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.
CNN International GMT schedule vs Toronto (Eastern Time Zone)
Is there a website that shows the CNN International schedule in GMT vs Eastern Time Zone meaning for Toronto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.54 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site has a North American schedule that shows in Pacific Time and Eastern Time. Is this what you are looking for? Bielle (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding md5 format in jmeter
In my project there is a scenario that
user will log in -> browse some pages -> then he will click on the logout link .
to test this scenario in jemeter , i used csv config so that i can test this scenario for 50 users. during login to the system password are not sent in md5 format but during logout ,each user passowrd is sent as request in the md5 format.
so can any body tell me how can i sent the password in md5 format in jmeter.
if i use the the same variable which i used for passowrd during login , with encode option clicked , will it work.
This question has been asked 3 times now... Shadowjams (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cotswold stone
hi dear freinds if anybody has heard or know aabout cotswold stone in uk can help me this stone is rare found this days however i fave found a quarry in india which according to me matches 90% of cotswold sone if anybody is in this field can help me there are roof tiles and also slates for flooring my no is <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.145.169 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I removed your number as it's against our policy and you really don't want your number spammed across the internet. Replies will appear here.) Cotswold stone - well there are some quarries still in the UK, so I wouldn't say it's that rare. It's generally used for walls only, not floors and roof tiles. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cotswold stone is very different from slate, which was traditionally used for roofing and flooring. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't been to the Cotswold Hills where there are acres of Cotswold stone rooves, like this or this. You can still buy real stone "slates" here and here at a price, but there are several manufacturers of very good imitation Cotswold stone roofing, like this one. You can buy Cotswold stone flooring here, here, here, here and here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me where I obviously have or have not been - that comes across as very rude. I have spent a lot of time in the Cotswolds. My understanding of Cotswold stone, which our article confirms, is that it is the yellow/cream building stone used in the walls of the cottages in your photos. Cotswold stone is a limestone, which is a sedimentary rock, and so is geologically different from slate, which is a metamorhpic rock. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that roofing "slates" can be made from Cotswold stone, even though it is not slate [1]. Nevertheless, your response came across as very rude. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies; no rudness intended and I take your point. I'll try to be more circumspect in future as I'm not here to offend anyone. However, Cotswold villages such as Lower Slaughter with their honey-coloured stone walls and rooves are very well known tourist attractions and I was rather surprised by your rebuttal. The linked reference to our article says; "Some limestone occurs in thin layers, making it easy to split into roof tiles; these “slates” are graded on most roofs, the largest tiles nearest the eaves, the smaller toward the ridge. In this way the character of a Cotswold building is formed – stone used for walls, floors and roof." I was also surprised at the use of the term "slate" here and by the quarries that produce tham as I would have used the word "shingle" instead. But perhaps the use of "shingle" as a type of gravel and a nasty disease has made "slate" an easier word for customers to grasp. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have heard of Cotswold stone, which our article describes as "a yellow ooliticJurassiclimestone". It used to be a popular building material. You might want to contact architects or building contractors involved in construction in the Cotswolds, an area of south-west England. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ben 10 omniverse
hi. my name is victor. I have a few episodes that I would love to give to the present writer of the new series, Ben 10 OMNIVERSE. i will be eternally grateful if wikia can connect me to Him. My email addressis "[email address removed]". THANKS in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyanodite (talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your email address to protect you from spam - we always reply on this page. We are Wikipedia, not Wikia, and neither Wikipedia or Wikia have any connection to the writers of Ben 10. Also, most TV writers don't accept unsolicited ideas of episodes for legal reasons (if they ever did an episode similar to one you suggested, you might sue them saying they stole your idea). --Tango (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some shows have fan websites where people can write their own episodes. Maybe Ben 10 has one ? StuRat (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese hairstyles
What are traditional Chinese women's hairstyles? Are there any that are similar to the Japanese hime cut? --108.227.31.151 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wind farm under construction in Michigan?
Resolved
The other day I saw a wind turbine blade being hauled north on US-31 in Holland MI. The searching I have done so far shows that there is development in the Saginaw area, but I haven't seen anything on this side of the state. List of wind farms in the United States looks like it is missing a lot, and there isn't a single entry for Michigan. The size of the blade makes me think that it must be going into a large-scale installation. I've never seen any of the largest turbines installed in a standalone setting. Anyone have any ideas where it may have been heading? 209.131.76.183 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Living in Michigan, it doesn't appear to have the type of consistent sustained winds coming from one direction which make a wind farm feasible. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2] - This states that two wind farms are being built/expanded near mcbain, michigan. To StuRat, Michigan is ranked the 14th state for windpower potential and produces 150MW already. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. There must be more wind off the lakes than there is around me in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I live about 1000 feet from Lake Michigan and a normal day has about 10-15mph winds consistently coming off the lake. We do get still days, but they're not as common as windy ones. 30mph is somewhat common, especially in the winter. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - it at least shows that there are installations up north from me. I don't know why they would ship the blade via 31 in Holland to end up in that area. That site is a nice resource. I don't have time to do it, but it would be nice to see it integrated into some of the wind power related lists on wikipedia. I won't mark this resolved just yet - I want to see if anyone knows of a better reason for the blade to have been on the route I saw. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That site is widely cited in Wikipedia; however, the updated numbers are now paywalled. Michigan for instance has more than doubled its wind power since 2010: 377 MW.[3]Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any possibility: We took the SS Badger across Lake Michigan last year and they were transporting windmill parts across to Wisconsin because Indiana wouldn't allow the oversize loads on their roads. Youtube even has a video of one piece being unloaded.[4] The boat was only taking a piece per trip. Rmhermen (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Large turbine blades are hard to move. I don't know how large the blade you saw was, but I've got a good view of a major railroad line, and I see blades that are more than a hundred feet long and 10-15 feet wide go by from time to time. Transporting them requires a route with wide, gentle turns and no overhead obstructions, which greatly restricts the possible routes. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's about the size of the one I saw, which is why I was surprised by the route. I would expect it to stick to the interstate normally. I hadn't thought of the possibility of them bringing it across on the Badger. They always look so huge on the road, I can't imagine what it must look like when you're right next to it on a boat! I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved.
Controlled-access highways often have overhead clearance issues: you can't lift an overpass out of the way like you can a power line or a tree branch. --Carnildo (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 26
Traditional Asian units
What were the traditional units of length/distance and weight in East Asia, and what are their values in metric units? --108.225.117.142 (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like homework. Are you taking a class on Ming China? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether it's homework or not. I'm interested in the answer. Please continue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a start:
One liang or tael = 10 mace (or chee) = 1/16th of a catty. In Hong Kong, one tael is 37.79936375g, but the Taiwan tael is 37.5g
A Singaporean candareen is approximately 3.74 grams.
How do we direct an image in an article to an external link? As in, clicking on the image will direct the reader to an external link. I'm working on a wiki site, and I can't figure out how to do it. 204.4.182.14 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a Wikipedia article, you can't, because clicking on a picture takes you to it's source. You could, however, add a link to an external site in the caption. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected your spelling and hope you don't mind. DriveByWire (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do mind. I spell "it's" that way intentionally, so it's not an error, it's a choice. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Your choice in the above post is consistent with this disambiguation in Wikipedia which is verified by reliable sources. Good. I have re-corrected your only error which was inconsistent with the references that we are expected to provide. Please follow the normal WP:BRD cycle in article space if you believe you can make an improvement there. Do not abuse the latitude allowed in helping an OP at the Ref. desk. DriveByWire (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this before. StuRat has this weird notion that it's all right for him to spell/punctuate that particular word incorrectly, because he thinks it's more logical that way, or some such frivolous reason. StuRat, sorry but you don't get to make or change the rules of written English. DBW, you shouldn't have corrected StuRat's misspelling, even if you'd known he did it deliberately. Here on the RD we don't edit other people's posts. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English does change and grow, like all healthy languages. Sometimes new ways of spelling words evolve out of unintentional errors that get repeated zillions of times until dictionaries acknowledge the new spelling has become the norm in at least some contexts. I suspect this will happen to "alot" and "awhile" in due course but I'm still holding out with "a lot" and "a while". Sometimes change starts with a deliberate joke, which gets repeated so often that the new way becomes the norm. "One foul swoop" has been going this way for years, but the recognised expression is still "one fell swoop".
