar (menstruation cycle), the menstruate simultaneously then. Also, if there is no moon, it means that in certain parts of the world it will be pitch black every night, and I heard some creatures are urged by the full moon to reproduce. Oh well, I think some other people will know a lot more about this.--Evilbu 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole lot of life that is dependent on the tide cycle; the Moon's disappearance would affect it in ways that would certainly be considered disastrous by some, although I don't suppose it would quite amount to a disaster for the world at large. But there are, thus, forms of life on Earth in whose lives the Moon plays a critical part. --Rallette 12:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one potential effect, check out the chaotic axial tilt theory in the Earth article. Axial tilt mentions we are headed towards that disaster anyway (though it'll take a while). --Weregerbil 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That same question was asked a few years back to New Scientist's "Last Word". I don't remember the details of the answer but the going home message was that life as we know it would literally disappear. Life on earth is so deeply entagled with the presence of the moon that, apparently, a new ecosystem would have to be "rebuilt".--JLdesAlpins 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Isaac Asimov had an essay that addressed this very subject. Unfortunately, due to time and neuron loss, I'm unable to remember the title. A search might find it. In short, it would be a disaster. Bunthorne 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov wrote a pair of essays in the early 1970s entitled The Tragedy of the Moon, which argues that science was held back to a geocentric view of the universe by the moon very obviously orbiting Earth, and The Triumph of the Moon, which argues that intelligence and even land-based life may not have evolved without the Moon. The text of the latter appears to be here, but I don't know of its legitimacy. However, Asimov was discussing what may have happened if the Moon had never existed, not what might happen if it disappeared now.-gadfium 03:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain size, body size and intelligence

I gather that the intelligence of a species varies according to the ratio of brain size to body size, rather than directly according to brain size (that being why elephants and whales have huge brains, but show no obvious signs of great intelligence). Why is this so? Would it not be more efficient for them to have a smaller, more efficient brain (somewhat like my own) and save the resources consumed by their huge brains for something more useful? Henry ^Flower 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain to body mass ratio point out that all the extra brain mass "is required for housekeeping tasks, such as breathing, thermoregulation, senses, motor skill, etc." --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but in that case I have another question. I'd always thought that the brain which allows us to be clever carries with it a significant cost in terms of the resources it requires. But the 'cleverness' (as opposed to housekeeping) part of the brain shouldn't need to be any larger for an elephant or a whale than it is for us. That implies that these larger animals could be significantly cleverer for a relatively small percentage increase in brain size. Is there just no advantage to them being cleverer? Henry ^Flower 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "no advantage", it "not enough additional advantage at the margin to make additional investment productive (when inertia is included)". --Tmh 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I suspect that large brained animals have more detailed memories than we do. There is an evolutionary advantage to more memory, and not much disadvantage to having a large brain if you're an elephant or whale. On the other hand, humans can't afford to have that large of a brain, so have to compromise on memory. A shrew likely has almost no memory at all. By contrast, I don't think intelligence takes up all that much space. Some reasonably intelligent animals, like cuttlefish, have tiny brains. StuRat 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this based on the aphorism that "an elephant never forgets"? Memory is testable. Has anyone tested the memories of large brained animals compared to the memory of humans? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see the results of such a study. One example of an elephant's memory is that they seem to recognize the skeletons of relatives that died many years ago. I assume this is because they recall where all their relatives died. Whales have songs that are quite long, this requires a fair bit of memory, too. StuRat 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many animals can run a lot faster than we can. Considering we've got a hunter/gatherer past, why don't we have the physique of a cheetah? Different animals use different methods to get an edge. Our edge is our intelligence. There is no one 'best solution'. Evolution is a constant search for a better design considerig the circumstances, but that doesn't mean a best design will ever be found. A large and active brain is costly in terms of energy. A cheetah may ruyn fast but is totally knackered and helpless after that. Every advantage has its disadvantage (a quote by Johan Cruyff that doesn't translate well into English). DirkvdM 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, judging from your opinions I would have thought all quotes from the Dutch would be something like "America is the root of all evil in the world and the poor, misunderstood Muslims who blow up busloads of children are heroic freedom fighters who deserve our support." StuRat 15:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a serious communication problem. I'm not sure whether that has to do with brain size, body size or intelligence (yours or mine). Maybe we need a relation therapist. My God, we're we're behaving like a married couple. This is getting to be scary. DirkvdM 08:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switching voltage regulator

