Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Reference Desk - All recent questions
WP:RD/ALL redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Redirect or Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This page lists all the recent questions asked on the Wikipedia reference desk by category. To ask a new question, please select one of the categories below. To answer a question, click on the "edit" link beside the question.

For information on any topic, choose a category for your question:

Computing reference deskP computing.svg
Science reference deskP physics.svg
Mathematics reference deskP mathematics.svg
Humanities reference deskP art.png
Computers and IT Science Mathematics Humanities
Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, engineering and technology Mathematics, geometry, probability, and statistics History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society
Language reference deskP literature.svg
Entertainment reference deskP music.svg
Miscellaneous reference deskP question.svg
Reference desk archivesP archive.svg
Language Entertainment Miscellaneous Archives
Spelling, grammar, word etymology, linguistics, language usage, and requesting translations Sports, popular culture, movies, music, video games, and TV shows Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories Old questions are archived daily
Help deskWikipedia-logo.png
Village pumpWikipedia-logo.png
New contributors' help pageWikipedia-logo.png
Help desk Village pump New contributors' help page
Ask general questions about using Wikipedia Ask about specific policies and operations of Wikipedia A range of services to answer newcomers' questions
Help manual MediaWiki handbook Citing Wikipedia Resolving disputes Virtual classroom
Information and instructions on every aspect of Wikipedia Information about the software that runs Wikipedia How to cite Wikipedia as a reference For resolving issues between users An advanced guide on everything Wikipedia
See also the Wikipedia department directory



October 18[edit]

What happens when you encrypt a blank disk?[edit]

I'm quite familiar with AES, or I thought I was. It makes perfect sense to me when you are reading and writing data, or transmitting and receiving data.. But yesterday I encrypted a 500GB USB disk, and it took 6 hours to "encrypt". What's so strange about that you might ask? Well, I had just formatted it and it was completely blank. According to DiskCryptor I can now read and write data "normally" to this disk and it will be encrypted and if I unmount it, i can't mount it without my password, that's exactly what I want. But what took 6 hours? I understand all the previous data is basically still there after a quick format, is it just encrypting that? But that to me would seem silly, at least not to give an option, surely it would be just as effective to zero it out and that wouldn't take 6 hours? I can't find a relevant result in google, it's all drowned out by articles about encryption which all say the same thing: take the data, do some magic, and *pooof* it's encrypted, but I suspect there's something else going on here too... Vespine (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to take a wild guess here, as I'm not familiar with DiskCryptor per se. But it seems likely that it creates a blank filesystem of a fixed size, encrypted with your passphrase and a random initialization vector. The advantage of this over zeroing it out is that, this way, an opponent can't tell anything about the contents of the filesystem, including whether it's empty (though the opponent could probably figure out the filesystem's capacity). Then when you start actually storing stuff there, it should be fast, and again, an opponent won't be able to recover any of the metadata; it will all just look like white noise without the key. --Trovatore (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think you're right, I just saw an article about bit locker that says it writes random encrypted data on almost all the free space during the "initialise" step. I'm confident DiskCryptor would be doing the same thing, for exactly the reasons you suggest. Vespine (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

how we can protect our country ?[edit]

--Ramyavishnu (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC) now a days terroesit attacking our country by the unknown way so how we can protect our country ?

Hello. I've taken the liberty of creating a new section for you. The wikipedia Reference desks are special pages, when you wish to ask a question, please use the big blue button at the top of the page, don't "edit" the whole page as it can mess up the formatting. To address your question, it's very broad and general, the more broad and general your question is, the more broad and general the answers will be. Try our article on counter terrorism to start with. Lastly this is the Science reference desk for science related questions(the below poster is of course correct, this is the computing ref desk, pardon my brain hiccup) if your question is more about politics, policies regarding terrorism, law, history, society etc.. Probably the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities might be more appropriate. Vespine (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this is the Computing reference desk, not Science. If you're talking about computer attacks, you might start with computer security. That's a very big topic all by itself.
Also, it might be helpful if you might told us what country you mean by "our country". -- (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging the editor so that he sees there are answers: hello, Ramyavishnu. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The best way to protext our country from IT attack is to shutdown the entire internet. 100% fool proof solution. No attacks guarantied. (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, 100% fool proof solution, no attack guaranteed. Because before the internet the was no malware of any sort. I don't remember den zuk [1] on computers before I first used the internet in 1996. And that's why people needing secure systems just make sure there is no internet connection and don't worry about people plugging in USB keys and Stuxnet (which admitedly did use the internet sometimes) never happened, etc .... Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

inline search in android six[edit]

how to get it back. jellybean device free basics has it but not marshmallow free basics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talkcontribs) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Are you talking about Free Basics? Our article claims that Bing Search should be there. You may have to change your default search engine from google, which is not in the free mix.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
inline text search is not web search, Graeme Bartlett. searching within a text, not web.Minimobiler (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I will leave this for someone that actually knows something. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Copying a harddisk byte for byte[edit]

I want to install a new Harddisk, SATA probably (fits contemporary motherboards available plus other reasons) instead of my old IDE one, which has Windows XP and loads of applications and pics and all. Now the problem is that I want the new the harddisk to behave exactly like the old one. If I get a portable harddisk and copy everything and paste it on to the new one, I don't think the problem will be solved - pictures and songs may be copied this way but not OS, or even applications. Even if I install XP first on the new disk and then go for copying, I am sure most, if not all, applications will not get installed properly. Can someone please suggest any software/hardware tool that will copy (using the word in Xerox sense) the old disk in such a rigorous manner that no difference remains between the two. (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is commonly called "disk cloning". If you search for that term, you will find a multitude of tutorials and products. (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Disk cloning and List of disk cloning software are existing pages. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Linux is able to access drives, partitions and files and other devices linkes into the /dev folder. Linux also includes the dd command. A linux live CD can boot your computer and mak use of linux without installing it. When gparted is included or temporary installable, you can indetify your drives and partition to plan a propper clone with the dd command. Linux can be installed on an USB stick, if the computer has no optical drive.
  • /dev/sda is the first drive
  • /dev/sda1 is the first partion of the first drive
  • /dev/sdb is the second drive
  • /dev/sdb1 is the first partion of the second drive
  • /dev/sdb2 is the second partion of the second drive
gparted and Diskmgmt for Win 10 can resize existing partitions. Note: Windows likes to save harddisc IDs. Bann the old drive from the system!
To clone the first onto the second drive, use: dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb this will overwrite all data on the second drive (sdb). Using the gzip filter and output to a file instead of a device allows to create compressed raw disc and partition images. The web is full of exsamples, just search. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Logging URLs[edit]

On Windows I need a simple local proxy server that takes requests from my Firefox browser and passes them along to the internet while logging each URL passing through it to a text file called "log.txt". The log file should contain only the URLs one per each line, no time stamps or any other information. I only want to log requests that are specifically sent through the proxy, NOT all requests going though the ethernet adapter. What would be the best way to go about this? I have looked into "Squid Cache" but it seems overly complicated for my needs. I would like something much simpler. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can install the very popular python utility, Twisted (software); it takes about nine lines of code to write a simple HTTP proxy server. Then you can run the Twisted Proxy Server when-ever you like (all the time, or only when you want to use it); and you can configure Firefox using the localhost, on default port 8080 (if you used the example code I linked), as the proxy server.
If you want more advanced features, or if you want to proxy other complex network traffic, the difficulty will rapidly escalate, and you will probably need to crack open the Squid manual (which is, as you know, a very sophisticated piece of software that is not very user-friendly).
Nimur (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

to see mapping between macros and VBA controls like menu entries[edit]

Is it possible in Office? At least per single control? Thanks in advance--Troialamadonna (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A menu editor should be included, former versions had, but see this. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Force strict integer comparison in MYSQL[edit]

I have a query like this:

SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE my_field = 95

The type of my_field is INT. Now oddly, that query returns a positive result for all my_field's whose values start with the digits "95" (like 9562, 950, etc). I really don't understand why in the world it would behave like that, but whatever. I just need the comparison to be strict. I tried googling for a solution but I guess I'm using the wrong search terms. Any ideas? (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That truly is bizarre behavior, more like what I would expect if you said "WHERE my_field like '95*' " if my_field was a string. But, you could try "WHERE my_field > 94 AND my_field < 96". StuRat (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I tried this minimal example:
USE foo;

CREATE TABLE my_table (name VARCHAR(40), my_field INT);
INSERT INTO my_table VALUES('a', 9);
INSERT INTO my_table VALUES('b', 95);
INSERT INTO my_table VALUES('c', 951);
INSERT INTO my_table VALUES('d', 9512);

SELECT 'whole table' AS '';
SELECT * from my_table;

SELECT 'just the 95s' AS '';
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE my_field = 95;

When I run that on MySQL 5.7.15 I get:
   whole table
   name my_field
   a    9
   b    95
   c    951
   d    9512
   just the 95s
   name my_field
   b    95
which is sensible, and isn't consistent with what you're seeing. So MySQL works, by default, as one might expect. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help guys. I finally figured out what the problem was - PEBKAC! Funniest part is that I was using a function I wrote myself called "query" which just so happened to be preceded by the very bold comment:

// IMPORTANT: Not for use with SELECT statements (for those, use the found(), table(), row(), and field() functions)

So there you have it. Yeah, might want to rename that one "non_select_query" or something, I guess... (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

Monster Soup JPG displaying weirdly in Firefox on Linux[edit]

I'm using Firefox 49.0 in a Fedora 23 Linux machine. Someone on the Humanities Desk recently posted a thumbnail link to File:Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg. When I view this image in Firefox, it displays with a weird color-substitution. This applies to the thumbnail or to any of the size versions of the original. I saved a copy of the file, used ImageMagick to convert it to a different size, and opened that version with Firefox, and it displayed the same way. Yet if I open the same file with xv or LibreOffice, it looks normal.

Since I'm not (and will not be) a registered Wikipedia user, I can't upload a screenshot to show you how the image shows for me. But the majority of it turns into colors close to cyan (0,255,255); some parts turn into pale magenta colors such as (255,167,255); some is white (255,255,255). In some cases colors that look similar in the true image turn into different colors in the substituted one, so it's not a simple mathematical transformation. Exploring different parts of the image using xv, I see that the Red element of the color varies all the way from 0 to 255, the Green value never seems to go below about 120, and the Blue value of is 255 everywhere.

I don't know how to analyze the structure of JPEG files. Can anyone tell if there's something unusual or nonstandard about this file that could cause such an effect? I view images in Firefox all the time and I don't remember encountering an effect like this; certainly not commonly. -- (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you upload a pic to some other location and post a link? Rojomoke (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote on the topic of Firefox's rendering engine during a discussion in July 2016, and here are my remarks, verbatim:
The reason this is not as simple as it seems at first glance is that the Firefox architecture is very complex. Is the symptom you see a bug (or feature) in Firefox? Is it in the Gecko layout engine? Is it in one of the Gecko compositing layers or software libraries (whose sparse and antique documentation leaves much to be desired)? Is the limitation in a platform-specific image rendering library that is dynamically linked (and therefore not strictly part of Firefox)? Modern software is really complicated and it is very plausible that underlying bug is not actually (solely) due to the (input image file). Only a skilled software engineer who is deeply familiar with Firefox and its rendering engine can tell for sure.
So if you don't know all these details, and don't have the expertise to find out by yourself, then before jumping to any conclusions, you should file a well-written bug report at the Mozilla bug reporting website. It will help if you provide as much detail as possible. What operating system? Which file - and can you upload it to your bug report? What errors are logged in Firefox Console?
Tragically, a majority of the "how-to-write-good-bug-reports-for-Firefox" documentation has been literally moved to the landfill at Mozilla. If I may inject a bit of nihilistic cynicism about your prospects for getting a fix, this server-name is a metaphorical statement from the organizers at Mozilla: there are no more real developers who still volunteer their time to improve Mozilla's products ... and your bug report will go right over to the landfill server, where it will be counted and never fixed. Perhaps it is time to choose a new browser?
Those remarks apply equally-well to this situation. The fact that your image renders correctly when you use other software seems to imply that your file is not corrupted - but some subtle error is occurring when Firefox tries to put those pixels on screen. This process of drawing pixels on screen - especially as Firefox has implemented it - is so immensely complicated, ordinary users do not generally have the skills or resources to diagnose it when it breaks.
Bluntly, your options are: live with the problem, file a bug report, or switch to a new browser.
Nimur (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not my image. Part of the reason I posted was to find out whether the image needs to be corrected in some way, or what that bug report should say, or what. -- (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I might also suggest that the user's symptoms sound like color management gone awry. Monster soup... is a JFIF file containing JPEG image data, plus an embedded color profile tagged for the esoteric "TIFF RGB" color space. Here's an informational page from the International Color Consortium on what this means, with some beautiful screen-captures of what happens when it breaks. I will cynically point out that anybody who thinks digital color management is a good idea probably has not seen very many color-managed digital images. Many graphic artists often seem to think color management is the answer to their creative requirements. As a graphics- and image-processing software professional, I respectfully disagree. When color management works correctly, ordinary users quantitatively and measurably can not tell that it's working. When it breaks, ... users see symptoms where the picture "displays with a weird color-substitution" and "the majority of it turns into colors close to cyan" ... and somewhere in the distance a software engineer cries. Nimur (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering the above, would it be a good idea for someone skilled in the art to edit the picture to remove the offending profile? Presumably it doesn't offer any significant benefits for this sort of picture, and a vanilla JPEG should display correctly on any computer manufactured since about 1990... Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I can re-upload a variant of that image with no embedded color profile, or with sRGB embedded profile. This will reduce the chance of a bad user-experience. I'd like to have a chance to check it on a few major consumer operating systems and browsers to make sure I didn't make the situation worse, so I won't rush the change. Follow the image file's talk page for updates.
Nimur (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Icon changing software:[edit]

An opensource software capable of changing all sorts of icons available in PC. Current necessity is to change the HDD icons, but desire to possess an ‘icon managing and maintaining software’ application which, say, also does more than icon managing and maintaining... (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


October 18[edit]

In a li-ion battery, does the chip distribute the tear and wear?[edit]

In common mainstream li-ion batteries, does the controller distribute the use across all cells all the time? Or could it be that one cell gets weared out sooner than the others? That is, could a used battery have some cells that are still good, even if the battery has lost 30-40% of its capacity? --Llaanngg (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an excellent web resource: This Week in Batteries, an informal blog maintained by the fine folks who run the Chemical Engineering 198 class, Battery Technologies and Markets, at Berkeley.
They have a lot of great resources to help you understand modern battery management systems - the engineered devices around the electrochemical cell that make sure the cells are operating correctly.
It would be irresponsible to categorize all lithium-ion battery systems into the same bucket - there are immensely variable configurations in modern systems. Some battery management and power-supply systems certainly perform load balancing.
One of the easiest, simplest, most straightforward ways to do load-balancing is to connect the cells in series. There is a good reason, based on solid fundamental science, to explain why this works so surprisingly well - but it has alarming shortcomings and serious impact to total system performance.
Nimur (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
From the publication list hosted at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, here is Modular approach for continuous cell-level balancing to improve performance of large battery packs (2014), available at no cost from IEEE. NREL actively investigates and sponsors research in battery control algorithms, including active cell balancing technology. Nimur (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The OP's question is a concern common to the thousands of owners of the ageing but popular Toyota Prius hybrid electric cars. Individual cells of the series-connected Li-Ion traction battery do indeed wear out (lose capacity) prematurely. The on-board diagnostic program gives an error code when it detects imbalance. There are video guides[2] [3] [4] on line about how to rejeuvenate the battery by replacing individual cells but it must be warned that this requires working in a high voltage circuit that is dangerous for an amateur without full knowledge and precautions. The manufacturer's battery warranty will not cover an unauthorized repair. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The BMW i3 has an active cell balancing mechanism to ensure that all cells are correctly managed. See for details.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What are "common mainstream li-ion batteries" these days? It's a fast-moving field, it's hard to know.
Many battery packs, even single cells, incorporate a protection board whose main function is to avoid over-discharging the cell, either too quickly (too much current, risk of letting the smoke out) or for too long (damaging the cell). This doesn't have a balancing function though. Larger capacity multi-cell packs (radio control models are a leading example) have a separate connector with the inter-cell connections, used to balance the cells during charging. The balancing is done by a smart charger, not an on-board controller or protection circuit.
Where developments seem to be going now though are to avoid the traditional series-connected battery, in favour of single cells and a DC-DC boost converter to produce the voltages needed. For Li-ion (unlike lead-acid) it's also possible to make a battery pack by parallel connection of cells, giving the energy capacity needed, and avoiding balance problems, and letting the DC-DC converter deal with voltage. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Feynman Lectures. Lecture 32. Sec. 32–5 Scattering of light [5][edit]

Quote: Now we can make an experiment that demonstrates this. We can make particles that are very small at first, and then gradually grow in size. We use a solution of sodium thiosulfate (hypo) with sulfuric acid, which precipitates very fine grains of sulfur. As the sulfur precipitates, the grains first start very small, and the scattering is a little bluish. As it precipitates more it gets more intense, and then it will get whitish as the particles get bigger. In addition, the light which goes straight through will have the blue taken out. That is why the sunset is red, of course, because the light that comes through a lot of air, to the eye has had a lot of blue light scattered out, so it is yellow-red. Unquote.

I need advice to check have I correctly understood. The light when is going through the atmosphere is absorbed and re-emitted (scattered ) by atoms' electrons. There is the formula

According to it blue light takes 16 times more scattered energy than red light, as the blue has 2 times higher frequency. But frequency ω that enters into the formula is the frequency of scattered light. So (1): where is blue light from incident beam? I've found several demonstrations on youtube (e.g. ). And it looks like the light from a lamp loses blue. And (2): even if blue light re-emitted more intensively, last layer of atoms before eye must absorb red light and re-emit white light. So we have the statement that light keeps its frequency and ωincident = ωscattered . (3) When a wave goes through an atom, electrons begin to oscillate and emit: . Electrons emit in all directions in sheet plane whole absorbed energy, but 16/17 of it is blue and 1/17 of it is red light. Then the light from a lamp (which goes form right to left) must lose same amount of blue light as was emitted by electron.

Is it correct?

Username160611000000 (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the light loses mainly blue frequencies as it passes through a scattering medium and becomes redder. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
But we know that electric field acts on the charges, not paying attention to the barrier. So oscillating electron emits such a field that the incident waves (490-445 nanometres) is damped. Is it correct?
Waves 740-620 nanometres (red) makes the electron oscillate with frequency 400 THz. Waves 490-445 nanometres (blue) makes the electron oscillate with frequency 670 THz. But amplitude of oscillations in second case is higher in (670/400)2 times. Is it correct? But it's unnatural for oscillator. We know that displacement (thereby amplitude) is proportional to force. Or for atom we should use ? Username160611000000 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that true that for increasing testosterone it's good to eat a lot of fats?[edit]

Is that true that for increasing testosterone hormone it's good to eat a lot of fats (or food which rich with fats)? I saw a youtuber which said it but I don't believe anything without scientific evidence. I would like to ensure or deny it. thank you (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking into a general google search for "Dietary effects on testosterone" leads to a lot of sketchy weight building sites with not a lot of hard science. However, using Google Scholar, I was able to find a few interesting published studies. This one is from an older study (1979) but otherwise looks solid, stating "A lower nocturnal release of prolactin and testosterone occurred in men fed a vegetarian diet" while this one from 2008 states "high-fat fed rats showed significantly lower total values of plasma TSH and testosterone" which would seem to indicate the opposite of what your random YouTuber claimed. This article from 1987 seems to indicate the controlling factor is not fat at all, but protein/carbohydrate ratios in the diet. Just some places to research your question. --Jayron32 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
More to the point, why should anyone care? If you have actual androgen deficiency, consult a medical professional. Otherwise, there's no real reason to care about your testosterone level. There are loads of "broscience" passed around in the world of bodybuilding, etc. which is pretty much all bullshit. If you want to maintain good health, eat a well-balanced diet and get regular exercise. -- (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
As always, it's horrible to ask here questions regarding to medical science (without any personally aspects). Someone always should make other fear of answering without any reason. I asked my question because the claim felt to me strange.This is the Youtuber in this video. (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If you listen to the whole video and put the fat issue in context of everything he says, then it's just the normal advice. The standard advice is to limit saturated fat intake, replace such fats by mono and poly unsaturated fats. Eating nuts such as walnuts as suggested in the video is consistent with the standard advice. One can argue about whether this is really true, because only the Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats are essential fats, our bodies can make all the other fats it needs from eating carbs. But, of course, you do need to eat enough calories and most people will struggle to do so if they don't eat any fat. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can dead bodies infect life bodies with hepatitis or HIV?[edit]

may dead bodies infect life bodies with hepatitis or HIV? I'm asking it because I have a doubt if this viruses need nutrition or oxygen etc. in order to exist. 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

This forum discussion has some excellent references to research on the matter. Here is a more general overview form the World Health Organization, and Here is another source specifically for HIV. Wikipedia also has an article titled Health risks from dead bodies which has some brief statements to this effect, but also leads to more reading if you follow the references. --Jayron32 19:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a little grammatical aside — you mean "can dead bodies infect....". I know the can/may distinction is a little tricky for some non-native speakers, as not every language has it (not sure about Ukranian). Anyway, you should use may for permission or moral or legal acceptability, can for physical possibility or practical feasibility. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you93.126.88.30 (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it can. Very easy to prove. Just because the person died 10 seconds ago does not mean their body cannot infect your body with hepatitis or HIV if you have unprotected sex with the corpse. (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the main point of this question remains unaddressed. A virus, according to most definitions, is not even really "alive", it certainly does not require nutrition OR oxygen in order to exist. Most viruses however, including HIV require an alive host and don't survive a long time OUTSIDE of living cells. So a key point here is that "death" is not an instant process, when a person dies, many cell functions continue to operate for at least some length of time. It appears that HIV can take as little as 1-2 days to "inactivate" in a corpse, but can survive much longer (a week or even more) under some circumstances, such as refrigeration. Vespine (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there any reports (preferably scientific reports) which talk about the amount of pain that a person with prosthetic balls suffers when he gets kicked in the balls?[edit]

Apologies if this is a stupid question; however, I am genuinely curious as to whether or not people with prosthetic balls experience as much pain as people with natural/biological balls experience when they get kicked in the balls.

Anyway, does anyone here have any thoughts and/or data in regards to this? (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a discussion forum on prosthetic testicular pain. --Jayron32 22:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Surviving a 130-degree hyperthermia[edit]

I believe it's possible that people can survive a 130-degree F hyperthermia. I speculate there was a person whose body temperature reached 133 deg. F and survive, which is a world record for the highest body temperature to reach and survive. What do you think of this oddity? PlanetStar 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did you see the 133 degrees report? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
That was merely my guess and I did not see the report of that. PlanetStar 22:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, the highest recorded non-fatal body temperature was is 115.7°F (46.5°C) achieved by one Willie Jones of Atlanta in 1980. Our article Orders of magnitude (temperature)#Detailed list for 100 K to 1000 K cites this website, which cites the Guinness Book of Records. This is a rather more reliable citation for a body temperature of 113°F (45°C). But nobody has survived anything close to 130°F. Tevildo (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The OP may be misremembering reports of survivable sustained external temperatures, which of course can be much higher than internal temperatures, particularly in an experimental laboratory setting. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
One demonstration (I can't find the ref at the moment) had a man and a steak in a high temperature chamber. The steak ended up cooked while the man was unharmed. IIRC they kept the humidity near 0%, had a large fan blowing air over man and steak, and allowed the man to drink a lot of water and take pills to replenish water and electrolytes lost through sweating. So it was basically a demonstration of how well sweating cools you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Staying with a Finnish family many years ago, they cooked their sausages by hanging them in the sauna while we were using it. Our article suggests that the air temperatures in a Finnish sauna are "typically between 70 and 100 °C" (158 and 212 °F). It was certainly bloody hot. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Were they higher then you where hot air rises? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
About head height when we were sitting down, if I recall correctly. The difference was that we got up and jumped in the lake every fifteen minutes or so and then drank some beer before going back again, while the sausages stayed there all afternoon. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Charles Blagden first performed this experiment in 1775 (ref), although it's doubtless been performed under more controlled conditions since then. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Walk thousands of miles without losing weight[edit]

I think it's possible to walk from New York to Los Angeles without losing a single pound. Do you agree? PlanetStar 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In how much time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides what BB has said, it depends on what your body was like before you started, what & how much you eat and drink and how all these (including exercise) were before you started this journey, etc. But the answer is surely yes if you don't have any restrictions. Plenty of people put on weight despite regular exercise. (Actually it can be quite easy to put on weight if you hardly exercise at all and weren't very overweight due to increasing muscle although walking from New York to LA would generally be a resonable amount of exercise.) The driving distance between New York and LA is only ~4500 km [6] which means if you take 13 years it's only about 0.95 km a day which is by no means a lot. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
if you connect your body to a source of automated nutrition suppply set at isotone (crysis nanosuit, halo spartan model), then yes.Minimobiler (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The ancient Roman weight unit libra or pound, equal to about 328.9 g, was adopted as a coinage unit "Tower pound" (of silver) in the reign of King Offa of Mercia and is source of the £ abbreviation of £sd i.e. £ibrae, solidi, and denarii. Traveler's cheques for values in pounds were first issued in 1772, can still be bought[7] and are touted as "Completely safe: if they get lost or stolen they'll be replaced.". Their issuers of these un-losable pounds never mention the pounds they gain in interest from lending the pounds you paid them to other borrowers, which is part of the reason for declining use of the cheques. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Obese people will need to lose weight before they can reach the physical fitness required for this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, without any restrictions this is surely wrong. If we're talking about classicial definitions like those using BMI, obesity covers a very wide range of physical conditions. 0.95 km is hardly a lot of exercise. (It's probably enough that many, but not all, obese people will lose weight again dependent also on all the conditions before and during.) If we expand it even further, we can get it down to 0.4 km which if you start at age 20, will mean you're still far from elderly before you finish. And 0.4 km is hardly that much exercise at all. Of course you need some way to get the food and someone to rest in between, which is perhaps what Minimobiler was getting at but again without restrictions you could sleep in a campervan or something and the food and water could be brought to you, likewise the campervan cleaned etc. Even if you're using stricter definitions of obesity, AFAIK most of them would still allow someone who can walk 0.4 km or 0.95 km a day to be obese. Of course at the outer range, you have people who can't even get out of bed, but you said obese people, not severely obese people. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Dunno about your definition of Obese, but with a BMI of 36 I used to go walking for 7 days carrying my own tent and food (22kg pack), and rarely lost weight. I did lose weight when I walked to Everest base camp, probably slight dehydration, it was only a couple of kg. Greglocock (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

copper pot vs copper pot filled with water[edit]

which helps cool or melt things faster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talkcontribs) 12:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Water has a higher specific heat than copper. That should help you figure out how each responds to changes in temperature. --Jayron32 12:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

but the conduction rate. it is lower, much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimobiler (talkcontribs) 12:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Conduction rate is controlled by Newton's law of cooling. --Jayron32 12:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We can also write Fourier's law, (which simplifies down to Newton's law in many cases), but also accounts for a material-specific conduction constant.
I think we need the original question to be phrased more precisely and specifically before we start lobbing equations at it. Are you envisioning a copper pot on a stove, with new heat being added? How much water? What are you heating? At what temperatures? ...and so on. These details will impact the way we model the heat transfer, which might change the answer you're looking for.
For example, last week I took a safety training class at my local fire station, and I learned all about flashover. In a small kitchen fire, heat is conveyed convectively and conductively as hot material physically touches other flammable fuels, and as hot flame and smoke billow around the environs. But in a really big fire (like when the whole room starts burning), the temperatures rise really rapidly. Thanks to the Stefan–Boltzmann law, we know that infrared emission, like all other electromagnetic radiation, rises with the fourth power of temperature - so once your room is up to, say, a thousand degrees, a great quantity of heat starts travelling at the speed of light. This is faster than conductive heat transfer; it is faster than convective heat transfer; it is faster than supersonic detonation. ...And this "exotic" mode of heat flow occurs during ordinary structure-fires. When flashover occurs, it becomes the primary mode of ignition - even if only a small percentage of total heat transfer (in joules) occurs by this mode, it occurs so rapidly (think about watts, or joules-per-second, at the characteristic time-scales of a beam of infrared traveling across your room).
So if you're cooking your copper pot inside a house fire, we can't use simplified math: we have to go back to first principles of physics. How does heat flow? (Heat conduction, convection, and radiation). How do we quantify the rate of heat flow for each mode? (Our articles point you toward the right equations). In which circumstances can we totally ignore some of the details, and use a simpler equation? (This would be a great homework question!)
Nimur (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you put wings on to a Tesla, would it fly?[edit]

If you put the drive train from a Tesla and put it into an airplane, would it fly?

The Tesla Model S P100D does 0-60 mph in only 2.5 seconds. It has 760bhp, but it weighs 2,100kg - of that, about 500kg is battery. It has a range of maybe 300 miles and costs US$135,000. By comparison, a Cessna 172 has four seats and weighs 800 kg to 1,100 kg, depending on fuel/cargo. It will cruise at 140 mph, but it only needs 160 bhp.

Pigs can't fly, but what if you put wings on a Tesla?--2A02:C7D:42AB:3800:253B:991C:30A:30E6 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can assure you that pigs don't have any trouble flying as long as they can gain enough kinetic energy to get off the ground. Here, in the UK we have often flown cars too. [8]--Aspro (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, some pigs can in fact fly. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:40E5:EEF0:65B8:D229 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article titled Flying car (aircraft) which covers both speculative and actually build flying cars. --Jayron32 17:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
See also Electric aircraft for some real-world examples. Tevildo (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Homebuilt aircraft can have many different types of motors, including chainsaw and motorcycle motor, so I would not be surprising to see a flying plane with a Tesla motor. However, as the LA Times reports, electric airplanes still have some challenges before it. --Llaanngg (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
A fuel cell could probably be more effective as a power source than a battery in terms of having a better weight/energy ratio. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that you would need to add a lot of weight to the Tesla in the wings, if they are to be big enough and strong enough to support the weight of the car, and include all the controls and control surfaces needed to steer a plane. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

Two questions after watching Disney's Tarzan...[edit]

  1. What mammals other than Man reach sexual maturity and/or full growth after age twelve? Elephants?
  2. Is there a significant difference among the milk of the great apes (compared to the difference between Human milk and Cow Milk?