I don't agree with their arguments, but I accept that some people see some logic in using an apostrophe to spell it's, no matter whether in the sense of an abbreviation (it's) or a personal pronoun (its), so I understand where they're coming from. What I don't understand - and I've told him this a number of times but he's never explained his position satisfactorily to me - is how StuRat always spells it with an apostrophe here on the ref desk and on other talk pages, and presumably in his private life, but in article space he acquiesces to the expected norm of spelling the personal pronoun 'its' without the apostrophe. I just don't get how one can be so rigidly principle-driven in some places, but abandon that principle where a certain minimum standard of writing is required. The message I always get from this is that he is committed to perpetuating a lower standard (and going out of his way to do so) but only where he thinks it doesn't matter or where he can get away with it, because he collapses like a pack of cards in places where it really does matter. It's the most risk-averse adherence to a principle in the history of the world. If you only ever fight the battles you're assured of winning, you're definitely not going to win the war. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
It's OK for informal writing, like this, but not yet accepted in formal writing. I wouldn't say "gonna" in formal writing, either, but might very well use it here. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
That's a good point. I never use "gonna" in article space, but often resort to it here. But that's because I'm sometimes lazy, and I look for acceptable short cuts. This also explains why people regularly omit the apostrophes from possessives ("my mothers car"), or from the abbreviation it's (= it is) and just write its. Or why they write "It was to good to be true". All sorts of abbreviated language exists. But your thing is the exact opposite of all that. You go out of your way to insert an apostrophe where it is not required, in defiance of every grammar book in existence. Clearly you are hoping it will achieve acceptance, because you say "not yet accepted in formal writing". That confirms that you do this with the intention of adding your voice to the International Movement for the Respelling of Its. I don't share your passion, but I wish you and your kind well. I just think you'd come across as more credible if you did it everywhere, and let the chips fall where they may. You certainly wouldn't be the first editor to misspell a word in an article and have some other editor come along and correct it. Articles are often copied holus-bolus, errors and all, so you'd have a better chance of changing the world that way, than restricting your campaign to the ref desk and talk pages. Hey, now you've got me giving you advice on how to change the language I have sworn to uphold and defend - its shocking how its turned out! :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I have re-corrected StuRat's deliberate misspelling. Providing intelligent answers is by consensus what we do here and that takes priority over any individual responder's wish to exploit a public page for their minority campaign. Here on the RD we do edit other people's posts where a justifiable reason exists. Good examples of such reasons are refactoring, removing content such as e-mail adresses, medical or legal advice, inappropriate matter, and righting typos that cause text to say something wrong[5] that we know is not the poster's proper intention. The misspelling with which StuRat disrupts this thread is in this category because IT'S means IT IS, and nothing else. DriveByWire (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been warned that editing the posts of others is inappropriate behavior. Your edit doesn't fall into any of the categories listed. If you continue, I will request that an Admin take action against you. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
DriveByWire, I disagree violently with StuRat's position, but I would defend to the death his right to have it. There's no law that says you have to spell correctly, and if you want to make some sort of lame point by deliberately misspelling words, that's your right. It's as irritating as itchy powder, but you have to learn to deal with it in some way other than directly changing what another editor wrote. That sort of action is reserved for article space; back here, we are agents of influence and exhortation. Please restore StuRat's original text. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by "this category" will be understood when an Admin acts on StuRat's request. With the majority of volunteers who do not condone disruptive behaviour to "prove a point" I think a suitable reaction will be welcome. DriveByWire (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back again. The next time you edit my posts I go to AN/I. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
In Wikipedia, that would contravene a guideline in WP:EXT: external links should only be put in an "External links" section. If you're talking about a different wiki using Mediawiki, I suggest trying MW:Project:Support desk. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "a wiki site" implies to me a site other than Wikipedia which happens to use similar infrastructure. —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mobile phones with actual keyboard
hi. I nee dto upgrade my phone, currantly a blackberry, and i don't want to move toa phone with a touchscreen keyboard, i like feeling actual physical keys. are tehre any non-blackberry phones which have those any more? --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.161.161 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, but basically the same as the above) It depends what style of phone you're looking for. There are some Android phones with slide-out Qwerty keyboards like Motorola Droid 4 and earlier models, and LG has a few; Sony and HTC also have models. There's also some LG phones with slide-out Qwerty running Windows Phone, like the LG Quantum. Also a few Blackberry-shaped phones from different manufacturers like the HTC ChaCha and Samsung Galaxy Pro (both Android I think). Nokia have Symbian models like the E6-00 if you don't mind the lack of software and feature phone QWERTY models like the Asha 210. Basically, there's not many options with Blackberry style keyboard below the screen, but a few with slide-out keyboards, particularly on Android. It will depend on your country and network (some like the HTC Evo are for 4G networks, and phones with keyboards seem to be more popular in Asia). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently using an LG Model 500G, which has a QWERTY keyboard on the front face (no slide) like the Blackberry. It is definitely not a smartphone, but it does its job well. I only purchased it less than a month ago, so at least in the U.S. it is available (depending on provider). → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cape Point
The height of the peninsular is refuted to be the highest in the world>
Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.190.232 (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on your definition of a peninsula, and how you measure the highest point of one. For example, the Arabian Peninsula is said to be the largest peninsula in the world, and its highest point, Jabal an Nabi Shu'ayb, is 3666 metres according to our article. This page, among others, defines the highest point on the Cape Peninsula as being Maclears Beacon at the summit of Table Mountain, which at 1084 metres is considerably lower. If you mean is Cape Point the world's highest point at the extreme end of a peninsula, you then have to define the area/size/length at which an outcrop of land into the ocean begins to qualify as a peninsula. The cliffs at Cape Point appear to be around 249 metres high but there are plenty of higher ones listed in our article Cliff. If any of these are situated on something that could be defined as a peninsula, then the answer to your question would be no. Karenjc 11:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the Reference Desk, I'll point out to the OP that s/he probably meant "reputed to be " (= has the reputation of being, is said to be). An argument can be refuted when facts are presented which contradict what was previously known. "A pupil asserted that the Thames was the longest river in England. The teacher refuted this by opening an atlas and pointing at several which are longer." BrainyBabe (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using the random articles feature of Wikipedia for fun, but I noticed that the article Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump has a sentence that says "Beginning in February 1969, Chemical Waste Storage and Disposition, a Beaverton company, stored roughly 25,000 55-gallon drums of chemical waste near the shore of the playa with a permit from the Oregon Department of Agriculture."
Dry lake—the word is correctly wikilinked in the first sentence of the article. Deor (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the sink article doesn't agree with the playa disambiguation page. It seems that sink shouldn't be listed there. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... was named after Stanley V. Mastbaum. His Brother was called Jules E. (= Ephraim) Mastbaum.
1. Question: The middle initial "V." stands for ?
If this is not known, but following the pattern "middle name Jewish"
2. Question: Any suggestions, which Jewish given names start with a "V." ?
I appreciate your suggestions. Grey Geezer 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)
At http://www.babynames.org.uk/jewish-boy-baby-names.htm I found Vaschel and Venamin/Veniamin/Venjamin as possibilities. Searching Google for 'Stanley [xxx] Mastbaum' gives nothing with these, though. His family seems to have been fairly fluid in their naming - on the 1880 census Stanley is 2 months old. Jules is listed as 'Jules S Mastbaum' and his father is 'Levi Mastbaum'. By 1900 they have become the 'Nastbaum' family, dad is called 'Leo' and Jules has become 'Julis C Nastbaum'. In 1910 Stanley is using his middle initial and is back to 'Mastbaum'. It's possible that one of the original documents gives the full name, but I suspect that they used various names, variously translated from German or Yiddish, as the mood took them. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for looking into the matter! Not solved but interesting observations given, especially that the middle initial appears when he was about 20. Trying to make a (stage) name sound more interesting ? Anyway, thanks a lot! Grey Geezer 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure that you can conclude that because Jules had what you believe to have been a Jewish middle name, that his brother did too. I'm also not sure that you can firmly state that in those days Ephraim was a Jewish name, rather than just a biblical one. --Dweller (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cieling??
