Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

November 11

US resident

Hi! I've checked online but the answer is not very clear... I would like to know if a European citizen could become a US resident without any degree or a job. I make some money online and I get paid on PayPal. I hope to make enough money to be able to move to the US next year. Could I become a resident if I am financially independent but without a degree or an "official" job? 42.114.193.66 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS

Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time—sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.

The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional, i.e., by a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case. Please contact a local bar association, law society or similar association of jurists in your legal jurisdiction to obtain a referral to a competent legal professional if you do not have other means of contacting an attorney-at-law, lawyer, civil law notary, barrister or solicitor.

Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, nor sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law.

We don't give legal advice here. This site does, sort of. See what they have to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not give legal advice, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with political advocacy, no matter how sympathetic, see WP:NPOV

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yes, see DV-Program, also called Diversity Immigrant Visa or GreenCard. For this Year, the application period has extended until 22 November due technical issues. Apply at https://www.dvlottery.state.gov and see instructions first. In general states around the world look for the best qualified people. No one wants a social burden. It is up to the individual to apply for Visa or citizenship where he or she feels most comfortable. States who are unable to provide a minimum of respect of freedom, welfare, respect and human rights, keep their citizens in the country by imprisonment, limiting free speech, stealing confident, exclude from education and information. This exactly is are way for producing future social burden. Do not support making money for any rogue state. When being a vicim, fill the I-589 form to apply for asylum. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No advice means no advice. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major simplification. I think it's true that you don't need an "official" job, but not having one will complicate your immigration, especially if your income is unpredictable. You really should consult a professional before making any plans. ApLundell (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

Who owns the Wikimedia Foundation?

Who ultimately owns the Wikimedia Foundation? Is it Jimbo Wales or is it an independent company not owned by anyone?--Sau226 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wikimedia Foundation explains the structures very clearly: as a non-profit, charitable organisation no-one can really be said to own it. Wymspen (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For an introductory explanation of the legal principle in the United States, where the WMF is headquartered, read Who Really Owns a Nonprofit?. The short answer is that the public at large "owns" nonprofits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been confirmed in the courts. See Charitable trust. The government asked the question when it wanted to sell the Horserace Totalisator Board. As it wasn't theirs to sell they passed the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 to correct the deficiency. This came into effect in 2011 and the Tote is now apparently owned by a bookmaker.

Similar problems arose with the sale of the Trustee Savings Bank. The government said nobody owned it. After many conflicting court decisions [1] the House of Lords finally decided that it was owned by the state. Legislation was passed to enable the sale to go ahead. Again, the sell - off of Abbey National (a building society) resulted in litigation. Our article Mutual organization says such entities are owned by their members. The Norwich Union, a mutual insurance group which became a joint - stock company, was owned by the with - profit policyholders of the life insurance company. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the examples that 82.13.208.70 mentioned are all in the UK, while WF is a US organisation. The legal situation might happen to be the same, but that cannot be assumed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

talk show guests

how are news talk show guests selected? do they pay to become a guest or are they simply invited, and if invited who does the inviting? will check back later for a reply. thanks for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.98 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does This help any? --Jayron 32 13:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR: The news program producer or her deputy calls you or your PR department and asks if you are available to speak on Topic X at Hour Y in Studio Z. If you are highly sought after and the studio is some ways away, they may book a car for you (and pay for it). Never heard of any one getting a fee, and paying to be on TV is called 'advertising.'DOR (HK) (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid interviews, while not otherwise illegal, are still common enough and looked down enough upon to be called checkbook journalism:

From Google:

NBC News To Pay $100000 For Skydiving Footage, Exclusive Interviews https://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../nbc-news-pay-skydiving-footage-interviews-chec... Nov 4, 2013 - NBC News To Pay $100,000 For Skydiving Footage, Exclusive ... entirely after receiving criticism for handing over money to interview subjects.

NBC News, agreeing to pay for sky-diving footage, criticized for ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/...pay.../08b1c44a-458f-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351... Nov 4, 2013 - In a second episode of apparent “checkbook journalism” in a week, NBC News has locked up exclusive interviews and amateur footage of an ...

μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Iraq earthquake.