Naraht (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

For 1, [9] suggests female Asian elephants and some male Asian elephants achieve sexual maturity after twelve. (But some humans do achieve sexual maturity before 12.) African elephants [10] [11] seem to often be before 12 years. I'm not sure how reliable this source is [12] [13] [14], but I believe it's correct that elephants are not fully grown at this stage and therefore male elephants at least rarely mate at this age. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
My guess was the blue whale but "The blue whale reaches sexual maturity at around 10 years of age." [15] Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Male sperm whales "become sexually mature at 18 years" according to the article, or "between 18–21 years" according to the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy for instance. For female sperm whales the corresponding ages are given as "9" / "between 7–13". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
For 2, The constantly protruding breasts of the adult human female differ from the mammary glands of other Primates that protrude only while actually filling with milk, and are presumably the result of evolutionary sexual preference by males, see Mammary gland#Other mammals. In this article studies on the milk of primates, especially in comparison with human milk, are reviewed. This article reviews primate lactation biology and milk synthesis to identify the derived and ancestral features of primate milks. This report elucidates the structures of free milk oligosaccharides so that they can be related to glycan function in different primates. AllBestFaith (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a sidetrack, but it's useful in pointing out the distinction between breast and mammary gland. The former article currently says "In females, it serves as the mammary gland..." which makes me wince, not just because men can (rarely) lactate effectively, but because the breast contains fatty tissue that is not part of the gland. And indeed, the human breast is specifically designed to stand out on its own, without lactation activity! Not entirely easy to find a good source to cite for this distinction though. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of how much or how little a woman has "up front", the breasts will typically expand during the time period of lactation. Hence the need for a Nursing bra. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Quibble, Wnt, but human breasts aren't specifically designed to stand out as they aren't designed at all; they have evolved to stand out. EdChem (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: Forsooth this is a well-worn and erudite point to make, and yet I indulged said trolling because I doubt the philosophy behind it. Evolution is, of course, a fact; but I feel it does not preclude design. Were this a random world, it would in all likelihood be barren rock, and yet, we are here, though the power of the anthropic principle, at least. And breasts are, by all expectation, in large part the product of the sexual selection of so many randy boys who have, bit by bit, hallucinated their fondest dreams into a glorious and living reality. If the power of our consciousness can produce breasts from barren moonscapes through such scientifically valid means, I think perhaps we should not discount that the design of the universe may have been influenced, in part, by some other conscious mechanism so that this type of beauty would exist today. We don't really know why we live in the universe we do, or what makes it real as opposed to every other imagining that might be encoded in some transcendental number or other. Why presume it is all calculated mathematically from a random and boring point in the past that no one has seen, rather than being calculated backwards from its destiny to produce some specific and wonderful scene in the future? And so, whether for the lesser reasons above or for the greater reason of some divine plan for humanity, I choose to regard breasts as being designed, even though, admittedly, much of that belief is unfalsifiable and scientifically meaningless. If it is meaningless, so is the opposite. Wnt (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What makes wasabi difficult to cultivate?[edit]

My friend told me today most wasabi comes from horseradish - and the Wikipedia article backs this up. This is attributed to the wasabi's cost and rarity, which is due to difficulty in its cultivation...but the article does not provide reasons why. Thus, the header question. I would appreciate any insight into this question. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC) are the people to ask. Seems that it has been something of of an occult art until recently, but they claim to have made it practical, both for their commercial production, and for home-grown. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Rotideypoc41352 that this article is lacking. As to the cultivation bit, that is easy to answer. Both Wasabi and Horseradish need the right soil conditions in order to provide an economic viable crop yield. Most farm land doesn't provide those ideal conditions regardless of how much fertilizer etc one spreads.. Just as trying to cultivate watercress in the Sahara Desert is very difficult too. I have grown horseradish but it need to be grown in a corner of the garden were the soil is always damp and with a low pH.--Aspro (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Talking of damp... Looking at File:Izu city, Ikadaba, Wasabi fields 20111002 C.jpg have you noticed that the commercial plantation depicted in that image is on a stream bed. IE., very moist with a low pH. Opposite example: One can't convince a rhododendron to grow in most of Kent as the soil doesn't suit them (pH too high) . Rhododendron.Org --Aspro (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have visited a wasabi farm in Japan. Wasabi is typically grown in running water such as a stream bed with a constant water temperature of between 12°C (54°F) and 14°C (57°F). Anything outside of 8°C (46°F) and 20°C (70°F) and the plants will die.[16][17][18] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. So, coming back to the OP's question. Rather than the article stating that “Wasabi is difficult to cultivate” it should read something like “Wasabi favours growing conditions which restricts its wide cultivation. The resulting inability to fully satisfy commercial demand, thus makes it quite expensive”. Or something along those lines – with some ref's. Should this discussion not be now transferred to this articles talk page? How does one do that?--Aspro (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It probably should not be taken to the Talk page. Talk pages are for discussing what should be in the article. This seems to be a general question about production of wasabi. If the OP or other editor wants to question whether the article should contain content about the production, that should be on the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The OP's question has alerted us, that this article is deficient enough to warrant him asking this question. Why he didn’t post this on the article's talk page I don't know. Yet, a better, explanation should be in this article – which I don't think the OP would disagree with – otherwise he would not have needed to ask – in the first place – and where do we have those discussions if not on the talk page? --Aspro (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the motivation of the OP for posting the question. If they intend to edit the article with information on production, yes, the question should have been posed at the Talk page. If the OP was simply wanting to know why there are problems producing wasabi, then this is probably the correct place. I have to admit, I have not even read the wasabi article so I did not know this information was missing. I do not feel strongly about this at all so please feel free to move this thread to the Talk page if you wish - I will certainly not challenge that. DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
My feeling (per Aspro) is that if an OP asks a question on a RefDesk about a subject whose article they have linked (and presumably therefore read, as is explicitly stated in this case), it's prima facie evidence that the article is probably lacking and/or unclear in some fashion (assuming no trolling, which is certainly not the case with Rotideypoc41352's query).
While no volunteer on the RDs is thereby obliged to go and improve the article, it's a clear signal that improvement is desirable, and potential article editors are free to continue on the article's talk page, or one of them could just boldly go ahead and fettle it.
This doesn't mean that the OP wasn't right to ask at the RD in the first place: for most users (IP or signed up), the RDs are for supplying wanted information – that some of us may also utilise RD queries as a steer to improving articles is an added benefit, not a rival purpose. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Whenever I see a question like the OP's asked on an article talk page, I take it as implicit that it is saying "This article is deficient. What information do we need to add to fix this?" However, I quite often see people get told off for asking such questions ("The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you have general questions about the subject go to the Reference Desk") if they don't spell that out. Iapetus (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There are some very well informed editors on the Ref page who may be able to offer advice on articles they don't watch. I guess the "most correct" approach is to ask the question on the article's Talk page first, and if no answers are forthcoming, bring it here. However, an editor should never be told off - this ref page is one of the friendliest places on WP - let's keep it that way. DrChrissy (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Frozen Virus[edit]

With random stories appearing every now and again about Ice melting and releasing some Dinosaur era virus to wipe out humanity was woundering if that was even possible...I understand several species can freeze and come back to life so to speak but long term would have thought the freezing process would destroy the internal workings of life of a sustained period of time; also that it would have to mutate to this environment. With that said would have thought it neigh on impossible for said destruction of humanity. If this is not the case why can we not cryo freeze the human body with out damaging it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Viruses do not have a metabolism, some types are able to still be viable after long freezing. There are legitimate concerns about the graves of victims of the 1918 flu pandemic in the permafrost of Arctic regions thawing and releasing the virus.[1] Similar concerns about smallpox have also been raised in scientific literature.[2] -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Taubenberger, Jeffery K; Hultin, Johan V; Morens, David M (1 January 2007). "Discovery and characterization of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus in historical context". Antiviral therapy. 12 (4 Pt B): 581–591. ISSN 1359-6535. PMC 2391305free to read. 
  2. ^ Stone, R. (15 March 2002). "PUBLIC HEALTH: Is Live Smallpox Lurking in the Arctic?". Science. 295 (5562): 2002–2002. doi:10.1126/science.295.5562.2002. 
Frozen for a few hundred years might leave a risk - but not from the time of the dinosaurs. Given the movement of tectonic plates and the changes in planetary climate over the millions of years since then I do not believe that there can be anywhere on the planet which has remained consistently frozen over that period. Wymspen (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh my, we do not have an article on Paleo DNA. This must be remedied. (Is there something to redirect to that I missed?) But while Neanderthal DNA has been isolated, it is very difficult to find large intact pieces (how difficult, honestly, I have to look up still). So the odds of getting a complete viral genome together capable of infecting someone, even from that era, are astronomically low unless some busy beaver is splicing it together and filling in the gaps on his computer. And of course a virus still has a really hard time infecting someone without its proteins, which in many cases won't survive intact either.
The joke though is that a virus much older than that, if deadly, would be very questionable in the first place. If it was deadly enough to select the human population, then modern humans might carry natural immunities that became fixed in the population. And if it predates humans entirely, there's no telling if it can jump the species barrier at all. So the viruses we get to actually worry about being intact, like smallpox scabs set aside in an envelope, [19] are also the ones most likely to be able to kill us.
See Ancient DNA. Anything very old is damaged and not viable. The DNA strands become broken or crosslinked. Radiation from cosmic rays or potassium can supply the energy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Even if somehow an ancient pathogen were to emerge, it would almost certainly be harmless. Our bodies have evolved defense mechanisms from the time life first evolved 4 billion years ago to deal with such threats. The fundamental biochemical mechanisms are actually designed to deal with random threats that could derail it, it's not the case that we can only defend ourselves against a limited number of known threats, this is a misunderstanding based on the way the adaptive immune system works (which only evolved a few hundred million years ago). Here one then focuses only on the limited number of pathogens that our bodies are susceptible to, our immune systems need to deal with those pathogens and one wrongly imagines that all microbes out there are like that. But the dangerous pathogens are the result of an arms race where they try to outsmart our defenses and where our immune systems try to come up with ever more sophisticated defenses. These are the one a billion exception to the random microbes were are subjected to every day.
So, a random virus would be extremely unlikely to be do any harm to our bodies, for the same reason why a random person walking toward the entrance of the Pentagon would likely be stopped before he could inadvertently walk in, and if somehow he could walk in, there is no way he would be mistaken for a Ash Carter, and even if somehow that would still happen, there is no way he could actually do some real damage by inadvertently acting like Ash Carter. Obviously a successful impostor would need to have lots of information about the system before it could successfully enter and derail it. That information cannot have come out of thin air, it must have come from the system itself. Now, you can have viruses like the Ebola or HIV virus that are adapted to other animals that can cause deadly infections. But such cases are extremely exceptional, they involve a virus that has adapted to an evolutionarily relative to us. A dormant virus that has never interacted with modern mammals is thus unlikely to do any harm to us. Count Iblis (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's entirely wrong, Count Iblis. First, our "bodies" do not develop the ability to fight off viruses. Instead, genes for resistance to viruses by various methods tend to spread when those viruses exert selection pressure on a population. Once the virus is no longer being spread, there is no pressure in favor of such genes being retained or against them mutating into uselessness. Your argument makes as much sense as saying humans can't drown since our fish ancestors solved the problem of getting oxygen from the water long ago. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but what I mean is that the body cannot easily get compromised by some random agent, an organism is after all a machine that is able to maintain homeostasis, so some random virus that has not evolved to circumvent the defenses of the body that somehow makes its way inside out body won't do any damage. Otherwise, with billions of different types of microbes around us, there is no way we could exist. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It isn't uncommon for a virus to jump a species barrier, e.g. HIV from green monkeys or rinderpest (-> measles) from cattle. If something can jump from a cow to a human then something can jump from a two million year old human ancestor to a human ... if you can get it to survive the trip. A random virus might fail, but there's no such thing as a random virus; they all exist by virtue of their ability to infect something, and whatever they infect will have some degree of homology to humans. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Why are amrpits dark compared to the skin of the rest of the body? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There are several pictures in the Axilla and Underarm hair articles that seem to show that they aren't. Rojomoke (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
According to Human skin color#Age, "In some people, the armpits become slightly darker during puberty." This statement is not referenced. Tevildo (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
In my experience (WP:OR alert), it seems to vary a lot. Besides the axilla, the front of the knees and back of the elbows are also places where this occurs in some people. Then in other people, there's nothing like that. See also linea alba and linea nigra for a special circumstance. Matt Deres (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility is that deodorants/antiperspirants may discolor the skin. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not a good selling point. Try another brand! Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, shaven armpits can develop "five o'clock shadow", too, where the stubble makes the skin appear darker from a distance, if darker hair is averaged by our eyes in with the lighter skin color. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

On the falling bodies[edit]

In high school a teacher told me that Galileo had shown with a very simple a priori argument (which he actually showed me), without any need for any experiment whatsoever, that Aristotle's position on the falling bodies could logically only be nonsense. In which of his works does Galileo do that? And, if that is so, what need was there to go drop weights from a tower? Basemetal 11:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) PS: That argument only shows that the speed of fall has to be independent from the mass. You can not actually derive the fact that the acceleration is constant with that simple argument. It is only meant to show that Aristotle could not possibly be correct. I can repeat it here if that seems useful.

See Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment. The a priori argument appears in Galileo's 1590 book De Motu. Tevildo (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A modern form of the argument is that according to Aristotle, a parachutist should fall faster with an unfolded parachute than without, because with it he is heavier. But I feel skeptical that concepts like mass, weight, density, and air resistance were really separated that carefully in speech and writing. It reminds me of the logic puzzle about whether a hundred pounds of wet cotton weigh more than a hundred pounds of dry cotton. Any scholar who is too condescending in pointing out about how they weigh the same probably deserves to be sent to go move a few hundred-pound bales of wet cotton and try again. :) Wnt (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The fallacy there is of course "hundred pound bale of wet cotton" vs. "hundred pound bale of cotton, wetted". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you said here what exactly the argument is, it might help to locate the source. As for if that is so, what need was there to go drop weights from a tower? - well, that is what experimental science is all about. Even if you are convinced your argument is sound, it does not hurt to check; suprises have happened before. There is a lot to be said about that; one essay I like is Newton's flaming laser sword, that can be summed up as "reality is the best argument". A classical example of experiment that turned out with unexpected results is the Michelson-Morley experiment (although to be fair, the aether's existence was already hotly contested at the time). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • People, Tevildo gave the answer about 7 hours ago, about 10 minutes after I'd posted my query. It's in De Motu and the a priori argument is described at Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment, just as it was explained to me by my teacher. Sheesh. Life's short enough and there's enough to do. You do not need to give yourself more work than necessary.

October 23[edit]

Triplet paradox[edit]

Let there is a triplet of A, B, and C on an asteroid initially. A stays on an asteroid while B and C set out for a long space journey with high speed (say 0.5c and 0.9c) at the same time in the same direction relative to A. Assume each 10 years old at the time of departure. B and C are gone for 60 years relative to A. Afterward, B and C return home at the same time and reunited with A on an asteroid.

What would be the age of A relative to B and C?
What would be the age of B relative to C and A?
What would be the age of C relative to A and B?

Since each person can have only one physical appearance and one age. Thus who would be right?2001:56A:739C:6D00:D418:247C:CE19:4D81 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)eek

What do you mean by "right"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I assume in this case it's "in agreement with observed reality", not "in agreement with the official opinion of the great leader". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
So each one would be "right". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Since B and C move out and back again, the two that move are not in an inertial frame of reference - they need to accelerate up to speed, decelerate, turn around, and reaccelerate to go back (and decelerate to come to a stop again). Thus, the three are not in equivalent situations. If you want to take the acceleration into account in detail, you need the general theory of relativity, but you can approximate the result with the special theory of relativity, which will tell you that A will be older than B, which will be older than C. This is just a generalisation of the Twin paradox, which has a fairly good article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, including formulas that should enable the OP to calculate a quantitative answer to his question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but I'm not sure we've understood the question properly. As Bugs said, it's important to figure out what the OP means by "right". There is no "right" age that would be superior to the other two - each of the three would experience idiosyncratic amounts of time away from their siblings. We may prefer to think of things in terms of comparisons to "A" because they occupy the same inertial state as we do, but all three are equally valid. Matt Deres (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Each person actually has an age, not just various ages as measured by other travellers. If they carried a reliable clock with them, it has a specific time on it at the end. So there is no paradox in relative differences in ages; they should all work out right. The specific ages vary due to acceleration as described above. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t include many things in order to keep the question short as i presumed that it was understandable from pundits pov. Since everything is ideal therefore B and C are also traveling in the ideal rocket ship. Their rocket ships can accelerate up to their desired speed within second or minute in the time frame of A. So I think acceleration or declaration should not be the problem while calculating the ages. Regarding “Right”

1. B and C have disagreement on the age as well as physical appearance of A

2. A and B have disagreement on the age as well as physical appearance of C

3. C and A have disagreement on the age as well as physical appearance of B

Although we can add infinite number of clowns of the aforementioned leader to the scenario but for simplicity, 96 clowns are sufficient to understand if it is difficult to guess who is right on the age as well as the physical appearance of A, B and C. Clown# 96 stays on an asteroid while the rest take off at the same time with the following speeds relative to Clown#96, in the same direction for their long synchronized space journey. Assume each 10 years old at the time of departure. All 95 clowns gone for 90 years relative to clown 96. Afterward, 1 to 95 return home at the same time and reunited with clown 96 on an asteroid.

Speed of clown 1 is 0.01c , 2 is 0.02c, 3 is 0.03c, 4 is 0.04 c, ..., 10 is 0.1c, ......, 20 is 0.2c, ......, 90 is 0.9c, ....,95 is 0.95c

Again: One clown can have only one age and one physical appearance therefore who would be right on the age as well as the physical appearance of 96 clowns.

Make the above triplet paradox quadruple

Our solar system revolves around another celestial mass of our galaxy. Assume D the fourth brother / sister of aforementioned A, B and C is on this celestial mass. Since D experienced no time dilation so D finds B and C aged at the same rate as A via his special binocular. D is in disagreement with A, B, and C.2001:56A:739C:6D00:D77:CB3B:5A2B:EBDD (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)eek

If each observer takes into account general relativity as well as what you call the "time dilation" of special relativity, then there is no paradox. When they finally meet up, your brothers, sisters or clowns are all observed to be different ages (as measured by their biological deterioration or by the accurate clock that each has carried), but each correctly calculates the age of each of the others when they take into account everything that has happened. Dbfirs 09:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP means to talk about clones because "clowns" sounds funny. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, of course! I wondered why we were in a circus. Apologies to the OP for not realising this. At the end of their journeys, the clones would no longer be identical, nor would the accurate clocks they carried show the same time, but each clone would be able to predict the exact age of each other clone from knowledge of their journey through space-time, and all clones would get the same answer for a particular brother. Dbfirs 16:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you AllBestFaith for correcting me. My mind is very scattered nowadays due to some inexplicable reasons, therefore, I apologize for the mistake. Further, doesn’t space dilate for moving frame instead of time? Since I didn’t force anybody to reply to my question, therefore, Dbfirs I don’t accept your apology. I can guess from your answer that you are the greatest unfriendly witless disgusting living imbecile moron on the face of Wikipedia. As you started, therefore, go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver of your clown leader.2001:56A:739C:6D00:E867:777:70B1:58FF (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric kamikaze

Defining the Kg in terms of (Atmospheric) Pressure[edit]

There seem to be many attempts at redefining the value of the kilogram, especially since it remained the only SI unit still dependable upon a physical artifact. Are there any practical reasons for trying to (re)define the kilogram in terms of atmospheric pressure, or height of column of mercury under specific temperature and gravity conditions (such as, for instance, [re]defining the pressure exercised by a column of mercury 34 m tall at 0°C and standard gravity as 105 N exactly) ? I ask this because I don't know how practically feasible it would be to extract mass from pressure, rather than the other way around. — (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not likely to be feasible, because atmospheric pressure changes all the time, so how do you define a standard atmosphere? You suggest the height of a mercury column, but not only does gravity vary from place to place on the earth, it also varies with time, depending on the tide, and how much water is on the soil. It would be simpler for you if you tried to set a kilogram by the mass of mercury in a cubic meter. But even this precise value will depend on temperature, atmospheric pressure, isotopic composition (dependent on mine site and processing), amount of noise and motion in the liquid, electromagnetic fields present, number of cosmic rays impacting, mass of the neutrino etc etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that, although we do have a precise theoretical value for standard gravity, actually achieving that exact value with great accuracy, even in a laboratory setting, is —from a purely practical perspective— unfeasible ? So much so, that we're back to square one, only this time with mercury instead of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water ? — (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at with your question. As far as I know, the desired end goal is to define the kilogram, and all the SI base units, in terms of invariant physical constants. That way no one has to worry about their calibration standard varying with the environment. See Proposed redefinition of SI base units. -- (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Their desired goal is to rationalize all/many fundamental physical constants... which would make some sense if they would be nice and round, such as in the case of c ≈ 3·108 m/s; unfortunately, this is not the case, so... For purely aesthetic reasons, I hope they fail. :-) — (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems completely the wrong way, IMHO. Firstly it's technically difficult - you simply can't do this by using "the atmosphere" as a standard, you'd have to construct and calibrate a simulated standard atmosphere.
Secondly the atmosphere's standardisation is based on pressure, which is based on force, thus on mass. So the standard conditions themselves are recursively self referential. If you redesigned the whole of metrology so that pressure became a fundamental unit, then you would no longer be trying to make a mass standard, you'd want to make a pressure standard instead.
Thirdly, the movement in metrology is to simplify the definitions of standards in terms of the fundamental unit they're based upon. So the intention is to supersede the platinum mass standard, defined through its weight, and replace it with a silicon sphere, based on geometry and crystalline properties. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No, they aren't. We have a fixed height of 34 m; a specific substance, mercury; a specific time unit, the second, used to measure local gravitational acceleration and compare it to the exact value 9.80665 ms2. Mass times gravitational acceleration yields force, which, when distributed over a specific unit of surface (the thickness of the mercury tube), gives pressure. We then `baptize` this pressure with the name 0.1 mega Pascal, and then use Pa = kg·m-1·s-2 to define the kilogram. Somewhat forced, perhaps, but definitely not convoluted. (Unless I'm missing something). — (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, you aren't really trying to define an "atmosphere" so much as you are trying to define the kg in terms of the weight of a column of mercury of known height? Once you dispense with the distractions, this would seem equivalent to simply weighting a known amount of mercury and adjusting for local gravitational acceleration. To be an improvement over current methods one would need at least ~1 in 100 million precision in the purity of the mercury, your ability to measure its volume, and your ability to correct for deviations in local gravity. All of that seems impractical while offering no obvious benefits compared to the current approach of using an arbitrary physical artifact. Dragons flight (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Defining the kilogramme in terms of pressure is actually a fairly good idea, as I see it; the trick is not to use atmospheric pressure (which, as has been noted above numerous times, highly variable), but rather some pressure the value of which is completely invariant, such as the pressure at the triple point of a pure substance, or the critical pressure of a pure substance. For instance, the vapour–He-I–He-II triple point of helium-4 (which is actually one of four triple points for 4He—see the table in triple point) has a pressure of 5.048 kilopascals (0.04982 atmospheres); if one set the pressure for this triple point at exactly 5.048 kPa, one could then define the newton in terms of the pascal and the metre, and, then, in turn, define the kilogramme in terms of the newton, the metre, and the second, totally eliminating the need for the International Prototype Kilogramme, which could then be consigned to a museum as a historical artifact, just like the International Prototype Metre has been. Or, if one desired, one could take the critical pressure of oxygen (5.043 megapascals), define it as exactly 5.043 MPa, and use that to define the newton, and, by extension, the kilogramme. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Do I remember rightly that there's an approximate relationship between length, mass, and volume? I was thinking that the original design was for a cubic decimetre to be a litre, and a litre of water to have a mass of a kilogramme. Of course the numbers have been redefined over the centuries, but I don't see a reason why they can't define a kilogramme to be the mass of a litre (or a slightly different fraction thereof, to keep the current mass unchanged) of water at a certain temperature and pressure, with the litre's definition to be the volume of a cubic decimetre (or a slightly different fraction thereof, to keep the current volume unchanged). We already have the metre being defined in terms of the speed of light during a specific period of time, and time being defined in terms of how long it takes for a specific atom to produce a specific number of oscillations. Presumably they already would have done this kind of definition if it were as simple as I'm suggesting, so where have I gone wrong? Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The original definition would have been like that, but it has the same problems as the mercury standard. Can you get the water 100.0000000% pure? Can you avoid water evaporating in your weight comparison? The density of water changes with air pressure, temperature, and other disturbances too, so it is not such a practical standard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the fundamental reasons why the SI was even introduced in the first place is reproducibility, since -without it- we are back to medieval times. If you cannot tell another person from the other side of the planet how to obtain the unit for themselves, without physically transporting some random artifact, then it has all been in vain. — (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Reproducibility is a separate question from practicality. Defining the metre as one fourty-millionth of the Earth's diameter is even less practical than moving a sample around. Of course, neither has to do with the key selling points of the metric system at the time, which were (1) decimal conversions and (2) aggressive marketing. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You are precisely wrong. The mere fact that the meter or the kilogram even have a definition in the first place shows a change in perspective and mentality. Until then, all units -other than those of time- were basically "random", varying from region to region and form town to town. (The only ones that had an actual definition were the units of time). So the SI did for weights and measures what until then was possible only for time, by endowing them with logic, and universality, and replicability. Not that premetric units of length were completely devoid of any logic, i.e., the fathom is the distance spanned by a man's outstretched arms; but the question arises: which man ? Because they all vary. So some sort of universal standard had to be sought. For instance, defining a foot as the distance traveled by light in a nanosecond is a different thing altogether than creating some random artifact based on a random person's walking step, and then proclaiming it as norm. — (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Feynman Lectures. Lecture 33. Formula 33.2 [20][edit]

I don't understand why does Feynman set aside reflected wave, deriving the formula. He says "since the two amplitudes on the left side of Eq. (33.2) each produce the wave of amplitude −1.". Even geometrically it is not true PNG dwg.
Formula must be next:

Username160611000000 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Later Feynman says : Quote
It is possible to go on with arguments of this nature and deduce that b is real. To prove this, one must consider a case where light is coming from both sides of the glass surface at the same time, a situation not easy to arrange experimentally, but fun to analyze theoretically. If we analyze this general case, we can prove that b must be real, and therefore, in fact, that b=±sin(i−r)/sin(i+r). It is even possible to determine the sign by considering the case of a very, very thin layer in which there is reflection from the front and from the back surfaces, and calculating how much light is reflected. We know how much light should be reflected by a thin layer, because we know how much current is generated, and we have even worked out the fields produced by such currents.
I do not recall that Feynman ever showed the formula for current. It seems he uses 31.17 to show that field which is generated by glass has inverse sign of source field. But I can't understand why should we use a case when light is reflected from both sides of the glass plate? And second, why should we prove that is real value? is real.

Username160611000000 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Earth ocean rifts total gas output[edit]

Earth ocean rifts total gas output

Is there a source that provides Earth's ocean rifts total gas outputs to the oceans and to Earth's atmosphere? Terry D Welander (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [Redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about total gas output, but this paper from 1998 gives an estimate for CO2. This 2013 paper updates the result (on overall emissions it's mostly narrowing the margin of error). The newer estimate is around 7-8x1011 mol/year, or (unless my math is off) around 35 megatonnes. For comparison, human emissions are around 29 gigatonnes/year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Storm surge[edit]

If the Americas were pushed out to sea about how fast would the land have to move to repeat (more or less) Hurricane Sandy's surge in New York Harbor? With several minutes of acceleration time. How long would it take the new sea level to reach equilibrium? Would a few minutes acceleration time be enough for it to be more like a surge than a tsunami? Yes, yes the power to cut a continent off the Earth and move it and keep it from sinking or causing earthquakes is beyond ludicrous. I just wonder about the wrong frame of reference where the land moves instead of the water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean like if the Americas were on gigantic pontoons? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't pontoons affect the sloshing? Cut off all crust above the elevation of the continental shelf edge, turn off friction at the cut, hold it up so it doesn't sink or tilt and start moving it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like it's in the same league with how Will Rogers proposed to get rid of the German U-Boats in World War I: "Boil the ocean!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I just want to know how fast we have to go to make a significant bow wave from Greenland to Cape Horn. Helm: let's start with 3 knots southeast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
We do have an article, Floating island, but the Americas are not one. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Orion spaceship[edit]

Does anyone happen to know what is the peak G-force that the Orion Spaceship experiences during launch and/or atmospheric reentry? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:40E5:EEF0:65B8:D229 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a simple question of weight ratios![edit]

So it's been established that a five-ounce bird cannot carry a one-pound coconut. But are there any aircraft (non-experimental) that can carry at this ratio, with the maximum safe weight of cargo being more than three times the manufacturer's empty weight? I note that two prominent US military cargo aircraft, the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy and the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, both have manufacturer's empty weights that are greater than their cargo capacities, so I'm guessing that any such aircraft would be much smaller, since the USAF might well not use their current aircraft if smaller aircraft existed that could carry similar amounts of freight or if similarly sized aircraft could carry much greater amounts of freight. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

...Probably not in the categories you're thinking about. Athough my personal reservoir of knowledge is not exhaustive, I don't know of any mainstream aircraft in the fixed-wing or rotorcraft category that would satisfy what you're looking for. Depending how you choose to define "useful load" - in aviation, we include fuel as part of that figure - you might find the weight ratio you want in the payload fractions in the rockets used for launching cargo in to space. And again, if you consider fuel as part of the useful load, then the GlobalFlyer (a one-of-a-kind experimental aircraft) or the Rutan Voyager might meet your requirement. (You might read about Burt Rutan's other aircraft for his experimental airplanes that cater to a "slightly" more mainstream audience). And of course, if you consider lighter-than-air aircraft, including airships, the cargo mass can be considerably greater than the aircraft mass.
Nimur (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was definitely meaning entire weight of aircraft at maximum safe load divided by manufacturer's empty weight is at least 3, so I was imagining an out-of-fuel aircraft for the first one. My idea was either a fixed-wing aircraft or a helicopter (but at least in my imagination, they don't carry as much weight for their size; their advantage is maneouvreability, not mere carrying capacity) flying in the atmosphere; I wondered about a space rocket, but in the end I was only thinking about atmosphere-restricted aircraft. I've never heard of rocket airplanes (except experimental ones), but if any rocket airplanes have ever gotten out of the experimental stage and become "normal" aircraft, they'd definitely be eligible for what I was looking for. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, you are using the terminology correctly - the basic empty weight is defined as the aircraft's weight with empty fuel-tanks. There are a handful of technicalities - some mass of fuel can never be removed from some types of airplanes, because of the way real-world, non-"spherical-cow" tanks and fuel-lines work... that's the opposite of the usable fuel. ...So the definition of the term "basic empty weight" is "the weight of the airframe, engines, all permanently installed equipment, and unusable fuel" plus the weight of installed optional equipment. The definitions are carefully laid out, e.g., in the Aviation Maintenance Technician's Handbook and the Weight and Balance Handbook; and of course, each individual aircraft in the United States carries its own paperwork documenting its official weight and balance - that stuff has to be on board each aircraft; it's easy to remember, as it's the final item on the ARROW Checklist of required paperwork. Always make sure you measure your fuel, your weights, and all other important parameters correctly for your specific aircraft. Nimur (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This aircraft[21] Weighs 220 Lbs and lifts 2,423 Lbs... Also see:[22][23] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
If you are looking at max takeoff weight / empty weight, the B-52 gets somewhat close at 2.6. The Lockheed U-2 is even better at 2.8, though in that case it's almost entirely fuel and almost no cargo. Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
About rocket planes, there WAS in fact one "normal" rocket plane, but its weight ratio was only 2.26. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:A0FD:B2DF:3F45:5E5B (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But still, that was rather experimental; it wasn't used for a significant period of time, for one thing. I don't care what's in the storage tanks; I was just interested in the ratio of parts to non-parts. The B-52 and the U-2 are more what I was looking for: they demonstrate that it's possible to create an aircraft that has such a weight ratio, and it's demonstrably possible to keep such an aircraft flying for a significant period of time (i.e. such a design isn't necessarily unstable enough that it won't last long in service). Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

Biological Endothermic Processes 3E9 YA[edit]

I have a question about what biological endothermic reactions were used by the anaerobic organisms to capture solar energy, which could then be utilized to provide energy, three billion years ago. I haven’t found the answer in the articles that I have read so far. Two billion years ago, the planet was not that different than it is today, and photosynthesis converted water and carbon dioxide into glucose with the release of diatomic oxygen. The development of photosynthesis by the cyanobacteria, approximately 2.5 billion years ago, resulted in the great oxygenation event or oxygen catastrophe, and aerobic life became dominant. What endothermic reactions captured solar energy, presumably with less captured energy, prior to photosynthesis? I am assuming that there were endothermic processes capturing solar energy, because otherwise life would have been running entirely on leftover energy. Were the early endothermic reactions inorganic? Regardless of whether they were organic or inorganic, do they still occur in the modern oxygen-based world? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. Organisms at places such as hydrothermal vents are "running entirely on leftover energy". There is no rule that says life must ultimately derive its energy from the Sun. We've found extremophiles in many habitats without access to sunlight. This has excited a lot of people about the prospects for life elsewhere in the universe. A place like Europa might have life in the subsurface ocean even though there's no sunlight available. There's a lot of "leftover energy" beneath a planet or large moon's surface. (Although, a substantial portion of this energy is produced by radioactive decay, which might not count as "leftover" based on your definition.) -- (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Primary producers are generally divided between photoautotrophs, which rely on the sun, and chemoautotrophs that derive energy and growth by acting on inorganic chemicals present in the environment. Such compounds are abundant at locations like hydrothermal vents, but can be found in low quantities nearly everywhere. Many chemolithotrophs consume compounds derived from minerals exposed at the Earth's surface. Other chemotrophs consume compounds like methane, which was believed to be abundant in the pre-oxic atmosphere. Yet other chemotrophs can create methane by consuming carbon dioxide and hydrogen. There are many metabolic pathways capable of capturing energy from inorganic compounds. In general such pathways usually offer less abundant energy than photosynthesis, but many forms of life can survive without a connection to the sun. Dragons flight (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I know about Europa and about life at hydrothermal vents. Let me restate the question. Are there processes, that would have existed three billion years ago and presumably still exist, that are photoautrophic and so capture energy from the sun, but do not produce diatomic oxygen, and may capture lesser quantities of energy than is captured by photosynthesis as we know it? Are there biological processes, probably less endothermic than photosynthesis, that do not result in oxygen? If there is life on Europa, the source of its energy is tidal flexing. The ultimate source of energy for life at hydrothermal vents is the heat in the Earth, which in turn is a result of tectonic processes and radioactivity in the Earth. The source of energy for most present-day life is the Sun; was the Sun a source of energy for life before the great oxygenation event? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A little sympathy is in order for the anaerobic bacteria. It was their planet once. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Stimulated emission versus quantum encryption[edit]

In a laser, stimulated emission seems to copy a photon in all regards with a second photon of the same type. This seems like a way of detecting a photon without intercepting it, because you could, say, look for further emissions from atoms that have dropped into a lower-energy (but not ground-energy) state as the result of intercepting a photon.