Typically, can you draw any current from a normal switching regulator (PT6214) if you put a load between the voltage source (24V) and the regulator output (12V)? --Jcmaco 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that a buck converter can sink current from the output. This means that the current being drawn from the 12V output to ground must be greater than the current being carried from the 24V through your load to the 12V output. If this is the case, then you are basically providing additional output power through your load and the converter is making up the difference. If the current being drawn from the 12V output to ground is less than this additional current you are injecting into the output then the output voltage will rise above 12V. You could put a dummy load on the 12V to ensure regulation. Size the dummy load so that the converter always has to supply at least 100 mA. —Bradley 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced itch?

I'd like to know the name for the phenomenon where scratching an itch on one part of the body produces an itching sensation on a different part of the body, simultaneous with scratching. (Does anyone know what I mean?)

I once found something about it on the web, and a word for it. I think it was a German-sounding word, and I think that translated it meant something like displaced itch. But try as I might, I can't find anything about it anywhere anymore.

Any idea what it could be? Alf Boggis 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google for "referred itch" (with the quotes) and mitempfindung (or mitempfindungen), is that it? And if you have the time please write referred itch! Weregerbil 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High creatine level

What dose it mean if a blood test show high levels of Creatine and one has not been supplementing creatine? Anthony

First, click the "ask a new question by clicking here" at the top to ask a question. Then, your question won't be jammed up with the preceding one.

Did you read about how the body aquires creatine in the article on creatine? The liver could be producing a lot. Maybe the person just had a big steak or fish. Meat is a creatine supplement, so unless the person is a vegetarian, creatine is being supplemented. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know all about creatine how its made and what it dose, but is is a high (higher level).The average 155lbs. person has a total of about 120 grams of creatine in the body at any one time. Athletes use up more than 2 grams a day. But what if the level show up much higher and stay higher, and the person eats right, and is not taking creatine.They test for it so it most mean something. What? Anthony

This is what I've found sofar CREATINE KINASE, TOTAL TEST FOR MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION AND SKELETAL MUSCLE DAMAGE. ELEVATED RESULTS MAY BE DUE TO: MYOCARDITIS, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION (HEART ATTACK), MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY, MUSCLE TRAUMA OR EXCESSIVE EXERCISE. (377SB=) CREATINE KINASE ISOENZYMES EVALUATION OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION What dose it mean if a blood test show high levels of creatine and one has not been supplementing creatine? Anthony

I suspect the question is really about creatinine rather than creatine as the former is measured perhaps 100,000 times more often than the latter. alteripse 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second that suspicion. Creatinine is measured just about every time your blood is drawn; creatine is not. (And creatine kinase would most likely appear in a lab report as CK or CPK). The three tests are different, so you must be certain which it is that is elevated. The person ordering the tests should be able to tell you about any abnormal lab values. The implications of an elevated creatinine level depend a bit on whether you have a normal or abnormal BUN level, normal or abnormal blood pressure, protein in the urine, etc., but the concern would be for kidney disease. Obviously you need your doctor to give you advice on whether your abnormal lab value needs further evaluation, and you should be asking him or her these questions! - Nunh-huh 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe the spelling in the original question, and interpret the question as referring to creatine kinase, spelled out fully on a report (some labs do that), because: 1. It is repeated in what looks like a web search result, 2. There is talk of "taking creatine", which would place the questioner as a person probably familiar with "muscle building" routines (and risk of excess exercise), 3. The rephrasing of the question seems to indicate that the user does not distinguish between the enzyme and the substrate, 4. I consider it less likely that a high creatinine level would be obtained without the doctor explaining the implications to the patient (leading to the question being asked here), while a high CK could easily be dismissed as just an injection, described as unimportant, or not even mentioned to the patient (she sees it by chance on a report, maybe?), and 5. blood creatine is not a routine test, so that if the spelling was right, then the kinase part was probably inadvertently left out. If that is the situation, then the answer is that, in the absence of heart or brain injury, high levels of creatine (kinase) usually indicate skeletal muscle damage, the commonest causes probably probably being muscle bruising, intra-muscular injections, over-exercise and alcohol (the last as a cause for rhabdomyolysis, vs the lowered levels found in alcoholic liver disease). No specific order of incidence here, nor reference for "commonest" here, just a quick guess. So it's up to Anthony to refine his question. As it is stated it is somewhat open to conflicting "forensic-linguistic analysis" (and what would that activity be termed?) --Seejyb 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneezing spot