Is there any information about whether the earthquake in Iraq was purposely caused by the "Alaskan HAARP Technology" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.105.242 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. What are you talking about? High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program#Conspiracy theories? What a crock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the US actually had the technology to cause earthquakes (very unlikely), why would they set one of in an isolated, mountainous border area between Iraq and Iran, which has hurt their Kurdish and Iraqi allies? Wouldn't the North Korean nuclear facilities make a more obvious target? Wymspen (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't engage the troll. The best and total answer is "No". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering that all the places where earthquakes are supposed to have been engineered are naturally susceptible to them and where they frequently occur. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music theory: Perfect intervals.

C in any octave and C in the next octave, are considered to sound the "same" note, because the frequency of C in the next octave is twice as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. The same is true for C in any octave and C in the next-next octave: They are considered to sound the "same" note, because the frequency of C in the next-next octave is four times as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - again becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. Now I wonder about C in any octave and G in the next octave: Why aren't they considered to sound the "same" note? (Are they?) Please notice that the frequency of G in the next octave is three times as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - again becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. HOTmag (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same note if they are one or more octaves apart - that is the ratio of the frequencies is a factor of 2. C4 to G5 is (in principle) a ratio of 3 which is not a factor of 2. Note that most modern instruments do not make G5 exactly 3 times the frequency of C4. See Equal temperament for more about this than you could ever want.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely mathematical point of view, The number 2 you have mentioned, is an arbitrary integer, isn't it? The only mathematical virtue/merit of 2 I can think of, which can have something to do with perfect intervals in music, is the following one: Since the frequency of C in the next octave is twice as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. Thus, the number 2 makes sense. The same it true for the number 4, whereas any note in the next-next octave is also considered to sound the "same" note as the one in the original octave. So why should the number 3 be treated differently, whereas it has the same mathematical virtue/merit mentioned above? As for your last comment about "most modern instruments": As far as I know, most modern instruments, as well as most human ears, disregard that a small difference of less than one Herz (it's really less than one Herz even in G5). Further, you could very easily replace G5 by a very close note whose frequency is exactly three times as much as that of C4. HOTmag (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that much of how western music is defined is somewhat arbitrary. Why are there 12 semitones in an octave? Why is an octave defined as a doubling of frequency and not an increase of 3x? Why does a major scale go TTSTTTS? It's just the way it now is. So if we accept the octave=doubling feature of current western music, we have to reduce intervals to being no more than one octave apart to define relationships. So C3 to C5 is one octave plus one octave = same note. C3 to G4 is one octave plus perfect fifth = different note. Incidentally, note that not everyone would accept your assertion that a hertz is too small to worry about. See this, for example. In just intonation, being one hertz out would cause serious beating and so tuners would work to smaller margins than that.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that every human ear, and not only a "western" one, would admit that C4 and C5 sound the "same" note. As for your second comment about one Herz: Please notice that I didn't assert (what you've ascribed to me), that "a hertz is too small to worry about". I've only asserted that "most modern instruments, as well as most human ears, disregard that a small difference of less than one Herz". Tuners, are not a part of "most ears" I spoke about. HOTmag (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 isn't quite arbitrary. It's the integer greater than 1, but with no smaller integers greater than 1. If we defined "tritaves" [sic] so that A and A were three times the frequency, then there would be intervening notes within that span which were approximating the current octave spacing, thus confusable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Confusable"? I'm talking about a person who is listening to (say) C4 and G5, and not to any other sound, so no other sound can "confuse" the listener. Further, when (say) C4 and C5 are played simultaneously, then the listener may think they're hearing one sound only. So why won't they think they are hearing one sound only, when (say) C4 and G5 are played simultaneously, without any other "confusing" sound? HOTmag (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it helpful to look at Harmonic to clarify whether musical instruments ever actually play C5 when a C4 is sounded. They will also play G5 as a further harmonic. The only real exception to this is electronic sine wave generators.