Suppose you have a quantum-entangled photon pass through an atom, stimulating emission of a second identical photon of that type. A moment later, the atom is subjected to a strong magnetic field, so that the polarization of the electron affects the subsequent emission as it drops further in state. Then you can find out the polarization of the photon (which I'll suppose carries an encrypted message). Does that let you eavesdrop on the secret message?

Bonus... actually, I was wondering if there's any way to use this to detect neutrinos without really stopping them. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article goes into some of the relevant details of this problem. Count Iblis (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Solar system Gas giants[edit]

Which article covers ViDAR?[edit]

Visual Detection and Ranging

etc. Hcobb (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article about ViDAR. Such an article would need disambiguation from the existing article about Víðarr, a Norse God. One can propose covering ViDAR in the article Machine vision or including ViDAR in the Glossary of machine vision. AllBestFaith (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that true that the brain has arteries only without veins?[edit]

I've heard that the brain is exception of our body because unlike all our organ which have arteries and veins, the brain doesn't have veins but arteries only. If it's true, what is the way of the of the body or of the heart to draw the deoxygenated blood from the brain? (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Cerebral circulation describes the arteries AND veins of the brain. So wherever you heard that the brain does not have veins appears to be wrong. Vespine (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There is one place in your body with an artery where there would "normally" be a vein, but that's the glomerulus, in the kidney. Maybe you heard something about the cerebrospinal fluid and misinterpreted it? There are the dural venous sinuses, which are veins, but a bit different from your "average" vein. -- (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are evolutionary the testis are located outside of the body?[edit]

Why are evolutionary the testis are located outside of the body? Here is in such way they are exposed to the damages due to their sensitiveness. Is there any assumption or speculation about this question? (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Our testes article even has a section called evolution > external testes. Vespine (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Are there any psychoactive, hormonal or psychiatric drugs that cause neither tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, paradoxical effects, severe side effects, drug effects happening long after use (like LSD) nor a rebound where whatever the drug was fighting comes back stronger than before after the effect wears off? Or do they all have one of those or another, i.e. steroids, LSD (flashbacks), and antidepressants (erection dysfunction)? Ignoring non-physical dependence unless many users get it since anything can cause that. Like a drug with no effect besides "increase persistence of vision to 2 seconds" probably wouldn't make most people psychologically addicted so would qualify. (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide. Vespine (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


October 17[edit]

Plane Projection of a Hyperbola[edit]

Two planes intersect at an angle strictly between 0° and 90°. One of them contains a hyperbola, which we project onto the other intersecting plane. Is the result still a hyperbola ? And if the answer is affirmative, does this mean that the answer to this question is also a `yes`, inasmuch as any triangle can be seen as the projection of an equilateral one onto a plane at a given angle ? — (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If one of the axes of the hyperbola is parallel (or normal) to the line of intersection of the two planes: yes (by a change of variables in the conic equation). I suspect it's true in only that case (an example of an obviously non-hyperbolic projection of a hyperbola), and so is not useful for the triangle question. --Tardis (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unitary Transformation[edit]

Let , , . (the XOR of the phases' exponents). We say that iff (two vectors are equivalent iff all of their amplitudes are equal).

Is there any unitary transformation that satisfies: ?

Thanks in advance! עברית (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The definition of A sounds fishy, but in any case, a prominent notice at the top of the page states: We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Measure of angle formed by absolute value graph[edit]

Let a be a positive real number. What is the measure of the angle formed by the graph of ? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Just compute the angle between and the vertical line, and double that. Are you familiar with tangent (trigonometry)? TigraanClick here to contact me 17:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The angle formed between and the vertical line has the same value as the angle formed between and the horizontal line. Logic dictates that it must be half the angle formed between the horizontal line and the vertical line. (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • The IP's answer is only true for a = 1. However, for a > 0, the angle between y = ax and the x-axis is tan−1a, the requested angle is 2(π / 2 – tan−1a) = π – 2tan−1a. As expected, as a → 0+, the angle → π. As a → +∞, angle → 0, and at a = 1, angle = π / 2. If you wanted an angle of π / 3, solve for a to get a = √3. EdChem (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
        ... and, of course, all of the above assumes identical scales on the axes. Dbfirs 15:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Triple bar: real or hooey?[edit]

Our article on, say, triple product contains lots of instances of , and I don't get the point. The cross product of two vectors is straightforward, if annoying, to work out as pure algebra, and if I worked it out as an equation, I'd use a plain vanilla equals sign in that equation. I looked up the triple bar article and Identity (mathematics) and I don't really see anything, outside of specialized contexts, where it has any general significance I can understand. To me the sign is confusing because there have been times when I've sat in a classroom and seen the sign used in the same way as "<-" in a computer program (or "=" in languages that use "==" for equals). So I have to look and see, are they saying these things work out to be equal, or are they defining them to be equal?

Is there a way to defend this usage, to say that yeah, anyone looking at this knows this triple-bar thingy has to be there instead of an = sign, and everyone knows what that signifies? Wnt (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh, that looks like simply a mistake in the article. Equal signs all around seem to be warranted. But now, I feel like I may be missing something, as well... TigraanClick here to contact me 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you all are missing anything. The article used equal signs until April 2016, when someone went about tweaking the equations with no explanation or edit summaries. Per MOS:MATH#NOWE, a simple equal sign is preferred over or ":=". That an equation serves as a definition should, in my opinion, be explicitly indicated in the prose rather than rely on a possibly obscure symbol. If no one, objects, let's revert to equal signs. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure triple product is intending to use to mean roughly "equal by virtue of explicit prior definition or assumption.", as opposed to e.g. "equal because we did the same thing to both sides". And not necessarily doing anything with any consistency. But I agree with Mark that WP MOS is pretty clear on this, and we should probably revert to all '='. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
My interpretation was the triple bar was meant as identity as opposed to equality. The distinction is subtle and it's much better to spell out in words what is meant rather than using an obscure symbol. For example if "" is meant to mean " for all " then just write it out that way instead of confusing half of your readers. In the triple product article the "for all a, b, c" is implied by context so the distinction isn't needed. A bigger question is whether as identity should be in any WP article other than to mention it as being used by "some authors". --RDBury (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As someone who used to use the triple bar back when I published research, I disagree with the above discussion and the preference stated in the MoS. A double bar means equals, maybe for some value of a variable or maybe for all values of parameters and variables. A triple bar means more specifically the latter, and so should be preferred on grounds of clarity in my opinion. And is more succinct than, and hence preferable to, for all a and b. Loraof (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This distinction continues to evade me. Do we write a = a + 0 or do we write a a + 0 or a = a + 0 "for all a"? I mean, the cross product is just a shorthand for some algebra, . At least it's a double bar in cross product where I stole this math code from. Or is that a triple bar when we say it is equal ... or identical... to something else? Wnt (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Essentially, the triple bar is used for equations that are always true, whereas the double bar is used for those that are not always true (and you can solve for the values that make it true). So you would write sin θ = 1 with the double bar (it's not always true, but you can easily find solutions, like θ = π/2); but sin2 θ + cos2 θ ≡ 1 needs the triple bar because it doesn't matter what θ is, the equality always holds. Double sharp (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So E=mc^2 needs to be "Emc2? I feel like when working out math problems we use quite a bit of "identity", and I'm loath to give up my ascii equals sign for all of it. As much as it is used in triple product, by this standard there are many other sections and instances (like under "Proof") where the triple bar still needs to be put in to replace the double. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There probably are situations where it is helpful for the reader if the text tries to distinguish identities (equations that are true for all values) from definitions and from constraints (equations we want to be true and where we want to find the specific values that make them true). However, I don't think the triple bar is widespread enough to be used without explaination, and I fear it might confuse the reader rather than help him. (For what it's worth, in situations where it is important to distinguish identities from constraints I have seen an equals sign with an exclamation point above used to denote constraints, like . Similarly, sometimes a question mark above an equals sign is used to denote identities we want to show to be true. I have only seen this usage on blackboards, for what it's worth.) Tea2min (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The double-bar/triple-bar distinction is only useful when it is important to distinguish constraints from identities. When that is not the issue at hand, it is often not used, because it is then not serving any useful purpose. Oh, and I would also confirm what Tea2min has said about ? and ! modifying equals signs on blackboards. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If the idea is to use the triple bar for every expression that evaluates to true no matter what values the variables around it have (i.e. as a shorthand for "forall..."), it looks pretty ridiculous to me. I could be convinced it is helpful as a shorthand for "analytic equality", i.e. an equality that is deduced purely from logical axioms and the form of the variables of the LHS and RHS (type but not value in a programming language). But it would take a lot of convincing, a better definition, and anyways, it is the MOS that needs convincing (good luck with that). TigraanClick here to contact me 13:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The article references that I can access use just an ordinary equal sign. Does anyone object if we put the article back to that format (with a mention in the text that the identity is true for all values if anyone would possibly read it differently)? Dbfirs 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I think article should match MOS. While I understand the complaints against the content of MOS, I think it is still best to follow something consistently. As it stands, we have three (or more) notions what that symbol means. Any given (good) math text that uses the symbol can simply define it at first usage, but that is not how we are supposed to approach math articles on WP. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Methinks we should move that whole conversation to the article TP, and give page watchers a few days to react (or do the change now, but be prepared for a possible on-sight revert; we cannot really claim a meaningful consensus from here). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that it would be only Dangvugiang who would disagree, but we don't want to start an edit war. I've copied this content to the talk page of the article in the hope that we get further opinion. If Dangvugiang doesn't respond, would it be permissible to revert his change to "equiv" back to plain "equals"? Dbfirs 07:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If you scan that user's contributions, 100% of them are to article space, and there is not a single edit summary (not counting the auto-generated ones for section headings and undo's). So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him/her to engage on the question. Leave a note on the talk page (and on the user's talk page too; won't help probably but it's worth a try), and if there's no response, after a decent interval (which in my opinion can be pretty short; I don't have a lot of patience for this sort of editor), change it back. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I see what you mean. I've left a courtesy note on his talk page so that all opinions can be taken into account. Dbfirs 08:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this often enough on Wikipedia that I don't think we should make this about one article or one editor. There's a broader issue here and I've seen people here weigh in with points toward both sides. My preference remains for simple equals without philosophy but I'm not declaring a jihad over it. Wnt (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the issue is much wider, but the question was raised here about a relatively recent change to the article mentioned above. Our article at Identity (mathematics) uses a plain "equals", not "equiv". Dbfirs 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

equation of circle[edit]

how to find equation of circle which touches two parallel lines 3x-4y=7and 3x-4y+43 and center lie on the line 2x-3y+13=0.SonishaShrestha (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, that will get ya thinking. The first thing I'd look at is the perpendiculars. You know which way to go from the line to the center of the circle -- exactly perpendicular to it. Per the first equation, y = 3/4 x + something. So the three lines you specify have slope 3/4, 3/4, and 2/3. Oh, they're parallel lines! Well, that makes it easy - you know the circle is on a line in the middle, i.e. average 7 and 43. Now you just have to see where that line intersects the other line, solve the two equations simultaneously, and you're done.
I'll stop there because the Refdesk has a sort of spoiler policy about homework, but it wouldn't take much to get someone to finish up if you really are confused, but by now you should be done. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If they weren't parallel lines, I think you'd take the negative inverse of the slope to get a perpendicular, i.e. -4/3. Then you can say that the circle is centered on the third line and the radius extends outward in the two different directions by equal amounts ... ? ... PROFIT! Maybe I have to think that over again. Meanwhile, the triangle article explains an inscribed circle is on each of the bisectors of the angles, but this seems to invoke more trigonometry (arctangent or something) than I'd prefer. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it is rather easy to prove that a circle tangent to two non-parallel lines has its center on the angle bisector of the angle formed by the lines (without trigonometry). This simplifies the algebraic brute-forcing of the problem a lot. (As a general rule, geometry problem can always be solved by calculus means, but it is much more dirty than geometric solutions.) TigraanClick here to contact me 10:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Using a free tool like Geogebra might help your geometric intuition, find thesolution via an (interactive) construction, which you can use to verify solution you've found by algebraic computation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the case with three non-parallel lines: I made a crappy graphic showing various equal angles and right angles and lines and such, then realized it was all irrelevant. The way to find the circle in the arbitrary case is to take the two bounding lines and solve simultaneously to get the intersection point. Then use the second formula in distance from a point to a line to get the x and y values for the nearest point on the third line (which the circle is centered on). Then use the first formula in distance from a point to a line, i.e. the distance from the point to the line, with either of the first two lines, to find the radius of the circle. Not a single sine or cosine or god forbid arctangent in sight. Wnt (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • By "3x-4y+43" do you mean 3x-4y=43 or 3x-4y+43=0? It's fairly obvious that the center lies on the line 3x-4y=a, where a is 25 in one case and -18 in the other. So you have two simultaneous linear equations determining the center. —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The + and = are on the same button, so I didn't think that was a hard one to guess. :) Wnt (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Area of an ellipse[edit]

After a long search, I just found this website matematicasvisuales, and I learned from this a very intuitive way to prove the ― as intuitive as the method to prove the area of a circle.

I must ask, how come everyone associate this topic with high advanced mathematic, and the only way you can find everywhere for proving this includes Calculus, Integration etc.? The greeks had proved the circle's area formula the old "intuitive" fashion way, and that's how we mostly learn it.

In the Area its written like this:

The area formula is intuitive: start with a circle of radius (so its area is ) and stretch it by a factor to make an ellipse. This scales the area by the same factor: .

That is so not-intuitive; just like doesn't claim a word about the area being . Sorry. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@יהודה שמחה ולדמ: The fact is, this is not a rigorous proof, unless you go into advanced mathematics anyways: you have to be careful about what it means to "stretch" or "shrink" and why area is multiplied by the same factor. The circle's area formula has an "intuitive" proof but intuition is not enough; to make the Greeks' proof sound one must resort to mathematical analysis techniques anyway. There's no avoiding it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I said; the wiki-page of Area said "stretch"! I didn't say the proof is rigorous either; and even if it isn't, why aren't the circle and ellipse treated the same way and not been taught together in school, or at least be taught together only through Calculus?
And by the way, I used a little Analytic geometry together with the circle and ellipse equations, and proved that the areas of the Trapezoid/Triangle cross sections relate to one other respectively as or . יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@יהודה שמחה ולדמ: But "stretch" and "shrink" are equally intuitive then, and the two "proofs" by "stretching" (as in the article) and "shrinking" (as on the page you linked) are equivalent. Both formulae are conventionally derived rigorously in elementary calculus classes, and no way of computing the area of either (without knowing the area of at least one of them) avoids the use of calculus of some sort.(By the way, "calculus" is not a proper noun, don't treat it as such)--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Calculus exists, no one argues about that. But the area formula of the circle was derived thousands of years ago, even if our 350 (or so) year-old calculus had "confirmed" it. Rigorous or not, People used it ever since.
But I realized we ran of topic ― my main question is why isn't this non-rigorous method been taught in schools and other places as well as the circle area non-rigorous method? Until I found that website page all I could find were rigorous calculus proofs. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like there's really not much difference between stretching and calculus here. I mean, to "stretch" a circle on one dimension means that for any given rectangular element with a large dimension y and a small dimension delta-x, the length of delta-x is altered accordingly. In the limit as delta-x approaches zero, the rectangular elements cover the entire ellipse, while retaining the same degree of stretching; hence, the area of the ellipse is altered accordingly. I feel like there must be some general theorem to this effect, regarding any shape, which any real mathematician could name. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is taught here in the USA. It's just that the ellipse itself has much less pedagogical value than the circle (yes it's a conic section, but the circle is best for teaching trigonometric functions). And at least here, non-rigorous methods are not actually mentioned that much in general.
Strictly speaking, the formula wasn't derived until it was first rigorously proven. The method of circum- and in-scribing polygons implicitly assumes that the circumference of the circle lies between those of the polygons, and the least upper bound property of the reals - assumptions that the Greeks did not have the tools to address rigorously.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought Eudoxus of Cnidus had proved the circle area formula by contradiction, no? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, he only established that the area is proportional to r2 (which can now be easily proven using Fubini's theorem), and did not establish the constant of proportionality. Given that pi most certainly is an "incommensurable" quantity, and that he didn't like dealing with those, I doubt he would have proven the whole formula. Even if he did, the assumptions I mentioned above are still implicit in his method.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Sum of the reciprocals of the subfactorials[edit]

What is the sum of the reciprocals of the subfactorials of the integers greater than 1?? (1 subfactorial is 0 and 1/0 is undefined.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Going by derangement, the question is to compute . I see no obvious way to attack this. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If I understand derangement rightly, it says that , where that is, bizarrely, a round off to the nearest integer function in brackets. And factorial says that Now I know that we can't say that = e * e1 minus the first two points, because there's that round off to be considered. But can this be a start, if you understand why this round-off happens and can calculate just the remainders to offset them from this sum??? Wnt (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I just looked into this a bit further and found [24] which says that the subfactorial is equal to the "uppercase incomplete gamma function" gamma(n+1, -1)/e. Which is really neat, except that I wish they'da named the function something like Blarf234385(tm), because nothing short of at threat of prosecution seems capable of getting two programs to mean the same thing by a function name with a gamma in it. (Well, alright, that's being facetious; blasphemy is the most satisfying form of profanity) I installed R package 'gsl' and used gamma_inc() and variants, but none of them work for negative values of the second parameter. This was kind of off the topic anyway though, since what seems most relevant is that this has the same /e as above. The factorial n! is equal to the complete gamma function, and so it is simply gamma(n+1) = gamma(n+1, 0)... Wnt (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It converges quickly: I get 1.6382270745053706475428931141511226610635932496444... at n=40. No results found using inverse symbolic calculators. (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

The union of lines joining points on a variety to a fixed point on it[edit]

Let be a projective variety, and fix a point . Define X to be the closure of the union of all lines (pq) where . Assume . How can I find a birational morphism ? trying to parameterize the line (pq) by P^1 and send (q,t) to the point corresponding to the parameter t is not one-to-one. This is exercise I7.7 (a) in Hartshorne.-- (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think in general there is a birational map between these two varieties. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The exercise asks to prove dim(X)=dim(Y)+1, and an online hint is to find a birational map . I believe this to be equivalent to the existence of a (perhaps more natural) birational map , since is open in .-- (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't actually need a birational map to prove that the dimension is the same. The "obvious" mapping from is not birational when Y is a hypersurface, but it generically has maximal rank. You can use this to give affine charts on X. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Do we take instead of in the parameterization of the line to exclude the point p? I don't know what is the obvious map. Where do we send (q,t)?-- (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Rare math symbol unicode[edit]

I am trying to quote an old mathematics book. It is using a three-dot notation that I've never seen, so I don't know the name, so I cannot find the unicode for it. I need the unicode so I can simply reprint the original. The two symbols used have three dots. One symbol has a high dot on the left, a mid-dot in the middle and a mid-dot on the right. The other symbol has a low dot on the left, a mid-dot in the middle, and a mid-dot on the right. I've been searching through unicode charts, but I don't know how to efficiently find rarely used symbols. (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Try PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That helped me realize that I could use Braille to fake it. (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I tried shapecatcher and it said it was "Down right diagonal ellipsis, Unicode hexadecimal: 0x22f1, In block: Mathematical Operators". That's &#8945; = ⋱ So I'm duly impressed... especially considering the quality of my scrawled circles and the fact that I don't think I've ever seen this symbol before. Oh, and as you might have guessed, the other is next to it at &#8944; = ⋰ Wnt (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
But the OP's descriptions have two dots on the same level. —Tamfang (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Erm.... ooops! (This kind of thing happens way too often when I start playing with a new tool... too busy admiring it to remember what I was trying to do) Wnt (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

0.01825 as fraction and percentage[edit]

How do I convert 0.01825 into either a fraction or percentage? Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

0.01825 = 001825/100000 = 1825/100000 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
0.01825 = 1.825/100 = 1.825% Rojomoke (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Many folks would assume (perhaps wrongly!) that the first question is a request specifically for a reduced fraction. In this case this starts off easy because you see a "5" at the end and know you can divide by 5 to get 365, and divide that by 5 to get 73. When you get to 73 though, what do you divide by? That's tougher - a problem called factorization really that is key to a lot of advanced math. At a basic level it might be easiest to look up 73 (number), which says it is a prime number, which means you can't divide it by anything else. Otherwise you probably just have to try dividing by 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 (i.e. prime numbers) until they see 11*11 is more than 73. This is not that hard for a small number but with a big one it gets to be really tough.
On the bottom, you can easily divide 100000 / 25 = 4000 for a reduced fraction of 73/4000. Wnt (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The extended Euclidean algorithm gives a sequence () of rational approximations to any real ratio; if the true ratio is rational, it terminates with that rational, in lowest terms. (To use it you don't need to know the prime factors.) —Tamfang (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

What is a Zwicky Search?[edit]

In reading Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love I came across the term "Zwicky Search which the author has the hero mention in the context of discusssions of genetics and interstellar travel. I assume therefore this has something to do with the astronomer Fritz Zwicky, who discovered neutron stars and (the evidence for) dark matter. Heinlein does not explain what is meant by the term. Can anyone elucidate? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a possibility, but he proposed the existence of gravitational lenses, which have since been confirmed, and you could use one of those, say with a black hole (not currently consuming matter) as the lens, with a spaceship that moves around it to change the focus, as a "super telescope" to see distant objects more clearly than with any other telescope. See Fritz_Zwicky#Gravitational_lenses. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
See Morphological box. -- ToE 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Morphological box is it. I'd never have figured that one out. I am also surprised that I have never heard of Fritz Zwicky before searching for this term. The last time I read Time Enough for Love, Wikipedia did not exist. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


October 15[edit]

Hillary Clinton and the Merrick Garland supreme court nomination[edit]

Has Hillary Clinton expressed any plans or views as the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme court? Has she said whether, if she wins the Presidency, she intends to stick with the nomination? Surely some media interviewer would have asked her the question at some stage, given that the issue will inevitably end up in her presidency's lap (barring an unlikely Trump victory, or the almost equally unlikely event of congress actually acting on Obama's nomination of Garland)?

If she's been silent or noncommittal on the issue, have any analysts of note expressed any opinions as to whether she will once again nominate Garland, or will she nominate someone else? And if the answer is the latter, whom do they think are the most likely candidates? (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The speculation in the press (I heard an NPR discussion to this effect) has been that Obama nominated him because he is somewhat moderate, and in this way he hoped to get a hearing. Hillary, on the other hand, could elect somebody more liberal, with the confidence that Republicans, even if they still have a majority, won't block a nominee for another 4 or perhaps 8 years. Republicans might see this coming if Hillary wins, and quickly approve Garland before Hillary gets in. However, if they don't do this and do refuse to consider any Hillary nominee, we could have a Constitutional crisis, where neither party will consider a nominee from the other party, so that no Supreme Court judges can be replaced until Congress and the President are of the same party. I suppose the Court could continue to function until it drops to 1 justice, but not with 0 (however, it seems to function better with an odd number of Justices, as then there can't be any ties). StuRat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Title 28 of the United States Code, a quorum of 6 is required for the US Supreme Court to hear a case. -- ToE 17:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I wonder if Congress and the President would strike that down, in the event that they couldn't agree on replacements. Or you could have the bizarre situation where it is struck down by the Supreme court as unconstitutional, if it has the effect of dissolving the Court. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Has the constitutionality of the quorum position ever been seriously tested? As a co-equal branch of government, I have had the impression that the Supreme Court took a dim view of the other branches telling them how to conduct their business. Dragons flight (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Mike Lee explains why the GOP will block Garland even if Clinton wins WaPo, 13 Oct. 2016
Clinton has carefully avoided committing to renominate Garland, and it seems likely that she would appoint someone who is younger and has a more progressive track record. Indeed, many activists on the left would go apoplectic if she stuck with the chief judge from the D.C. Circuit. There is a widespread feeling on the left that Obama squandered a big political opportunity by going with someone who he thought could get confirmed in the lame-duck session.
Not mentioned in that article is that the Republicans might be more inclined to approve Garland if the Democrats also win control of the Senate, as now seems somewhat more likely than not. Here is FiveThirtyEight's senate control forecast. -- ToE 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the nomination survive into the new presidency?[edit]

The bit of the Constitution where it talks about nominating Supreme Court justices says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" them. Is it obvious whether or not a nomination by one president can lead to an appointment by another? I don't think it's obvious. Assume that nothing happens until after the elections; is the new Senate required to vote on Garland's nomination before the new president can consider nominating someone else? If so, could they accept Garland at that time even if the new president would rather cancel the nomination? Is there any sort of case law on this point? (The same wording applies several other offices besides the Supreme Court; perhaps there has been a case regarding those other offices.) -- (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See What happens to Merrick Garland’s nomination in December?.WaPo, 6 Oct. 2016 The nomination will expire when congress adjourns -- likely in December, but necessarily before noon on 3 January. President Obama could then renominate Judge Garland sometime before he leaves office on 20 January, and this nomination would survive into the next presidency, though the next president could withdraw the nomination. -- ToE 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that covers everything except the question of whether there's case law. -- (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect U.S. courts would regard the internal procedures of the Senate as a political question not reviewable by the courts. Congress's procedures for conducting its own business aren't laws. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States ruled that the judicial branch has no power to review impeachments. (Note that case didn't involve Richard Nixon, but a completely different person who happened to have the same last name.) You are correct in observing that the Constitution is silent on the exact mechanics of a nomination, which is really why things are in the situation they are in. Technically there ain't no law that says the Senate must hear a Supreme Court nomination, so the Senate Republicans are pushing at the limits of precedent to placate their far-right base that thinks Obama is an evil dictator. This is the kind of thing that leads to constitutional crises. -- (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archibald Forbes decorations[edit]

Archibald Forbes

Can anyone identify the decorations worn by Archibald Forbes, the war correspondent, in this picture of him? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Top row is allegedly Order of St. Stanislas from Russia; the Iron Cross 2nd Class for Non-Combatants; the civil class of the Pour Le Mérite; and the French Legion of Honor. [25] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
And others have walked this way before: Archibald Forbes: Medal ID Exercise and this article. With some judgement, that might account for 12 or so of them. It would be interesting to complete the matrix on this page ... and I note that the forum age seems to disagree with the cigarette card page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah thank you, will have a close read of those and see if I can sort them out. DuncanHill (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of this kind of fallacy?[edit]

What is the name of the fallacy type that works like this:
Thing A has characteristic B
PS: More than one stuff stuff can share same word/name, and so some words can have multiple meanings. B is one example of that and the definition used for B was C.
Thing D apply to everything that has characteristic B.
PS:Now, the definition of B on this new case is E.
So D must apply to A. (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Equivocation is the technical term. The example from our article is:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Your question is a bit hard to parse for me. The general scheme is sound - indeed, the classical example for this syllogism is "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal". Do you want to suggest that the "B" is different in both cases? As in "All stars are giant balls of hydrogen. Patrick Steward is a star. Therefore Patrick Steward is a giant ball of hydrogen"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tevildo , Equivocation is the one. Yes your patrick exemple would be one example of what I was thinking. (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we miss out the B term and go straight from C to E, we get the quaternio terminorum fallacy - to adapt an example from above:
Hitler was a National Socialist.
Socialists are left-wing.
Hitler was left-wing.
The conclusion may (or may not) be true, but the logic is invalid. Tevildo (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That particular case would also be caused by an underlying etymological fallacy which leads to the equivocation which leads to the quaternio terminorum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The one I remember was "Nothing is better than everlasting love. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than everlasting love". (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Joint dormitories for men and women in army[edit]

Not long ago I heard that a certain army, possibly the Belgian Armed Forces, once faced issues of sexual harassment of female soldiers and decided to resolve them by increasing the social interaction between males and females, particularly by creating joint dormitories, and that it worked. I'd like to check this claim and see how specifically it was implemented but I couldn't find any reference in Google. Has anyone here ever heard of it? Thanks, (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you're thinking of the Belgian Armed Forces? I don't know if the Belgian Armed Forces have mixed/unisex dormitories but the Norwegian Armed Forces or at least the Norwegian Army seem well known for it including the finding it appeared to reduce sexual assaults & harassment, and also increase unit cohesiveness. [26] [27] [28] [29]. [30] is an English report of the study. See also [31] [32] [33] [34]. BTW the first four links were found with a search for 'armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' after 'Belgian armed forces reducing sexual harassment dormitory' didn't find anything useful under the assumption that the country involved is something easy to misremember & perhaps the most likely thing of the details that you mentioned. In retrospect 'belgian armed forces unisex dormitory' or 'belgian armed forces mixed dormitory' both work. In fact even '"belgian" armed forces unisex dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces mixed dormitory' find stuff about Norway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
BTW 'belgian armed forces joint dormitory' and '"belgian" armed forces joint dormitory' don't work, although 'norwegian armed forces joint dormitory' does. If you try searching for 'joint dormitory' or '"joint dormitory"', you'll find it's not a very common term in English for what you're referring to. Also I probably should link to [35] and [36]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Mary Parades[edit]

How do people call the parade platform and statute of Virgin Mary? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The "statute" is just a statue. The platform could be called a type of litter, though "litter" normally means it carries a person rather than a statue. An Italian word is it:fercolo, which is specifically a platform for a saint's statue in a procession, but may be carried by people, animal, cart, or motor vehicle. More ornate ones are called it:cereo. jnestorius(talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, see Wiktionary:litter, definition number 1: "A platform mounted on two shafts, or a more elaborate construction, designed to be carried by two (or more) people to transport one (in luxury models sometimes more) third person(s) or (occasionally in the elaborate version) a cargo, such as a religious idol." Catholics would be offended by "idol" and may prefer "image" or "icon" although the latter is usually applied to paintings in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Our Aniconism in Christianity article has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia coverage of this type of event is a bit slim, we have Marian devotions#Processions, which only mentions one example in Los Angeles. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
jnestorius(talk) 12:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added "see also|Procession#Christian processions" to the Marian devotions article. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised the cult statue article doesn't mention processions with litters, nor have a section on the ancient Near East, where such processions were a standard part of religious life and features of major festivals like the Akitu. (See, for example, this Assyrian relief.) Ushumgal (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

Popish Plot[edit]

Line 4: Church in England read: Church of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The church Henry VIII took over was the (Roman Catholic) Church in England. By doing so he turned it into the (non- RC) Church of England. Before the reformation it was accepted that there was a single church in communion with Rome, and that more local structures were that single church IN a particular country. Wymspen (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the article is Popish Plot. I concur with User:Wymspen - perhaps there is scope for an article Pre-Reformation Church in England, but that will have to wait for a rainy day (well, even rainier than today!). PS: I've already found a source: The Pre-Reformation Church in England 1400-1530 by Christopher Harper-Bill (1989). Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

North Korea.[edit]

I have a question. Why has North Korea been deemed such a threat/problem for regional stability in East Asia? --Poing-PoBongino (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please start by reading North Korea–South Korea relations and Japan–North Korea relations. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The two Koreas are still technically at war, as a peace treaty has never been signed, only an armistice that halted the fighting. Beyond that, see Korean conflict. North Korea has one of the world's largest militaries, regularly threatens to restart the fighting and engages in various provocations, is trying to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them, and since the end of the Cold War and thus food aid from the Soviet Union and other friendly countries has been unable to adequately feed its population. Many commentators consider North Korea a near-failed state; when Kim Jong-un succeeded to the leadership there was some speculation about a collapse of the government or civil war, as some felt Jong-un would be inexperienced and unable to maintain effective control over the military, but it turns out he may actually be more ruthless than his father in eliminating perceived disloyalty. -- (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens is also interesting. Although it happened decades ago, they still deny most of the kidnappings ever occurred. The axe murder incident is another reason they are considered a rogue nation. But, to take the big picture, their continued threats against South Korea and Japan may ultimately make each nation feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from NK nukes, causing a new round of nuclear proliferation. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Short answer: because it's Kim-possible to predict what they'll do next or what boundary they'll cross. They're like the Donald Trump of nations. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Their current god-emperor is the third of a dynasty of sociopathic nutcases. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Malcolm Lowry eating Harriet Lane[edit]

WHile researching James Johnston Abraham, the author of a book I've just acquired, I ran across the following quotation from the Malcolm Lowry novel Ultramarine "Now I was telling you about this hungry ship. We were carrying a cargo of Crosse and bloody Blackwell's plum puddings and tinned chickens and all sorts out East for the Christmas season. Ruddy murder it was to think of all that food under the hatches and us poor twats forward eating Harriet Lane all the time. What did he mean by "eating Harriet Lane"? DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This post from the Gutted Arcades of the Past blog explains it:

"Harriet Lane" refers to sailors calling canned meat by that name after a famous murder in 1874. Henry Wainwright was a brushmaker who murdered his mistress Harriet Lane in September 1874 and buried her body in a warehouse he owned. When he was declared bankrupt the next year, he disinterred the body in September 1875 and attempted to rebury it with his brother Thomas and another brushmaker, Alfred Stokes. Stokes was suspicious of the contents of the parcels he had been given to carry, and opened one, revealing human body parts, which he immediately reported to police. The crime was given more publicity at the time than those of Jack the Ripper. Henry Wainwright was sentenced to death and hanged on 21 December 1875.