The sneezing page lists that besides nose irritation, bright lights can cause sneezes. This is well documented, but how about the sneezing spot, ie. the spot above the right eye, around the hairline or a bit over it, that, when scratched, also irritates a sneeze? --Tmh 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're the only one, mate. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed neurons, clearly. Find a neurophysiologist, write it up, and become famous! alteripse 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just a conditioned response. Crazywolf 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of that. --Proficient 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Bruises

What are some causes of unexplained brusising besides leukimia? 172.131.228.28 02:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnoticed or unrecalled bumps are the most common (e.g., no pediatrician pays attention to children's bruises between the knees and ankles because all kids have them)
Low levels of platelets due to other reasons besides leukemia, such as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura
Abnormal platelet function, as in thrombasthenia
Skin fragility, as in Cushing syndrome
Scurvy

alteripse 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megalosaurus name

Why isn't the name of Megalosaurus corrected to Scrotum humanum because that name came to name it first? It it censoring?--Sonjaaa 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Megalosaurus answers this question.-gadfium 06:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So they thought the original name was a joke? How insulting! I think we need to honour the name that has priority, even if it's silly.--Sonjaaa 15:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. "The Cornwell bone was described again by Richard Brookes in 1763. He named it Scrotum humanum based on its similar appearance to a pair of human testicles (although this name theoretically has priority, subsequent authors have chosen to treat it as a joke, rather than as a serious attempt to propose a scientific name or possibly not compliant with binomial nomenclature but rather with the old, descriptive approach)." --Proficient 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what it is about genitalia that provokes such ridicule and mirth. Their importance is surely self-evident. JackofOz 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOAD Vs FORCE

hey ppl. can ne one tell me de relation connectin force nd load...... i know that force is directly proportional to load and also that load usually refers to mass or kilograms but then why is it so????

pressure = force/area = newton/meter^2

stress = load/area = newton/meter^2

according to which force and load are considered in terms of newton y ? where ? and how ? has the load of unit "kilograms" become newton ????????

I think you need to forget about the physics and start on your English, buddy =D. No homework help here. Good luck. --mboverload @ 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a perfect command of the English language is no reason not to ask a question (although the questioneer could be a bit more careful about typos) and it doesn't look like a homework question (although it may be inspired by one).

The quantities Force and Load are both expressed in the unit Newton because they are basically the same thing. Kilogram is the unit for mass. Only when two masses are attracted to each other is a force excerted, expressed in Newton. A special case is when one of those masses is the Earth, in which case objects with the same mass always have the same weight, with that weight being 9.8 m/s² times the mass. I think this answers your questions. Follow the links for more info. DirkvdM

Reflexes/Conditioning

First off, my apologies about the subject. They were the closest things I could find to what I describe, but I'm rather certain neither are quite it.

In any case, upon being touched I've noticed that I often have what seems like a reflex action (it's definitely not a voluntary action) to move to defend myself -- not striking the other person or anything, but quickly moving away or moving an arm between me and them. It only happens when the touch is unexpected. Handshaking, when I can see that I am going to be touched or even, perhaps, simply hearing that someone is very close could mitigate the response. My question is what causes this? At first I was thinking a reflex but it is not learned nor exhibited in all humans. Perhaps an example of classical conditioning, save that it's not conditioned. Finally, I was thinking maybe something related to sensory overload, though that may be quite a stretch.

So does anyone have any better possibilities and links for further reading? Thanks.

If this only occurs when the touch is unexpected, one guess is that you're a bit like a cat. They can be so concentrated on something that you can easily approach and startle them. Does this sound familiar? If you're also cool, that would make you a cool cat. :) DirkvdM 10:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, and I'm not opposed to being a cool cat. However, with cats it seems as though the phenomenon is not limited to just touch. I know I've startled my own cat a number of times with just sound, even when he was fully awake. Nor would I say that deep concentration is absolutely necessary, on my part, for the reaction to manifest. Still, do you have any idea on why this is with cats? Perhaps something to do with their more acute senses, though the cat article does not mention anything specifically related.