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned "most instruments", that was not with regard to two sounds played simultaneously, but rather with regard to "less than one Herz" (in any octave under C6). Similarly, When I mentioned C4 and C5 and G5, that was not with regard to any instruments, but rather with regard to most human ears. HOTmag (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HOTmag has tripped over the circle of fifths without knowing it; the "C - G" relationship is a perfect fifth in the same octave, which you'll notice is exactly 3:2, thus by definition, C4 to G5 would be 3:1 (since C4 - G4 would be 3:2, and G4 - G5 is 2:1. Math!). These intervals work where others do not because the intervals allow for particular harmonics between the waveforms. The fifth interval forms the basis for most commonly used chords in music (specific variations are just additional notes to the fifth). Thus, the C5 power chord is just "C G", while the C major chord is "C E G" and the C minor chord is "C Eb G" and the C major seventh chord is "C E G B". The root-fifth combination provides the harmonic anchor that holds a chord or harmony together. --Jayron 32 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true with modern even tempered instruments. If you follow the circle of fifths all the way back to where you started, you don't actually get back to where you started - this is the problem with just tempering. A modern piano will play a G above C as around 1.498 times the frequency, not 1.5. Some people (but not many) can tell the difference. This was the subject for my dissertation for my music degree.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the circle of fifths is still a useful tool for music composition and analysis. Understanding how to use notes to build chords and chords to build progressions and progressions to build songs can be aided by using models like the circle of fifths. --Jayron 32 15:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron, I'd known that obvious fact, but it has nothing to do with my original question: I have asked, why - when C4 and C5 are played simultaneously - then we think we're hearing one sound only, whereas we don't think we are hearing one sound only - when C4 and G5 are played simultaneously, even though the higher sound (whether it's C5 or G5) - in both cases - is a natural multiple of the lower sound (C4). So how can the issue of the C5 power chord have anything to do with my original question? HOTmag (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that playing a C4 and a C5 at the same time sound like only one note? Simply not true - it's trivial to tell the difference on our piano, and if one was using pure sine waves, as you suggested, it would be astonishingly obvious that both notes were being played.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Phil Holmes, I am befuddled why you think that playing the octave results in people hearing the "same sound" as playing one note or the other. That is plainly not true. When one plays two C notes from different octaves it is obviously different than playing one C or the other C. Your premise that people do not simply isn't true. --Jayron 32 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, that when I listen to C4 played alone, I hear something quite different from what I hear when I listen to C4 and C5 played simultaneously. However, even then, I still feel (don't you too?) that I hear the "same" note. I have put now the word "same" between quotations marks, as I had in my first post, because it's not really heard as the same note, but rather as the "same" note, i.e. I feel as if both tones merge into one sound. Don't you feel that? HOTmag (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All pairs of notes "merge" into one sound, the question is what emotional effect that sound has on us. Some pairs of notes sound more "pleasing" to people (for whatever definition of "pleasing" that is), or cause different responses, and those responses we have determine how we think of those notes. The way in which notes "feel" when paired together to make a simple chord results from the ratio of the frequencies of those notes. That's it. What we call those notes or what we call those ratios are arbitrary; it's a secondary consideration to what the mathematics of the way the frequencies interact with one another. By convention, we call the ratio 2:1 the octave, and assign them the same letter. That 2:1 ratio produce the same impression regardless of what the first frequency actually is so long as the second is double it. We have musical conventions (like the 12-note system of notation, the A440 tuning standard, etc) so that we can have some way to communicate music simply, but the underlying physics is that if you play two notes simultaneously so the frequency of one is double the other, the arbitrary numbers we choose doesn't matter as much as the relationships between the numbers. There's nothing magical about C4 - C5 to make this relationship, NOR is there any particular reason why we had to call both of those notes "C" except that our musical notation was built around it. As with any system like this, it is at once both arbitrary, but usefully consistent. The second point being the only relevent one. --Jayron 32 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you had to tell us that "There's nothing magical about C4 - C5 to make this relationship". Please notice, that when I wrote C4 and C5, this was an example only, and I'd referred to the generalized case of all Cs - in my first post. Of course, C itself was an example as well, so you didn't have to say what you said about "What we call those notes or what we call those ratios".