Might be worth mentioning the Harriet Lane-canned meat connection at the Henry Wainwright article. There is a shanty about Harriet Lane at and an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang here --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Splendid work, many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Rebury it where? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Royal Navy slang often repurposed the names of famous murder victims to describe unpalatable food - Fanny Adams is the most famous example, but there's also the generic Jane Shore (rhyming slang for "whore"). Smurrayinchester 12:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It occurs to me, based on the initials, that perhaps the language is also suggestive of Hellish Leftovers. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dark magic in kabalah[edit]

Can any dark magic be found in kabalah?AndrewAngel1024 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on your definitions of dark magic and Kabbalah, as well as which authors you consult. Concerning just the latter two issues, do you mean just Jewish Kabbalah, or are you including Hermetic Qabalah? If you're including Hermetic Qabalah, are you restricting yourself to just its adherents who also identified as members of Abrahamic religions, or are you including Theosophists, Neopagans, Thelemites, and Chaos Magicians?
Someone like Isaac Luria might deny that real Kabbalah has practical magic (and that any practical magic is not truly Kabbalistic). Someone like Samael Aun Weor or Helena Blavatsky might say that true Kabbalah can only lead to some kind of white magic that brings enlightenment and maybe some sort of parapsychological benefits but not any sort of practical rituals. Someone like Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Aleister Crowley, or Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers might say it depends on how you use it or that it's unrelated but still necessary for understanding practical ritual magic. Someone like Malaclypse the Younger might instruct you to find the answer by dancing like a turkey. Someone like Thomas Karlsson, Andrew D. Chumbley, or Michael Howard might say that if you're not using Kabbalah for black magic, you're not doing it right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't provide a source, but as a jew, I've heard that in Jewish kaballah, there is a concept of "practical kaballah" - calling upon the angels to do your will, or using certain holy divine names to make things happen. An actual example, according to the authorities, is Moses killing the Egyptian who was beating the Jewish slave - according to some, he uttered the holy name of god, and the Egyptian dropped dead. However, Jewish teaching is that to actually make use of "practical kaballah" is to play with fire, and those who do such things have bad things happen to them, such as their children going astray from Judaism (or other horrible things perhaps). Generally, assuming you have these skills, it's something you just don't do if you know what's good for you. Also note, that according to Jewish teaching, most people should be extremely cautious about studying kaballah at all - many who do so die at a young age. Notable examples from different eras would be Isaac Luria (The "Arizal" - died aged 38), Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (the "Ramchal" - died aged 39) and, in recent times, Aryeh Kaplan (died aged 48). None, to my knowledge, dabbled in "practical kaballah". They stuck to teaching how to get close to god, and how god runs the world. They never tried to manipulate god or the angels. But nevertheless, all were noted kaballists (and the first two were extremely holy people, according to Jewish teaching), and all died relatively young. So basically, if you want a long life, stay away. To study this stuff is to enter the presence of the king (i.e. god) himself, so to speak, and judgement of those who do so can be harsh. The ONE famous exception in Jewish teaching was Rabbi Akiva - Jewish tradition is that he entered the most sacred realms, and was alone in being allowed to leave unscathed. Others who tried his path in his time either died, went mad, or abandoned Judaism. (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why's Australia much less conservative than America?[edit]

Australia: "No American republican would stand a chance in any other developed country except maybe a moderate republican in maybe Australia. Maybe. But I doubt it." - (Ashley John Land)

US: 43% of Americans tell pollsters they'll vote for Trump. He's winning most non-coastal states. [37]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

See Conservatism in Australia. In Australia, the conservative movement has historically been dominated by liberals (in the European small-government, free-market sense) which meant that there was less room for social conservatism. That's changed a bit recently, as Australian politics has adopted more European/American ideas - the left has shifted to a pro-market Third Way position, which has meant that the liberals had to take a more conservative standpoint to differentiate themselves - and, as it came to rely on fossil fuel and mineral exports, under John Howard the government took a very US-Republican attitude to environmental issues. Smurrayinchester 3:55 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Not sure about your reference to Europe: the Conservative Party (UK) has been pretty small-l liberal in recent years, in terms of concrete policy positions in many ways it's significant further left compared to the Liberal Party in Australia. I'm not sure there is any major Western European country where the conservative party is as far on the spectrum as the US Republican Party. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I more was talking about the Australian left picking up Clinton/Blair-style social democracy, which then necessitated a corresponding shift from the Liberals. Nevertheless, most European countries have a socially-conservative, anti-liberalism Christian Democrat-type movement which fuses moral conservatism with social democracy (including the British Conservatives pre-Thatcher - see One-nation conservatism - and even when Thatcher came along, she didn't really change the back-to-basics morality). The British Tories remained old-fashioned (and increasingly out of touch) on social issues through the leadership of Hague and IDS, started to modernize under Michael Howard, but only really became liberal on social issues under Cameron post-2005, which is after John Howard lost power in Australia. There's never been an a major analogous movement in Australia - see Christian democracy#Australia - but under John Howard the Liberal/National alliance did start to become Thatcherite (as our article notes, John Howard is the first Australian PM to call himself "conservative" instead of "liberal"). Of course European and American conservatives aren't the same, but that there is a common thread of social conservatism that was less significant in traditional (pre-90s) Australian conservatism. Smurrayinchester 10:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
(Also, it may be more pertinent might be to ask why America is so much more conservative (or at least, why American conservatives are further right) than other European and Commonwealth countries, which America's political system is otherwise quite similar to. As Conservatism in the United States says, US politics actually followed a similar trajectory to Australia, but social conservatives did a better job of taking control of the formerly classical-liberal party. Maybe it helped that the US has a stricter separation of powers than Australia, and between 1980 and 2000, the two main branches of government were almost always opposed (Democratic House of Representatives until 1994, then a Republican House but Republican Presidents until 1992, then a Dem President), which created the governmental deadlocks that allowed culture war to thrive. In Australia, the PM always controls the House, so political polarization matters less.) Smurrayinchester 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
[Banned user's contribution deleted]
A conservative paper supporting Brexit suggests the Tories have moved further to the right? How does that compute? Does the fact that the Lib Dems were the strongest Remain supporters suggest they are now further left than Labour? By all accounts there were more Brexit supporters amongst Tory voters than amongst Labour voters, and given that a majority of the country ended up voting for Leave, it should not have been surprising that the Telegraph endorsed "Leave". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
For about the 25,926th time, a majority of the country did not vote for Leave. 37% of the electorate voted for Leave, 35% voted for Remain, and 28% did not vote at all. Those figures should be engraved on every Brit's heart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
An optional voting system gives you the option to abstain, and those who abstain, like the insane except voluntarily, don't count as part of the body politic for the purpose of counting this vote. 52% of the body politic voted for Leave. This is the same in every British election or referendum, it seems to me that your beef should be with the optional voting system rather than anything to do with this particular referendum, so I'm not sure why 35% is any more worthy of engraving on body parts than 48%. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
My boeuf was the fact that you claimed that "a majority of the country ended up voting for Leave", which is untrue - unless you regard people who didn't vote, children, etc., as not "of the country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
One must also factor in that the "Bible Belt" phenomenon is uniquely American. No other country has a significant population of gun-toting bible bashers. The types of hot button political issues for this sector of American society such as gun rights, opposition to abortion, creationism, etc. barely feature in the political agendas of any other western democracies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a good point, although it's interesting that until the 70s, this community wasn't all that influential in the political mainstream (they were just another brick in the New Deal Coalition). But when the Democrats went desegregation, the Republicans swept in with the Southern strategy to pick up the alienated white working-class Southerners, and Moral Majority picked up from there. Smurrayinchester 11:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
My sense is that it wasn't until the US started to experience its now-regular mass shootings that the gun lobby became so powerful. After people began to argue for much more stringent gun control in order to limit the possibility of more shootings, the gun lobby argued that defence of life and limb in the face of the shootings was exactly why ever more guns were needed. While ever one side sees the ready availability of guns as the cause of the problem and the other side sees it as the solution, there will be no resolution. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australians by-and-large willingly agreed to surrender their guns for destruction. Twenty years on, there has been no repeat of such an event here. Otoh, Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year tells a radically different story. Just 2016 alone in the USA has had more mass shootings than Australia has had in its entire history. Whether this difference in approach/outcome can be characterised by different levels of conservatism in our respective countries is an open question, but it must play some role. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I wonder what role geography plays. Those on the coasts (primarily the US East and West coasts, not as much the Gulf coast) had constant exposure to new immigrants, and their ideas, so the more recent liberal ideas may have made more inroads there than far from the coasts, as in Iowa, which kept to the old ways. Comparing with Australia, isn't it true that the Outback has a low population, and thus little influence on the politics of the nation ? The US interior, on the other hand, has a larger population, and even more political power than their numbers would indicate, because every state gets 2 Senators, regardless of population. And Australia, being an island, has coasts on all sides. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that all US immigrants come from the sea via the coasts and none of the come from the Canadian or Mexican land borders? Wasn't this question partially relating to Trump? Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
All, no. Most, yes. And the more liberal immigrants tend to come from Europe, not so much from South of the US (Hispanics tend to vote Democratic not because they are liberal, but because Republicans like Trump make them feel most unwelcome in that party). Canada does tend to be more liberal than the US, but the immigration from Canada is fairly small, and it might tend to favor conservatives, as liberal Canadians should be happy to stay put. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
About Hispanics not being liberal. I didn't see evidence of conservative values in the people I went to school with (mostly Hispanic). In church sure, one likely wouldn't go to Catholic Mass every Sunday if one was liberal right? Is there a regional difference in this? There's probably also a generational difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You're missing my point. You've implied that Australian being all coastal somehow makes immigration easier or more likely which flies in the face of many immigrants come from the land borders, especially in recent times, in the US. (In modern times many immigrants who aren't coming by land don't come by sea, they come by plane.) Further, you've muddied your point even more by now bringing up politics. How many European immigrants are going to be coming by boat to the West Coast of the US? Speaking of Australia although coastal a lot of it is actually not very close to any land where immigrants are likely to come from. While I'm not an expert on the sea currents and ocean voyages, I'm pretty sure I'd be easier for immigrants to make it to the northern part of Western Australia or the Northern Territory or Northern Queesland or in some cases even Perth, then it would be to make it to Melbourne or in some cases even Sydney. However the later 2 are where they tend to go. Of course the White Australia policy was only completely dismantled by 1973, by which time it's likely most were arriving by plane rather than sea. In a place like Australia with limited transport over land, travelling to Melbourne or Sydney by boat is generally easier than over land, but still talking about "Australia being all coastal" but the US isn't "all coastal" but instead has land borders is clearly excessively simplistics. The differences between population distributions could be a factor but there are many reasons for this and putting it down to Australia being all coastal is again too simplistic. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The Asiatic Barred Zone of 1917-1952
The US had a similar policy from the early 1920s to 1965. A series of laws were passed with names like the Emergency Quota Act. They set low annual immigrant quotas which were very low for non-white countries. A correlation with settling in or near port cities and Mexico continued even after the disappearance of oceanliners. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There are conservative values that go along with being Catholic, like opposition to Roe v. Wade. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Even my mother's very devout 70 year old Polish Catholic friend didn't say did you vote, she said did you vote for Kerry like it was a no brainer. She was the kind of person who thought morals had gone so bad that Revelation might happen within decades and hopes God will make the world like the old days before electricity. She told us if she had Bill Gates' wealth she'd use nearly all of it to build a cathedral 2 or 3 times as tall as the Twin Towers (so 1/2 to one mile tall and long basically) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As for your first point, sure and that re-enforces the view that making a big deal over the coastline is confusing. As for the second point, yes there are reasons why this can occur but it's complicated, e.g. Dallas isn't a coastal city [38]. (This is even clearer if you look at other countries. E.g. London isn't coastal.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. In retrospect Lyon or even Paris is probably a better example than London. I'm sure you can come up with even more inland examples though. Of course the geography, nature of transportation in Europe, freedom of movement, etc means as we've seen a lot in recent times that immigration over the land borders was and remains a decent prospect for France or much of continential Europe. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I was in a bit of a rush when writing the above so I should clarify I was of course primarily thinking about immigrants from Asia, although I expect immigrants from Europe are likely to find the listed places easier to get to too if going by sea. Immigrants from North America may not find Sydney too bad although I expect North Queensland is still better. NZ is one of the few places from which immigrants by sea may find the coasts of Melbourne or Sydney a good target, but even if the entirety of NZ's population migrates to Australia it would only increase the Australian population by 20%. A big amount for sure, but this does indicate there are ultimate limits to migration from NZ. Also I should mention that despite the increaing migration from Asia and the weird view of those opposed to migration, the UK and NZ are still the biggest source for the resident population born overseas (Immigration to Australia#Country of birth of Australian residents). Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The part of the coastalness that matters is presumably whether passenger ships let you get off there and whether they're one of the bigger cities in the industrialized portion of the continent after passenger ships get replaced by airplanes. People often want to go big for some reason. Los Angeles is a popular destination even though San Diego's in the way and close enough to walk in one day (before they built fences everywhere). Many Puerto Ricans weren't content to fly to the closer Miami but settled in the largest city in America instead. I've heard of someone South American immigrating by flying to Miami then sitting on a bus for over 2,000 kilometers just to get New York (though the bus was pointless as the extra food equaled the fare saved). Dallas is the biggest US city without a port by metro population (#7). It's the biggest city by metro pop in Texas which has a border with Mexico so if there's a lot of immigrants there that's not a surprise. Immigrants will be less and less correlated to port metro areas and border zones as time goes by. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Immigration patterns suffer from a social form of the founder effect. There isn't always a logical reason for a particular group to settle, in a concentrated way, in one area excepting that there were a few pioneers from that particular group that settled there. Some settlement patterns make total sense (Latin Americans in New Mexico and California and Texas, French Canadians in New England) because of proximity effects. However, if you have to cross an ocean to get somewhere, there isn't any inherent rational reason why one city or area of a country is better than another excepting "they have jobs" and/or "there are people nearby who are like me", which is the biggest such factor. Consider places like Dearborn, Michigan (Middle Eastern), Lowell, Massachusetts (Cambodian), Morrisville, North Carolina (South Asian). There's nothing particular about, say, Lowell that would indicate it to be a likely locale for the Cambodian diaspora; and yet outside of Cambodia, there are more Cambodians in Lowell than any city in America except Long Beach, CA, which is a much larger city in a much larger coastal port town. Why Lowell? Because some refugees showed up in the 1970s, probably rather randomly, and then more followed. That's about it. It isn't a port town, it isn't on the West Coast, it isn't otherwise a major city for immigrants in general. --Jayron32 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
We can be more specific than "Middle Eastern" when describing the population of Dearborn. It's largely Arabs Americans: Dearborn,_Michigan#Arab_Americans. Not many Israelis there, for instance. They live in other Detroit suburbs. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
(StuRat beat me to it) The states on the Mexican border are indeed turning Democratic. California hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since the Cold War, New Mexico hasn't gone Republican since 2004, Arizona could go Democratic for the first time in a while this year and Texas probably has too many conservatives for newcomners to dilute them quickly enough for the Democrat to win by 2016. 27.5 million people live in Texas and only 18% of white Texans voted Obama last time. They'll be a swing state by an Olympiad or three.
Most of the states bordering Canada are liberal but many would still be liberal without Canadians and most are coastal anyway (many immigrants got off the boat on the western tip of the Great Lakes). Canadian immigration is not a big factor. Only 2% of foreign born residents are Canadian and only 1% of Americans claim Canadian descent or birth. The interior states bordering Canada are cold like the other side, have pretty Rockies like the other side, are less rich than Alberta, have oil like Alberta, have prairies and farms like Saskatchewan, have rural life like the other side, have rivers and lakes like Manitoba, play similar sports .. there's not much the interior border states have that Canada doesn't besides.. Republican-strength conservatives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The Canadian emigres include the good, the bad and the ugly. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Another element is the migration of British industrial workers to Australia, who brought their values with them. "Trade unionism began to take root in this country [Australia] in the 1850’s following the abolition of convict transportation. Tradesmen and mechanics coming from Britain established craft unions in the building and engineering trades.... From 1860 to 1890 the young unions displayed great militancy and won many concessions from the employers. Seamen, waterside workers and other sections formed unions. Up to 1890 conditions favoured the unions; capitalism was expanding and it was cheaper for employers to grant concessions rather than face lengthy stoppages". This quote is admittedly from the Marxist Internet Archive but seems to hit the nail on the head. Mass British working-class migration continued into the 1970s, see Ten Pound Poms. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Menzies Dickson[edit]

I am trying to corroborate Menzies Dickson obituary which said he served in the navy during the American Civil War but after searching the list of enlistment of men from Massachusetts who served in the Union Navy I can't find his name. He also lived in Cincinnati but I don't think he was there until after the war. Can someone help to find more sources speaking about this individual? Also a possible obituary for him in Massachusetts or New England newspapers?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Google says he was an acting Master's mate [39]. Nanonic (talk) 2:47 pm, Today (UTC+8)

October 18[edit]

Why there is no article about Antisemitism or racism in Iran?[edit]

I wonder why there is no separate article about Antisemitism in Iran. Antisemitism in Iran is actually a redirect to Antisemitism#Iran. And Racism in Iran is again a redirect to Racism_in_Asia#Iran. Is there something wrong here? (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

These are not long enough for separate articles, so it's more appropriate to include them in something of more suitable length. IBE (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As for why there isn't much info about antisemitism in Iran, that's probably due to the lack of a free press there, so any reporter or citizen talking about that might end up in prison. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Name of the weapon[edit]

Fronton Cambodge Musée Guimet 9972.jpg

What is this weapon held by two figures flanking the woman? Looks like some sort of club, rather than bladed. A vajra? --Brandmeistertalk 08:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The story - Tilottama - just says clubs. Wymspen (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
J. A. B. van Buitenen uses "horrible clubs" in his translation of the Mahabharata. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If anyone finds a specific name for it might be worth adding to this list Club (weapon)#Types. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
One that's missing on that list is the gada, but most depictions of gadas show a weapon with a more bulbous head compared to the shaft we see in Brandmeister's example, even in the example of this sculpture (see Kaumodaki). Then again, maybe the gada doesn't belong on that list as it's also considered a mace, and it does feature in our article on mace along with the shishpar. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be similar to a Japanese Kanabō, but no luck finding an Indian equivalent. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
But I have just found in this forum an Indian octagonal-section iron mace called a sonta. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Parable or story referring to a red harness on a white horse, or something similar?[edit]

I'm trying to think of a saying or parable or quote I read years ago, to the effect of "(something) is as unfitting to (someone) as ..." and the closest I can remember it is, something like " a red bridle on a white horse" or something like that.

I think it could be a well known quote. Any hints? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is "Poverty befits Israel like a red trapping a white horse" in this translation of the Hagigah (and other translations do use "bridle")---Sluzzelin talk 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A red bridle on a white horse sounds quite striking, to me. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Climate in the Upper Midwest (USA), agriculture, arable lands, opportunities etc. around year 1900[edit]

I'm doing a school assignment, writing about this here fictional Norwegian immigrating to USA. For obvious reasons, it is only natural that I place the story in Minnesota or surrounding states (Wisconsin, the Dakotas or Iowa), as that is mainly where Norwegian immigrants settled.

There was a lot of poverty in Norway back in the late 1800s / early 1900s, and agriculture was always hard in such a Northern climate, with lots of mountainous regions, not to mention the lack of agricultural technology that we have today. With Norway being a winter-nation, the search for arable lands was one of the main things that lured Norwegians across the Atlantic.

So I wonder about Minnesota and nearby states around year 1900. It seems to me that the climate in Minnesota ain't that different from Norwegian climate, with proper winters and all, which begs the question; how was agriculture in the Upper Midwest back then?? Were the lands truly arable? What work-opportunities did people have to sustain themselves? I reckon the worst of the Gold Rush was over by then, right. I'm not asking for answers for free, because I will need to find sources to confirm my findings anyhow.

I'm looking for articles that might be helpful to me. If you have information/knowledge to add beyond that, then that's a bonus, and might be helpful

Krikkert7 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian diaspora has scant detail, but Swedish emigration to the United States has lots of relevant links to what they got up to in the New World, and a lot of that would roughly apply to Norwegians as well. History_of_Minnesota#Early_European_settlement_and_development has some info. Here [40] is what looks like a very nice and detailed description of Euro-American farms in MN in that time period. This [41] looks to be a great resource on Norwegian immigration in that time/place too. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) While some parts of Minnesota are similar to Norway (e.g. the Mesabi Range), there is also lots of land suitable for farming in the state, and it was opened up to settlement just as Scandinavians began to emigrate in large numbers. Here's an interesting study on the history of agriculture in the state [42]. You may also want to look at Vilhelm Moberg's classic novel The Emigrants, which explains the lure of the Midwest for poor Swedish farmers in the mid-19th century: it was a veritable land of milk of honey compared to what they were leaving behind. Look also at Swedish emigration to the United States (remembering that Norway was apart of Sweden at the time). --Xuxl (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Norway was a part of Sweden. Today it is apart of Sweden. Isn't the English Language fun! --Jayron32 15:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Norway was in a union with Sweden, but was a separate country. Moberg would still be useful. --Hegvald (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And if reading Moberg's books is too hard, you could watch the two movies. Deor (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That gives me lots to work with. Krikkert7 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of people killed at auschwitz[edit]

Accord to the article on Auschwitz, the number of people that died at Auschwitz was 1.1 million people. I thought the death toll was 4 million. (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source or reference for that 4 million figure? Wikipedia's article is cited to these works for the 1.1 million number:
  • Rees, Laurence (2005). Auschwitz: A New History. New York: Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-303-X.
  • Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.
If you have a source for the 4 million number, perhaps we could understand what the difference is. --Jayron32 16:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It was in Final Solution:Attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe. (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And was it specifically about Auschwitz, which was only one of many killing centres? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it was about the holocaust in general. (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the page number from the top of my head. (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think it was page 500162.246.17.125 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This book? Maybe you just misremembered the number... --Jayron32 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's the book. (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

According to The review on this page here, "Reitlinger describes the extermination of Jews in great detail, arriving at a probable range of 4.2 to 5.7 million murdered Jews (p. 501)" That's total across the entirety of Europe, not merely just at Auschwitz. Your confusion seems to be total genocide vs. those killed at just one complex. Also please note that Reitlinger's book is 55 years old; his numbers are in range of the current accepted scholarship, but a bit lower, which gives about 6 million Jewish people killed among 11 million total deaths in The Holocaust. --Jayron32 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no confusion. The plaque at Auschwitz said 4 million until 1992; the number was inflated to suggest that non-Jewish Poles were the primary victims. [43] --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
An identical question was posted on 27 June 2016, possibly by the same person. The answer then (as now) was: "On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz, a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million people were murdered there. This number was displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was lowered to 1.1 million. The total death toll for Jews in the Holocaust, however, stayed at about six million". [44] Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Our article on the author of the book, Gerald Reitlinger, covers this perfectly:

During the 1950s he wrote two books about the Holocaust: The SS: Alibi of a Nation and The Final Solution, both of which achieved large sales. In the latter book, he alleged that Soviet claims of the Auschwitz death toll being 4 million were "ridiculous", and he suggested an alternative figure of 800,000 to 900,000 dead; about 4.2 to 4.5 million was his estimate for the total number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.[3] Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account".[4]

Happy to help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unease due to lack of mountains[edit]

The above question about Scandinavians immigrating to farms in the USA reminded me of a claim I've read about numerous times: people in this group had high incidence of mental illness, which was supposed to be related to seeing expansive land in all directions, i.e. a relatively distant and unbroken horizon, compared to the mountainous views of their homeland. I thought they called it something like "missing mountain sickness", but I've been unable to find much of anything about it today.

The question: What is this phenomenon called? Note I am not at present interested in the veracity of the claim, only in verification that the claim was made, and possibly getting some names for it. Thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it not just an instance of home-sickness? It's not so much the absence of mountains acting like kryptonite, as it is distress at the absence of the once-familiar and an inability to reconcile themselves to their current environment - two things that would seem to be hallmarks of that condition?
Agoraphobia is used for a number of different phobias, sometimes cited as "fear of crowds" but also for "fear of wide-open spaces". --Jayron32 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Mmm, that's interesting. I dimly recall something I listened to on Radio 4 a while back, about iirc Erving Goffman doing post-doc research on a hebredian island, and working out that the population was anxious because there was no tree cover, which meant that they were all observable by others from long distances away ... it was commonplace for the inhabitants to carry pocket telescopes so that they could periodically check whether anyone was approaching their crofts. Our article suggests that would be found in Communication Conduct in an Island Community (1953) - Erving Goffman#Early works --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, I recall a phrase specific for this instance, not a general term applied to a case. This blog [45] calls it "horizon sickness", but apparently nobody else does, or it's too swamped with motion sickness, much like mountain sickness is swamped with altitude sickness. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I apparently only had to ask and wait a bit before it hit me: "prairie madness" is the term I'd read about before, and yes, it is related to home sickness and agorophobia. Other accounts focus on the mountain/flat distinction more than our article. Perhaps User:Krikkert7 will find that of interest as well. Still interested in other terms for this if anyone happens to find one. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the scene in Fargo, where Steve Buscemi's character buries the ransom money along the road, at a fence, then looks around, and everything seems identical as far as the eye can see, in both directions. So, the point is that a lack of landmarks could be disorienting for some. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Joan of Arc was not French. Lenin was not Russian.[edit]

QI#Culture has this line: "Joan of Arc was not French. Lenin was not Russian." I'm confused. The Joan of Arc article says she was born in the "French part of the duchy of Bar", which makes her French. The Lenin article says he was born in the Russian Empire, to two parents who were both born in the Russian Empire as well.

What am I missing here? Pizza Margherita (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. nationality, in Lenin's case; some argue he had no Russian blood in him at all. The duchy of Bar was in Lorraine, which didn't join France until 1776. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Duchy of Bar says that "From 1480, it was united to the imperial Duchy of Lorraine.", and Joan of Arc was born in 1412, so what you said about Lorraine doesn't really apply here. Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Why not be pissy with people trying to answer your question. That always helps. JPGs point was clear - that Lorraine was not part of France at the time of her birth. Lorraine joined France, afaik, after a) it was united with Bar and b) Bar integrated itself with France. If you have sufficient time to mine for quotes in the Bar article you have time to mine Lorraine for " In 962, when Otto the Great restored the Empire (restauratio imperii), Lorraine became the autonomous Duchy of Lorraine within the Holy Roman Empire until 1766, after which it became annexed under succession law to France, via derivative aristocratic house alliances" ... which amounts to nothing more than JPG expailined. The Reference Desks are not a punch-bag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Restauratio Imperii - great name for a burger joint. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you not understand what I wrote or what? Joan of Arc was born in 1412 in Bar. She was not born in Lorraine. In 1412, Bar and Lorraine were completely different places. If I'm asking about Joan of Arc, who was born in Bar, how does all this stuff about Lorraine help?
I can only explain this to you; I can't understand it for you unfortunately. Pizza Margherita (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, Hence Do-Re-Mi; I see: my mistake ;). Yes. Is a Fief of France France? Yes & no, probably. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Duchy of Bar said part of the duchy became a fief of France, the other part remained Imperial and was joined to Lorraine in 1480. Not that it matters for the ultimate question - Joan of Arc's birthplace was in the part of the Duchy that was a French fief. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
QI is very entertaining, but often perpetuates myths and legends or is just plain wrong. In Joan of Arc's case, they are purposely obfuscating things, and things are already confusing enough when Joan was born in 1412. She was born in the territory of modern France, certainly. But what was "France" in the 15th century? Territory personally controlled by the King of France? What about Burgundy? Champagne? Brittany? Were they "France"? They were also technically independent, like Bar. But an independent territory could be linguistically and culturally French. The ruler of the territory could be a vassal of France, paying money or giving military service to the king of France. Bar is strange because it seems to be a vassal of both France and the Empire, but it's definitely culturally French...more or less. (Tagishsimon says above, "Is a Fief of France France? Yes & no, probably", and that is exactly the point.) With hindsight we can distinguish a clear line of French kings, and maybe there was a definite king of France in 1412, but this was the middle of the Hundred Years' War, and a few years later everything fell apart. When Paris was ruled by the English, was there even a "France" at all? The kings of England were culturally French too, so if Bar is French, is England also French? The problem is, the question of whether something is French or not just doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the 15th century. There were no passports, there were no border checkpoints, the modern concept of a nation-state didn't even exist. No one is worried about jus soli and jus sanguinis. Pretty much all we can do is ask what people considered themselves to be. Did Joan think she was French? Did other people think she was French? Clearly, yes. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The two examples are actually opposites of each other. While Joan of Arc was, undoubtedly, ethnically French, there is some uncertainty about whether she was a French citizen (though in saying that we are applying a modern concept of citizenship which did not apply in the messy, feudal society of the Middle Ages). Lenin was certainly a citizen of the Russian Empire, but his father was of Chuvash and Kalmyk descent, and his mother is described as "Russian-Jewish." That might mean that he was, at least in part, of Russian ethnic descent - if Russian-Jewish means of mixed ethnicity, and not simply Jewish but living in Russia. Wymspen (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that would ALSO imply that one can inherit an ethnicity (a purely cultural concept) in a genetic manner. That makes no sense. "Russian blood" is meaningless. Either he considered himself, and was considered by those he interacted with, as Russian (in which case he was so) or he wasn't. We can't deny his ethnicity based on a post-hoc genetic analysis because ethnicity is not genetic. --Jayron32 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's mostly but not entirely correct according to most orthodox views of ethnicity. The more widely accepted views of how to assess ethnicity encompasses three elements: (1) biological inheritance; (2) self-identification; and (3) identification by other members of the ethnic group. The biological inheritance element refers to inheritance from someone else who fits the criteria, so to a degree the definition is circular and ultimately resolves down mostly to a social one (as you might expect). Nevertheless, if someone has no "Russian blood", in the sense that they have no biological relationship with anyone who is accepted as ethnically Russian, a claim that they are ethnically Russian would, I think, be fairly controversial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Biology holds only insofar as the culture itself identifies biology as a necessary component. But it is not necessary in all cultural contexts. There are many cases of people with little to no genetic relationship to a culture still being fully accepted as that culture. --Jayron32 12:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are confusing culture and ethnicity. I don't disagree that ethnicity is fundamentally a social characteristic, and like all social characteristics it is capable of supporting different perspectives. But the concept as it is understood in most contexts, is a kind of social identity that carries a biological element. This is true in mainstream Western cultural discourse, and it's also true in the East. I can't think of any culture I have come across, where a person who has absolutely no biological connection to an ethnic group would be widely regarded as a member of that ethnic group. Even in the US, which probably has some of the most open cultural conceptions of legal and cultural nationality, a claim to membership of an ethnic group by someone with no biological connection is controversial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
In that one case, we're talking race and not ethnicity, which are different ways to parse culture. Also, that's because the way race as a social construct is defined carries a biological component. Which is exactly 100% what I said: the culture in question picks which biological factors it considers important, and identifies cultural relationships based on that biological construct. But the reverse isn't true. Staying, for example, with the examples given above. Which gene(s) in Joan of Arc's genome defined her as "French" and does everyone with those genes become automatically French? --Jayron32 15:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Lenin was born in Ulyanovsk, in those days called Simbirsk (Симби́рск), which is quite firmly in Russia. His parents were from Astrakhan which is also in Russia. Our article Chuvash people says that at least some of them are native to Russia. It seems a bit silly to try to argue that Lenin isn't Russian. Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking for US election tv ads[edit]