In nature, cats are prey for many animals. Prey animals tend to be more skittish than the rest, as this helps them survive and pass on their genes. StuRat 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Unfortunately that rather rules out the "cat hypothesis" here; since, in cats, the behavior is due to genetics or evolved behavior, at least, whereas in humans (I am rather sure) it is not.

No need to compare the questioner to a cat; the startle reaction is normal in humans. The article describes a reaction very much like the one the questioner described. The stimulus could be a touch as easily as an auditory or visual stimulus. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ginkgo100, that is exactly what I was looking for. I may have to update the startle reaction article a bit too. A simple google search ("startle response" actually turns up a lot more relevant data) brings up all kinds of information on causes et cetera -- thanks again!

"Universal resonator"

I'd like to build a little device for a science fair project about resonance. It should be able to automatically detect the resonant frequency of whatever it's placed on (a metal bar, plaque, etc) and apply a force accordingly. Shouldn't be a difficult circuit, but I've been having issues with what parts I'd need, and Googling for it hasn't helped because I don't have the right keywords. Any clue? I'm pretty sure it's been done before and there must be blueprins available online. Thanks! - Anon

Let's see, you need to decide if it will be an analog or digital circuit. Then you'd need:

A speaker which can make sounds at a range of frequencies, where the frequency is provided as either an analog or digital signal.

A microphone which can return the volume level as either an analog or digital signal.

A processor which can control the speaker frequency, initially running thru the full range of frequencies, and record the maximum microphone volume level, then set the speaker to that frequency.

Power sources for all devices. StuRat 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier with something mechanical, and not acoustic, device? Say a vibration motor of some kind? -- Anon

I wouldn't expect that to be as easy to find as a speaker. StuRat 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the speaker, it's the complex digital circuit. I'd suppose a non-acoustic approach would be a simpler device. 201.48.113.246 03:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There would be all sorts of overtones (and background noise), so the circuit would require some Fourier analysis to pick out the dominant frequency. Something mechanical might be better. I'm thinking about a vertical string (or at an angle) with a little (light) ring on it. The string could go through different tensions and stabilise (somehow?) at the right frequency. The ring would then wiggle upwards and settle at the first node, giving an indication of the frequency. Of course the tension of the string could also be used, but then you'd have to calibrate that (try different frequencies and see what tension that corresponds with) and it seems a less accurate. DirkvdM 10:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Display technology

Any idea how do mobile phones having swivel screen technology transfer all the picture information through the swivel hinge?is it somewhatlike the tv co axial cable?

I suspect a flexible wire is used, which makes it have a limited life. An extremely short range transmission could work, too, but would be more susceptible to interference. StuRat 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

radiation of energy from black holes

We detect the radiation of energy from black holes,as they release it in the form of a beam.Does that mean we ONLY detect the ones aligned in the earth direction,but not in the other directions?

Yes, of course, this is true of everything. Our eyes only detect the release of sunlight energy that hits our eyes, for example. Note that the energy detected from a black hole comes from outside the black hole's event horizon, as energy inside the black hole can't escape (except small amounts by Hawking radiation). StuRat 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do we know that what we're seeing is a black hole? DirkvdM 08:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. What we do know, however, is that it matches a popular model for a black hole. Of course we don't see the beams from every black hole, but if we can see one we can make guesses as to how many we can't see. Confusing Manifestation 10:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Arcing

Why do metals arc when placed in the microwave?

See here. I can't be bothered rephrasing it, sorry. Killfest2 14:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plank constant

We know that E=hv.But what about two rays of same frequency but diferent amplitute??

Two "rays" of same frequency are made of [photon]]s of the same energy. If one ray is more intense than the other one, it has an higher number of photon moving. This question is strictly connected to the failing of the explanation of the Photoelectric effect with the classic theory and the need of a newer theory 8the quantum theory). AnyFile 17:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spleen

What is a spleen and where is it located?Thank you.

Did you try looking at spleen? - Nunh-huh 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Spleen unsurprisingly has the answer. --Proficient 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine trial length.