Anyway, our article harmonic series says:

the octave series is...and people hear these distances as "the same" in the sense of musical interval.

The word "people" refers to every human being - and not only to the western people, and I guess you agree with me, as you said:

That 2:1 ratio produce the same impression...so long as the second is double it.

This takes me back to my original question: Why does the ratio 2:1 (e.g. C4 and C5), as well as the ratio 4:1 (e.g. C4 and C6), "produce - the same impression" (using your words) - i.e. produce "the same [sound] in the sense of musical interval" (using Wikipedia's words), whereas the ratio 3:1 (e.g. C4 and G5) does not, while not only the first two ratios - but also the third one - involves a higher sound whose frequency is a natural multiple of the frequency of the lower sound? Actually, If the sounds are made by sine wives, then I can see no reason for the distinction between the ratio 4:1 and the ratio 3:1, while in either ratio - the sine waves of both sounds (played simultaneously) merge every 4 (or 3) periods (respectively).

Actually, my question is even stronger than what you may think. Try to think about C4 with D7, played simultaneously: Is that a consonance or a dissonance? Please notice that the combination of C4 and D7 reflects the ratio 9:1, i.e. the sine waves of these sounds merge every 9 periods, so the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of both sounds - is even higher than the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and C8, having the ratio 16:1. So, since the ratio 16:1 (as in C4 with C8) is heard as a perfect consonance to every human ear, then also the ratio 9:1 (as in C4 with D7) is supposed to be heard as a perfect consonance to every human ear, isn't it? (or rather: is it really?)... HOTmag (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there's is nothing magical about the 2:1 ratio vis-a-vis THAT ratio over others, just that every 2:1 ratio has the same musical effect. Similarly, the 3:2 ratio would, as would the 3:1 ratio, or any other abitrary ratio. That is, the 3:2 ratio has the same effect regardless of whether it is G - D or E - B, because it's the same ratio. However, the 3:2 ratio is different than the 2:1 ratio. So the G - D effect is different than the G' - G effect. 3:1 is NOT the same as 2:1, so the effect is not the same. I know you're hung up on the denominator of these fractions, as though there is some magic in having the same denominator. There isn't. It's the ratio, and recursions of that ratio that have the effect. The fact that the series we call C4 - C5 - C6 - C7 has the same effect isn't merely because the denominator of the ratio is 1 from C4-C7, it's because the successice ratios are identical, so the C4 - C7 relationship carries that value. 9:1 does not fit into that pattern. There is no way to successively apply 2:1 ratios to get 9:1. --Jayron 32 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"there's is nothing magical about the 2:1 ratio". See: Paul Cooper: Perspectives in Music Theory: An Historical-Analytical Approach (1973), p.16: "The octave is...the basic miracle of music". This statement is quoted in the lead of our article Octave.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is nothing magical about the ratio 2:1. I'm only asking about the reason for the distinction, between the ("dissonant") impression produced by the ratio 9:1, vis a vis the identical ("consonant") impressions produced by even ratios - including 16:1 (e.g. in C4 with C8). As opposed to what you've ascribed to me, I'm not hung up on the denominator of those ratios, but rather on the amalgamation of the sine waves of sounds played simultaneously. The sine waves of C4 and C5 (played simultaneously) merge very soon - after a few periods, while that amalgamation makes the listener feel they hear "the same" thing/phenomenon (if I may use Wikipedia's words in our article harmonic series). The same is true for the ratio 4:1 (e.g. in C4 with C6), and for the ratio 8:1 (e.g. in C4 and C7), and for the ratio 16:1 (e.g. in C4 with C8), so why can't the same ("consonant") impression - be produced also by the ratio 9:1 (e.g. in C4 with G7), even though the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and G7 - is even higher than the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and C8, having the ratio 16:1? This is what my question is hung up on.