A few days ago Politico said that US Democrats were running political ads attacking down-ticket Republican candidates in marginal districts - ads which tried to associate the Republican with that party's unpopular Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump. Is there anywhere online (YouTube or the like) where I (in the UK) could view such ads? I'm specifically interested in these kind of "Senator XYZ is big chums with Donald Trump and is therefor probably horrid" type ones (and not interested in a general "Senator XYZ is wrong about everything and is horrid" ads that don't try to leverage Trump). (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are terribly mistaken if you think Trump is unpopular. Either that, or you are push-polling, otherwise known as begging the question. I suggest you google a site called youtube. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
[46] [47] [48] [49] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The LA Times poll has come under some serious scrutiny as to its methodology. To their credit, they are extremely transparent as to what their methodology is. But there was an article about how they "weigh" the different members of their polling panel - apparently, there's ONE black participant aged 19-21 who's a Trump fan, and he gets a HUGE weighing, as if he was a true representative of his entire age-ethnic group (all black 19-21 year olds). In other words, they under-sample many groups, and attempt to balance this out with no limits on weights given to individual participants. They are interesting in using the same 3,000 people for the entire polling season, rather than selecting new random participants each time, as most other polls do. I'd say the poll is academically interesting, but its value as a genuine indicator of Trump's popularity is significantly dubious. Then again, they have at times been proven right in previous elections, so I'm not totally writing them off, just saying that they're somewhat odd, and certainly don't follow the norm in their polling methodology. An interesting experiment in political science, I would say. We'll only know how it stacks up to reality come polling day. (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's a good one: [50]. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation[edit]

Can someone help me find out what was France's stance and response to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the subsequent annexation by the US in 1898? France had conflicts with Hawaii in the 1840s and were one of the three powers along with the US and Great Britian to recognize the Kingdom. I've seen plenty of sources about Japan and Britian's stance during this period but never heard much about France's response during this period. I know they recognized the Provisional Government and the Republic and annexation but hopefully there is more. The diplomatic representatives of France on the ground were Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade, Henry Leon Verleye, Jean Antoine Vizzavona, and Louis Vossion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This book, in the public domain and free to peruse, looks somewhat useful. Towards the end it says something about the British and French ambassadors delaying their recognition of Hawaii as a possession of the U.S. for a time, then finally recognizing it. It is from 1899, so it is fairly contemporary to the events. I didn't look harder, but it may prove a useful source in general for your continued research on Hawaiian history (which has always impressed me, FWIW). Keep up the good work! --Jayron32 01:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Some more: this page discusses some of the history of The French in Hawaii, maybe of use? --Jayron32 01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Found what may be a great lead for this question: This book here is not fully previewable, so I can't search the whole thing, but the index is among the previewable pages. Under "France" in the index it has a lot of good leads, but most interestingly it says "France seeks to prevent annexation of Hawaii to U.S." on pages 418-419. --Jayron32 01:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I will look into these sources. But the last suggestion (viewable here) relates to the mid-1800s when there was another annexation scare that never materialized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also posted at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle/semaine 42 2016#French response to Hawaiian overthrow and annexation (Renversement du Royaume d'Hawaï) hoping that something can be found in French sources. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me find out when Marie Gabriel Georges Bosseront d'Anglade died?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One of the skills of a good lawyer is the ability to research almost anything (and in my case, the only skill of good lawyer that I possess), so I was hoping to find an answer. But no luck. What I can tell you is that, in the espionage novels by fr:Jean Bommart, "Georges Sauvin" is the real name of the spy known as "le poisson chinois".--Shirt58 (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That publication came after Bosseront d'Anglade usage of the name I presume. Interesting...Funny, maybe my work on Wikipedia can get me into law school one day! I'm thinking of it currently in my gap year after undergrad. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

First US State Dinner[edit]

It is stated on list of U.S. State Dinners that Kalakaua was the first state dinner. Yet this source claimed that the 1865 visit by Queen Emma of Hawaii was the first state dinner for a visiting royal. Andrew Johnson was the president. The definition of a state dinner requires the guest to be an incumbent head of state which Emma was not and the list article states that other "formal dinners for important people of other nations, such as a prince or princess, are called official dinners, the difference being that the federal government does not pay for them". My questions are did the US government paid for the dinner with Queen Emma and what other formal dinner did presidents have with royals or head of states incumbent/deposed before 1874?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

End of money in the future[edit]

Has anyone ever predicted the end of money in the future?Uncle dan is home (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
In the news, Tim Cook has recently suggested killing cash. Killing cash would ordinarily mean all transactions are recorded and tracable - a despot's dream; no private transactions. But ApplePay supposedly addresses this by making transactions untracable. (Your credit card pays Apple, Apple pays the person you want to pay, Apple retains no records connecting the two parties). - Nunh-huh 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't believe it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Even if they resisted any temptation to snoop it seems so easy to hack things these days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, well, that's the point. If you keep records, they can be hacked. If you don't keep records, there's nothing to hack. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Absence of a need for money can be a feature of a Post-scarcity economy, which as that article shows has been discussed in Economics and Futurology, and has formed part of the background of various Science Fictional (and Fantasy) works. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If hard cash disappears, look for a return to the barter system. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not a prediction as such, but The Culture in Iain M. Banks science fiction novels is a post-scarcity society without money, private property or economics. As a result, life in The Culture is pretty dull and the novels have to achieve dramatic tension by positing scenarios where The Culture comes into conflict with various less advanced civilisations. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The Culture, population 30 trillion; where living on planets is considered weird and space station/starship is the urban/suburban divide of the day. i.e. the General Systems Vessel Size Isn't Everything, 50 miles of parks and hulls and shit seemingly exposed to vacuum and flying in formation but really rigidly held together by forcefields (which contain the air). Or the GSV Empiricist, hundreds of kilometers long, population over 13 billion. Controlled by 7 hyperintelligent sentient computers which are mostly in hyperspace with a little I/O thingy in realspace (cause 1: they wouldn't fit and 2: the speed of light). Antimatter engines are too primitive for anything but hobby craft (like our sailboats I guess), real engines are piece(s) of metamaterial that push against the boundary of our universe in another dimension and you can get a full sex-change and become a mother-father gentleman. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This came up a week or so ago and User:FT2 started a new article, cashless society. That's a good place to find or add some info. (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that there are 2 quite different concepts here:
1) Elimination of cash, that is, folding paper and coins you carry. This is possible, although it may have unintended negative effects, as the underground economy can be a significant portion of the total economy, and go completely unappreciated until it is eliminated. I believe they found this out in Zimbabwe when they cracked down on unregistered businesses, and the economy went to pot. However, it might be possible to keep the underground economy going using barter, or some other exchange medium, like, oddly enough Tide detergent bottles.
2) Elimination of private ownership and wealth. This is the Marxist dream, but all of the old problems come back with a lack of motivation to work if everyone gets the same "stuff", regardless. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Multi-sided conflicts[edit]

Has there ever been a war involving as many sides as the Syrian Civil War (which has so many sides it breaks the infobox)? I'm struggling to think of any examples - some colonial wars such as the Dutch–Portuguese War involved colonial powers at war with each other as well as with the native people, but otherwise wars seem to bed down into two sides even if those sides don't have much in common beyond their enemies. Even in WWII, although Germany and Japan or Britain and the USSR had almost no policy objectives in common, they still allied together into two sides. Smurrayinchester 09:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In WW2, Finland was arguably a third side, since it was specifically at war only with the invading Soviet Union (in two separate campaigns, in order to preserve the independence won from Russia during WW1), but had no quarrel with any of the other Allied Powers. Finland was careful to describe itself as a "co-belligerent" rather than an "ally" of Germany during the second campaign (and towards the end of WW2 overall entered a third campaign against Germany). During the second campaign, Britain formally declared war on Finland, but except for one unsuccessful bombing raid, the non-Soviet Allies avoided any direct military actions against Finnish forces. See Military history of Finland during World War II for the details. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
How many sides are you considering the Syrian Civil War to have? (where WWII is 2) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Our own article, linked by the OP, indirectly suggests six, though one could argue that the Kurdish fighters constitute a seventh rather than being part of the Syrian Democratic forces. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
At least Assad + Russia, Opposition, Western Coalition, ISIS, Al-Nusra, Kurds, and Turkey - not counting the fact that it's also arguably part of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Iran–Israel proxy conflict. That seems to be the minimal set of alliances (as 90.197... says, it's not really clear on any given day whether or not Rojava and FSA are cooperating). Smurrayinchester 11:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, during the early Crusades you had the various crusader states, the various muslim states, and the Byzantine empire. Arguably also some of the Italian city states and the Kingdom of Sicily. So complex and shifting coalitions seem to be a tradition in this area. The Warring States period in China had 7 major and 3 minor states, and probably hundreds of independent brigand groups. The Italian Wars had most Italian city states in changing coalitions, and most of the major European powers meddling. The Thirty Years' War had only two official "sides", but all of Europe joined one or the other (or both) sides over time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
See also Coalition Wars or Napoleonic Wars, rather a headache to remember all participants. There were several such multi-sided wars in the past. Later there were also proxy wars, such as Vietnam War. Brandmeistertalk 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This search actually turned up some good leads on historical multi-sided wars. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems that a good number of multi-sided wars are civil wars, which makes sense as many such civil wars occur in the context of a total breakdown of a central organizing authority, and thus multiple (rather than just 2) competing factions, each with their own goals and ambitions, end up fighting each other multilaterally (ironically, the United States Civil War was an atypical civil war in that way, as each of the two sides established themselves into two essentially state-organized factions with clearly delineated territory; it was a much more traditional war in that manner). Take, for example, these famous civil wars:
  • The Russian Revolution: You had the following sides all fighting one another: You had absolutist-Tsarists looking to maintain, or later re-establish, monarchy. You had traditional liberals of the Russian Provisional Government (the Lvov and Karensky governments) looking to establish a traditional liberal democracy/constitutional Monarchy. You had various socialist factions which fought with each other as much as the other groups, such as the Trudoviks, Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. You had external groups that came in to fight, such as the North Russia Intervention. Historians traditional divide the groups into the "Reds" and the "Whites", but even that becomes problematic since neither group really had any cohesion; it's the same sort of problem as in the Syrian Civil War trying to classify the fighters as "Assad-Government" forces vs. "Opposition", where the opposition is not a cohesive group.
  • The French Revolution likewise had numerous, multiple sides to the conflict. While broadly the conflict gets divided into the Revolutionaries and the Royalists, within each of those factions are numerous groups which also fought each other. I'm pretty sure the Reign of Terror killed as many those ostensibly on the Revolutionary side as it did true Royalists, with the Jacobins fighting the Girondins fighting the Montagnards fighting the Dantonists, etc.
In this way, the Syrian Civil War is quite typical for a civil war within a society where political control breaks down. --Jayron32 20:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There were in fact 4 major factions in November 1860. Two of them just didn't disagree enough with the other northern or southern faction to go to war with them in April 1861. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There were 4 political parties. That's quite different from a 4 sided war. Once it came to war, it was basically a traditional 2-state war, where each side had a functional government and a defined territory. Not the sort of multi-sided clusterfuck of what is usually meant by "civil war". --Jayron32 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! It's interesting that neither of those articles list all the sides in the infobox (although the Russian Revolution one does mention conflict between Bolsheviks and other socialists in the intro). Perhaps a hundred or two hundred years from now, the Syrian Civil War infobox will look like that, and it will have "Assad and Russia" on one side, "FSA, Rojava, ISIS and NATO" on the other. Smurrayinchester 07:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    We do have an article titled Russian Civil War which covers the complexities. --Jayron32 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
When the Mongols invaded China, China was already split into several separate states, all of whom repeatedly though that fighting each other while also fighting the Mongols was a reasonable strategy. (Spoiler: it wasn't). Based on the main belligerents listed in the article, it doesn't meet the 6 or 7 sides of the Syrian Civil War - but if there were any minor factions that took advantage of the chaos, I expect it could top it. The Mongol invasion of Europe, and earlier, the various barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire would probably be worth looking into. Iapetus (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that considering all involved parties as individual "sides" is quite valid, though they may each, of course, seek their own ends. In Syria, for example, there are a multitude of parties, but they more or less fall into two basic camps - those fighting for the Syrian government and those trying to overthrow it. Of course, once that issue is resolved on way or another, then these various factions will quite likely come into conflict over other issues, and very likely find that their alliances may shift. In any case, I imagine most large conflicts end up being multi-sided, in that they will inevitably involve many parties, all with their own goals. For example, the conflict in England in 1066 had at least three distinct sides: the English under Harold Godwinson, the Normans under William, and the Norse under Harald Hardrada. Both the Harald Hardrada and William fought against Harold, but they were not allies - each wanted the throne for himself. There are plenty of good examples from the ancient Near East too, such as the struggle between Assyria, Elam, and Babylon over the control of Babylonia in the time of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (early 7th C BC). Ushumgal (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Except it isn't that simple in Syria because the groups on the opposition side are fighting each other as well. For example, both the Syrian Interim Government and ISIL are fighting against the Assad regime, they are also fighting against each other. They're not even begrudging allies. --Jayron32 13:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Great Northern Railway and The Northern Pacific Railway.[edit]

Am I right to understand that The Great Northern Railway (US) was completed in 1893, reaching Seattle, going all the way from Minnesota? It's a bit confusing with all the different companies and railroads being built and often merged with each other at some point or another.

I also wonder why The Northern Pacific Railway was being built at roughly the same time as the Great Northern Railway, when they both seemed to run from Upper Midwest to Seattle. Why build two railways going the same path?

Third, I wonder in what year they successfully established railway connection from Minnesota/Upper Midwest to Chicago? (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find detailed answers to these questions Here and Here. Centpacrr (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules of engagement for ship security crews in repelling boarding attempts by pirates[edit]

In international maritime law, a pirate is absolute scum - Hostis humani generis - an enemy of all humanity! Even ships and nations NOT under attack may attack the pirates.

My question is, what licence does or doesn't this give security crews aboard ships, when faced by a pirate boarding attempt? What are the rules of engagement? If a pirate with a rifle slung over his back hooks a ladder to the side of the ship and begins climbing, may the security guard shoot to kill, leaving the corpse of this "enemy of all humanity" to topple back onto the pirate's ship, or into the ocean? In simpler terms, once the security crew have identified a clear attempt to carry out a hostile boarding of their ship, are there any restraints on using deadly force as a first resort to drive off the boarders? Ditto if the pirates have managed to board, and the non-security crew have barricaded themselves in the control room / bridge (the so-called "citadel tactic"). May the security crew kill the armed and hostile intruders who are trying to seize the ship and take its' crew captive, so as to regain full control of their own ship? Are there any restrictions under international law (including international maritime law) on using deadly force in this situation?

(Most ships operate under a Flag of Convenience such as Liberia or Panama, and I can't see either of these countries restricting the activities of security crews, so I don't think the ship's flag-nation's jurisdiction is a practical factor here - though laws which govern a country's citizens abroad, i.e. the security guards' country of citizenship, including when ocean-bound - extraterritorial jurisdiction - might be. But I'm not sure all countries would have such laws. In fact, I suspect most don't). (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I pasted your question into the Google searchbar and found Rules of Engagement and Legal Frameworks for Multinational Counter-Piracy Operations which says:
'The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary law applicable to piracy... Under UNCLOS, force can be used to combat and apprehend pirates in accordance with minimum international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. For example, Article 8 of the 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation declares, “[a]ny use of force pursuant to this article shall not exceed the minimum degree of force which is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances”'. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(OP here) Proportionate force? OK? But MINIMUM force??? That sounds like a requirement to be extremely nice to people who are extremely NOT nice! They're trying to take your crew and ship hostage, for heaven's sake, and all you're allowed to respond with is minimum force??? What's the logic???
Also, as a seperate question, who's job is it to practically enforce the rules? With Navies, there is dicipline, rules, and a chain of command. But what about a ship's private security crew? Remember, they are all alone on a ship which pirates are trying to seize with armed force, and they likely have NO backup - they are alone. Experience is, fighters in such a position will do WHATEVER IT TAKES - even extreme force - to repel the enemy. Look at how private military contractors have behaved in Iraq, if you want an example. Being all alone with no backup, if they come under attack, they go ALL OUT, and just shoot, shoot, shoot their way out of the situation with the limited weapons and personnel at their disposal - damn the civilian casualties, GET ME OUT OF HERE. That's the reality. If a private security contractor on a ship pirates were attempting to seize did the same, assuming he in fact violated the rules of UNCLOS (dubious, as I've explained, given his situation), whose job is it to charge him and put him on trial? Forget the ship's flag state, they likely don't give a damn. Is there ANY risk of the guard being charged, and if yes, by whom? (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It's no different to the usual legal requirement of 'reasonable force'; and although the word 'minimum' sounds restrictive, actually it's saying you can do anything deemed reasonable. Reasonable force just means equality of response- but that basicly means you can use the same weapons against the pirates as they are using against you. And since pirates today favour the AK-47 rather than the flint lock pistol ;) you can see where that leads you? Muffled Pocketed 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
So are M16s kosher if they're only using AK47s? They have a longer range and accuracy than AK47s I believe and if kept in a good case until needed probably wouldn't have the M16s ruggedness disadvantage unless you're unlucky enough to be attacked by pirates in a sandstorm. It's not a big advantage so maybe that's allowed right? What if they have a cannon but didn't touch it yet? Can you use a cannon against them? What if they shot a cannon off target on purpose hoping you'd surrender without having to damage your ship or get in a firefight, can you take the tarp off your cannon and shoot to kill? What if you're not sure they missed on purpose, can you shoot to kill now? What if you had a .50 caliber machine gun and the pirates only have AKs? Or a 20 millimeter automatic cannon. What do they do if the ship has to go within 12 nautical miles of a country that bans automatic guns? What happens if you're attacked in the territorial waters of a country but their coast guard sucks? (and you don't trust their ability to save you). What really happens is you machine gun the pirates to possibly save your life but legally are you just supposed to let them capture you? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No; what really happens is that you either misunderstand or misread. Fair exchange for me wasting twenty-four seconds reading and re-reading that post in bemusement I guess. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No one has answered my second question: who is responsible for enforcing the rules against private security crews? Imagine the pirates try to board a ship, and the security crew drive them off with live gunfire. The pirates, realizing the presence of armed security on board, beat a hasty retreat (that's what they usually do in such a situation - they know they're no match for the ex-commandos who guard the ships). The security crew are not satisfied. They know the pirates will strike again, and the next victim ship will likely not have armed security (most ships don't). Wanting to prevent this, they board the pirate ship and slaughter the pirates to the last man. Who prosecutes?
Please don't let this distract from my question, but Sagittarian Milky Way, I don't think there are sandstorms at sea - even off the coast of sandy Somalia. But an AK47 might stand up better than an M16 to the rigours of ocean saltwater spray - or it might not, I'm no firearms expert. (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The answer will depend on the particular case. See here for some discussion. [51] [52] [53] The answer often is, no one actually does anything no matter who could. Note that the vast majority of countries do have restrictions on murder, even if those laws are not necessarily well enforced. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Fred W. Phelps (1929-2014)[edit]

Hi. Phelp´s name was diminutive or Frederick or diminutive of Alfred? Thanks (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find any official record of his birth certificate or census records (which are not normally available to the public), but looking at the Wikipedia article Fred Phelps, and also checking on the original sources cited in that article, it appears his birth name was "Fred Waldron Phelps", that is Fred is his full first name, it is not diminutive of anything else. --Jayron32 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Census records (available via a pay site that I use) show 1940 as Fred W Phelps Jr. age 10; father Fred W Phelps Sr. age 46; and head of household / aunt Irene Jackson. 1930 has Fred W Phelps father and head of household, age 36; Catherine Phelps wife age 23; and Fred W Phelps age 5 / 12. No "Sr." or "Jr." in the 1930 report. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a general note, which it would have been nice to mention regarding a more appealing figure: Phelps was born in Mississippi. In the American South, many people have first names that might appear to be diminutives or nicknames, but actually are their genuine legal birth names. Bob Jones, Sr. was really Bob, not Robert. This does not actually hold of Jimmy Carter (he was born James, but appeared as Jimmy on most (all?) ballots), but if it had, it would not have been a surprise. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops -- looks like I was wrong about Bob Jones. I'll see if I can think of another example. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not just the south. I've got several Freds in my family tree, all of them northerners. Some were Fredericks, others were just plain Fred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is the example par excellence. (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In 1930 the recently deceased Fred W Phelps was obviously five months old, and the age is given as "5/12". I've never seen that formation before - is it a standard shorthand in the (presumably) federal census department? (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The above two postings are by banned user Vote (X) for Change. I'm not deleting them, and am assuming "entire responsibility" for them per WP:BANREVERT. Any other user may delete them, of course. Tevildo (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, federal. I've looked at quite a few old censuses, and the n/12 designation is typically used in the "age at last birthday" column instead of saying "0". The 1930 census sheet is dated April 14. His actual birthdate, according to Wikipedia, was November 13, 1929, which is 5 months and 1 day before the census sheet was filled out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
And according to the Federal Census instructions, the month notation is only to be used for children born during the census year (so no older than 1 year). Sometimes, though those instructions were either ignored or misunderstood, so you may see an occasional 1 and 5/12. - Nunh-huh 04:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Admiral (ret.) Bobby Ray Inman's legal first name really is Bobby iirc. (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Charles the First[edit]

Who chopped Charles the first head off during the 1649?-

This question was originally posted on a talk page of a red linked article. It was moved here by User:Feinoha. Feinoha Talk 20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Quote: 'The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200. It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peters.[282] The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king's body at Windsor in 1813,[283][h] suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.[285]' from Charles I of England. Muffled Pocketed 20:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

Why didn't America "island hop" through Alaska and Russia instead?[edit]

It seems like they took the hard way in. Why didn't we just make an agreement with the Soviets to let us use its territory to skip the entire Pacific Theater? Is there alternate history of this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

.#1 "Why didn't" questions are not possible to provide references for. Counterfactual history you just made up to ask this question doesn't exist in references, so we can't provide you with references. #2 Alaska and Kamchatka and the related islands are really inhospitable. See Aleutian Islands Campaign which explains why the U.S. didn't even bother to retake the Aleutians that Japan had actually captured for a year and a half or so. #3: Control of the Pacific Ocean was the key because of the importance of Command of the sea. Playing around in the inhospitable, low-value, almost impossible to militarize, mountainous and glacier-filled Arctic did fuck-all to defeat the Japanese navy which could strike at will from it's main bases in the central Pacific, which is why the U.S. needed those islands in the Central Pacific. There's nowhere to harbor a navy in the Aleutians, but the little atolls around the Central Pacific made for nice naval bases, which is why Japan used them as such. You really can't base a Navy out of freaking Attu like you could out of Midway Island or Guadalcanal. #4 Japan and Russia weren't at war. Like at all. Like Russia wasn't particularly interested in helping the U.S. defeat Japan because Russia wasn't at war with Japan, didn't have any military in the area, and had no impetus to help the U.S. in any way in the Pacific Theater, mostly because they had their own problems in the West. As noted at Surrender of Japan, Russia declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945. Which you'll notice is three days AFTER Hiroshima, and a mere 6 days before Japan surrendered. They weren't at all involved in the war, and only joined up to make a land grab during the putative 6-day Soviet–Japanese War (1945). They basically didn't want to lose out on the spoils of WWII in the Pacific theater. So, that's why. It boils down to a) Alaska? Really? b) Japan's Navy wasn't there because it wasn't all that useful, and the U.S. needed to defeat the Japanese Navy c) Russia wasn't even in the war in the Pacific, so why would Russia help out the U.S.? --Jayron32 03:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, your point #1 is overstated: it is possible to provide references for some "why didn't" questions. Typically those are ones where that option was seriously considered and rejected, and there is a historical record of the discussion. I doubt that that's relevant in this particular case, though, for all the other reasons you state. -- (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This raises the question in my mind as to why Japan bothered to waste precious troops to garrison the militarily useless Aleutians? (It seems to remind me of Hitler's refusal to abandon the channel islands, even though the troops garrisoning them were rather desperately needed elsewhere after D-day). What was Japan's logic? (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Japan took the Aleutians as a possible base of attack for the North American mainland; at the time Japan already had commanding control of the sea, and was expanding northward. The U.S. didn't immediately try to retake them because they were low-value assets and they needed to establish control of the main shipping lanes in the South Pacific instead. Japan took them in 1942 from a position of strength in the Pacific. Holding them required a token force, it was a low-risk move for Japan. --Jayron32 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that any sort of withdrawal was in the Japanese mindset. It might also have helped the Japanese in Manchuria if they had withdrawn to a defensible position in 1945, but instead they clung to their outlying territories and were easily overrun by the Soviets.
US Army in WW2: War Department, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare (pp. 99-100) says that the factors downgrading the importance of the Aleutian front were lack of Japanese aggression and the poor weather; "The overcast that covered the islands most of the time made air and naval operations dangerous and often impossible" (air superiority and naval gunfire support were the cornerstone of US amphibious operations). It continues that there was contingency planning for a US offensive in the Aleutians in the event of the Soviets entering the war, but as noted above, this didn't happen until August 1945. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jayron32 is a bit unfair to the Soviets. Their neutral stance in the Far East enabled them to transfer "over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East" in time to turn ther tide in the Battle of Moscow. As the Soviets were doing most of the fighting in Europe, even after D-Day, it would have been counter-productive for all the Allies to shift forces from Europe to the Far East. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was at the urging of the Western Allies and was agreed at "the Yalta Conference in February 1945, [that] the Soviet Union entered World War II's Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The invasion began on 9 August 1945, exactly three months after the German surrender on May 8" and was "a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionally, as it made apparent the USSR would no longer be willing to act as a third party in negotiating an end to hostilities on conditional terms". Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Equally as likely as the "exactly 90 days later" was probably a coincidence, where as the "The U.S. just deployed a super weapon on the Japanese mainland and Japan is against the ropes" had a bigger impact on the Soviet decision to invade Manchuria. The Soviets had not shown a particularly strong propensity towards honoring agreements with either side, either before, during, or after the war, and were far more interested in acting in what was in the best interest of the Soviets. It is highly unlikely they would have been particularly keen on committing massive ground forces to an Asian campaign if Japan were at full strength. --Jayron32 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Kwantung Army was affected in any way by the Hiroshima attack, although admittedly it had been "systematically stripped of [its] best units and equipment" for deployment to other fronts. I take your point about Soviet self-interest, an issue that became apparent to the Western Allies as the Soviet preparations were underway, but the fact remains that they were doing our bidding. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but in 1945, not in 1942-1943 which is the time frame the OP is asking about. He's asking why we went south instead of north across the Pacific. It's an understandable question; it's shorter (the great circle path from the U.S. west coast to Japan crosses Alaska after all) and if you look at a map it appears the route has more land-based options for bases. The main crux of my point was that it was inhospitable in Alaska and Kamchatka, and that the Soviets weren't actually at war with Japan at that point; they were in no position to be at War with Japan either. --Jayron32 15:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I concur with your summation! Harmony is restored. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The actual American-led campaign in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II, that the OP calls "taking the hard way in" was motivated by the need to give a direct response to the causus belli Attack on Pearl Harbor on 7/12-1941, the rearguard action in the Philippines Campaign (1941–42) and to pre-empt the imminent threat to British interests posed by Axis naval activity in Australian waters. The attempt early in the Pacific War at multilateral coordination in the short-lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command convinced American strategists of the need for campaign initiatives by the US Army (under MacArthur) and Navy (under Nimitz). The Logistics of the war over long distances at sea became a contest for air supremacy that focused on denial to enemy use of island air bases and attacks on each side's Aircraft carriers, most decisively in the Battle of Midway. The alternate campaign suggested by the OP would have been too slow because it would have involved uncertain negotiation with a 3rd party who was recently allied to Hitler (see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) and it would have occupied troops in holding territories of no strategic value to Tokyo. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Another aspect worth discussing: the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands was planned for the southern coasts of Kyushu and Honshu. As the article says, these are really the only two good places on the islands for large-scale amphibious landings, and the Japanese knew this. This is why the Allies captured Okinawa first, to use it as a staging ground. So if you were going to try to invade from mainland Asia, you would either have to attempt unfavorable landings on the north and west and then slog your way towards Japan's population centers, which are mostly on the Pacific side of the islands, or sail your whole invasion force around the Japanese islands, with the Japanese military knowing where you're headed and going all-out to stop you. The Mongols famously tried the first and it didn't go too well for them. -- (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Jayron32, back to what you replied to my earlier comment. You say that Japan took the Aleutians "as a possible base of attack for the North American mainland". How so, and why? From what others have said, they were manifestly unsuitable for using as military bases. Precisely why the Americans were in no rush to retake them.
Also, you say that holding them required a "token force". Perhaps yes, the number of troops on the Aleutians was low. But how on earth do you go about resupplying even a small number of troops at the very edges of your empire? Particularly troops stationed in such a freezing inhospitable hard-to-approach location? Even if they're not expending a single bullet as no one is confronting them, they still need to be fed, remember? How did Japan accomplish this, and did it deliver the prospect of any actual military value for Japan? (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Jayron's very first linked article in his initial reply says this in the lede:
"The Japanese reasoned that control of the Aleutians would prevent a possible U.S. attack across the Northern Pacific. Similarly, the U.S. feared that the islands would be used as bases from which to launch aerial assaults against the West Coast"
I can't immediately locate the book I have specifically on this campaign, but from what I recall: (a) most Japanese supplies were sent by air and (b) both sides underestimated the severity of the weather (which caused far more fatalities and crashes than any actual combat) so any Japanese plans to bomb the USA's West Coast never became practicable. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Great Stink[edit]

Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg

I have a question about this illustration about the Great Stink in 1800's London. In the 'Monster Soup', what are the actual 'monsters'? Are they supposed to depict microorganisms, real creatures or just fictional creatures? --Poing-PoBongino (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They are speculative Microorganisms drawn in 1828 and probably inspired partly by images in "Micrographia" 1665 and the animalcules seen by Leeuwenhoek (between 1674 and 1682) but also, I fancy, influenced by the imagery of Hieronymus Bosch, see his "The Garden of Earthly Delights". The satyrical magazine Punch published a similarly speculative microscopic slide cartoon. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The website of the The Library at Wellcome Collection says in explanation of this work: "Looking at a drop of water though a microscope was a popular entertainment provided by travelling showmen who carried the microscopes around in cases on their backs". Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The only "monster" that looks like a realistic microorganism is on the right side, and looks like krill. They do come pretty small, so could qualify as microorganisms, depending on your def. There also appears to be a crawfish below that, but they don't get that small, AFAIK. Same for the apparent remora to the left of the krill (eyes in the wrong location, though), and the tadpole above that. The rest seem to suffer from the bias that the artist apparently thought all microorganisms must have a head and face, when that's not even true of all macroorganisms, like starfish. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please cite evidence that this was what the artist thought was true rather than what the artist thought would make a good cartoon. Compare anthropomorphism, and specifically anthropomorphism#In film, television, and video games. -- (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I never made any claims about what the artist actually thought. What the artist apparently thought means that is what it appears like. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you're overthinking this - remember that this is a joke. People knew that small creatures lived in water and the artist was suggesting that London's polluted water contained monstrous ones. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
One hopes that StuRat at least knows the difference between a microorganism and an invertebrate. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly right. Although note that I've had the chance to play with period optics and the images one sees are not great...there's a lot of room for imagination and wishful thinking. It really gives one respect for how much people got right, even if early mistakes - like that humans had 48 chromosomes not 46 - lasted for far too long. Blythwood (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
We are dealing with the 1828 definition of microorganisms (although technically the captions says "microcosm"), so, I'm not sure it was defined precisely then, and if krill would qualify or not. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The orange beast (Stu's possible "remora") is a ray, as seen from below, the fish at the bottom is a stonefish or a frogfish, there's a pipefish (looks like a snake-shaped seahorse). There are various plausible crustaceans. To assume these are all based on fancy is unfounded, the cartoonist obviously had some familiarity with actual macroscopic, if unusual sea-creatures. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Javert's suicide in Les Miserables, in the overall context of suicide[edit]

Now, I have been warned by Jayron32 on the Entertainment desk: "No one can provide references that explain why fictional characters acted in a certain manner." (Not personally warned, just noted his explanation in hatting others' questions along those lines). But I think major, well-studied works of literature would be an exception, wouldn't they? When it comes to shakespeare, to use an obvious example, I would think there would be a reasonable amount of academic analysis of the characters in his plays, and the supposed logic of their actions. My question is about Les Miserables, for a start, and I suspect there may very well be scholarly analysis on Victor Hugo's work. Also, my question asks whether what happened in fiction ever happens in reality.