There is a vaccine I am interested in. A phase 1 clinical safety trial of this vaccine is planned for the fourth quarter of 2006. If all goes well with this trial and all the other stages of the vaccine trials that a vaccine goes through, how long will it be before people can get it?

I've looked through wikipedia and found only vague answers so far. So, if anyone could tell me the typical time this process takes, they would be very helpful.

---OOPSIE- 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many variables that would affect the time, it's pretty meaningless to estimate the time. A wild-ass guess would be 5 years or so if everything goes right. You can see more about the FDA vaccine approval process here. - Nunh-huh 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It varies enormously. A safety trial simply means that in a relatively small number of people there is no immediately detectable harm. The bigger challenge is the efficacy and benefit/risk trial. The length depends on the number of people in the trial and how high their risk of the infection and how easy it is to prove they were protected. An example of a "quick" trial would be against a common disease that affected 20% of people in a narrow age range and caused unmistakeable, serious manifestations and there was no good treatment. It would be easy to recruit people and easy to detect the benefit, and approval might happen as quickly as 4-5 years. An example of this type of disease was bronchiolitis caused by respiratory syncytial virus. At the opposite end was cervical papillomavirus, which is currently a topic of controversy in the US and has been in development status for a long time. alteripse 15:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new article

I would like a critic on submitting this article into your encyclopedia. Galactic Geologic Interval is most conveniently accessible on: http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/1/303875/ShowPost.aspx#303875 It is an assimilation of published datum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.133.55 (talk • contribs) 15:57, July 15, 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my criticism, but a critic gives a critique. StuRat 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wouldn't be acceptable under our original research policies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just our encyclopedia, it's yours too. Simply 'submitting the article' might violate copyright. You might use it as a source, but only if it is a trustworthy or reputable source, and I don't get the impression it is. DirkvdM 09:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carborised match-stick

Hi! Can you give a precise explanation, why the word 'CARBORISED' is used in some match-boxes? Pupunwiki 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these links suggest carborising matches allows them to be "extinguished with a single puff" leaving "no after glow". I'm not sure what the process involves or whether it is related to carburization though. Rockpocket 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone finds out, perhaps they could add it to the otherwise quite comprehensive match article.--Shantavira 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 bee lifetimes to make one teaspoon of honey?

I recently read in a magazine that it takes twelve bee lifetimes to make one teaspoon of honey. Is this true?

I did go and buy a jar of honey after reading this, as it would be churlish to ignore somethings life's work.

I wonder what the equivalent would be in human lifetimes work. How many, for example, human lifetimes did it take to build the Eiffel Tower? What about other well-known human artifacts? How many human lifetimes to put a man on the moon?

--81.104.12.4 23:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo is generally cited as 15 billion man-hours. (that's about $9 per man-hour involved, using an inflation-adjusted figure, so it sanity-checks). Call the average human working (as in, paid work) lifetime 20 to 65, forty-five years, at fifty weeks a year, 2250 weeks, then forty hours a week... 90,000 man-hours in a lifetime. This gives you something like 170,000 human lifetimes to put a man on the moon.

Running through those figures again, $15/hr is probably closer to an accurate figure, which knocks you down to nine billion man-hours, or about 100,000 working lifetimes; those 100,000 also would have got you twenty men on the moon (the last three shots were effectively paid for...), not one, but otherwise it's a decent back-of-the-envelope figure. Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"fifty weeks a year" - I feel sorry for Americans only getting two weeks holiday (or vacation as you say in American English) as in the Uk the norm is six weeks holday, and even more in other parts of Europe. --81.104.12.4 23:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Europe has it easy. :P --Proficient 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We focus less on making money and more on enjoying it once we have it. DirkvdM 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fifty weeks is high, but then again this was the US in the 1960s. Also bear in mind I didn't factor in the effects of working overtime, so it's a wash. Shimgray | talk | 13:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone like me has to pop up and say that teachers have it even easier. I'm one week into my 8-week summer holiday...G N Frykman 08:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep and when we get back we can look forwards to 2 weeks off half term , two weeks off christmas, one week off half term 2 - 3 weeks off easter and one week off half term. OTOH the time spent at work is pretty full on, far more so than most other jobs. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many square feet of wheat field to make one 800g loaf of bread?