Does the word cieling actually exist as an alternative to ceiling?? I am asking because I noticed it in many pages. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a misspelling. Here's the history of the word, in EO.[6] It derives from the same Latin word as "celestial", meaning "of the heavens". There is no entry for "cieling". Possibly complicated by the fact that in Spanish the word for "heaven" is cielo. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were two mis-spellings in the English wikipedia, one of which I've just corrected. The other (an image caption) is apparently a direct quote from the original document. There are another 19 instances found in a search for "cieling", all referencing foreign language words. Rojomoke (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the technology for this product is relatively common, so I am fairly certain it must exist, but I have never seen one advertised or marketed. Is there a wall-mounted flat-screen TV that when turned off, instead of showing a blank screen, becomes a digital photo frame to display artwork, for example? Each of these exist independently. (In fact, they sit right next to each other in my local Walmart!) It would look so much better to see a nice work of art or a family photo over the fireplace when the TV is turned off than a black rectangle. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except for the "turned off" part. To display anything, a digital photo frame or TV must be "on", in that it's using a fair amount of energy. Many TVs can display photo's on a USB flash drive, for example. For those that can't, there are set-top boxes that will read the pics off the USB drive and output them on a HDMI cable (I have one). However, one thing to beware of is that some TVs will suffer screen burn-in if left on the same image (or small series of images), for an extended time. Best idea of all ? Go with an old-fashioned photo album/scrap book and save both your TV and the planet. (I suspect that whatever pics you see looping over and over again on any device will soon lose their appeal, in any case.) StuRat (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[I know it's a lost cause globally, but in this zone of clever people may I point out that English plurals do not normally use apostrophes? The plural of photo is not photo's.] Hayttom (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, StuRat. When I said "turned off", I meant when it is not being used as a television. And I knew burn-in was a problem for old cathode ray tubes, but I wasn't sure about flat screens. With regard to your reference to albums or scrapbooks, I agree, but I was thinking about the aesthetics of the room — a framed still image is better than a big black rectangle on the wall. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ 23:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Screen_burn-in#Plasma.2C_LCD_and_OLED_displays for an illustration of burn-in on a flat screen TV. My thought was that a flat-screen TV could be used to light the room, which, if it used white light, should at least dim the screen evenly. If they design a TV which is efficient enough and doesn't fade, this might be how rooms are lit in the future. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 27
Water-based chemical that would hurt machines but not humans
Im writing a science fiction story. I have a scene where the humans are fighting the robots in a laboratory, and the resident techhie turns on the sprinkler systemmto reveal he's put something in it that somehow helps defeat the robots, either by slowing them down or destroying them outright. Of course, since his human allies are also in the room, I don't want to hurt them. What could he have put in the sprinklers? 82.226.221.64 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the techie could also use some sci-fi compound to rapidly speed up the rusting process.Sazea (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that you'll be able to impair the mechanical or electrical systems of the robots; all things being equal, it must be assumed that these have been designed to withstand normal environmental conditions, which would include humidity and grit, for instance. I can't see how you'd speed up the rusting proces without affecting the skin of the humans. I think you need to decide what sort of sensors the robots have, and try to affect those. Let us suppose we're dealing primarily with optical sensors. You probably want a nano material which binds to glass and/or to glass coatings so as to render them opaque. If we assume other sensor systems (ultrasound, passive or infra-red sensing, etc), the solution is much the same: a material which binds to a critical component of the sensor so as to render it ineffective. That being the case, you probably want a backstory somewhere which includes a protagonist researching nano materials. This approach gives you some bonuses: characters who wear glasses will be affected. Nor will your protagonists be able to tell the time from their watches nor read computer or phone screens. --Tagishsimon(talk) 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I was looking for similar things, theoretically of course, to the Dies the Fire scenario, what I came up with is something which would greatly increase the opacity of nonliving material (it has to be nonliving because if you do all materials, we'll all be blind). It would be very hard to run a technological civilization without glass or its equivalent. How do you drive?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a 1960s episode of Dr Who, the Doctor defeats the Cybermen by squirting them with his glamourous assistant's nail varnish remover, which dissolved the plastic casing on their chests, causing their instantanious expiry. That's my childhood memory of the episode anyway - I'm sure there are many avid fans out there who could condfirm the details. Of course, the robots of future were much less sophisticated in those days. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When used in the proposed sprinkler system, acetone in small to modest concentrations isn't going to dissolve anything. If the techie replaces much of the water in the sprinkler system with neat acetone, this might indeed dissolve the robot's polymeric parts. But acetone is extremely inflamable and, as an aerosol, it's explosive. Sprayed continually in a fine mist, and evaporating up from where it pools on the ground, the affected rooms will become something resembling a thermobaric weapon - set to explode with astonishing fury given a spark. And what's a better source of sparks than a bunch of dissolving robots? Worse the poor humans won't be outrunning the blast (in the unprobable way people in movies always try) because in large amounts liquid acetone is a major eye irritant. This is a Pyrrhic strategy indeed. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, probably not a good idea then... Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going with Tagishsimon's idea, you could actually have some flexibility in what all gets affected. Camera optics like you would find in a robot that uses them would likely be glass. Glasses, watches and screens could be glass, plastic or artificial sapphire. A simple sprinkler modification to do on short notice could be splicing a compressed air line into the water supply, helping create a mist rather than a harder spray. Robots not designed to work in a misty environment may not be able to process images nearly as well. A mist would also absorb radiation in the microwave spectrum, which is a likely choice for a robot that uses some sort of short-range radar. I like the air idea because I can't come up with a plausible way to easily get large quantities of a chemical into the supply lines for a standard sprinkler system unless it is fed by a tank. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a Sci -Fi novel this scenario sounds a bit old hat. Bit like spaying sea water on triffids – time moves on and and I'm sure Monsanto can genetically engineer salt water resistant alien weeds to order these days, so liquid resistant robots must be a piece of cake. Just have the techhie broadcast through the lab's wifi, the contents of any old Microsoft installation disc and wait for the robots on-board computer systems to crash. --Aspro (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That worked on Triffids only in the movie. Deor (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about if you put pure oxygen in the sprinkler system, and hot components in the robots (motors ?) cause nearby plastics in the robots (let's say wire insulation) to burst into flame in the higher oxygen environment ? Pure oxygen isn't healthy for humans, either, but they could probably stand it for a short period. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad past experiences of the combination of coke and electrical-mechanical kit makes me suggest that unless they're well waterproofed, a strong sugary solution will jam up circuits and subtle connectors. Alternatively, on Tagishsimon's lines, how about paint? --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or add detergent to the water to fill the room with suds. They probably wouldn't have a way to wipe suds off their camera lenses, and detergent inside them would carry away the lubricants, causing them to lock up, then rust. Let's say they have air vents to let heat out, and the detergent gets in that way. StuRat (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
of course, if the robots look like salt shakers they can be defeated with door sills and floppy hats. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is so often the case when someone is trying to figure out the technicalities of a literary device like this, TVtropes has pages of previous attempts to do likewise. AchillesHeel is the general trope, and because you're wanting to have the robots killed by something that's otherwise rather innocuous it's going to inevitably resemble the many listed at WeaksauceWeakness. I have to fear that any such WeaksauceWeakness you invent will work only if the robots are, well, just lame. Any reader of your work will surely have endured enough (as listed at TVtropes) that it'll seem like parody (tipified by Mars Attacks! yodelling) whether you want it to or not. Would we remember the bad guy in Alien if he'd been killed due to a surprise peanut allergy in the last scene? Anyway, if you want a solution, just lock the doors and run the sprinkler system. The robots will be okay, but the building electricity will short (if it doesn't get automatically cut). Then the humans just hide in a little room (or the air ducts; movies love air ducts) until the robots' batteries die. Maybe they can survive salty water and soap bubbles, but not a power cut. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the techie hates robot and works at the lab, they could have easily developed some sort of device to neutralize them. Perhaps a small EMP, or particles in the shower that inhibit their wireless communication for a brief period, but a special acid that goes after metal but not flesh would be pretty cool, and you could have the heroes have side effects when it hits their fillings so that it doesn't seem like a total cop-out.129.128.216.107 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
developing and publishing an article
respected sir,