It is in that context that I ask about the suicide of Javert in Les Miserables, as it would fit in the wider context of the phenomenon of Suicide. I can, in a sense, understand Javert's logic. He had dedicated his life to enforcing the law, and encountered a case where the the moral ability to enforce the law failed him. He was pinned into an ethical corner. (In the musical, he sings "and my thoughts fly apart / can this man be believed / shall his sins be forgiven / shall his crimes be reprieved". All he needed to do was answer his own question with a YES, and perhaps he could have lived).

My question is, would a typical psychologist, psychiatrist, or coroner expect to typically encounter an individual who either killed themselves or sought to kill themselves based on a similar train of logic and thought? I'm not thinking specifically about police or the law here - more along the lines of either a trap between two competing (moral?) obligations, one of which one has devoted their life to - or just a general epiphany that "everything I ever believed in is wrong" (to use the words in the article "the discovery of deep flaws in his ethical system")? Or any other twist one may put into Javert's logic, translated into the setting of the modern therapist or coroner? Is this sort of suicidal logic a phenomenon known to modern psychiatry? (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

For scholarly analysis of the character, google scholar often turns up what you are looking for, if you narrow your search terms enough. "suicide javert" brings up mostly philosophical papers, for example, but you can experiment with adding terms. "psychology suicide" may be closer to what you need. For the more medical part of the question, also try PubMed. (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

Doctor of Letters vs.Doctor of Humane Letters[edit]

What is the difference (if any) between Doctor of Letters and Doctor of Humane Letters? The articles are unclear. I realize that the talk pages would be the place to ask this, but those have been inactive for several years. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:28A8:8A3A:F3CD:A344 (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Litt.D is a genuine academic degree, awarded for distinguished scholarship in the humanities. The D.H.L is a purely honorary degree, awarded to the great and the good without having any specific connotations of academic (as opposed to societal) achievement. This page has a more comprehensive description than our current article. Tevildo (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:28A8:8A3A:F3CD:A344 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

High schools and elementary schools[edit]

Why is it rare for high schools to be placed right beside elementary schools?Uncle dan is home (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Seniors hazing freshmen is enough already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
High school students old enough to drive might also tend to run over elementary school students who are too short to see. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh right. My HS had thousands of kids, no parking spaces but a subway entrance on the property line. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's generally true. But one thing to keep in mind is that a reasonably-sized city tends to have more elementary schools than high schools. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Really any well-planned city. You have to figure a steady birth rate, and there will be at least twice as many children born during the 9 years served by an elementary school as there are for the four years of high school. For those cities that divide up k-6 as elementary, 7-9 as middle, and 10-12 as high school it's the same principle. -Nunh-huh 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The article on intermediate schools says the exact grades 6-8 sometimes change cause of feeding area population changes. So they don't need new construction if the junior high gets full, just rename it and move the lowest grade to PS's. Makes sense. I was wondering why my school system has JHS's, IS's and MS's with different grades and no rhyme or reason, that's probably why. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Where are you referring to? The primary school I went to was right next to the secondary (which I didn't manage to get into despite all my other siblings having gone to it because of insufficient places). I could see it from across the fence. My secondary school wasn't that close to a primary school, although it wasn't that far from it and the primary school was fairly close to another secondary school. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably a different dynamic in the UK. My primary school in London was adjacent to the local grammar school, but one was built just before and one just after the Great War, and both on land donated by the same wealthy lord of the manor, who was selling up and moving to the countryside. Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In the county I live in, there are many situations where the schools of different levels occupy the same campus. Here you can see two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school on one campus. Here you can see an elementary and high school together. It probably depends on a plethora of factors, including the size of the plot of land, the local population densities, etc. The OP's premise is faulty, because they have not yet established that it IS rare (for any given value of "rare") --Jayron32 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here in Michigan, elementary schools (grades 1-5, typically) are small, so they won't be overwhelming and can be placed in walking distance, while we then have middle schools (grades 6-8, typically), a bit bigger and farther away, on average, and then high schools (grades 9-12, typically) are the biggest (only one in my school district) and likely to be the farthest, so they can offer athletic and academic facilities and equipment a smaller school couldn't afford. There were about 60 students per grade in my elementary, 180 in my middle school, and 600 in my high school. So, that would mean there couldn't be a high school near most elementary schools, but there could still be a high school by some elementary schools in the district.
We also had a case where a former high school was used simultaneously as an elementary and middle school, using different wings of the building. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

Engraver identity[edit]

Can someone help me find out who is the engraver listed on these three images? It looks like Harlly but searching that doesn't come up with anything. It could also be Harley but that is a pretty common name. Thanks.

Possibly Joseph S. Harley? I've added an example of his work below, although unfortunately there's no signature to compare. Warofdreams talk 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

By zooming in on the three images it seems clear to me that the first and third ones are signed "HARLEY NY" (in one case with the N reversed: presumably the engraver momentarily forgot that the process requires mirror-image lettering) while the second one is "HARLEY SC NY". I take the meaning to be that this is an S.C. Harley who worked in New York. However, I tried a catalog search at the Library of Congress and couldn't find anything relating to engravings by such a person. -- (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This image "probably by Joseph S. Harley" has a weird monogram in the bottom-left corner, bearing a resemblance to a Chi-Rho but could conceivably be a "JH". Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Which academy(ies) was Welser elected to?[edit]

As the result of a recent exchange on the Language refdesk I became interested in the story of Mark Welser, who at the time had no article. There was one in Italian WP, and it turned out there were some others in other languages. I translated the Italian version into English.

I have a question about Welser's elevation to Accademia dei Lincei, or Accademia della Crusca, in 1612 or 1613. The article currently claims that he became a member of Accademia dei Lincei in 1612, which is what it says in the Italian article, and also in this source page: However the German article says that he became a member of Accademia della Crusca in 1613, which is supported by this page:

These two things may of course both be true. But no source I've seen mentions them both, and I'm a little bit worried that one or the other may be a confusion for the other one. Does anyone have access to high-quality print sources, and could check? --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Story behind censored Michael Vance videos[edit]

There's currently a story in the news about Michael Vance, who had been accused of a sexual assault on a child, posting videos Sunday night to Facebook Live explaining his position. The "videos" are now all over the international news, e.g. [54] But they all are censored to the point of complete unusability - words are censored, the man's entire bright pink T-shirt which has some kind of message written on it is censored, and above all, the first part of the video where he explains himself is censored. Many different news outlets serve this as if they had their own versions, but I think they were all censored by the same person. Given that the location is Oklahoma the chances of some major injustice in a court case seem pretty high. Without getting overly involved in his particular case, this has some relevance for understand the free ? press.

It is possible they all got the video from the same 3:54 am Twitter posting by news 9: [55] - I don't know. And Facebook is renowned for cheerfully taking down anything police don't like in any country. A hypothesis is that news9 might have spotted the video and acted quickly, then police (whether or not tipped off by those seeking the "exclusive") had the video shut down. Actually I don't know because I don't know Facebook well and, not being good with faces, I'm not even sure which Michael Vance on there to start looking at (there are dozens).

Can anyone shed some light on this? How was this arranged? Does *anyone* know what the man's shirt said, or have a copy of the video that explains his motivations? Wnt (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Why was Bill Clinton so successful in red states?[edit]

Why'd Bill Clinton win Arizona? (United States presidential election in Arizona, 1996) And get close in '92? No other Democrat has won Arizona since Harry Truman. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton was a Southern Democrat. He also was elected before the Contract with America, Dick Armey's political strategy which repainted the American political map by polarizing each party and moving them both away from the center. Prior to the mid 1990s, southern White Democrats still had wide appeal in what later became "Red" states. There's some considerable credit given to the bi-partisan Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 as to Clinton's re-election; it kept him a LOT of support among the more conservative Democrats and probably forestalled their complete bailing of the party that eventually came during the GW Bush era. During the 1990s, the Blue Dog Coalition was still a major political force (see also Conservative coalition and Democratic Leadership Council). As noted at Presidency of Bill Clinton, he was a "centrist" (which basically means "conservative Democrat") and one of the New Democrats. As also noted in that article, in 1996 he was presiding over the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. Incumbents tend to do well during good economic times, regardless of what their politics are. Clinton won in 1992 based on the economic crash of the early 1990s (see It's the economy, stupid); and likewise the economic boom helped him in 1996. --Jayron32 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, Arizona is trending more Democratic lately, due to immigration. They may vote for Hillary this time, according to: [56]. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Entführung libretti[edit]

Are there multiple "standard" libretti for Die Entführung aus dem Serail? Listening to it today, I've pulled up the libretto I downloaded from somewhere (it's in plaintext, so I copied it from a website, not a PDF), but I'm consistently unable to find the current text in the libretto. Confused, I searched for some of the text, and on this page I'm easily finding the text I was expecting to find in the "other" libretto. For example, one character clearly says "mein Vater", and while the word "Vater" isn't in my text, it shows up several times in the one I found online. And my favorite line from this opera, Blonde's contemptful Deine Sklavin? Ich deine Sklavin? Ha, ein Mädchen eine Sklavin! isn't in the text I downloaded at all; even the word "Sklavin" is absent. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


October 16[edit]

Biomes and language phyla[edit]

What effect do biomes have on the diversity of language phyla within an area? Do rain-forests have more or fewer different phyla than tundras? Why is most of Europe Indo-European? Does the difficulty of traveling long distances across the sea have an effect on the dominance of Austronesian languages in Oceania? Confused Conlanger (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This research article might interest you: "River density and landscape roughness are universal determinants of linguistic diversity" by Jacob Bock Axelsen and Susanna Manrubia, Proceedings of The Royal Society, B 2014 281, 20133029, published 16 April 2014. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The interplay between biomes and language diversity is a complex one and it'll be difficult to draw generalisations. It's not always the case the difficult terrain would correlate with more language diversity. In Papua New Guinea for example, the lowlands in the north and in the south, and especially along the navigable Sepik and Fly rivers, are home to a large number of small language families and language isolates. The New Guinea Highlands on the other hand, despite their rugged terrain are dominated by languages from the single Trans-New Guinea family. How has that come about? The climate in the highlands has been more conducive to agriculture. When first discovered, it is an enormous force for change: agricultural societies have growing populations and a greater capacity for spreading out and dominating neighbouring by either conquest or by cultural influence. – Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I think (though it's been a while since I read it), that the incomparable Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond may deal with this a bit, or at least tangentially; the book is, after all, primarily about the effect of geography on human culture. --Jayron32 00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Joanna Nichol's Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time is the go-to work on this. I must caution that I disagree with much of what she argues in that book, and elsewhere; yet the notion of a "spread zone" is a widely accepted one. The notion is contextual. Consider the Pacific Islands. Much of the area was quite remote. Mostly only areas that had been united by land bridges during earlier ice ages (or at least close enough to be seen as nearby areas for exploration) were settled at the time of the Austronesian expansion.
The Austronesians had a greatly superior nautical technology, and one group of Austronesians colonized the whole of the Filipines and most of Indonesia. From there they spread rapidly as far as Hawaii, Easter Island, New Zealand, and even Madagascar. In fact, Malagasy is so similar to its closest relative in Indonesia, we know their closest kin live in Borneo. The exception is New Guinea, where there are some Austronesian languages on the coasts. But the land is highly mountainous making travel arduous, and the 1000's of tribes there were used to repelling foreign invaders from experience fighting among themselves.
For the Austronesians, most of the Pacific was a spread-zone, given their technology and the largely similar physical ecology. The same notion applies the PIE expansion. Given their use of the newly invented technologies of horseback riding and the wagon, they were able to be highly mobile pasturalists, and the quickly moved west into the lowlands of Europe and Western Asia, except in remote upland areas where remnant ante-PIE populations like the Basques and the famously warlike tribes of the Caucasus Mountains (Called by Greeks, the Mountain of 100 languages) and so forth. Think of the plains of Western Eurasia as their Pacific Islands, and The Caucasus as their New Guinea Highlands.
The (relatively) rapid and recent spread of these language areas into "spread zones" of suitable human ecology and physical geography makes the internal relatedness of PIE and Austronesian easy to discern. One can see the same phenomena in the Americas, with European colonization almost complete, and indigenous survival in remote or "unattractive" areas the rule. In the Lower 48, only the Navajo tribe has over 100,000 speakers and its number is growing. There are other examples; not to slight ones I do not mention.
A final example might be Siberia. At the time of Columbus, there were well over a dozen highly diverse native phyla, such as the Chuckchi-Kamchatkans, the Nivkh, The Yukaghirs, The Yeniseians, various Uralic and Altaic groups, and so forth, many lost without a trace. In the last few centuries, The Yakut people, speakers of a Turkic tribe on horseback and with Western technology were able to dominate the area, and assimilate many peoples like the Yukaghir who speak a moribund, if not extinct language that was once part of a large family of hunter gatherers.
What was once a remote refugium, difficult to traverse and harsh to live in had become a spread-zone for the Yakut. And now, ironically, a spread-zone for the Russians in their place. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Does any of the literature referenced above deal with the fact that Chinese is a counterexample to the general trend that languages are more diverse at the center of dispersal and less so at the periphery? Basemetal 11:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Nichols does not address this directly in the work mentioned. I'll have to read our articles to see what they say.
My understanding is that (1) the center of origin is still under debate (in some part due to linguistic nationalism) and (2) the expansion of Mandarin is recent, and may have wiped out more diverse congeners. In effect, Mandarin, which had the benefit of the introduction of horseback riding first, saw the North, West, and South West as a spread-zone, while the east/south-east was more mountainous and also more populous.
Consider the fact that most of the non-Chinese minority languages, whether Bai, Tibeto-Burman, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, etc, are in the mountainous south, and not on the coasts of the major river systems. I do not read or speak any of these languages, and the topic is not my specialty, so hopefully others can comment. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Antonym of conjunction "unless"[edit]

Wiktionary says "if". I say "even if". Who is correct?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A unless B... vs. A if B vs. A even if B.
The "even if" sound clearer. Wiktionary is user input as Wikipedia is. Sourcing is important. Roget's might be a good resource. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oddly enough, neither Oxford online (British) nor Miriam-Webster Online (American) have unless as an option for their thesaurus. See [57] and [58]. Neither does the online Roget's Thesaurus: [59]. Sorry not to be of more help... Maybe the unabridged OED has it? I know a few people who patrol here have memberships. --Jayron32 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The big OED doesn't do antonyms, so its entry doesn't help except that one of the definitions is "if not" which suggests that the antonym is just "if". Perhaps the subtleties depend on usage. There is seldom such a thing as a perfect synonym or antonym. There is a technical discussion here. Dbfirs 17:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In practice, it's often "provided". "The sun will not rise tomorrow unless the black dragon is slain." vs "The sun will rise tomorrow provided the black dragon is slain". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Then there are "only if" and "if and only if" (the latter is beloved of logicians, who abbreviate it to iff). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that there is another possibility, that A will happen regardless of if B happens. Whether A happening unconditionally is the opposite of A being conditional on B is just a matter of opinion, though. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've sometimes wondered what the difference between "only if" and "if and only if" ("iff") is. Isn't the latter a logically redundant version of the former? --Theurgist (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you asking about English, or mathematical logic? In math logic, "A only if B" is exactly the same as "A implies B" (whereas "A if B" is exactly the same as "B implies A"). These terms have a purely truth functional interpretation (see material implication).
If you're asking about English, well, that's a lot more complicated. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course! Lulu is a poodle only if Lulu is a dog. (A → B) – that's true; Lulu is a poodle if and only if Lulu is a dog. (A ↔ B) – that's false. Lulu is a dog if Lulu is a poodle. (A ← B) – that's true as well. Silly me! --Theurgist (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18[edit]


In our pardon article, one finds that a "reprieve" is a "[t]emporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the accused can mount an appeal (especially if he or she has been sentenced to death)". That is roughly my understanding of the word. Note that Abraham Lincoln gave a two-week reprieve to Nathaniel Gordon so that he might have a chance to reconcile himself to God first.

However, the article on Ruth Ellis repeatedly uses the word to mean a permanent remission of the death sentence, what I would call a "commutation". Is this by any chance a US/UK difference?

I can think of a US example, though — in one of the early scenes in The Dirty Dozen, one of the military brass says that "Operation Amnesty", the caper in which the condemned soldiers were to be deployed against the enemy was "just that — an amnesty, not a reprieve". What he seemed to mean was that it was a reprieve, not a pardon. I think this usage is imprecise and inferior, and should probably be fixed in the Ellis article, or if it is a genuine ENGVAR difference, then at least explained. --Trovatore (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See this dictionary definition. In the Ellis case, "reprieve" is correct, although "remission" might be better - there was no possibility in the circumstances of the verdict being quashed altogether (a pardon), and commutation of the death sentence for murder to penal servitude was not available under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. The verdict of the court wouldn't have been changed - she would still have been (formally) guilty of murder and under sentence of death, but her execution would have been postponed sine die. Ellis' case was instrumental in the introduction of the partial defence of diminished responsibility in the Homicide Act 1957. Tevildo (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
So it's a temporary reprieve, that lasts forever? That's — subtle. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, indefinitely, rather than permanently - cf WP:INDEF. I don't know of any cases under the 1861 act where a reprieved murderer was subsequently hanged, but it remained a theoretical possibility. This page (although the author clearly has Views on capital punishment) goes into some interesting details on the issue. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Coloring vowels[edit]

I would guess that the EE sound is yellow and the OO sound is blue, but how about AH, AY (without the diphthongal y at the end) and OH?? Please try this with all vowels in Indo-European languages. As for why I say this, some Wikipedia articles say that EE is a light vowel and OO is a dark vowel, meaning that EE sounds much lighter than OO, just as if they had gone with the colors of yellow and blue. Georgia guy (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are describing Chromesthesia - which is very idiosyncratic. Different people with that condition may hear the same sound, but sense it as quite different colours. The article does suggest that higher tones tend to be sensed as lighter colours - but there is no way to tie a particular colour to a particular vowel sound. Wymspen (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep, you are right. Btw, to my ears, EE sounds green, EH sounds red, OH sounds orange, IH sounds pink, UH sounds purple, æ (i.e. Æ, æsc) sounds black, and so forth. As for the OP's question about AY, to my ears it sounds gray. HOTmag (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you say this for any actual analogy between colors and sounds or do you say this because those are the vowels the color names contain?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too. Maybe a kind of rhyming thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Where is the orange color? HOTmag (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Additional colors can provide an exercise to the reader.
Wavelength (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Synesthesia is the generaler topic. I associate letters and 0-9 with colours; e. g., A with red, B with blue, C with black, D with brown and so forth, but I think this comes with Apple, Blue, Cat, Dog and so forth. (Not sure why K is brown.) My association of the numerals 0-9 is more individuated (0 w, 1 w, 2 y, 3 g, 4 r, 5 blk, 6 y, 7 blu, 8 blk, 9 pur) and the colours cannot be explained on the "A is for Apple" model.
In any case, I don't strictly think that this is synesthesia on my part, since seeing the characters does not evoke the colours, just imagining the Latin letter or Arabic numeral does. Nevertheless, having tripped (once) on LSD and given the above associations I have confidence the phenomena exists as reported. Finally, I am pretty sure that the cases I have read (somewhere in Oliver Sacks?) involving musicians usually do not involve only "primary" colours, as mine do. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there any difference between your 2's yellow and your 6's yellow or your 5's black and your 8's black?? (I can't think of 8 and black going together without thinking of a magic ball!) Georgia guy (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I meant the traditional focal "crayola crayon" colours of Berlin and Kay; so no, there is no variation between characters of the "same" colour. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As a novice reader I thought the roman capital S, at least in faces like Century Schoolbook, looked angry. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps like a Snake, ready to Strike? μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

what is the current authority for creation of new words in english language[edit]

i need more and more new words to substitute for long sentences in talks, both real life and online. i would send requests to the authoritiesMinimobiler (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlike French, which has the Académie française, there is no such authority for English. If you need a new word, you just make it up yourself, use it and hope it sticks. --Viennese Waltz 07:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Viennese Waltz and others, requesting to tell the name of all the authorities in general. example:merriam webster, oxford, british council etcMinimobiler (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what VW just said. Dictionaries only record usage, they don't make up words. Your best bet is to make up a word yourself, use it and see how it flies. Btw, even in French the Academy can only propose, it has no way to impose. Many of its coinages go nowhere. In other cases French speakers take matters into their own hands and do not wait for the Academy. That's how you get different solutions in different parts of the Francophony. For example a web browser is called a navigateur in France and a fureteur in Quebec. In some other cases no one was able to come up with anything acceptable and the English word continues to be used, e.g. un making of. If the Academy's come up with a purely French equivalent I have never heard (about) it. Basemetal 07:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Btw, even in French the Academy can only propose, it has no way to impose. -- unlike them, Academy of the Hebrew Language does have enforcement powers: every TV show or radio broadcast must be signed off by them for proper use of the language. There was a recent story about an Israeli pop star (don't remember which one) who couldn't get her song, hugely popular online, onto the Israeli radio because she mispronounced a word in the refrain; to get it accepted, she had to re-record the song with amended pronunciation. -- (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Is this a real story, not an apocryphal one? I'd really love it if someone could find out what word it was and how it was mispronounced, as mispronunciation of Hebrew is a national pastime in Israel and among Jews elsewhere (the latter more of course). The Israeli national anthem itself mispronounces words (I mean the music forces you to mispronounce them) e.g. כֹּל עוֹד בַּלֵּבָב פְּנִימָה נֶפֶשׁ יְהוּדִי הוֹמִיָּה "Kol ‘od balevav penimah Nefesh yehudi homiyah". The word לֵבָב "levav" (heart) and יְהוּדִי "yehudi" (Jewish) are accented on the ultimate whereas the song gives them a penultimate accent. Just two examples. Basemetal 10:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
[60] -- (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be the example you had in mind originally because, as far as I know Harel Moyal is not a woman and the mistake is not one of pronunciation (although the article does call it that but I disagree). Also it looks like the radio station (he:רשת ג) took the intiative by themselves w/o the need that the Academy act. The article does say that singers are encouraged to seek the advice of the specialists at Kol Israel or at the Academy and that radio has started enforcing those things more strictly. I'm still interested in examples where the Academy itself took the initiative and forced the radio station to stop airplay. Now that would be enforcing powers. Also, does anyone have examples of mistakes that did not prevent airplay, because clearly this sort of nonsense is an opening for a bureaucracy to start acting in arbitrary ways. In this case what made it worse I suppose was that the mistake involved a word, the main word actually, in the title. If you're curious this is the "corrected" song, rerecorded anew to get rid of the mistake. If anyone has a link to the old version containing the mistake please leave it here (or on my talk page). The mistake is pretty bad and the singer is a native Hebrew speaker, born and bred in Israel! What was he thinkin? Is "mekir" for "makir" now common in Israel? If yes, what binyan do people who say that think that verb is? Do they also say "metkhil" for "matkhil" and "mergish" for "margish"? It could be compared to someone saying "I writ" instead of "I wrote" in English. Still, I can't imagine any radio station in an English speaking country refusing to play someone's song because they didn't approve of the way they used the past tense. Basemetal 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I wish the BBC could have done that to Midge Ure.... Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, my memory of that case was mixed up with a more recent one where the initiative came from the Academy (but the singer refused to re-record the song). As to the binyan, verbs such as "makir" and "mabit" belong to the same binyan as "mevin" and "mesir", so neither the binyan nor the spelling indicate the correct pronunciation, and there's a fair bit of confusion, even among native speakers -- especially among native speakers, who get used to all kinds of ungrammatical speech before they have a chance to learn binyanim. -- (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see how that mistake could have originated. Since geminates have disappeared from actual Hebrew pronunciation a little kid learning Hebrew as his or her native tongue has no way of knowing that, since the letter carries a dagesh hazaq the pattern to be followed is that of "margish" (which has two consonants between the vowels) rather than "mevin" or "mekhin" (two examples with the two letters of "makir" and "mabit" but w/o the dagesh hazaq) which has only one. At least for "makir" that is understandable since the little kid has no way of knowing that it is a kaf with dagesh hazaq rather than a qof, which doesn't need a dagesh hazaq to have the k sound. For "mabit" the mistake would be less understandable since in that position the b has to carry a dagesh hazaq and there is no alternative choice that could create any confusion. Clearly the little kid has no idea what a dagesh hazaq is but he or she may instinctively realize that in the case it is b and not v between vowels the form has to pattern after verbs that have two radicals between the vowels. In any case I would expect the mistake to be less common in the case of "mabit" than in the case of "makir". Talking of mistakes in songs, do you know the song "HaAnashim HaHadashim" by Ivri Lider. There's a line in the song (about 2 mins 15 seconds into the song): אולי הצו גיוס יחזיר אותך בחזרה. Is הצו גיוס correct grammatically speaking? Shouldn't it be צו הגיוס? Basemetal 22:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think many people try analyzing the words such as מכיר for "is it kuf there, or is it dagesh?" The verbs with tzere are the majority (me'it, me'ir, mevi, mevikh, megiv, meziz, metis, memir, memit, meniv, menia, me'id, me'if, me'ik, me'ir, mefik, metzik, meki, mekim, meriakh, merim, meshit, and probably others), so the minority with patakh (magia, mazia, masia, mapil, makish, matzit, matir) are assimilated into the majority. The choice between the two mishkalim never interferes with the meaning, so in the vernacular, they just get merged into one.
As for the ungrammatical but increasingly popular constructions such as הצו גיוס, hewiki itself notes: בעברית מדוברת נפוץ גם יידוע של הנסמך בלבד: "הבית-ספר".
-- (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Note the Academy and Kol Israel didn't attempt to blackmail Ivri Lider to get him to comply to any stupid demand that he change his song and yet I don't see why this mistake should be ok and not Harel Moyal's. In both cases I take from your explanations that the mistakes are widespread. So the Academy are the sole judge of when to pick a fight, and do not have to justify their decision to anyone? Frankly I much prefer the situation as it is in English. Basemetal 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Luckily for Hatikvah, the Academy of the Language didn't yet exist in 1948, or else it'd surely require amendments :-) -- (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
While not an authority in the French style, the Oxford English Dictionary does have a certain status as the arbiter of new words. They publish an annual update - - which tends to receive considerable media coverage as an indication of which new words have now become an accepted part of the language. Wymspen (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Descriptive nonetheless, rather than prescriptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Prescriptive too. The fact that a language doesn't have a central authority does not mean there are no prescriptive sources of authority. Dictionaries and grammars, even in English, while they do not create language, and only record usage, still often characterize that usage as correct or incorrect, standard or substandard, etc. By definition any time you say something people say is incorrect you're doing prescriptive linguistics since descriptive linguistics would limit itself to observing what people say, period. Any time, even in English, someone turns to a dictionary or grammar to find out what they should say as opposed to what people do say (presumably they would not need any book to inform them of what they personally say) they use that dictionary or grammar in a prescriptive capacity. Basemetal 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, prescriptive derived from the descriptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
[citation needed] Here are two sources that discuss how many aspects of linguistic prescription are based on nothing more than the writer's fancy [61] [62]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OED doesn't prescribe anything, but they do make recommendations, as all good grammar teachers do. Teachers in the old days were just trying to get people to speak and write better. No harm in that. Although they probably didn't foresee text-speak, such as "R U OK?" In the section on the split infinitive, they left out maybe the most obvious one: "To boldly go where no (man/one) has gone before." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
"OED doesn't prescribe anything, but they do make recommendations". Could you please explain the difference? You seem to have a pretty radical view of what "prescribing" means. "Prescribing" is not putting a loaded gun to someone's head and slowly saying "You gone split that infinitive? Go ahead, and make my day!" Making recommendations is prescribing. The notion that there is a way to "speak and write better" is precisely what linguistic prescription is based on. It's not necessarily evil. But it's not linguistic description. Basemetal 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Somewhere up above, someone said, "Dictionaries only record usage." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
No. Somewhere up above someone said "dictionaries only record usage they do not create words", but that "they often characterize that usage as correct or incorrect, standard or substandard" which is a kind of recommendation hence of prescription. In fact somewhere else up above someone else said "the OED do make recommendations". Basemetal 22:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's clear that your concept of "prescriptive" is different from mine. And don't forget to aim some of your wrath at the user who said "Linguistic description, which is what dictionaries do, versus Linguistic prescription which is what bodies such as the Academies Francaise does." I'm sure the OED would like to consider itself the equivalent of Academies Francaise, but it ain't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrath? I sure hope everyone is fully relaxed enjoying a pleasant conversation among friends cause there certainly isn't any wrath on my part. In context Jayron's statement was perfectly accurate. The OP asked for an authority that could create words and even seemed to believe Merriam-Webster could do that. Clearly only a prescriptive body such as the Academy in France or Israel can do something like that, since in the case of a word that's just been created there's no preexisting usage to describe. A dictionary's job is (at least in the case of big languages with long histories of being used as the medium of communication in advanced societies and no "special needs") to describe usage not to create it. I did not construe Jayron's statement as implying dictionaries never take on a prescriptive role or are never used that way. Basemetal 00:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It grates me that STNG missed an opportunity for perfect iambic pentameter: "to boldly go where none have gone before. Particularly since Starfleet isn't big on individual action. —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A real language pedant would insist on ". . . none has gone before." {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
What would be the practical difference between a pedant and a prescriptivist (if there is such a word)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question, Bugs, although Tamfang and I clearly indicated that we were at this point joking, a prescriptivist (yes it is a real word, try searching/following a real Linguists' blog, such as Language Log) would acknowledge that they were taking a particular approach which could be contrasted to others, a pedant would insist that theirs was the only correct approach.
Notice that I deliberately used, in descriptivist fashion, indeterminent singular "they, theirs" where a prescriptivist would prefer and a pedant would insist on "he or she" and "his or hers". {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
None is not one. The IP 90 is correct, none agrees with has, not have. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This is linguistic prescription. Whatcha gonna do if we do find "none have" in Shakespeare? Send Shakespeare back to school? In any case see what Oxford have got to say about this. Basemetal 00:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
And your point is what, exactly? That prescriptivism should be proscribed? Do you also think people who judge people are evil? μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. "No freedom for the enemies of freedom" (Saint-Just) No, I was in a very anti-prescriptivist mood yesterday, being still under the impression of a singer made to re-record their song because they made a mistake in Hebrew. I do wonder if I'm not too impressionable. Basemetal 04:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the question dealt with "authority" it seemed relevant to give a prescriptive answer. Ironically enough, I watched Richard III @Basemetal: the other night after this exchange, and the term "none have" was indeed used. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorabe script[edit]

Does anyone know (or can discover) anything about the present status and usage of the Sorabe alphabet in Madagascar? I understand that for everyday purposes it has been replaced by a Latin alphabet, but I wonder whether it is still read or used or understood in any specialist (e.g. religious) contexts, or whether it is now completely unused. I can't seem to find any information about this. (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sumerian language, where and when was last use, and in what form, written or conceivably spoken?[edit]