Then you try to answer my question by claiming that "it's because the successive ratios are identical". What's Identical? The ratio 2:1 is not identical to the ratio 4:1, is it? Further, I can't understand how your argument about the "the successive ratios" has anything to do with my question, about C4 and D7 played simultaneously, without adding any other pair of sounds of any other "successive ratio"... HOTmag (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because 4:1, 8:1, 16:1, etc. are whole number powers of 2:1. 9:1 is not. Therefore C4 to D7 will not produce the same effect as octaves will. C4 - D7 is a major second and 3 octaves, so thats 9:8 * 8:1. That's where the 9:1 comes from. Major seconds are considered dissonant intervals. --Jayron 32 14:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that C4 to D7 should have produced the same effect as octaves produce. However, I do claim that the ratio between C4 and D7 (i.e. the ratio 9:1 which is a whole number power of the ratio 3:1 already known to be a consonance) - should have produced a consonance, just as the ratio between C4 and C8 (i.e. the ratio 8:1 which is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1 already known to be a consonance) produces a consonance.
You claim, that the ratio 8:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1 because, the ratio 8:1 is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1 - whereas the ratio 9:1 is not. Are you sure your argument explains why the ratio 9:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 8:1 has? If you think your argument does, then another person - following your argument - may have an analogous argument for explaining why the ratio 8:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 9:1 has, as follows: The ratio 9:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 3:1 - which is already known to be a consonance (being a perfect fifth), because 9:1 is a whole number power of 3:1 - whereas the ratio 8:1 is not. Conclusion: the ratio 8:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 9:1 has...
Further, you claim that the ratio 8:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because the ratio 8:1 is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1, i.e. because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 to the n-th power equals 8, whereas there exists no whole number n - such that 2 to the n-th power equals 9. So, following your argument, another person may claim, that 6:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 multiplied by n equals 6. Another person may claim, that 5:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 plus n equals 5. HOTmag (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For common musical instruments I expect the perception of two notes being played together to depend on how well the overtone spectra blends together. C5 is the first overtone of C4; it is present and prominent in the spectrum of many instruments. Also, all the overtones of C5 are present in the spectrum of C4. So, if C4 and C5 are played together on the same instrument, they may blend so well that you perceive the sound as a single note, with maybe a slight change in timbre compared to C4 being played alone. G5 is the second overtone, which is often weaker. Of course all of its overtones are also present in the overtone spectrum but somewhat more rarefied. That may lead to a stronger change in timbre. If you play D7 together with C4, you enhance overtones that are usually rather weak, so the perception of their consonance may be that of two notes rather than one. I don't think it's dissonant (I'm not even sure whether "dissonance" is a good description for large intervals). For the case of two sine waves, I guess C4 and C5 blend together because C5 is a naturally strong overtone for many instruments. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about instruments producing no overtones, e.g. an ocarina or a vessel flute. Do C4 and C5 blend together on those instruments? Aren't you sure that the combination of C4 and D7 is a dissonance on those instruments (e.g. on two ocarinas used simultaneously)? HOTmag (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:HOTmag, this is a perennial question, and as such searching the archives pays off [2]! I was able to find some of my references from the last time this came up here [3]. There are lots of good points and references in that discussion, here I will simply repeat a quote from this [4] research article on auditory perception in infants (N.B., using infants avoids effects of enculturation):

“

the perceptual similarity of tones an octave apart is thought to be the only property of intervals that is attributable to the structure of the auditory system.

”

(emphasis mine) So that's one potential answer: the octave sounds "the same" to us because the structure of our auditory system reacts in a special way to octaves. See also here [5] and refs 17-20 therein for more about the special status of the octave in human auditory apparatus and perception. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this sounds very interesting, thank you ! HOTmag (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid leave in the USA

I know from personal experience (and our articles on annual leave and list of minimum annual leave by country) that the United States is broadly unique in not requiring employers to provide full-time employees with paid leave. However, the statistics I see here only look at the national situation. Are there any US states or cities that require employers to provide paid leave to full-time employees? In addition, are there particular large companies or industries operating in the US that have paid leave policies similar to the minimums that exist in most of Europe (e.g. ~20 days per year of paid leave)? Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am talking about paid vacation days in general (and not leave for medical reasons, maternity, or other specific conditions). Dragons flight (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No individual U.S. state has such requirements of private employers either. Further reading on the lack of mandatory paid leave in the U.S. and other places can be found here. --Jayron 32 13:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some state statutes will have provisions for paid annual or sick leave to public employees of the state and any subsidiaries thereof, for example - Florida Statute, Title X, Chapter 110, Section 219. These same legal statutes are silent on paid leave for private employers, however, indicating that it is at the discretion of the company. Collective bargaining agreements between employees and employers can include the right to paid holidays or leave, but that is its own separate kettle of fish.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's a link to some USA companies which do provide paid leave [6]. Amgen appears to have the highest rating in the USA for vacation leave (five weeks to start with) according to the list. Ironically, that amount is actually considered average by European standards.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The legal minimum paid holiday in the UK is 28 days (which includes 8 public holidays). Wymspen (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's actually 5.6 work weeks. [7].--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's 28 days in law (pro rata if you work less than 5 days a week, but with a maximum of 28 days). Dbfirs 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I provided a reliable source for saying 5.6 weeks, and here's another. Do you have evidence that the UK Government website is wrong?--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