i am stanly working as an assistant professor in reputed engineering college. I am doing my research in fingerprint recognition.I want to pruduce any article in science magazines.how & when.please give me assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlyjayaprakashj (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your college (or one nearby) almost certainly has courses in technical and scientific writing for undergraduates and grad students, so that's the logical place to start. The worst way to learn is to read technical and scientific literature. A lot of it is poorly written, even those articles written by native speakers. If you're thinking of writing in English, read A LOT, everyday, and not just technical and scientific literature. Read at least one book of contemporary fiction a month. Science fiction and fantasy are best because of the large vocabulary. Look up EVERY SINGLE word you don't know. Never decide that a word is "important" or not; they're ALL important. Learn to write non-scientific well English first before you attempt to write scientific English. Be patient, work hard, and keep at it. Do it with passion. Don't expect quick results, and there are no shortcuts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to be very fluent in English. You might try publishing in a journal in your native language. I have known non-native speakers of English in the US who wrote for scientific journals, whose English writing was almost as awkward as yours is in your question. They found it useful to have a proofreader go over it and correct mistakes in spelling, grammar and word choice so it became publishable, but it was vital to have close consultation between the editor and the scientist, to make sure that the intended meaning of a phrase was not changed to something else in the editing process. Edison (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that while writing is an important component, you first will need to get your research results. Part of getting publishable results is knowing what has been done, so be sure to get a good overview of the field you try to publish in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Food preferences
Is there a special term for when someone is a picky eater based on the knowledge of what's in the food, rather than what it tastes like? I mean, my daughter claims to not like onions but when I puree them into the mashed potatoes, she has no idea it's there and thinks it's really yummy. Yet if I merely chopped, fried and stirred them in, she wouldn't eat it, claiming that she "doesn't like onions." DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nocebo ? That is, they think onions are unpleasant, when they really aren't, so thinking they are in something makes them "sick". I bet if you told her onions were in something onion-free, that she would react the same way. Incidentally, cooking onions makes them far more palatable to many people. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your daughters defence...the liking/not liking of food is not purely flavour based, texture plays a huge part. Personally I don't like mushrooms - sure I don't like the flavour but I really dislike the texture of them...in my mind slightly rubbery, slippery texture...cue responses saying i'm cooking them wrong :-) ny156uk (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to those reading: do not try this with someone you dont know well. I had someone arrogantly believe that I was just being a picky whiny craaaaaaaazy irrational attention hog and slipped peanuts into my food to "prove" that it was all in my little subhuman female head, etc. Spent a week and a half in the ICU and still to this day 20 years later have some physical deficits related to hypoxia. Naturally, because he was a poor, poor, poor, Nice Guy who (sob) just DIDN'T KNOW, he wasn't charged criminally. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However there is a very big difference between being allergic to food and just not liking it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's certainly advantageous to not like foods you're already allergic to. But I've known folks who love tomatoes, for example, but are allergic to them - and there's some sort of medication they can take just before eating, which neutralize the allergic reaction. I, on the other hand, would be fine with an allergy to liver and onions, as they're wretched in any case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old story. We had a party at our place. One pair of friends brought their only child, a girl aged about 7. She got peckish and asked me if there was anything to eat apart from the party food we had out. I told her there was tons of other stuff in the fridge, and to have at it. A minute later she said, "Jack, this ham is yummy. So delicious! The best ham I've ever tasted. Where did you get it from?". Like an idiot, I said to her "Oh, that isn't ham, it's cured tongue". This produced a violent reaction. She immediately spat it out, almost threw up and ran off screaming "Eeeeuggghhrrr!! Yuuuuuck!!". Mind over matter at its worst. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is perfectly sensible behaviour and I probably would have spat it out myself once you'd told me. Knowing what you're eating makes a big difference as to whether you want to eat it or not. Just ask a vegetarian. --Viennese Waltz 07:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, as tongue is quite good - beef tongue, anyway. Very mild. An old joke from All in the Family: Edith has served tongue to the daughter and the son-in-law for breakfast. Somehow it comes out that Archie wouldn't eat it because he "won't eat anything that comes from a cow's mouth." So what did she serve him instead? [drum roll here] Eggs! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson being you need to know when to bite your tongue. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very tongue-in-cheek. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I used to eat black pudding until I got a recipe book containing a recipe for it. It started. "When killing the pig, put a bucket underneath and catch the blood. Now stir it while it is still warm with your arm so the veins stick to your skin and can be removed..." I stopped reading after that and resolved never to eat it again. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before you knew what it was, did it taste good? Keep in mind it probably grew out of the perceived need to let nothing go to waste. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it tasted good before I read that recipe. In the olden days the saying went that the only part of the pig they didn't use was the squeal. I know it's irractional and I knew it was irrational then, but I can't force it past my lips now. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrational at all, it's perfectly rational. See my post above. --Viennese Waltz 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might be rational. If you have made a conscious decision that you will not eat a certain foodstuff under any circumstances because of medical-environmental-vegetarian-ideological-ethical-religious concerns, that's a rational stance. But if the only reason you decide not to eat Food X is because you assume it must taste horrible, whether from where it comes or just from the sound of it, that's completely irrational. My 7-year old friend above had certainly not decided in advance that meat was out of the question, because she couldn't get enough of it while she thought it was ham. But clearly, she assumed that tongue and probably other forms of offal taste horribly gross, merely because of where they come from, and that assumption completely overrode her objective experience that the thing actually tasted delicious. That's irrational. We can cut a 7-yr old some slack, but lots of adults have similar irrational reactions when they discover they're eating something they weren't aware of. Show most adults how sausages are made and they'll probably never eat them again, but until then, they rather enjoy them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason why I would spit it out is nothing to do with assuming it must taste horrible. It's because I don't want a piece of an animal's tongue in my mouth, no matter how good it may taste. What's irrational about that? --Viennese Waltz 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, as with the Archie Bunker story farther up, still like to eat eggs, even knowing where they came from? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrational because there's nothing intrinsically bad about the tongue; it's like saying you'll only eat chicken pieces that come from the left side or something - and that you're perfectly rational for not wanting to eat anything from the right side. You can still get sausage made out of what is, essentially, pig asshole and not tell the difference between it and the synthetic casings. And if you eat enough hot dogs and other sausages, chances are good you've eaten your share of both tongue and asshole and not even known. So knowing it now, will you stop eating them? Or will you develop a new rule that says the tongue chunks must be ground finer than a certain limit before you'll scarf them down? Isn't food great? :) Bismarck may never have said it, but it's still true: "If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made." Matt Deres (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the fact that you know what's in it that makes all the difference. Sure, I eat sausages (Wiener wurstel, natürlich), and sure I don't know what's in them. But once you know what's in something, that enables you to make an informed choice as to whether or not you eat it. As for tongue being intrinsically bad, sure it is. It's just yucky, like all offal, and unlike steak and so on. --Viennese Waltz 14:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But now you do know, so will you stop eating them? See, that's part of the irrationality here - I don't see how you can include tongue into the offal category, yet not have asshole and intestine left off. Tongue is, at least, a muscle (like steak and chops, etc.). Matt Deres (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viennese Waltz, I venture to suppose that you have not actually tasted all the possible types of offal in existence and found empirically that in 100% of cases it's "yucky". If I'm wrong, please correct me. Far more likely is that you've formed this opinion from a small subset of all offal, which you were exposed to when you were considerably younger than you are now, and extrapolated your dislike of that small subset to all offal. If you read a book and don't like it, or see a movie and don't like it, or hear some music and don't like it, wouldn't it be irrational to make the leap into "I dislike all books, movies and music"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about tongue is that it hurts to bite one's own tongue. Therefore there is an accompanying thought of doing that to another tongue, and in such close proximity to one's own tongue. Rationally this does not make sense. But to consider the food item a tongue is to bring some of the same thoughts and associations to mind that accompany thinking about one's own tongue. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tongue I've had is typically thinly sliced and doesn't really look like a tongue at all, just like slices of bologna or something (maybe I could make a better comparison, but you get the idea). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason for the thin slicing is to disguise its origin as the plump piece of tissue that we know as tongue. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with Bus Stop 100% on the biting of tongue, was thinking the exact same thing, as well as the fact that a tongue is very intimate. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between the wall of the cloaca and an egg that comes out of cloaca. Tongue is tongue and doesn't come out of, but is the tongue. One doesn't eat asshole or cloaca in any case; only perhaps its sphincter.