I walked through a ripe field of wheat recently. After removing stalks and husks, it seemed you would'nt get much flour from a wheat ear. Hence my question please. --81.104.12.4 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern farming should yield in the range of 30-40 bushels per acre. About 45 pounds of flour are extracted from each bushel of milled wheat.EricR 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 pound sack of whole wheat flour in my cupboard contains about 75 1/4 cup servings. EricR 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this recipe, 6 cups makes 2 loaves (3 cups = 1 loaf). According to this, 4 3/8 cups of flour is 125 grams; so 3 cups is 85.7 grams. 85.7 grams is 0.188 pounds. As Eric said above, one acre produces 35 bushels * 45 pounds/bushel = 1575 pounds of wheat. Thus, one loaf requires 0.00011936 acres (about 5 square feet). Raul654 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then you'd be walking around on square feet. And five of them, no less. DirkvdM 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum size of grid in trellis fence to reduce traffic noise?

I'm thinking of putting up a trellis fence in my back garden, to mark the line between the cut lawn and the uncut meadow-style grass.

At the end of the long garden is a busy road. I recall from schoolboy studies that sound could cancel itself out (to some expent) by interference by passing through the grid of the trellis.

What would be the optimum size of the grid to best reduce the traffic noise? By size I mean the distance between the wooden laths that would make up the trellis grid. --81.104.12.4 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the trellis as a diffraction grating then it wouldn't cancel the noise out. The interference pattern would be a pattern of dots where in some directions he noise would be reduced (destructive interference) and in others it would be increased (constructive interference) the exact directions would depend on the frequency of the sound waves. But here's the rub. Noise is a whole range of frequencies. I cannot see how this could possibly work, but perhaps I am missing something? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same. But one important source of noise is the profile edges on the tyre hitting the road, causing a hum. If all the tyres have the same distance between the profile grooves and all cars drive at the same speed, this might still work (to some extent). Suppose 50 km/h and a distance of 5 cm between the grooves. That would make for a frequency of 1 million per hour, which is roughly 300 Hz. Sounds about right. I haven't a clue, though, how that would translate to a grid size for the trellis. DirkvdM 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical formula

Give the chemical formula of fucitol.

Try our article fucitol, and notice the little link there to fucitol (data page). If you think the name is silly, this might amuse you.-gadfium 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How enjoyable! I particularly liked Furfuryl Furfurate, surely a candidate for "The Greatest Furphy of All Time". JackofOz 03:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the shape of Cubane. It's the projection of a 'four-dimensional cube' (what's that called again?) in the third dimension. Well, on the image on the page you linked to, not the presentation in our article, alas. Maybe a hint that Cuba is from a different dimension?

Continuing the off-topicity - on the STNG credit titles there is someone named 'Fukuto'. DirkvdM 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A four-dimension cube is probably best known as a tesseract or a 4D hypercube. Other synonyms are in the tesseract article. But cubane seems just to be a 3D Cube! -Nunh-huh 09:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citric acid in lime

What is the percentage of citric acid in lime?--70.231.63.41 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says "Citric acid exists in a variety of fruits and vegetables, but it is most concentrated in lemons and limes, where it can comprise as much as 8% of the dry weight of the fruit." Read more here and here. Killfest2 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shout? DirkvdM 09:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mammals

What's a mammal?

According to good ol' Wikipedia, mammals are "the class of vertebrate animals characterized by the presence of mammary glands, which in females produce milk for the nourishment of young; the presence of hair or fur; and endothermic or "warm-blooded" bodies". Read more here. Killfest2 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give a man a fish... —Keenan Pepper 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C++ Compiler

I know that I can type HTML code in Notepad and then save it as an HTML file to see the desired output.

My computer has Windows XP; in what program do I enter C++ source code?