Dieselization

Which railroads in the USA were both early adopters of diesel traction and were late to completely phase out steam (i.e. had steam and diesel traction coexisting for an extended period)? Is it correct that the Burlington line was one of these? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:EA04 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your first question, but your second one, referring I take it to the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, can be partly answered by our article on it, which says that the Burlington had its first diesel engine, the Pioneer Zephyr, in 1934. The reference it cites calls this "the world's first diesel-powered stainless steel streamlined train". At Steam locomotive#United States decline, we have a claim that "diesel locomotives began to appear in mainline service in the United States in the mid-1930s", which seems to confirm that the Burlington was quick off the mark. It also says that "1960 is normally considered the final year of regular Class 1 main line standard gauge steam operation in the United States". Since the Burlington's last steam train ran on 28 September 1959 that also makes it fairly late in dropping steam. --Antiquary (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the world's first diesel-powered stainless steel streamlined train": don't read more in that than it says. Everybody was streamlining in those days, even if only for the modern looks, and other diesel-powered streamlined steel trains had been build before, like the German DRG Class SVT 877 (1933) or the Dutch nl:Mat '34 (1934), but these were made of regular steel, not stainless steel. Stainless steel saved some weight and gave a shiny look, but never became really popular for building trains.

Diesel traction was generally introduced (in Europe at least, I'm less familiar with America) in the form of diesel shunters/switchers in the 1920s. You'll have to dig quite deeply into American railroad history to find out when different companies introduced their first diesel switchers, as they didn't get anywhere near the same publicity as the streamlined passenger expresses. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel traction was later than this. It really began in the 1930s, as the high-speed diesel engine only appeared around 1930. The engines before this had been too heavy, bulky and low-powered to be much use. Many had been petrol, rather than diesel. The first to appear were mostly railcars, as their light, short trains were more viable for diesel haulage and also benefited more from the "turn on and go" advantages of diesel over steam. Shunting / switching locos appeared soon after, but their power was limited and their transmissions were limited in speed. Mainline diesel haulage, as stand-alone locos, was very rare pre-war. The US had the most, most other railways only used one or two test prototype locos, not really deploying them into widespread service. It's post WWII and the combination of both the European rebuilding, and the availability of better engines that really drives it. Except in the countries that either go for electrification, or (like the UK) for indigenous coal rather than imported oil. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that. I just checked and the first locomotives of the first series of diesel shunters in my country were actually powered by petrol engines. When you look at the details it becomes a bit fuzzy anyway. Petrol engines are of course not really diesels, but have far more in common with diesels than with steam, so one can consider the petrol railcars and shunters of the 1920s a pre-stage of dieselisation. Does dieselisation start with diesel engines or in a somewhat broader sense with internal combustion engines? And does one count from the first experimental locomotive or from large-scale introduction? By the mid 1930s DMUs were becoming quite common on main lines, at least as far as they weren't electrified yet. The first large batch of diesel locomotives for goods trains was introduced in my country (NL) in 1945, as a gift from the Americans, but they performed so poorly that the railways tried to get rid of them as soon as possible, running goods services with steam (alongside electric) for another 12 years. Of course, in many parts of Europe diesel traction never became dominant.

So to answer the original question, one must first decide what dieselisation actually is, as there's no exact definition that everybody agrees on. Our article on dieselisation has a somewhat dubious definition with a long-standing ^{[according to whom?]} tag. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear split between <=500hp "dieselisation" and >1000hp. The first covers railcars and shunters, and can be adequately provided by either petrol engines or heavyweight slow-speed oil engines, so they can happen pre-WWII (the standard British diesel shunter into the 1980s and beyond came from a design of the 1930s). The second, the use of diesels as mainline locomotives, doesn't become practical until the 1930s, or widespread until after WWII. Then the effects of WWII itself were also cataclysmic. The main difference between pre-WWII and immediately post-WWII mainline diesel locos were developments in diesel-electric transmissions, rather than engines or running gear. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me clarify: For the purposes of this question, dieselization starts with the first successful introduction into regular service (not experimental) of any type of diesel motive power (switchers and railcars/DMUs count, but gasoline engines don't). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:5917:3E80:D859:DF69 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

Breeding Guppies

All about breeding guppies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4E:97F:F47A:6459:775D:3B23:189D (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Type "breeding guppies" into Google or any other search engine. There are plenty of results. See also Guppy. Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I once had guppies. They were rather prolific. But you had to put pregnant females into a special birthing chamber so that the young (which are born as tiny fish, not as eggs first) would drop through a narrow slot into a separate part of the chamber. That prevented the mother from eating them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Ceratophyllum submersum*, a cosmopolitan freshwater species collectable in the wild enhances your fish tank and provides adequate protection for guppy young