I kinda doubt that. We slice ham thinly too, and cheese, and other things. Nothing to do with disguising their origins. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with Matt Deres here that it's irrational. And not really comparable to a vegetarian. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not, many vegetarians have reasons for why they choose not do eat meat with a fair degree of logic and thought even if they may arguably also have some flaws, in other words they have reasons can be considered rational. So far I haven't heard any explaination here for why people wouldn't want to eat tongue that makes any sense, in other words all the explainations just seem to prove it's irrational. Of course I'm not saying you're wrong to not want to eat tongue or to find it disgusting, that's your choice (or non choice), people including me do plenty of things which aren't rational. Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
short notice international travel
so, I need to get to america (missouri) from england on sunday, is this still possible? wasn't there some thing where you could get cheaper flights booking at the last minute if you accepted that they might not have some going to where you want to, and since I don't mind any of half a dozen airports within a few hours of where I want to get to, or changing to a domestic flight pretty much anywhere in the country, I can shop around a few options, but anyone have ideas where I could find the cheapest flights?
You might try standby (air travel), but you may not get to fly at all, since you only go if somebody else fails to show up. I hope you have your passport up to date.
From our article:
"Travelers get themselves onto the standby list by speaking to a ticket agent or a gate agent. Almost always, this must occur in person at the airport, and not over the phone. When the flight is boarding, any unclaimed or available seats will be given to those passengers on the standby list, who must wait at the gate to be called. Any passengers on the list who are not given seats are rolled into the standby list for the next flight."
If you need to travel because a close family member is very seriously ill, you may qualify for a compassion fares, although these still aren't cheap. I took a gander at Kayak.co.uk, another aggregator, and the best it could do was LHR->Kansas City on Wednesday, for over £800. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
anyone know where I can buy a one way ticket, or a return where I come back from a different airport to the one I arrive at? I'll be doing a bit of travelling there, and don't want to have to go all the way back again after 79.66.96.116 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just caution you that if you travel to the US without a ticket out of the country, you will also require a Visa - you would not be eligible to travel under the visa waiver program with an ESTA. -- Arwel Parry(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Travel agents and online ticket companies like those listed above will sell you a one-way ticket or an open-jaw ticket (which is where you return from a different airport. Note (given your visa question below) that immigration may take a very dim view if you only have a one-way ticket. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I found it, strange that it costs so much more than a return. anyone know where I can sell the spare if I get the return? 79.66.96.116 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere; airline tickets are almost never transferable. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since 911, the name on the ticket has had to be the name on the passport (or other travel ID) and the name in the computer.
Ah, solved it, a flight between the two airports costs about as much as the bus, and gets me the right return ticket too, that was easy 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 28
Clock with red areas
It's a picture of a clock with red areas on the dial. Do they serve a purpose or just decoration?
Although Finlay directed you to the relevant article, I think a brief answer here is in order: The red areas mark the times during which radio stations using the international distress frequency of 500 kHz should stop transmitting and listen to see if any distress calls are being sent. --Thomprod (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typing pinyin
What are the alt codes for a, e, i, o, and u with the macron and caron, and what are the alt codes for ü with all four accents (acute, grave, macron, and caron)? --108.225.117.142 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page on Alt codes; the references at the bottom of the page will answer your questions. -- 74.252.5.226 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't have alt codes for any of those characters. --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this page is, but it lists codes for all of the pinyin vowels. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a neighbor that is scared to death to leave her Yorkie (dog) out because we have red-shouldered hawks in the area. I tell her they will not carry her off. Am I right? I told her she should worry more about the Great Horned Owl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.206.48 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And yes. The Red-shouldered hawk is quite small; unless her Yorkie is the size of a chipmunk, it probably outweighs the poor hawk handily. Horned owls on the other hand are larger and much more ambitious... Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ball and chain attached to the dog's collar will prevent even a horned owl from carrying off its carcass. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As would cementing the dog's paws into the pavement. Arguably it's not very useful advice though. --Tagishsimon(talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Especially not if it's a spherical Yorkie. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did New Math fail?
From what I've read about it, it seems like it was a lot better than current math instruction. The focus on abstraction especially seems like it would've been helpful. --146.7.96.200 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on abstraction was precisely the problem -- it produced people who were unable to deal with the concrete. Our article New Math covers the issues reasonably well. As a personal note, I think the criticisms tend to be a bit overstated -- I went to elementary school during the New Math era myself, and the techniques worked reasonably well for me -- however I ended up going to graduate school in math, so perhaps my ability to handle abstraction is a bit better than most people's. Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It failed for two reasons mentioned in different parts of the article. Primarily, it failed because the concepts of math are cumulative and, to use Looie's terms, children must master the concrete to the point of automatization before they can conquer more abstract notions. The second problem was that most teachers did not themselves fully grasp the notions. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract concepts are easier to grasp than concrete ones (i.e. rote memorization of multiplication tables, etc.). --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... only for some people at some ages. Dbfirs 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
146 is incorrect, unless he's an unusual genius and can do it that way. Learning by the young needs to go from the specific to the general, not the other way around. Tom Lehrer, who taught university-level math, said it well during his song about New Math: "In the new approach, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer."[7] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of ease, but of priority. There is some leeway. But learning to count precedes addition, which precedes multiplication, which precedes algebra, which precedes calculus. Some higher level concepts like powers may take much less effort to learn than mastering the multiplication table, but doing so cannot precede learning the multiplication table. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also just add that it's not clear that it really "failed" in the sense of being expunged. When I was in high school in the early 1990s, I was in a New Math-like program (Interactive Mathematics Program) that focused on concepts rather than rote. Frankly I found the concepts very easy by comparison to the rote, but one doesn't always want to start every calculation problem from first principles. My mathematical skills are pretty crap and have been since then; I somewhat wonder if I had been taught by rote I'd be a bit better off. I can still do all of the rote math that I did in elementary school; pretty much everything from high school onward is lost except for things that were reinforced by rote (like SOCATOA and all that). Just my two cents, results no doubt vary with the student. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Math was introduced in elementary school, or was in my day. I am not sure exactly what you would have been learning by rote in high school, when things like sets, modular math, estimation, and bases and the like would actually have been appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty typical. Things we learn but never use are soon forgotten. This does bring up the question of why we spend years of our lives learning things we will never remember. There must be a better way, with far more specialization in our chosen field. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many 7 year olds have a "chosen field" already? As for learning stuff that in retrospect seems "useless", it was in fact useful in broadening your scope of experience and exposure to things, and with helping to discipline your mind. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 ? That seems a bit early. I probably remember just about everything I learned in school then, since I do use basic math, vocabulary, etc., every day. I'd have a standard curriculum up through grammar school (10-11), then allow students to specialize, depending on their interests. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One, because many children may be interested in mathematics, languages, science etc, but would never have been exposed to it otherwise. How can you have a "chosen field" if you've grown up with no education, in a house with no books and Jersey Shore on the TV? Two, because the most important thing people learn in school is not the content of the lessons, but to sit down, shut up, and do what they're told. :) FiggyBee (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They would be exposed to a bit of every field early on, enough to know what they like and don't like. As for forcing kids to study subjects they hate, this probably is largely responsible for the massive dropout rate in many places. Learning should be fun. Even if they stay in school and learn things they hate, long enough to graduate, those items will be forgotten almost immediately. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New math, like anything new, really, would have to be MUCH better to justify switching to a new method. Otherwise, it doesn't justify all the confusion caused when people using the two different systems try to communicate. Is new math that much better ? It looks like it's not. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My father taught new math in the early 1970s. He said that the mathematically gifted students would learn the abstractions being taught and then be able to reason out the specific examples for themselves, so they learned more than they would have if they had just learned by rote. Average students, on the hand, were completely baffled by it and didn't learn much of anything.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must have also led to some disastrous tutoring sessions where the gifted students tried to teach the others. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did New Maths, the Schools Mathematics Project, loved it, and we were expected to tutor each other, and that worked too. But that was with a particularly good teacher, and the system was too dependent on having good committed teachers. The French national curriculum incorporates some elements that in UK/USA were in New Math(s), in particular the emphasis on functions. I still think that the main New Maths route is a logical one. A bit of set theory, not so much it gets dull, just element, union, intersection, Venn diagrams. Then map one set onto another. One-to-one/one-to-many/many-to-one mappings, they can see when there is and isn't an inverse. Then introduce function terminology and notation, using arithmetical examples. Graphing functions, distinguishing linear, quadratic and cubic functions. Trig functions, and this helps to show that trig isn't just a headache introduced for no reason. And then with luck they should be able to grasp the idea of a derived function. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were often tutoring sessions where gifted students taught the others, StuRat. I was one of those students, and I taught dozens of my classmates. The sessions were far from disastrous, however; they were very straightforward and quite successful. Sometimes the others just needed one-on-one attention that a classroom teacher could not provide. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ 12:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the Wiki-article, I think they got the balance between setting up rigorous frameworks and just teaching about maths wrong. In my learning and teaching experience, I've found that it is important to separate the two things. On the one hand you want to be able to teach a lot about mathematics so that it becomes interesting. You then don't want to be constrained to have to stick to formulate everyting you do in the form of rigorously proven theorems. On the other hand, you have to later prove things rigorously.
This is how we teach most other subjects. In case of languages, you don't wait with reading books, writing etc. until they have mastered grammar perfectly. Only in math do we have this ridiculous attitude and the results are abysmal. We end up teaching the same stupid sums over and over again, boring school children to death. Because they then don't do very well on average, we wrongly interpret this as these sorts of problems being close to the limit of their abilities. But these same children don't have any problems doing things on their computer that involves more logical/abstract thinking than you need to solve graduate level university math problems. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As recently as 2004 Norway introduced "The Knowledge Promotion"[8]Kunnskapsløftet[9] to school education with a new maths curriculum Matematikk(here in norwegian). One might expect it to recognize the ubiquitous pocket calculator and/or computer owned by every norwegian child, which was not the case when the New Math was conceived in the 1960s. In fact it fails at an elementary level: the symbols that the teacher uses for elementary arithmetic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are respectively + — . :. If everyone agrees to use one symbol for one thing, it doesn't matter what that symbol is. However this teacher does a disservice to an 8th grade pupil who may need in future to share and understand mathematics with non-norwegians, who already has a calculator whose keys look like this and who will routinely encounter advertisements that say SALE ÷ 20% (a deprecated usage of the obelus noted here ). DriveByWire (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very confused if I saw that advert. Is it common in Norway? Dbfirs 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German symmetry minute
On tonight's meander through Wikipedia I came across the article on Clock-face scheduling, which contains this fascinating sentence: "These developments have led to "integrated timetable islands", which all do adhere to the Germany-wide symmetry minute (58½), which is used also in Switzerland and partially in other European Countries."
I can't for the life of me think what a 'Germany-wide symmetry minute' is, but it sure sounds interesting. Can anyone shed any light? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not easy to figure out. The concept developed in European transport scheduling, and the term derives from the German word Symmetrieminute. In fact, the German Wikipedia has a long article about it, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetrieminute. The basic idea, to the extent that I understand it (which is not a very great extent), is to arrange routes so that both arrivals and departures occur at the same time each hour. The usual setup, I gather, is for routes to begin at 1½ minutes before the hour. Why they do it that way, I can't make out. It seems like the sort of thing that only a German engineer could dream up. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{e/c}This seems to be a translation of the German wiki page, and that has a link to de:Symmetrieminute. Basically you have a whole lot of rail routes running an hourly frequency in both directions, pick major stations one hour apart as interchange hubs, where trains arrive at :57 each hour and depart at :00 allowing change of train. At any other station t minutes from the hub, the standard times are 58½-t in one direction and 58½+t in the other as shown in the diagram on that page. I think that's it anyway. Sussexonian (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I must admit that the German article hasn't really made this much clearer for me (especially since my German isn't really up to dealing with all the technical terms, so I'm relying on GTranslate. That gives me delightful sentences like "The determined in this way symmetry minute is initially a code that help can be determined as follows: When traveling from place A to a given route to a destination B at a different route and return the transfer time in the opposite direction can only be accurately the same if both lines have the same symmetry time. At various times symmetry is that the difference of the transfer times of the direction and the opposite direction is always twice the difference of the symmetry times."