#include <iostream>

class Bird                 // the "generic" base class
{
public:
  virtual void OutputName() {std::cout << "a bird";}
  virtual ~Bird() {}
};

class Swan : public Bird   // Swan derives from Bird
{ 
public:
  void OutputName() {std::cout << "a swan";} // overrides virtual function
};

int main()
{
  Bird* myBird = new Swan; // Declares a pointer to a generic Bird,
                           // and sets it pointing to a newly-created Swan.

  myBird->OutputName();    // This will output "a swan", not "a bird".

  delete myBird;

  return 0;
}

Where do I go to paste this code and see its output. I have no clue about programming, yet I very much want to know this.--71.107.225.71 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can type the code in Notepad or any text editor, and save it with an extension of .cpp or .cc. You then need a C++ compiler to turn it into a .exe file. You can get such a compiler for Windows XP from cygwin for free, or you can download free versions of the Borland C++ or Microsoft Visual C++ compilers (which don't have all the features of the for-money compilers, but which will suit your purpose). The Microsoft compiler includes an editing environment. The Borland one may do. Cygwin is more bare bones, and comes from the Unix tradition. If you have no initial preference, you'll probably find the Microsoft one easiest to begin with. There are links to it from Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition.

C++ is not the easiest language to start with if you have no previous programming experience, but good luck!-gadfium 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: it seems that the Borland compiler, now called C++ Builder, is not available for download, although some magazines give an older version of it away. I've put tags around the code above so it displays more correctly.-gadfium 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--71.107.225.71 04:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Gadfium said 'any text editor'. That means 'no word processor' - the ones with all the make-up buttons that add stuff to the source, which messes up your code. DirkvdM 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

Increasing resting metabolic rate

How can I increase my resting metabolic rate? (Foods, action, etc. would be helpful...) Thanks! --Un sogno modesto 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing you muscle mass should do it. Load bearing exercise, weight training that sort of thing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but then you grow ugly. If you want muscles that don't make you look like an idiot, try hiking. Get away from it all for a few days, breathing fresh air, enjoying nice views. And bring loads of food to increase the weight of your pack, so you have to work hard and build up muscles - useful ones. DirkvdM 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could turn the heating off and wear less clothing. Decades ago (at least in the UK) people ate more calories than we do now, yet were thinner. In part this may have been due to them taking more exercise as a result of not having so much access to cars or mechanical aids such as washing machines or grass mowers, but I think it was mostly due to the lack of central heating and consequently the body thermoregulates by producing more heat.

This has reminded me of reading a non-fiction contemporary account of a sailing ship voyage through a passage at the extreme southern tip of South America. It might have been Darwin's Voyage Of The Beagle, Dana's Two Years Before The Mast, Cole's Tracks Of A Rolling Stone, Slocum, or something else in the 18th. or 19th. centuries. The author described how the natives, who came to the ships in canoes to trade, where wearing no clothing at all yet were comfortable even when it was snowing. They must have had very high basal metabolisms to prodce enough body heat. So you could increase basal metabolism by becoming a nudist! --62.253.52.46 10:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try drinking more coffee or tea, at least for a short metabolic rate increase. Also i'm not sure if the reason is for dieting but if it is please don't go missing meals it'll seriously slow your metabolic rate down. Benbread 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tame birds vs. domesticated birds?

What's the difference? I was talking to someone online about my hyacinth macaw yesterday. I can't remember how the conversation got onto this but he stated that while I have 'tamed' my parrot, I have not 'domesticated' him. What's the difference?

What is optimum rate of a having a rare treat to maximise pleasure?

I am very nutrition concious, and careful about my weight, but sometimes despite the guilt I allow myself to eat a small tub of ice-cream. I eat it all in one go.

This has made me think - what would be the optimum rate per year of indulging in such a treat to maximise my pleasure?

If I ate a tub a week then it would no longer be much of a treat as it would become routine and expected. The rarer the treat is, the more pleasure that treat gives.

On the other-hand, if I only ate it once a year then I wouldnt get as much total pleasure per year as if I ate it twice a year. Yet if I ate it too many times a year the pleasure would dull (plus more guilt).

So there must be some optimum number of eatings per year to maximise pleasure.

Anyone got any thoughts on what this number n per year would be, or how to determine it?

(Anyone like to have a bash at producing a mathematical model for the rareness/boredom and guilt tradeoffs?) --81.104.12.11 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is waaaaaaay too subjective to be quantified, but it should be amusing to see what kind of responses we can come up with... Isopropyl 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experimentation on this should be fun. How about getting a random number generator to tell you how long to wait? Thus the delay would never become routine. —Daniel (‽) 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had also thought that I could throw a dice (or is it 'die' singular?) and only buy if 6 came up. --81.104.12.11 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]