Breeding chambers work, but they are not necessary, and obviously don't exist in the wild. I bred guppies with no special effort for 10 years. Aquarium plants, especially Ceratophyllum, which I harvested at local lakes in New Jersey, works just fine for protection even with multiple adult guppies in the tank and no ugly plastic barriers. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. I didn't have that kind of thing in the aquarium. And I got the breeding chamber because the first time or two a guppy gave birth, it immediately started to gobble up its young. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I switched to guppies, because they are so much more interesting (who gave birth today?!?!) I already had the Ceratophyllum, and as far as I know it can be found in most Northeastern lakes, I'd look in the various articles for distribution, but good pet shops will sell it. Start with a small clean stalk with no snails or egg-masses, or you may find yourself overrun by weed or invasive species. The stalks grow very quickly, branch, and can be split. They also float near the surface, where the young congregate. I just gave my aquarium book to my nephew on Halloween. Basically, you should make sure the females are well fed, and consider suppliments (ask at the pet store). Some young, perhaps due to their poor health or tank overcrowding always did get eaten, but I went from an original four to several dozen and a 40 gallon tank. Finally I got a pumpkinseed sunny I caught by net, and ended up feeding it guppies.

Here are some nice instructions on basic breeding from the International Fancy Guppy Association [8] SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two android phone possesors

What are your experiences? 123.108.244.151 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is not the correct venue for such discussions. Type "android phone user reviews" into Google if you need help. --Jayron 32 11:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are good roundups from the Wirecutter: best Android phones [9] and best budget Android phones [10]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP literally mean "two"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Inheritance in Canon (or French / Spanish) Law

request for legal opinion and attempts at gaming the system

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: We shall not give legal advice on the reference desks. If you feel this question is a request for legal advice, all you have to do is not give legal advice here. Very simple. Since there is no "factual situation" at play here, it is in fact impossible to give legal advice on this matter. Nobody has given any legal advice here at time of this note, not in any way, shape or form. If you see a specific response that give legal advice as defined by our article, please do remove it. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How should the property be shared among grandchildren, in Canon (or French / Spanish) Law? Equally? For example, let's assume the decedent - who died intestate, has two dead daughters - one of whom has an only son (who is alive) - the other daughter having two (living) sons, so there are three heirs. How should the decedent's property be divided, by Canon (or French / Spanish) Law? Equally? HOTmag (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS

Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time—sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.

The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional, i.e., by a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case. Please contact a local bar association, law society or similar association of jurists in your legal jurisdiction to obtain a referral to a competent legal professional if you do not have other means of contacting an attorney-at-law, lawyer, civil law notary, barrister or solicitor.

Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, nor sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we are not qualified lawyers, we specifically refrain from answering questions asking for legal advice. There's a notice to that effect at the top of this page. Sorry. Rojomoke (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

request for legal opinion and attempts at gaming the system

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please notice that my question is a theoretical one, about Canon Law. Have you ever heard about Canon Law? It's not an actual Law at all (I've added the French / Spanish law in parenthesis only, because it's supposed to be similar to Canon law). I'm not asking for legal advice, nor am I asking lawyers, but rather people who have studied Canon law. HOTmag (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People who have studied law are called "lawyers". Their job is to interpret it and provide opinions of it. --Jayron 32 11:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Law is mainly studied by scholars, students, priests, and the like. Of course also lawyers study it, but not only them. Anyways, this reference desk does allow to ask theoretical questions not being asked for practical legal purposes (but rather for a comparative research). HOTmag (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Canon_law#Catholic canon law as legal system. Catholic canon law is a fully fledged legal system, with its own courts and lawyers, and the same possible repercussions for following the wrong advice. As such it's as inappropriate to give advice on it as it would be for any other system. Rojomoke (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

request for legal opinion and attempts at gaming the system

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

But I'm not asking for advice, because my question is not actual but rather theoretical. This reference desk does allow to ask theoretical questions not being asked for practical legal purposes (but rather for a comparative research). HOTmag (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source, but it has some info on canon law and inheritance [11]. Basically, it is not a subject of huge concern for the Catholic Church and is left to local civil law to govern (big difference with sharia law, which contains very precise rules governing inheritance). --Xuxl (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about French/Spanish Law? HOTmag (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question omits key information such as:

When did the daughters die?
Were they married?
Did they make wills?

Canon law does not concern itself with these matters. The relevant legislation is the French Civil Code (§§720 and following, 731 and following) [12] and the Spanish Civil Code §§912-923 [13]. Looking at these documents it is apparent how they descend directly from the Roman civil law of two millennia ago. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been given links to the relevant legal systems, we simply cannot offer opinions on his specific question. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 18