From the article:"..but Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Mesopotamia until the 1st century AD.." -where, what and how in 1st century AD?-The cited sources don't have links, and maybe they wouldn't give the further details I'm interested in anyway. Thanks. (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This website makes a similar claim, but provides no further insight. The article at [63] has some more details about its use as a literary language, even citing specific historical persons who used it as such. I haven't done much more than skim this article here on the history of the use of Sumerian: [64] but it looks most promising for your research. I hope that gives a start. --Jayron32 23:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This paper states that the last datable Cuneiform tablet is from 79/80 AD. It is a kind of astronomical text. Now Cuneiform does not necessarily mean Sumerian. It could be in Akkadian. But having browsed through it (pretty cursorily I'm afraid) I've got the feeling it is Sumerian. If you read through it a bit more slowly and carefully I have no doubt that you will find the answer as I doubt the authors will not at some point identify the language. Basemetal 00:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe someone like User:Dbachmann can answer your question? (Is it bad form to ping someone to the ref desk like this?) - (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Basemetal is quite right to distinguish the Akkadian and Sumerian languages from the cuneiform script script used to write them (and several other languages as welll). Sumerian died out as a spoken language roughly 2000 BC[1], though just when is a matter of debate. The last time Sumerian was used extensively as an official administrative language was during the Ur III Period, at the very end of the 3rd Millennium BC. It is likely that even then, Sumerian was dying as a spoken language, being replaced by Akkadian (a similar pattery occurred during the Neo-Assyrian Period, when Akkadian was being replaced by Aramaic as the common spoken language, though Akkadian continued to be used for administrative, literary, and religous purposes). Nevertheless, Sumerian continued to be used for a variety of purposes (primarily literary and religious) for millennia afterwards, much like Latin in Medieval Europe. The latest Sumerian texts are probably those of the "Graeco-Babyloniaca": religious Sumerian and Akkadian texts from Hellenistic and Parthian Mesopotamia which have transliterations in Greek script, dating to the 1st C BC to the 1st C AD.[2][3][4][5] The latest purely Sumerian texts that I am aware of are Sumerian hymns from Babylon dating to the 2nd-1st Century BC.[6] The paper that Jayron32 linked to was to the last datable Akkadian cuneiform tablet (though there may be other, undated, Akkadian texts from the 2nd Century AD). Note that the transliteration of the text includes words and signs in all caps and also in italicized miniscules. Assyriological convention for transliterating Akkadian texts is that Sumerian logograms are written in ALL CAPS while phonetically-written Akkadian is transliterated with italicized miniscules, e.g. EN-ia, a common expression in Neo-Assyrian letters, combines the Sumerian logogram EN ("lord, master") with the Akkadian phonetic complement "ia", but the whole would have been read "bēliya" ("my lord") in Akkadian. Sumerian does not use logograms from other languages (cuneiform was, after all, invented to write Sumerian), so if you see a transliteration mixing these two, then it is not Sumerian, though it will not necessarily be Akkadian. Other languages, like Hittite and Urartian also use Sumerian logograms (and Akkadian logograms as well!), so their transliterations also mix all caps and italics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushumgal (talkcontribs) 15:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


October 20[edit]

a question-phrase[edit]

What's French for how often ? —Tamfang (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's comment and replies deleted]
I am reminded of English As She Is Spoke, a 19th century Portuguese–English phrase book, compiled by somebody who allegedly couldn't speak English but used a French-English dictionary to translate an earlier Portuguese–French phrase book, resulting in some very odd translations. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking "combien de fois?" is "How many times?" but in some contexts that would be the most natural equivalent, e.g. in my opinion the most common way to say "How often do I stir the soup?" in French would be "Combien de fois je dois mélanger la soupe?". In some other contexts you would add "par [period of time that applies]" for example "How often do they change the water in the pool?" you would say "Combien de fois par semaine ils changent l'eau?" etc. "À quelle fréquence" is accurate but sounds a bit learned to me, it would not sound the most natural in some contexts. You've also got "tous les combien de temps? de microsecondes? d'heures?" etc. depending on the interval of time. It depends on context. What's the sentence? Btw the way, the same applies to all English "How" phrases (how fast? how hard? how slowly? and so on) Where have all native French speakers gone? Basemetal 08:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I know that "combien de fois" literally translates as "how many times" but I didn't think it was worth pointing that out. The fact that it's the most natural equivalent in some (in fact most) contexts was implicit in my answer. Here's another example: "How often do I have to tell you?" = "How many times do I have to tell you?" = "Combien de fois faudra-t-il que je te le répète?" --Viennese Waltz 09:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Since other Romance languages are likely to present the same problem (and I didn't get where I am today without knowing an obvious cognate when I see one), I find the first pointless interjection helpful. —Tamfang (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why some jerk didn't delete the above, which is indirectly a response to the banned user. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I depends. What's the sentence? Basemetal 08:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I dealt with a cashier whose nametag had the annotation Je parle français. I wanted to ask "How often do you speak French?" (as I haven't had occasion to do so since moving here), but couldn't think how to put that in French. VW's Basemetal's first suggestion, Combien de fois par [unité de temps]?, is awkward whatever unit I choose: if I choose "week", the natural answer may be zero; if I choose "year", my interlocutor has to do some arithmetic. —Tamfang (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
"Combien de fois par siècle?" and so on was my suggestion, not VW's, but it was only an additional suggestion to VW's "combien de fois". Here you could have said "tous les combien de temps il vous arrive de parler français ici?" if you wanted to stay close to your English "how often". But the most important is that you made here the number one mistake when trying to speak a foreign language: attempting to translate from your native language into the foreign language. Instead you should try to convey your meaning with the tools you have at your disposal in that foreign language at whatever stage of linguistic proficiency you have reached. Anyway, in this case the most common ways to convey the meaning you intended, i.e. trying to find out how often that cashier gets to use their French would be: "Il vous arrive souvent de devoir parler français ici?", "Combien de gens vous addressent la parole en français d'habitude?", "Il y en a beaucoup qui vous parlent français?". The cashier most likely would have answered: "Non, ça n'arrive pas très souvent; peut-être une fois toutes les trois semaines" or "Oui, ça arrive assez souvent; à peu près une fois tous les deux jours". Basemetal 12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The Canadian Dictionary / Dictionnaire Canadien, concise edition (1962, 4th printing published 1969 by McClelland & Stewart) translates How often? as Combien de fois? (which it annotates as "at what intervals") or Tous les combien?. -- (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If combien de fois means ‘at what intervals’, I wonder how you'd say ‘how many times’. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Same. Context. And the tense of the verb. Again: strictly speaking Combien de fois? is How many times? It is only in context and colloquially that it is often used to mean How often? Basemetal 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"Tous les combien?" is quite often used, it works as a short direct question in many cases where it's the answer that will elaborate or will be constructed in a different more detailed manner. Akseli9 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Ngram Viewer has search results for combien souvent.
Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Compare the Spanish phrases cuántas veces and cuán frecuentemente,
and compare the Portuguese phrases quantas vezes and quão frequentemente.
Wavelength (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know why you posted that. "Combien souvent" is mangled non-French. --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Basemetal above is correct. As a native French speaker, that's how I would put it: "Il vous arrive souvent de devoir parler français ici?", "Combien de gens vous adressent la parole en français, d'habitude?", "Il y en a beaucoup qui vous parlent français?" Personally I find it so awkward that French language doesn't allow "combien souvent", that I some rare times use it nevertheless, with the feeling of inventing a new word and with the will to be ready to defend my invention, should anyone say something like "combien souvent ce n'est pas français". I do that also with the very convenient "hopefully" which doesn't exist in French. Although it doesn't exist, as a native French speaker speaking French in France with other French people, I proudly use my "espérablement" and the meaning is so obvious they usually don't dare making a remark like "hé, espérablement n'est pas français"... Akseli9 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Lots of times, things that Anglophones want to translate into French, but don't exist in French, have the same issue in Italian. But quanto spesso sounded fine to me. On the other hand I don't really trust my intuitions anymore, so I Googled it. Lots of hits, and they generally seemed to be using it naturally.
But when I Googled combien souvent, the hits were mostly talking about how there was no such phrase in French (and some of them echoed Akseli and said it was too bad there wasn't).
So just one more little isolated fact to remember about French, I guess. The one that amuses me is that sometimes "how much" gets translated into Spanish as como mucho ("I eat a lot"). --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So, "hopefully" is spreading its despicable tentacles into other languages. How low the world is sinking. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding combien souvent the following paper in French looks promising, at least if you're interested in the historical perspective going as far back as Old French. Hopefully (sorry Jack) Google will let you access it in its entirety (cause it won't let me): Lucien Foulet, Tous les combien passe-t-il? in Studies in French Language and Mediaeval Literature: Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope, by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends, Manchester University Press, 1939). Basemetal 20:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sorry Jack for ruining the wor(l)d but may I emphacize on that, "espérablement" is NOT Franglais (and I don't wish it was) Akseli9 (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there's no need to be so melodramatic, Akseli. Let's maintain some perspective here. You certainly haven't ruined the world. No, you've just ruined my life, that's all. Irreparably. A somewhat lesser charge.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying to decipher a couple of words from a BBC podcast.[edit]

The podcast is: Friday's business with Joe Lynam. A 'perfect storm' for Rolls Royce. Joe Lynam presents the business podcast. It can be found here

I'm trying to understand the first 15 secs. "Rolls Royce the greatest symbol of British engineering" It's only the next couple of sentences from this speaker that I am curious to understand. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "we all salute that particular 5-door". Siuenti (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd say the OP would probably like a little bit more. I've tried but it won't play. Letting you know so you won't think I'm ignoring your request. Basemetal 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Won't play for me either. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That link won't play for me, but I googled the phrase "'perfect storm' for Rolls Royce. Joe Lynam"; the iPlayer link has also gone dead, but here it is on Audioboom. This is what I hear:
Rolls Royce - the great symbol of British engineering. We all salute that particular flag - or at least we have for many years. Joe - but it's going through a difficult time. It's going to get more difficult today.
Hope that helps. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone find this original Galileo quotation?[edit]

Hi! A few months ago I read The Information by James Gleick, which at one point quotes Galileo saying that "names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards". I am going to go ahead and assume that Galileo didn't actually say that in modern English. Could someone please source the original quotation for me? Thanks. Kisses. Equinox 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a partial quote in an 1843 edition of Vocabolario degli accademici della Crusca. It reads as follows: Gli attributi si deono accomodare all'essenza delle cose, e non l'essenza ai nomi. link. I found this by Googling gli attributi devono accomodarsi all'essenza.
This is a dictionary entry for the verb accomodare, and it seems to be referenced to Gallil. Macch. Sol. 2. 95, if that helps. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Found it. It's from Prima lettera di Galileo Galilei a Marco Velseri circa le macchie solari in risposta della precedente. The quote in context is:
Ma che elle non possano esser nel corpo solare non mi par con intera necessità dimostrato, perchè il dire, come egli mette nella prima ragione non esser credibile, che nel corpo solare sieno macchie oscure, essendo egli lucidissimo non conclude, perchè tanto doviamo noi dargli titolo di purissimo, e lucidissimo in quanto non sono state vedute in lui tenebre, o impurità alcune: ma quando ci si mostrasse in parte impuro, e macchiato, perchè non doveremo noi chiamarlo, e macolato, e non puro? i nomi, e gli attributi si deono accomodare all'essenza delle cose, e non l'essenza ai nomi; perchè prima furon le cose, e poi i nomi.
link --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a little convoluted and it's late for me to be translating something so involved, but here's a quick try, might be guessing wrong at some pronoun referents:
But that they [spots, I'm guessing?] cannot be in the solar body does not seem to me to be entirely necessarily proven, as to say that it is not credible that there are dark spots within the solar body, because the Sun is very bright, is not conclusive. We must grant him [the Sun] the title of most pure, and very bright, as no shadows have been seen in him, nor any impurity whatsoever, but when he were to show himself to us in part impure, and spotted, why should we not call him so, and stained, and not pure? Names and attributes must accommodate themselves to the essence of things, because first were the things, and then the names.
Well, more or less anyway. It's a bit hard to parse. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read Italian, there's a bit more backstory at Mark Welser (translated as Marco Velseri in the Italian source). It seems that Christoph Scheiner had seen the spots, and come to the conclusion that, as the Sun was an "incorruptible celestial body" per Aristotelian doctrine, they could not be marks on the Sun itself, but must be stars between the Earth and the Sun. Welser wrote to Galileo asking for his opinion, and Galileo responds above. I think the first egli in the passage, which I took to be impersonal, actually refers to Scheiner. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Terms for eighths[edit]

For the 150th anniversary, we have sesquicentennial; where sesqui means "and a half". For 125th and 175th, there's quasqui (meaning "and a quarter") and terquasqui (meaning "and 3 quarters".)

Now let's deal with the thousands. We know that 1000 is millennial and 2000 is bimillennial. We can use the above prefixes quasqui and terquasqui for the 1250th and 1750th anniversaries. But because the interval of 1000 years (between the 1000th and 2000th anniversaries) can be divided into eighths, we need a similar prefix for "and an eighth" using consistent etymology with the above prefixes. What would this prefix be, attaching it to "millennial"?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quasquicentennial (which I've never encountered before) appears to have been made up in 1962 by somebody who didn't know or didn't care how Latin combination works. It follows no regular pattern, and is effectively a portmanteau word: 'quarter' (or 'quadrate', or 'quattuor', who can tell) and 'sesquicentennial'. This suggests that you can make up 1 1/8 however you like; but since the common part of Latin words for eight, eighth, eighty etc is 'oct-', that would suggest 'octesquimillennial', which I find rather unwieldy. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, Latin does have an attested word for "one and one-eighth": "sesquioctavus". "Sesquitertius" is also attested for one and one-third (both were used by Cicero to translate Greek fraction words). Then several centuries later, Boethius used "sesquiquartus" (and so forth) to complete the sequence. They're adjectives though, so I'm not sure how we could stick them onto another word as a prefix. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sesquitertiocentennial, sesquiquartocentennial, sesquioctavocentennial? Just guessing; no sources here. — Kpalion(talk) 12:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility between Igbo dialects[edit]

We have a problem over at the sister project Wikivoyage. voy:Igbo phrasebook is a candidate for Featured Travel Topic, but there is still one important question unanswered which would need input from someone speaking or familiar with Igbo.

There apparently is a "high variation and low mutual intelligibility between many Igbo dialects". In which Igbo-speaking areas is a user of the voy:Igbo phrasebook (with its vocabulary and pronunciation guidelines) likely to be understood well, to some extent, or not at all? Ypsilon from Finland (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fall 2015[edit]

With a fall 2015 freshman acceptance rate of 6%. Shouldn't the F in Fall be capitalized since it is part of the term 'Fall 2015'? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of style. Some people (not so many now) view the names of the seasons as proper names and always capitalize them; some view constructs like "fall 2015" as proper names and would capitalize "fall" for that reason; and some view them as simple descriptive expressions and don't capitalize. Wikipedia style is that they aren't capitalized. -- (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be autumn anyway, as that is understood far more widely than fall. (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Depends where you are. Checkout the University of Minnesota calendar for this year.[65] The word "fall" appears over 30 times. The word "autumn", 0. And "Fall" is capitalized in the calendar only in the dropdown and when it begins a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the IP meant that Fall is a US and perhaps Canadian term and is not used anywhere else in the English speaking world. Sort of a World famous in New Zealand situation, except that in this case you're saying that it's the US where Fall is world famous. Akld guy (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the US is a significant portion of the English-speaking world. And etymologically, spring and fall are nice counterpoints. If you're going to say "autumn" instead of "fall", you should say something like "verna" instead of "spring". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Given it refers to a specific school-term it should be capitalized, just as one would say he went south, but The South lost the American Civil War. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
See my first response. -- (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Usage of "public viewing" in English[edit]

In German, the term "Public Viewing" is used for public live broadcasting of sport events. In German newspaper columns and blogs, for years there has been squabble going on how this expression is actually used in English or not, and whether it's a pseudo-Anglicism. Here in the English Wikipedia, Public viewing is a redirect to Lying in repose, and this has been used as source in the debate. What do native English speakers usually think of when the term is used? Lying in repose, a public broadcast, an open house day, having a look in declassified papers...? Is the redirect appropriate? --KnightMove (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just one person, but as a Midwestern American, the first thing that "public viewing" brought to my mind was the "lying in repose" sense. In my neck of the woods Viewing (funeral) is a familiar use of the term. Deor (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
In Britain the term usually refers to the period before an auction when the items can be viewed by potential bidders. A public viewing area is a place set aside for the public to observe some activity: there will often be one at an airport where enthusiasts can watch the planes. Sport events which have to be available to everyone are known as "free to view" and the process of allowing the public to observe the body of someone who has died tends to be called a "lying in state" (even though that should only refer to an official event for someone of public importance). Wymspen (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The analogy of testicles to balls, or to other objects, in various languages.[edit]

In English, the most common analogy of testicles is to balls. In Hebrew, the most common analogy of testicles is to eggs. What is the analogy (if any) of the testicles, in other languages? (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In Russian it's yaichki, "little eggs". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Spanish huevo (egg). Navajo ayęęzhii (egg). Khmer ពង (pɔɔŋ, egg). —Stephen (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought Spanish used cojones. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
And English has multiple slang words for testicles too...--Jayron32 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Spanish does also have cojones, but that's the entire set: scrotum, balls, and all, from Latin cōleus ‎(sack). As a figure of speech, a cojón means a testicle. —Stephen (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
In German Eier, (eggs).
Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
In Persian, it's eggs. Omidinist (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sleigh (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
In French paire de couilles, (pair of balls).
Sleigh (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


October 17[edit]

Bit tacked onto the end of a musical, ballet, etc[edit]

So the story is done and dusted. The hero has defeated the baddie and won the girl, or the hero and heroine have gone off into the sunset to live happily ever after, which should be the end of the ballet. Except, sometimes they stick a bit extra on the end, which doesn't really add anything to the story. It's usually a few bravura leaps by the hero or fouettes by the heroine. What is this extra bit called? I know there is a special name for it, but I've forgotten what it is called. Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't merely epilogue? When I typed "epilogue of a ballet" into Google, I get lots of hits for different ballets that have them: [66]. I don't see any alternate term. There are examples of the term used on the first two pages for ballets of different names, including Peer Gynt, Le Corsair, Street Car Named Desire, The Nymphs and Satyr Suite. --Jayron32 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just looked at Glossary of ballet which suggests that the terms coda and grand pas may also be used. --Jayron32 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Apotheosis might apply in some cases. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Encore may apply, if the extra bit is in response to applause. However, note that many encores are pro forma, that is, they are planned in advance, not a spontaneous response to the applause. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Apotheosis is what I was trying to remember. --TrogWoolley (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Fanaa 2006[edit]

See below. References do not exist that explain the motivation of fictional characters. Please stop asking such questions. --Jayron32 18:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a Stupid Sad Ending. Amir Khan kept Walking despite Amir knew that Kajol was Going to Pull the Trigger.

1. Did Amir & Kajol know that Good People were Going to Show up Soon to Shoot down the Terrorist Leader's Helicopter?

2. Why didn't Amir Khan ask Kajol to put down the Gun, so Amir Khan can Walk Slowly to the Terrorist Leader & the Good People will Shoot down the Terrorist Leader's helicopter?

3. Obviously, Amir could Have Survived to get Life Sentence without Parole but with Visitation Privileges of his Family?

4. If Amir knew that Good People were Coming soon Now, then was Amir hoping to get Killed by Kajol beucz Amir had so Much Guilt?

5. After Amir got Stabbed by the Good Indian Soldier, I'm sorry to say by Why didn't the Indian Dumb Soldier finish off Amir immediately?( (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)).

Why not try watching the film and working out these things yourself instead of giving the ending away, leaving no real benefit to anyone? Britmax (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The ending does not make sense to me so can You help me? Yes or No( (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)).

The answer to most "why" questions about movies is "there wouldn't be a movie otherwise." (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12 Rounds 2[edit]

No one can provide references that explain why fictional characters acted in a certain manner. --Jayron32 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The guy Patrick poisoned 1 of the 2 drinks, but Patrick still killed Tommy tied to the Chair.

Why did Patrick still kill Tommy? Was Patrick betraying Tommy?

After they digged Tommy's father out of the Pit, when Patrick appeared, why didn't Tommy raise his own hand to block Patrick's bullet from killing Tommy's father?( (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)).

Please stop asking hypothetical questions about the plots of films. No-one else can interpret a film for you, as interpreting such things is part of the experience. Britmax (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Detroit Tigers-Toronto Blue Jays rivalry causes[edit]

What were the causes of Detroit Tigers-Toronto Blue Jays rivalry? So far, I know that they were contending for the East Division title and also Toronto Blue Jays star catcher Ernie Whitt was a Tiger player before playing for the Blue Jays not to mention he was a Detroit native. Donmust90 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The rivalry is a very minor one, if at all. Historically, the Tigers biggest rivals have always been the Indians and the White Sox, as explained at Detroit Tigers and Major League Baseball rivalries. This page Here adds the New York Yankees to the mix as the third biggest rivalry, but lets face it, the Yankees are everyones rival in the AL. The Blue Jays do not really have a traditional rival; though the article titled Toronto Blue Jays notes a weak Tigers rivalry from the 1980s, that was short lived and without any real meat; it was merely the coincidence of the fact that a couple of times in the early-to-mid 1980s, the teams were in contention for a playoff spot in the same year. That's not what rivalries are built out of. Just to show you that the Blue Jays don't have a major rival, here are several sources from the recent past: This Poll claims the Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, and New York Yankees are their three biggest rivals (in that order), while This one claims the Royals, Rangers, and Red Sox (in that order), while This one says Yankees-Red Sox-Orioles in that order. If no two sources can agree on those rivals, then they don't really have one. Also telling, in that last source, the Blue Jays don't show up on anyone else's list of top rivals. Look, if a rivalry is "real", then it is two-way. Red Sox-Yankees, Giants-Dodgers, Cubs-Cardinals are real MLB rivals. No one considers Toronto a major rival, and Toronto fans can even decide amongst themselves who they don't like. There just isn't one. So no, there is not, nor has there ever been, a real "Tigers-Blue Jays" rivalry. --Jayron32 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And, by the way, Ernie Whitt never played for the Detroit Tigers. --Xuxl (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jayron is correct; the rivalry was pretty minor and mostly brought about by them both being good teams in the mid-80s. If there was any hard feelings, it was within the fandom in Ontario. Prior to the expansion that created the Jays in 1977, most baseball fans in Ontario were fans of the Tigers, who were both close and reasonably good. After the Jays came into being, almost everyone changed to rooting for them, but there would still have been that feeling of comparison between the Jays and Tigers specifically. The Jays stunk their first few years, so continuing to root for - or at least follow - the Tigers was somewhat encouraged. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I've lived in Detroit since the 70's, and am not aware of any such rivalry. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Crossposting for attention[edit]

Many ref-desk patrollers on this board may have an interest in music, so I'm just cross posting this here for any interested parties for additional input. See Talk:Bob Dylan discography#The other Greatest Hits Volume III. Please comment there if interested. --Jayron32 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Salman Khan[edit]

What villain films did Salman Khan do so far?( (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)).

Please see Salman Khan filmography.--Shantavira|feed me 07:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not useful. It seems that Salman Khan never did Villian roles Come on Tell me the Truth?( (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)).
There are over 100 films on that list and it doesn't tell you what kind of roles Salman Khan played in each one. If you want to know whether the person he played in each film was a hero or a villain, you'll have to click through to the entry for each film and read the plot summary. --Viennese Waltz 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't have patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Then it must not be that important to you. Although if you can find a forum page for the actor, you might be able to find out more quickly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • When I want to look at a large number of webpages but lack the patience to do only that, I copy the URLs to a file and launch a background script that opens one of them every N seconds. —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
“You can't handle the truth!” —Tamfang (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The other female football president Female football presidents[edit]

Isha Johansen is "the only female president of a football association in Africa – and one of only two in the world".[67] So who's the other one? Or is that a mistake, since CNN says there have only been two,[68] and Lydia Nsekera was one for Burundi, which is in Africa, last time I looked. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are three in Africa alone, though the other two (Izetta Sombo Wesley being the other) are no longer in office. So, the question now is are there any others? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sonia Bien-Aime is one. It appears she is still active, which may make here the second referenced above. --Jayron32 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps not exactly what you're looking for, but still possibly of interest to you, would be Moya Dodd, who served as vice-president of the Asian Football Confederation, and also, at one point, on the FIFA Executive council. According to our article, she is a board member, though not president, of Football Federation Australia (Australia's national football association). Does this count at all? (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Hypothesis: Did the Fifty Shades of Grey film cause a lot of sexual frustration?[edit]

The reference desk's job is not to entertain or evaluate hypotheses.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I assume that Fifty Shades of Grey (film) has caused a lot of sexual frustration, especially among hardcore female fans. Reasons for this assumption:

  • Newspapers wrote a lot about hardware stores anticipating a huge run on cable ties etc., but mostly kept silent whether this actually happened (some confessed that it did not at all).
  • The film has very low IMDB viewer ratings, 3.7 for males, 5.0 for females. However, this gap was much larger in the beginning. After some 8k votes, male ratings were down at 2.1 (which would have sent the film to flop 100), while female ratings were at a decent 6.9. Reasons seem obvious: At first, the film was mostly watched by female fans of the franchise (who liked it), and their partners (who were immensely disappointed and frustrated by the film). Later, when other audiences watched the film out of curiosity, female non-fans dropped the ratings, while males without any expectations gave milder ones.

As far as I can see, this means: Female fans were confronted with frustrated partners, who were hardly in the mood to live any BDSM phantasies after consuming the film, thus also frustrating their other halfs. Very little was written about the effects on audiences, which I rather see as a confirmation. But is there more definite evidence in either direction? --KnightMove (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you describe the initial male viewers (where partners of females) as "frustrated"? I'd have expected most of them merely to be bored.
Re cable ties: as someone employed in a maintenance industry, I know that cable ties are bought and used in metric shedloads. Any additional uptake for BDSM purposes (a bad idea anyway – they're not safe, and a safe BDSM activist of my acquaintence fulminates about the film) would always be minuscule by comparison, mostly fulfilled from minor workplace "borrowings" or existing DIY household holdings, and undetectable in the noise of their general trade.
I suggest that without more robust evidence, such as polls of the film's viewers directly probing reasons for liking/disliking it, your hypothesis is entirely unsupported, and unnecessary. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Merely bored users usually don't give that low ratings - that requires a much more negative emotional state. --KnightMove (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You are attributing your own opinion into the ratings of a large population that you do not know in any way. You also state that you are attributing absence of contrary evidence to be confirmation of your personal bias. Until you come to grips with why those are bad things to do, there is nothing that can be said to further your request. It is possible that many of the "men" were not men. It is possible that many of the "women" were automated rating services. It is possible that many of the ratings came from people who never saw the movie. It is possible that at least one man gave it a low rating because he expected more boobs. Overall, you need to abandon your opinions before you can see the plethora of alternate intermingling possibilities. (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Well said. The sub-conjecture (pardon the pun) that there were a bunch of frustrated women out there because their men would be uninterested in BDSM or role-playing after watching a crappy movie involves so many layers of assumptions that it's difficult to know where to begin. Matt Deres (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 21[edit]

Blind concert harp player?[edit]

Is anyone aware of a blind player of the six and a half octave concert harp (that's the modern pedal harp). All the examples of blind harpists I've found so far (such as this one, and Erika Kelly is only partially blind) play smaller, traditional kinds of harps, with less demanding technique and repertoire. Basemetal 16:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Uninterrupted test cricket matches ending in a draw[edit]

My question is simple: What percentage of uninterrupted international test cricket matches (where no time is lost due to weather, bad lighting, etc), but rather a full 5 days of 90 overs each are played, nevertheless end in a draw? (A draw, not a tie, just to be clear). Can anyone point me to stats or data on the matter? Or, failing that, if they're a cricket tragic, tell me how often, if ever, they've seen this happen? (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Some statistics at: Analysing Test matches across eras - part I and Is the decline in the frequency of draws in Test match cricket detrimental to the long form of the game? and How Often Do Home Nations Win In Test Cricket?. I suspect that finding results which exclude curtailment due to weather may be problematic. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
As you yourself admit, none of these three articles directly answers my question. Though the second does discuss uninterrupted matches somewhat (they often still struggle to make 90 overs a day, apparently). But my initial question remains unanswered - when nature is obliging, how often do draws still occur?. Any cricket tragics who can help? (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I had a look in my copy of Wisden - but that information doesn't seem to be recorded. Wymspen (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe myself as a "cricket tragic", but I usually notice the results of at least England's matches, and have watched portions of many tests. Based on several decade's experience, I'd say draws after 5 days' uninterrupted play are not at all unusual: my W.A.G. would be around 15%. Since all details of all test matches are exhaustively recorded somewhere, the data must exist for anyone, even the OP, to compile them and calculate an accurate figure, but the research would be tedious so I'll leave it to someone tragicer. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

TV ad with bug on the lens[edit]


Look just right of the man's face, by the basketball hoop, in the first few seconds. That's a fly on the camera lens, right ? Can't they take that out in post-production ? Seems like very sloppy production to leave that in. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no fly. I see a basketball in the background going in the hoop. And if it had been a fly, what sort of reference would you like us to provide? --Jayron32 00:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A reference showing whether a fly on the lens can be removed in post-production editing. Something about the way it moved made it look more like a fly crawling on the lens, than a basketball, to me. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure. here is one way. --Jayron32 01:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This is like a moment in the TV series Brain Games. If you focus on the background instead of the foreground, it's clear that it's a basketball. But as Jayron indicates, there are many things that can be done in post-production to alter whatever's on the screen. Like a moment late in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where a fly very visibly crawls into one of the actor's mouths. Either they didn't see it in the rushes, or they just decided to leave it in rather than fixing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


October 14[edit]

World Map[edit]

A flat "World Map" is sought with the capability of zooming (in and out) along with "time zone" and other sort of valuable information. -- (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the first Google result I get for "zoomable time zone map" - other similar sites are available. If it doesn't contain the information you need, let us know what that information is, and we should be able to find something suitable. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that any "flat map" of the world will be badly distorted. The exact type of distortions depends on the map projection used. One of the biggest advantages to a map on a computer is that it can be truly spherical, eliminating all distortion, and yet zoomable, unlike a physical globe. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Computer screens are flat. How does this affect the resolution? 2A02:C7F:A14:AA00:B9C1:49D7:605B:A265 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Your meaning is a little unclear. Computer screens are flat (or flat-ish), but it's the projection of the map itself that is the issue. When you load up, say, Google Earth it presents you with a globe, not a projected map, so the material is not distorted apart from glitches and the areas of incomplete data. But when you load up Google Maps in your browser and zoom out you will see it is a variant of the Mercator projection and it is very much distorted, particularly at the poles - you'll see that Iceland (~100,000 km²) is about the size of Texas (~700,000 km²). Same computer screen, but different projections make for different distortions. In this context, your use of resolution is unclear; resolution would only affect the amount of detail presented on the screen and wouldn't directly change the distortion either way (although seeing more of a projection at once would make it easier to see the distortion). See display resolution and optical resolution for details. Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
So it's a globe viewed through a flat screen. How is that different from a stereographic projection? (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
An image on a screen is not 'projected' in the sense used by map makers. A stereographic projection is just another kind of map projection, one that (from the lead of that article) preserves angles, but not distances or areas. You'll note that an image of the earth made using stereographic projection looks nothing like a globe. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It's true that viewing the entire world at once on a flat screen would necessarily mean it is badly distorted. However, flat maps of small areas are only slightly distorted, whether on paper of a flat computer screen. The difference between a single flat map and a computer screen is that a computer can automatically "reproject" it as you zoom in, to give a projection more appropriate for that location and zoom level (perhaps even asking which projection you want). You can get a similar effect with flat maps, but only if you have an entire book of world maps, such as with polar projections at the poles, and you still can't zoom in very far, except perhaps in a few special points of interest, or the number of paper maps would quickly exceed what would fit in a book.
Also note that there are curved computer screens. However, they are generally only curved in one direction (cylindrical) instead of two (spherical) and being unable to change the curvature means it doesn't adjust as you zoom in and out, but flexible screens can fix that. One interesting note is that the curvature of the screen means you are looking at the map as if you are inside the Earth looking out, but that works out just fine. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

List of oldest companies[edit]

Hi. I AM new to this, little confused, where and how to ask question or comment. Didn't find what I was looking for - missing entry - company called Sporrong, still existing and still kicking, estd. 1666, Sweden. Field should be probably misc., You find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an article on this company in the Swedish Wikipedia: sv:Sporrong. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline for us to have an article about it in the English Wikipedia. The oldest Swedish (and probably the oldest European) company is Stora Enso (1288), so AB Sporrong's age isn't really enough to make it notable without other evidence. Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This is probably about List of oldest companies which doesn't have Sporrong (Stora Enso is listed as Finnish). Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did people bury pottery in the 1960s?[edit]

I live in England. I dug a hole in my garden to bury my dog and I found a load of pottery about 5 foot down. I cleaned it up and some of it was dated year of manufacture 1960. The house was build in 1930. I assume that refuse collection was a thing in 1960. So could you explain to me why someone who owned my house in 1960 or thereafter would have buried so much pottery 5 foot deep in the garden? Answer My Question, Or Else (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 July 23#Why is there so much broken pottery buried in every garden in Great Britain?. It's not clear what percentage of your pottery is dated 1960 or if it's the same type or from the same time. (If it is, then the link is perhaps not of much relevance.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are some possibilities:
1) Somebody came into possession of the pottery (perhaps by inheritance) that didn't care for it, and it didn't have much value, so they buried it all at once. If it's largely intact, that would support this theory, but they might also have smashed them in the process.
2) They kept an open pit there, and tossed in the pottery as it broke. It should all be broken if this is the case.
3) They buried it to hide it, say from somebody else that they didn't want to have it (like after a divorce). For whatever reason, they never retrieved it (maybe they didn't want it either, they just wanted to keep it from the other person). Could be broken or intact in this case, too. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's any chance you live in the London Borough of Hillingdon, is there? My grandparents bought a house there in the late 1950s and lived there until the early part of this century. My grandmother was... somewhat clumsy, and regularly broke plates, teacups, serving dishes, bowls, you name it. Then, for whatever reason, she would have them buried at the bottom of the garden. I don't remember them being five feet down, but I'm sure the ones broken in the 60s could quite easily have reached that depth by now, with a bit of garden remodelling in the meantime. Even if you're not living in my Grandparents' old house, Occam's razor suggests that 'getting rid of broken stuff' might be a reason for someone burying broken pottery in their garden. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An off-the-wall thought, but given that pottery got broken and the pieces were available, might some gardeners have then chosen to bury them in order to improve the soil drainage (as is still a common practice with plant pots, though apparently this doesn't actually work)? Originally the pieces would not have been as deep as five feet, but worm action and soil build-up over the subsequent decades would have increased their depth. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

At this sad moment please accept our condolences on the loss of your dog. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wondering if this was an attempt to dig a soak away which was abandoned. As you have gathered, digging a 5 ft deep excavation takes a lot of effort and not something someone would normally do to simply bury rubbish. As the link (above) shows, in some places one has to dig deep to get through an impervious clay layer. Otherwise one just ends up with a hole full of water. (and even I would give up after 5ft and hire an auger). Your excavation that deep must have taken a good hour, so if you did it over more than one day you will have noticed the walls looking wet (if even if dug in summer) – due to the surface water on top of the impervious clay draining down. If there was any rubble mixed with the crocks that would add weight to the possibility. If it was close to the house or some hard-standing, and if the subsoil is heavy clay, then more so. Therefore, the original excavator may have realised that he had just a water filled hole that was of not going to serve its purpose and gave up.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
My garden has a cache of laser printer chassis, buried about 4-5 feet down. Yes, it's a rain gutter soakaway. The printers were all the same model, from the same office, and were stripped to recover stepper motors or anything useful, then to separate the steel and plastic to different waste streams The chassis for these was a moulded plastic open box, two side panels and a frame between them. Wrapped in geotextile they make a decent rain interceptor. Milk crates have been used for similar purposes and just behind the house the new school has a vast stack of these things under its carpark as a SUDS system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As an aside: Many people in the UK don't realise that their water company (having been privatized) are now automatically charging their customers to take their rain water away, even though they have a soak-away. They not only charge for water delivered but water taken away – including rain water - read the small print. One has to point this out to them and ask for a rebate for all the past years (or rather demand, since the first Jobsworths one gets to speak to at the water company, try to fob you off and stone-wall you), (remember, one has the right to the return of your capital paid, plus interest). That all added together, over a few years, can often amount to a tidy sum Paying for sewerage. Therefore, check your water bill very closely for what they are charging you for!--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying to find a song by The Beatles.[edit]

It was something like:

It's difficult to say everything you want to say. It's difficult to see everything you want to see.