I can sort of see why it's useful for trains to arrive at set times past the hour (buses in London are often advertised on timetables as 'at the following minutes past the hour: 00, 12, 24, 36, 48') but there seems to be more in it than that, all to do with interchanges, and a rather complex gif (right). I'm genuinely interested in why this system is beneficial. Can anyone help to translate the de article? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that gif is useless because it looks like the trains are just going backwards and forwards between two stations each, when actually they are going along whole routes and there are other trains going in the other direction. As far as I can tell, the idea behind this "symmetry minute" is just so that you never have to wait around for a long time when changing trains. Regardless of what train you are getting off, it will get into the hub at 3 minutes to the hour and, regardless of what train you are getting on, it will leave the hub on the hour. That means when you aren't at a hub, the train times in one direction are always the mirror image of the train times in the other direction. The system seems to rely on having trains that are on time, though, so wouldn't work in Britain. Our official statistics only consider a train to be late if it is more than 5 minutes late, or 10 minutes for long distance trains, so if we used a symmetry minute we would constantly be missing our connections. Instead, we just coordinate certain timetables where there are a lot of people wanting to move from one train to another and it is practical to have that train wait for the first one to arrive. --Tango (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the British definition is that a (long distance) train is only officially late is it's over 10 minutes late at its final destination. This gives rise to little timetabling ruses, e.g. the London to Crewe local London Midland services is timetabled to take 14 minutes between Euston and Watford Junction, but incoming trains to Euston are allowed 18 minutes from Watford, which of course improves the chances of a train arriving "on time". -- Arwel Parry(talk) 12:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we imagine the chaos of allowing only 3 minutes to change trains at Clapham Junction? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
travel to america
so, I'll be spending a couple of weeks in america soon, but I'm wondering, having never been there before, what else than flights do I need to organise? any need to sort out a visa or some such beforehand? any idea where I can get a nice travel insurance at short notice? what else might I need to get organised still? thanks so much for your help
it's a nice list, but I can't see whether I need a visa, how to get one or where to buy insurance... 79.66.96.116 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things like visas and insurance are pretty important, did you not think about them before you booked the flights? [10] should have all the info you need--Jac16888Talk 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the IP geolocates to London -- if you are a British citizen, you won't need a visa, although you will of course need a passport. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
79.66.96.116 probably doesn't need a visa, but not all UK passport holders qualify for the waiver. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As your IP suggests you're in the UK, I'll answer with regard to that. You may not need a visa. See Visa Waiver Program for those that don't (it depends on your citizenship, type of passport, and some other stuff like arrest record); if you qualify you fill out an ESTA online a few days before you travel - it's your responsibility to ensure that you do qualify (those articles link to US government website that explain), and if you don't they'll refuse you entry. If you don't qualify, you need a tourist visa from the US embassy in London (and you're probably much too late to apply for that). You can get travel insurance from any travel agent, insurance office, supermarket, or from the post office. Phone your credit card company and tell them you're going, so they don't see the unusual transactions and cancel the card when you're abroad. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is fun, to get an ESTA organised, I need flight information, but I don't know what flight I'll be getting until I know how long it'll take for the ESTA to be organised. any advice? 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ESTA doesn't take any time to be organised - there's no paperwork. It's just a website; you go there 3 days before your flight leaves and enter a small amount of info (e.g. "are you a war criminal [yes/no]") and you pay online. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it three days? the website implied that it was about that, but could potentially be more or less in some situations 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1 minute, really. ESDA is just a formfill; it's not a visa, and having done it doesn't amount to any human having looked at your records and approved anything. It's the electronic equivalent of mailing in a paper form, but they don't mail you back. They only say 3 days because they don't want you to wait until the last day and find the website is broken that day. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entry to USA can be severely complicated if you have a criminal record. Some useful links and a bunch of anecdotes here. The cynical line seems to be that it's a problem especially (rather than even) if the record is for petty crime, the implication being that if you'd done something seriously bad, you'd be welcomed. Not sure that's true. --Dweller (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the British police really cooperate with the Americans to share information about unconvicted arrests? --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and I don't think they're very specific about saying what they share and how far back. The trouble is that if you chance not disclosing your apple-thieving past, you risk the bureaucratic tangle of supplementary inspection and expedited removal. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the specifics of the US, but I'm pretty sure when it comes to tourists most countries rely primarily on honesty when it comes to things like arrest or criminal records. (Immigrants or those planning to stay for long periods may be required to provide the records.) Similar to what FM said, when people lie, they're likely to find themselves deported at a minimum (which may make it almost impossible to get back in to whatever country in the future, and likely even more difficult in others even if you could have gotten in with just the crime or arrest) and probably fined, and in some countris possibly even detained or arrested so there is a disincentive to lying. There is of course the risk immigration authorities will be aware of the information, e.g. [11] suggests Canada and the US share most information on arrest and criminal records. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the above ref also suggests the UK does not routinely share such information with the US immigration officials (I didn't mention it because I wasn't confident on its accuracy), but [12] (original source [13]) and [14] ([15]) seem to confirm it's the case. Even Australia and NZ don't routinely share such information [16]. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting you lie, as I mentioned it seems a dumb idea particularly if you have a fair chance of being allowed in anyway with some additional bureaucratic hurdles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know specifically about the US, but given what I've read I doubt they'd be very different from NZ and Australia. If so, bear in mind technically qualifying for the visa waiver (i.e. right passport, no criminal record, having a return ticket) doesn't mean you'll actually be allowed in. If whoever processes you when you arrive doesn't believe you are genuinely going for the purposes allowed by the visa they probably have the right to reject you. Organisaing your travel at the last minute to the extent of not even knowing what you have to do or how you're going to get there is likely to be a big red flag. Coming from the UK will reduce concerns some what (although not if you've recently travelled to various parts of Africa, South America or Asia). If I were you, I would at least contact the US embassy and explain your situation. You also want to make sure you have things like travel plans, accomodation and finances sorted since the lack of these are likely to be additional red flags. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key things to gaining admission to any country (if you are not planning to immigrate to that country) is clear evidence of a paid return trip to your home country, in your case, proof that you have paid for your return flight. Other key things are 1) evidence of prearranged overnight accommodations at least for your first night or two, such as a hotel or hostel reservation confirmation, and 2) proof of funds sufficient to cover your expenses during your trip. Something like a bank statement should show that you have more than enough readily available money to cover your travel plans — maybe $100 or roughly £60 for each day of travel if you plan to get around by bus and stay in youth hostels, more if you plan to stay in nicer hotels or hire a car with more evidence of prepaid flights helpful if you plan to get around on domestic flights. That said, unless you have an arrest record or have traveled to countries viewed by the US government with suspicion (such as Yemen or Pakistan), if you are a UK native and have enough money for your trip, you should not have any problems. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where in the world are the urban cabel cars and what do they do?
where in the world are the urban cabel cars and what do they do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.122.81 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to finally get a Kindle 3G Touch, with the intention of using it mainly as a traveling companion. One of the biggest selling points for me is that I'd be able to use Wikipedia for free while on the road - that alone would cut down the number of travel guides I have to lug around by about a dozen per trip :) . I read our article and did a bit of googling around, but I don't seem to be able to find out whether the Kindle can access en.wikipedia only or all language editions. I'd sure miss it.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia while traveling...can anyone who owns a Kindle 3G shed any light on this? As a side question, if the Kindle is able to display all language editions, is its web browser able to display Kanji? If it isn't, accessing the Japanese Wikipedia might be slightly difficult. Thanks in advance, Ferkelparadeπ 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kindle 3G accesses Wikipedia through an experimental browser. You can use the browser to access pretty much any website, though navigation can be slow, and I had trouble accessing email through my Kindle Keyboard when I first got it. Having just typed jprs.jp into my Kindle, I can confirm that it displays Kanji (or something similar - I can't read Kanji).--Wikimedes (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - so I can actually use the web browser over 3G and not just over Wifi? I read conflicting things about that, the latest articles I read seemed to indicate that web browsing over 3G was limited to amazon's whispernet which provides a mirrored copy of Wikipedia (hence my question, I was curious whether they provide a mirror of en.wikipedia only or of the whole range of languages). -- Ferkelparadeπ 15:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure whispernet provides a mirrored copy of Wikipedia? Since whispernet is simply Amazon's cloud storage solution [17] which deliver documents over either 3G or wifi, I don't get why they'd bother mirroring wikipedia on their cloud storage unless the do something like remove images or compress it in some way. The big data cost is going to come from the last mile for the mobile (3G) connection, it's unlikely delivery from their cloud storage is going to save much money. Unless perhaps they can't be bothered limiting whispernet access to the wikimedia servers properly so it's easier for them to just limit access to their mirror. (But I believe the WMF is fine with working with companies interested in providing wikipedia access for free, e.g. the zero project.) Or do you mean they deliver a mirror of wikipedia over whispernet (I guess only when wifi is present otherwise they could easily spend more data by caching the whole of wikipedia for everyone) which is then cached locally? Either way, many sources quoting Amazon's clarification on the webbrowser seem to suggest you can access wikipedia (but not other sites) over 3G, although don't explicitly mention if it's from the wikimedia servers or some Amazon cloud cache [18]. Bear in mind if they've set up their limiting poorly, you may still be unable to access non English wikipedias even if it's coming directly from the WMF servers (the servers are the same, but the domains aren't if they aren't using the old secure site). In the absence of someone confirming it here, your best bet may be to ask Amazon and hold them to their word. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Touch Kindle 3G seems to only allow the Experimental Browser over WiFi. The keyboard Kindle 3Gs allow it over 3G as well. Not sure how that impacts the question, though; I have a keyboard Kindle 3G though and can definitely access any language Wikipedia with it. On the keyboard Kindle, when you highlight a word, you can look it up on Wikipedia automatically, which just shunts it off to the Experimental Browser. So if there are really 3G limitations there, they would almost surely apply. Don't have a Touch to test it with, alas. The Japanese Wikipedia looks fine on it, though I don't read Japanese. But it's got all the Japanese-looking characters. I'm a little dubious that Whispernet is "mirroring" Wikipedia, but I don't really know. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the older Kindle Keyboard 3G, which probably has the same terms as the Kindle Touch 3G. I could access any website (that didn't require plugins) over WiFi, but only Wikipedia over 3G. I could access both the English and Spanish Wikipedias, and I could do so in multiple countries (New Zealand and Argentina). Access was to the live Wikipedia (and I could access the mobile Wikipedia also at m.en.wikipedia.org). I even made an edit with it, although it was a painful process without a touch screen. I would recommend you use the "Chick" skin for Wikipedia with a small screen such as the Kindle's as it removes the left toolbars and gives you more screen space.-gadfium 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not assume, a priori, that the Touch and the Keyboard Kindle 3Gs have the same capabilities. That is the technical point of contestation in most of the posts on the subject; the Touch has differently listed abilities as the Keyboard (it only says browser over WiFi), and it's not clear whether that is entirely inclusive or not (in terms of meaning, only over WiFi, and not 3G). I don't know the answer, personally. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the link above with the clarification from Amazon at the time of launch appears to agree it means browser only over wifi. But it excludes wikipedia. I don't really understand why gadfium has a different experience from what the Kindle Keyboard is supposed to support (as their experience is similar to what the Touch appears to be like), but perhaps the experimental browsing over wifi is only promised for those in the US? I believe Amazon has been somewhat inconsistent in where you can use the 3G and whether you have to pay any additional fees. (Their desire to keep things simple and let people use 3G inmost places without fees is likely one of the reasons why they exclude browsing over 3G in the Touch, with wikipedia being important enough that they are probably willing to bear the cost as they do with content they sell.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kindle Keyboard 3G allowed full access to the internet via 3G only in the USA. I believe the Kindle touch has the same limitations (only Wikipedia via 3G) in the USA as in other countries. My earlier post failed to make clear that I was not considering US users.-gadfium 01:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 29
Ochratoxin need some help
I need to know the levels that can be harm for a human health when the the Ochratoxin is present. Thanks Solyluna68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solyluna68 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered in part in the article for Ochratoxin_A. I don't know about the B and C versions. RudolfRed (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics
I thought the Olympics were meant to be an amateur world championship. Why are there professional athletes in some sports? 176.250.196.132 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow professionals, those nations with professional sports have an unfair advantage, while, if you prohibit them, those nations are at an unfair disadvantage. Given that, shouldn't we allow them, so the Olympic champs really are the best in the world ? StuRat (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All too often in the earlier era, countries like the Soviet Union were sneakily subsidizing their "amateur" athletes anyway. I see that this is mentioned in Tagishsimon's linked section. This just evens the playing field. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her brother sister was a bit suspicious too. And some of the East German athletes around that time who had definitely started out as women developed awfully masculine characteristics. Those "vitamin pills" sure packed a punch. And then there were all those "amateur" American athletes who had very generous college scholarships. There were some suggestions that many had no academic talent at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Signes hats of Spain
Find their home page or web page in Spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.126.145 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Christianity is only a minor religion in Japan, I was wondering how Japanese Christians had funerals. Do they have Christian services, secular funerals, funerals with elements of Buddhism or Shinto, or a mixture of styles of some of those previously mentioned? And are most Japanese Christians cremated and buried in regular Japanese cemeteries? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can have Christian services like this. Christians are cremated and buried in regular Japanese cemeteries. Oda Mari (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
retro tattoos
OK, so I get the whole 1950s retro culture style clothes, makeup, hair etc that certain ladies want to adopt, and that's cool with me. But one thing I find a bit wierd is the fetish for tattoos as being retro. I don't think any right minded respectable woman who lived in the 1950s would actually have tattoos. (I'm not sure any right minded respectful woman in the 2010s should have). Is that right, what's the history of women's tattoos? If a woman walked into a dinner party with a tattoo in 1953 what would the reaction have been?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony May (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that women might opt for hidden tattoos in the 1950's, which would be a bit easier, as clothes covered up more back then (although calves may have been more exposed then than now). StuRat (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"any right minded respectable woman who lived in the 1950s" Soapbox much? The history of policing women's gender has centred largely on "right mindedness" such as the institutionalisation of lesbians for mental illness and on respectability such as invading the home of single mothers to inspect what they have been using their genitals for. You could have readily phrased your contribution in a manner designed not to cause offence, but didn't. (The switch between "respectable" and "respectful" is particularly telling). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People that go out of their way to be offended are going to be offended by pretty much anything, so why bother trying to appease them? It's perfectly clear that the OP is referring to the moral and cultural attitudes prevalent at the time and is not making any moral judgements of his/her own. --Tango (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misread their post, particularly where they express approval of such a culture and advocate it: "I'm not sure any right minded respectful woman in the 2010s should have" Fifelfoo (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tattoos in the 1950s? LOL. Not a chance in my part of the world (Australia). Neither for men or women, respectable or otherwise. Sailors were the single exception. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Male farm workers/labourers have always been a bit prone to them as well, in my experience. But they were always reasonably hideable (if that's the right word) for when the occasion demanded. These days, that's hardly possible in many cases. Tatts all up and down their arms, all up their necks. And that's just the women. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know many farm labourers in the 1950s, so you could well be right about them. I sometimes enter discussions among high school students about the tats they have just recently acquired, or are planning to get (maybe when mum let's them), and throw in the challenging question "Do you think tattoos will go out fashion at some stage?" The reaction is usually pure shock and horror at that inconceivable thought. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a woman were to walk into a dinner party in 1953 with a visible tattoo, the likely response would be total social rejection. Especially among the middle and upper-middle classes, getting a tattoo was simply Not Done, by either men or women. --Carnildo (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only men I knew in my 1960s childhood with tattoos were my two grandfathers who were both ex-sailors. Tattooed women were a fairground attraction - see Lydia the Tattooed Lady. Alansplodge (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least in Denmark it was not uncommon for prostitues to have tattoos, and this was apparently an old tradition. In 1891 a Danish medical doctor published a small study with the title "About tatoos on public women [prostitutes"] (with a sample of the art here and here, quite indistinguishable from sailor tattoos it seems), and a Danish criminal psychiatrist functioning in the 1940s and 1950s was wellknown for his interest in studying the tattoos on the prostitutes that he had to make psychiatric assesments of. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 1
Bible - St. Mark. Messanic Secrets
How Many Messanic Secrets are there in the bible King James? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.150.223 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None. The bible is a work of religious, moral, and philosophical revelation, meant to teach everyone. It's not a sudoku puzzle. 146.90.44.251 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per our article on the Gospel of Mark, the "Messianic Secret" theory was advanced by William Wrede in 1901 to describe the literary device of said gospel. As such, it's not a question of "how many secrets." — Lomn 14:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smaller number, better model
Many products, eg cars (Audi 4, 5, 6; BMW 3,5, 6, 7 series; Volvo S40, 60, 80), planes (707, 737, 747; 320, 380), etc, are better (or certainly newer), the bigger the number assigned to the model. I could only think of one type of product, cameras, where it works the other way round (Canon 1D, 5D, 450D; Olympus OM1), and even with cameras it's not uniform (Nikon D1, D2, D3). There must be other products and product types where 1 is better than a bigger number, but I can't immediately think of any. Anyone? Ericoides (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smaller numbers are catchier and easier to remember, so manufacturers and marketers will reserve small numbers for their flagship models (but still increment them normally; the OM1 was followed by the OM2, etc). When the LNER renumbered their locomotives in 1946, the most prestigious and high-profile classes were given the smallest numbers, with the flagship Gresley A4s numbered 1 to 34. FiggyBee (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