We are/It's all one world/word? (kind of more intense, almost shouting)

I suppose the text is not right, since I'm having trouble to google the lyrics.

--Llaanngg (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

All You Need Is Love? Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Without the right words, this will be difficult :-), but some to try might be And Your Bird Can Sing, All You Need Is Love, and Good Morning Good Morning. Some of their passages are broadly similar to what you've got. I've a feeling I'm missing something obvious, though. Matt Deres (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I was conflating two songs. The first one is All you need is love, mentioned by Tevildo. The second is a different song. Llaanngg (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The second one could be We Are The World, but it's not by The Beatles and rather later than their existence (1985). I can easily imagine someone mistaking it for a Beatles track, though. For a genuine Beatles suggestion - It's All Too Much? Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the second one is "Instant Karma!" by John Lennon, youtube. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Viennese Waltz, I had already lost faith that I would get an answer. Yes, that's right, thank you.Llaanngg (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

tire width[edit]

I am trying to find out why some 2335/85/16 etc tires are only 4 wide in tred and others are 5 wide does it matter on a 3/4 ton truck — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It could matter from an insurance point of view if you have the wrong tires and get involved in an accident which wasn’t even your own fault. Is this an older 'classic' truck inherited from perhaps an older uncle?--Aspro (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Links that may help are Tire code and Tire size charts. Since many factors in tread design for a given code are controlled by the manufacturer, look to reputable tire comparison tests to inform your choice. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Torquay King´s Garden[edit]

Torquay King´s Garden postcard.jpg

Does this garden stil exist? I estimated pre WW I. Am I correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The garden still exists. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's a recent photo from the same spot:[70] 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:45F2:2A:B116:86A4 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I have added the backside of the post card. I cant read the date stamp, only that it was posted in the afternoon. It looks like King George V.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide a link for the backside pic you uploaded? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The clothing, especially the length of the girl's skirt, seems to me to be consistent with a date immediately prior to the Great War, so George V (from 1910) would be right. "The gardens were opened in 1905, by the Mayor of Torquay". [71] You may be able to narrow down the date by the stamp, although postcards could remain on sale for several years. The first stamps issued in time for the 1911 coronation are known as "Downey Head" stamps after the man who took the photograph. They were replaced in 1912 by the "Mackennal Profile" stamps which remained in circulation until 1933. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've just found your "Backside Torquay postcard" image - the stamp is a "Downey Head" and was issued between June 1911 and late 1912. See also Stamps on Postcards - a guide to dating cards. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm reading that postcard correctly, it was franked on 14 September 1912. Smurrayinchester 09:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Dialing digits and calling cost[edit]

What could costs less? Dialing “0” or “+” first/before a whole phone number, when dialing in the same country or another? (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This depends on what country you are phoning from, and whether you are using a landline or mobile phone. It might be simplest for you to contact your network provider directly. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it even make a difference? Sjö (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Help me get my head around the concept of dialing "+" —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
See International call prefix which explains the technicalities of dialing "+" --Jayron32 20:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's years, if not decades, since this made any difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh? International calls are still quite often expensive and billed differently from domestic calls. Or were you being cheeky and making a point that many people don't make international calls anymore because they use the Internet instead? -- (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the OP's question. When dialling an international nasumber, you can either prefix it with an international call prefix or, on a mobile phone at least, you can type '+'. The OP is asking which of these prefixes will make the call cheaper. --Viennese Waltz 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Is he asking that? In many countries "0" is the required first digit of most or all domestic calls (see trunk prefix). The IP of the original question geolocates to Bangladesh which is a country that uses "0" for domestic calls. For example, in my country, to dial me locally you call 079 xxx xx xx, but internationally it is either +41 79 xxx xx xx (or from Europe 0041 79 xxx xx xx, or from US 011 41 79 xxx xx xx). My initial impression of the question was asking whether it costs more to call a local number by dialing the local prefix ("0") or to dial the same number by using the international prefix ("+"); however, on reading the responses, I'm not at all sure what is being asked. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The telephone system of the past often had explicit end results according to how you controlled it from the phone, even where this wasn't useful to the network. By dialling particular sequences, the caller could control not only where a call went, but how it got there. This could be used to force a transatlantic cable rather than a satellite link (avoiding the delay of a satellite). It could even be used to make a long distance call by bouncing between local exchanges rather than through the trunk system, saving charges at the cost of poorer quality.
From the 1950s, control systems became more sophisticated, replacing human trunk operators, and allowing the development of STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling) in the UK. Each destination phone was identified by a number, a single consistent number by which it was called from anywhere in the network. Before this, a local dialling code was needed - the code to call one exchange from its neighbours, and a code which might be different according to from where it was being called. In physical street address terms, this was the difference between an address of "23 Sesame Street" or a routing instruction of "Turn right, then second left". Books of these codes were distributed to phone users, or a large poster of them was inside each public phonebox.
The Director telephone system was at the core of replacing this - the network still needed to use the routing instructions, but the customers were given a single consistent number to dial. Each local exchange (actually a trunk exchange at the large town scale) had a "Register Translator" set (a pair of them, for hot backups) which were a lookup table of the public numbers to the routing number from that exchange. The first of these were valve computers with magnetic drum memory - the RT5 set was still in use into the 1980s.
Later in the '80s, stored program (i.e. computer controlled) exchanges became widespread and these were far more sophisticated. The caller and the numbers they dial became further and further distanced from the physical route used. Exchanges might even route calls differently, according to network load. In the 1990s we saw the shift from switched circuits to packet switching, and the voice network starting to be carried by the data network. Previously these had either been separate, or ad hoc data connections by modem ran over the voice network.
There are now a few ways to dial "the same" number. "+" (usable internationally) has the same effect as "00" (the UK's international dialling access code). If they're in the same country as the destination, a caller also has the choice to dial "0203 1234567", "+44 203 1234567", or "0044 203 1234567". These will all reach the same London number - but two of them are "international" numbers. In the past this would give an expensive international call, or a warning message ("You don't need to dial this internationally, please try again without the code") or (later, and as now) the network is smart enough to recognise that it's a same-country call and so doesn't need to be routed or billed internationally. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that UK London's dialing code is 020 and the phone numbers have 8 digits, many starting 3, 7 or 8. So I guess your numbers above should be "020 31234567", "+44 20 31234567", or "0044 20 31234567". -- SGBailey (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So don't dial the space. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not the point. If you live in London and you want to call your first example number, you would dial 3123 4567, not 123 4567. The spacing is crucial. See UK telephone code misconceptions#Misquoting. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
But no-one does dial that. Not even Londoners. If you're in London, "31234567" might work, but who uses that, rather than "02031234567"? Younger phone phreeks? Old ones (like myself) still think of Inner and Outer London as distinct, even though we know they aren't any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, who knows what people dial. All I can say is that if someone living in London dials 02031234567 when they only need to dial 31234567, they're an idiot. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As a general issue, even outside London, fewer of us are dialling anything numerically, we now use pre-programmed phonebooks in our mobiles, or we click web links, or we simply use what's written on the billboard / plumber's van / business card. All of these use the full code, or even the international version. Certainly my phone has everything in with +44 at the start, even the house number. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Your house number starts +44? -- SGBailey (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The copy in my mobile's contact list does. Otherwise it wouldn't work if I'm abroad. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
SGB interpreted house number the same way I would, as per the link. What you called your "house number", I'd call your "home number" or "home phone number". -- (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm old enough to think the division of Inner and Outer London (1990–2000) was recent. (I might not think that if I'd ever called London more than a handful of times.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities envelope colour[edit]

When/For what purpose should you use a white, brown, yellow (and so on) colour envelope? (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have articles on red and green ones, but not the colours you mention. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Historically, brown envelopes have tended to be used for official correspondence from governments, city councils, utilities and the like, whereas white envelopes were more for personal correspondence. See [72]. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I was taught at secretarial college many moons ago that brown envelopes were used because they are cheaper than any other colour! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Brown are cheaper, stronger, and used to be considerably cheaper as the paper is unbleached and an be made from wood pulp rather than rag. So were favoured for "official" correspondence, i.e. things that needed to be read, whether one wanted to or not. White's greater expense was justified if the sender wanted to encourage the recipient to read it. So a job applicant would write in a white envelope, be refused with a brown one, and accepted with either white or brown depending on whether it was a commercial or government role.
Buff envelopes were also used, especially in the USA, for strength. In the UK they were generally restricted to padded or extra-strong envelopes. One example is a multi-use internal post envelope, used within large businesses. As these were frequently opened and re-tied, and repeatedly labelled (they usually have a printed grid to addresses which were crossed out and re-written in the next space), these needed to survive a lot of handling. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not really about formalities, but brown envelopes are connected to bribery, see e.g. Brown envelope journalism and Urban Dictionary. Sjö (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; paper folding[edit]

How/In what way should you fold an A4 (or any other kind) of paper when handing it to another? Beside, how should/could you possibly hand it to another? In what way(s)...? (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A trifold is often used, as it allows one side to be hidden, ensuring a degree of privacy, if the writing is on one side only. It also fits into a common envelope size that way, for even more privacy. See [73]. Note that the folds should be parallel to the lines of text, and between the lines, if possible, to ensure legibility (ink right at the fold can be lost, over time). StuRat (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You ask how the piece of paper should be handed to another. Are you thinking of whether to use one or two hands? According to Etiquette in Japan, both hands are always used in that country, to show respect. Or are you thinking of something else? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
There used to be a convention in the UK that if handing a communication in an envelope to someone to pass on to the intended recipient, one left the envelope unsealed* to demonstrate trust in the intermediary. The intermediary might then seal the envelope in front of the recipient before handing it to him/her to show that this trust had been extended.
(* referring to the glued flap – use of sealing wax for routine business documents predates even my office training and practice.)
Since StuRat's trifold is a red link, I'll clarify that this refers to folding the paper into three sections, using two folds.
The OP's question falls into the category of Business etiquette, for which we have only a section under the article Etiquette, but this may point to other more detailed treatments appropriate to the particular cultural milieux involved. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Tri-fold redirects to Brochure, but seems to have information on the folding mentioned. 220 of Borg 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The link I provided (pointing outside of Wikipedia) has a diagram. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; pen colours[edit]

What colour pen should you use for what purpose? (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Black and blue are used for most formal correspondence. In accounting, black may be used to indicate positive amounts and red for negatives (see debits and credits). In proofreading, red is often used to indicate corrections, although other colors, like green, may be used by auto spellcheckers to indicate grammar problems. When using software with revision tracking, it may be helpful to use a range of colors to indicate change levels. However, due to the large portion of the population who are partially colorblind, it may be unwise to rely solely on color to convey critical info. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Please indicate what sort of revision-tracking software produces its output using colored pens! -- (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
see Google: here. 2600:8806:4800:5100:DD6A:D0FE:F6C9:448C (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's how to compare two version of an MS Word document using black for text and blue for changes: [74]. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You are missing the IP's point. The question was about pens, not computer software. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I've often heard the ink color called the pen color, perhaps left over from the use of plotters, which do use pens. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Many composers have used ink of different colours when writing their scores. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Green ink is commonly used by auditors in the UK. I wonder if there is a correlation? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As an ex-editor, I'll expand on StuRat's proofreading references. Manuscripts are preferably submitted to the publishers written/printed in black. (Yes, I have had to deal with actual handwritten pages of MSS before now.) The publishers give a black typewritten copy with corrections and amendments (and mark-up instructions) written in blue to the compositors/printers. The printers return the printed proofs to the publisher with any of their own errors they have already spotted marked in green.
After proofreading, the publisher returns the proofs with unspotted printers' errors corrected in red, and further amendments in blue. The authors will also be included in some or all of these stages, may spot errors and will make further amendments, and hopefully follow all these conventions.
The significance of the different colours is
(1) that all corrections and amendments should differ from black so as to be better visible and legible, and
(2) to calculate cost allocation: the printers will be responsible for the cost of correcting their self-spotted mistakes marked in green and publisher-spotted printing errors in red, while the publishers will pay for the costs of the blue amendments. If the latter are particularly numerous,
(a) the printers might make an additional surcharge, and
(b) if the authors are responsible for more than a contractually defined amount of proof amendments (such as more than 10% of the text) the publisher may pass on some charge for them (which in practice will usually be deducted from royalties when payable).
All this refers to traditional pre-computing publishing procedures using paper MSS etc., which is what I worked under. Doubtless the use of computer files, author and publisher compositing (misnamed "Desktop publishing") and so forth has introduced new or different conventions, but the OP was asking specifically about using pens, implying paper. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
In Pakistan I was severely scolded for using green ink which I was told could only by used by the president. But they couldn't explain why green ink pens were sold in shops, or whether the president tended to buy quite a lot of pens from every stationary shop I ever visited.Hayttom (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the unstationary ones were moving too fast for him to visit? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18[edit]


What's with the yuuuge spread among the various political polls this year? Even this close to the election, some show Clinton leading by double digits, while others show a statistical tie or even Trump slightly ahead: If they're scientific polls, you'd expect them to be within about 5-6 points of one another, no? So what's the reason for this spread? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently yuuuge is a strange pronunciation of "huge".
There are a number of factors at play:
1) Third party candidates may make a difference in this election. So, whether the poll is just between Hillary and Trump or includes the third party candidates may affect the outcome.
2) This election may change who votes and who doesn't vote. So, whether you poll all people, only registered voters, or only likely voters, you may get a different result, and figuring out who the likely voters are is no easy task.
3) As always, whether you look at popular vote or electoral votes, you may get different numbers.
4) Some of the so-called "scientific polls" may be cherry-picking results to favor their candidate. I'd look at real news orgs that have called elections correctly in the past, versus fake news orgs who tend to favor one party. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
But how can you tell which news orgs are reliable and which are not? Especially after such a (formerly) respected news org as Reuters got caught blatantly cooking the poll numbers! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You have to look at their record. Have they reliably predicted the winning candidate in the past ? Of course, this automatically excludes any new polling organizations, as we probably should, until they establish a record. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
FiveThirtyEight has a reputation as a good site for meta-analysis of polling results, knowing which polls are good and which aren't, and compiling data from the good ones. --Jayron32 01:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the spread is any bigger this year than previously. In 2012, even one week before the election Ipsos (well-respected) gave Obama a 12 point lead while Gallup (also well respected) gave Romney +5. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is that so? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Polls, part 2[edit]

A follow-up on my previous question: Just how does one deliberately skew a scientific poll? (I know precisely one method for doing this -- reclassify one category of respondents and lump it in with the one you want to artificially enlarge, which is what Reuters/Ipsos had done (they lumped in all the "None of the above"s with Clinton supporters) -- but are there others?) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy has some ideas. --Jayron32 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Weighting methods are mentioned there as a remedy, but they can also in concept be intentionally altered to mislead. AAPOR has additional info on poll weighting here [75]. Here's a recent story [76] about how the weighting proceedure of one poll has influenced its results. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In response to Stu, Fox News has consistently been publishing polls with Hillary ahead, 5 pts today, and the LA Times has Trump up by two. But the only appropriate answer is that polls are not scientific, since they, (1) are not replicable, (2) are not peer-reviewed, (3) have "weighting" that is hidden (similar to climate science, where data is manipulated by a model to fit a prediction) and don't represent any actual entity. What matters is the results in the Electoral College and the House if it gets that far. All else is pretense. Dewey Defeats Truman. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that climate science is manipulated to fit a prediction? The prediction is common sense too: raise Earth's CO2 levels from 280 to 400 and temperatures will rise. Now the onus is on you to tell by what mechanism more greenhouse gases don't cause more greenhouse effect. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I said like climate science where the data is manipulated to fit a model, not simply "like climate science", of which I have read plenty which is purely empirical. And Fox now has Hillary up by six, not five. How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Either show evidence of data manipulation in climate science or retract that rather serious accusation. Fgf10 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thus spake The Nanny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have something useful to add? If not, don't post. Fgf10 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Take your own advice. Just below is the right way to challenge someone's statement. Yours is the wrong way. If you can't do it the right way, then you have nothing useful to add, and should not post. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Fgf10's claims are not extraordinary. It's and is never necessary to provide sources to challenge unsourced claims on the RD, whatever StuRat may and his ilk may like to claim. In fact, in a number of cases it may not even be possible to provide reliable sources to challenge a claim simply because there isn't a wikipedia fact checker where everyone random statement by some random person here is challenged. (Although it's likely reliable sources could be found for this case.) This is actually the way world normally works, again whatever StuRat and his ilk may like to claim. If you're going to make extraordinary claims you should at least be willing to provide evidence when challenged. Yes I know a certain presidential candidate seems to think if you keep repeating stuff it becomes true even if everyone says it's not, often with good evidence, but that doesn't mean we should follow them. Of course μηδείς is the one always moaning about how this is supposed to be an RD, wanting to delete everything because it wasn't sufficiently on topic for them etc, but this is hardly the first time this has happened. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Points 1 and 3 are not correct. Opinion polls are replicable - multiple companies can perform a poll using similar methods and compare results - and reputable polling companies will release the raw data and their weighting methods (this is how people like Nate Silver can build polls of polls). In the UK, this is overseen by the British Polling Council - I'm sure there's a similar entity in the US. You can see, for example, Fox News's latest poll, with all the raw data. Smurrayinchester 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(The LA Times data is here, and you can read about their methodology and why it differs here - long story short, their system boosts candidates with very enthusiastic support, which helped Trump through much of the cycle). Smurrayinchester 12:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The US equivalent to BPC is the National Council on Public Polls [77], though "overseen" is rather strong language. Both BPC and NCPP set standards and expectations for polling but they have no power to enforce them. At best all they can do is certify whether or not a pollster is compliant with their recommendations. Many pollsters, including some high profile ones, are not compliant though. Dragons flight (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A few ways to bias a poll:
1) Ask questions in a form other than what they will see on the ballot. So, instead of asking if they will vote for "Hillary Clinton" or "Donald Trump", you ask if they support the "Democrat" or "Republican", the "liberal" or the "conservative", or, if you want to get really blatant about it, the "Washington insider" versus the "successful businessman".
2) Choose a biased sample. So, ask the question at a National Rifle Association rally in Montana or at a black church in an inner city.
3) Cherry-picking: Do a large number of small polls, ensuring a large margin of error, then toss out the ones that don't give the desired result, and keep the rest. This can be done indirectly, by hiring companies to do you polling. Those that provide the numbers you want, you hire again, the rest you fire. Pretty soon the survivors find ways to give you whatever results you want.
4) Toss out individual polling results that run counter to your desired result. So, if they vote the "wrong way", you disqualify them if they listed a middle initial instead of the full name, as requested, while you ignore such trivial mistakes on those who voted the "right way".
5) There can be some subtle mathematical methods. For example, if two equal polling groups give you 40.6 and 41.6 percent, you can round each to 41 and 42, then average the two, to get 41.5, then round that up to 42, or you can average them both first to get 41.1, then round that down to 41. If you do these rounding tricks at the district level, state level, regional level, and national level, you could have several percentage points difference. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is Hume's problem of induction, that you can't say that the future will be like the past. I'll use the US election 2012 as an example: Republicans assumed that polling well among registered-independent voters meant that they would win. What they didn't grasp (or, perhaps, want to admit) was that the Bush administration had made them so toxic that even their own voters didn't want to admit that they were Republicans. So "independents" (actually moderate Republicans) voted Republican - but it didn't matter, those were the voters that would have been registered Republicans ten years earlier. Romney lost by a lot, while winning independent voters.
Similarly, this US election there is no black person on the ballot, while there is a woman on the ballot. It's reasonable to suspect that this will depress black turnout and raise female turnout - but by how much in each direction? The answer could make a lot of difference. More early votes are coming in than last cycle - but are those people who didn't vote last time, or has one party's committed voters disproportionately decided this year to vote by post?
More loosely, there's always some weaker, less scientific indicator you can point to as proxy that you're winning: "So many people turn up to our rallies!" (we have a candidate that the party base loves but nobody else does) "Sure, we're behind right now, but people say in polls that they're unhappy with the direction of the country - we just need a few more weeks to get our message across!" (They may not like where they are now, but they still would rather that than the crazy orange guy.) "The rule of the undecideds says undecideds break 70% for the challenger - with many undecided voters, we should win even though the polls say we're behind!" (But why is that going to be true this time?) Et cetera. Blythwood (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone doubts that anyone could ever be as shameless as some of StuRat's examples, guess again. I've lived in an area where the council launched an online questionnaire which had some insane questions. I'll fictionalise it to preserve anonymity, but imagine something like the question "Do you support the council taking action to find funds to restore these old buildings?" as code for meaning "Do you support the council selling off land to a housing developer?" It then wrote a report discounting replies after local pressure groups found out about the questionnaire and posted details of it on a Facebook page, since all the resulting replies were clearly the result of "misinformation". I want to stress that reputable polling firms do not do this kind of thing, but if you are a private organisation running an "informal" consultation, you can get away with much more. Blythwood (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Another common way in which surveys are biased - often accidentally - is through the question order. For example, if you wanted to get a strong result for Trump, you might first ask a series of questions relating to e-mail hacking, perceptions of Washington insiders, etc. Even asking which party they normally support first could potentially bias the poll - for example, if someone usually supports the Republicans but is considering a vote for Clinton or Johnson, this prior identification with the party may make them more likely to give the name of the party's candidate. Warofdreams talk 22:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The most accurate predictions based on polling information can be found here Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

What area like this has the highest population?[edit]

It's in the developed world, possible to drive to from the biggest city in the nation but if you try in a 2WD sedan you have at most a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

Inspired by a dream: An Australian tour guide drove us to the start of a road at the edge of the suburbs. He said

  • that's the only way for the town of 1,000 at the other end to reach the national road network
  • there's not so much as a gas station, ranch, or mine in between
  • the road quality's so bad a 2WD sedan has only a 50% chance of finishing it
  • if you try it in a regular sedan you might die


  • the National Coalition kept refusing their requests to make the road easier and this is why 28 million Australians are now run by Labor (implying it was so close that pissing off a village changed the outcome)

We got out and walked, it looked like they just plopped a several inch layer of asphalt on the nature, made the top smooth and left the edge exactly how it plopped on the ground. The smooth asphalt shrunk from 2 lanes to c. 8 feet wide and went from flat to hard for us to walk up. Beyond where we stopped it continued going straight up a 40° slope for what looked like a mile. I asked if it's like this the whole way and he said pretty much. I asked how long it is and he said a tenth of the width of the continent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You're asking for references to interpret your dream where there was an 8 foot wide road that was 1/10th the width of the continent of Australia? I'm not even sure where to begin researching such a nonsensical request... --Jayron32 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm just asking what's the largest population region of the developed world that needs a 4WD/off road vehicle to have a good chance of reaching from the "regular" road network. Where like a Corolla or Civic won't cut it (unless you like being towed out of mud or something every other time). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
See the page guidelines, and find a web forum. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
SMW is clearly asking about a location meeting certain criteria, and any interested responder can supply locations that may meet said criteria, along with references. Nothing in our purview says OP cannot be inspired by a dream to look for certain facts about the world. All participation here remains voluntary, and nobody is mandated to respond with anything. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you cut and paste that "anybody who doesn't want to" nonsense from somewhere, SM? Unless you are going to post a link or a ref, then you don't have to unhat this "question", do you? μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You can look at Peninsula Developmental Road, or Cape York Peninsula for some out of the way places in Australia with not-the-best roads. Another road with 800 km of no-fuel is Tanami Road, but there are other ways to go to Halls Creek, Western Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • According to our article, Iquitos, Peru is "widely regarded as the largest inland city that is inaccessible by road". Cities like that in the Amazon Rainforest are probably your best bet for a large city with only dangerous road access. Warzones are probably another - millions of Syrians live in besieged areas only accessible by roads controlled by hostile forces (whether ISIS or Assad). Smurrayinchester 08:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(Until 2010, the entire Russian Far East (population 6.6 million) would have fit your definition, incidentally. Now the R297 highway (Russia) is open, it's possible to drive from Moscow to Vladivostok without having to traverse the perilous Zilov Gap.) Smurrayinchester 08:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Although you can drive to Vladivostok year round, getting to Yakutsk and beyond is tricky, as you have to cross the Lena River, either by driving across the frozen water in winter, or getting a ferry in summer - in between, it's not accessible in a regular vehicle, so it might be the best answer to the question. If not, perhaps Norilsk, which isn't on the Russian road network, but has various accounts of people reaching it overland, presumably by driving up the Yenisei River when it is frozen over. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This list here has a mix of remote island cities and mainland cities. From that list, it looks like La Rinconada is particularly difficult to get to. There are also several settlements in Northern Canada that are treacherous to reach by road; it's actually easier to reach them in the winter where ice roads can be made; during the summer thaw it's basically a roadless swamp. Tuktoyaktuk is perhaps one of the more famous such settlements. I think the entire mainland portion of Nunavut is also basically unreachable from the rest of Canada excepting a few ice roads and minor paths over which many vehicles may find difficult to traverse. Following that thread, I did find the Capital of Nunavit, Iqaluit, states "... like the rest of Nunavut, has no road, rail, or even ship connections for part of the year to the rest of Canada." Of course, Iqaluit is on an island, so that doesn't meet the requirements. The largest settlement on Mainland Nunavut is Rankin Inlet. The largest inland city (thus requires road or rail access) is Baker Lake, Nunavut, which MAY be a good call for the most remote inland settlement of 1000 people in the world; looking at Google Maps, it is at LEAST 700 miles from Flin Flon to Baker Lake, and 600 miles to Yellowknife, the two nearest cities "as the crow flies" which are connected by improved road to Canada's national road network. I suspect there are many similarly sized settlements in Russia equally as far from improved roads, but that's the most remote one I could find in North America. And Baker Lake is about 1800 people. --Jayron32 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
When considering Canada, it's a good idea to look at which areas are served by the Canadian National Railway, since it, and it's adjacent service roads, are often the only access by land to northern Canada. They've closed some of their more northern routes (they now extend further south into the US than they do north, into Canada), and those service roads soon fell into disrepair, so that's one way to search for such isolated communities. Look at the route map in that article to get started. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Flying Alaska[edit]

On winter nights when visibility is bad (but not so bad as to be IFR), is it common for VFR traffic into Merrill Strip to land at Anchorage International Airport or Elmendorf AFB by mistake? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of what constitutes "common", it seems unlikely that such data is available. This article notes that
The Federal Aviation Administration investigates wrong airport landings and many near-landings, but those reports aren’t publicly available. FAA officials turned down a request by The Associated Press for access to those records, saying some may include information on possible violations of safety regulations by pilots and might be used in an enforcement action.
but goes on to note that commercial aviation in the US experiences about two wrong-airfield landings per year (35 discovered over a period of "over two decades"). The article also notes that the norm is for a larger airfield to be missed in favor of a smaller one; some of this is undoubtedly that commercial aviation tends not to operate out of GA airfields like Merrill in volume, but it may also be the case that pilots are less likely to confuse obviously-elaborate airfield layouts for expected small-field runway layouts. You can also search the NTSB database, filtered on Merrill (code MRI), Anchorage (ANC), etc.; a quick survey finds none for "incidents" (which is the category a non-fatal non-damaging wrong-airport landing would fall under, if investigated). I don't know whether that is the absence of such landings or a lack of formal investigation into them. — Lomn 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
So, no data one way or the other? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Cassini projection[edit]

I was looking through the article at List of map projections and came across a piece I don't understand. The second entry is the Cassini projection, which obviously looks a little wonky compared to most maps you see. Our description on the list says that "Transverse of equidistant projection; distances along central meridian are conserved. Distances perpendicular to central meridian are preserved." I guess my first question is: do preserve and conserve mean the same thing in this context - and, if not, where could I read up on the details? If they do mean the same thing, then I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at the map in either location, I agree that the distances along the meridian are conserved (in case I'm not using the term correctly, I mean that it appears that those distances are the same as what you get if you looked at a globe), but it doesn't look to me as if the same could be said of distances perpendicular to it. The Cassini projection shows the west coast of Central America getting closer to the prime meridian the further north you look, when that is the opposite of what you see on a globe. Or am I misunderstanding the term? The article on the projection uses slightly different language, saying that "Areas along the central meridian, and at right angles to it, are not distorted." The use of area here is particularly confusing to me as it would seem to imply that more than mere distances are being conserved (or preserved). Is there a good primer on this? Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that the distance from a given point to the prime meridian is not along a circle of latitude (unless it's the equator). —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tap water[edit]

There have been ongoing controversies about how bottled water such as Aquafina or Dasani is just re-bottled tap water. Yet I feel like I can taste a difference between bottled water and whatever comes out of my tap at home - which to me, tastes chalky and disgusting. Are there documented differences between popular bottled water brands and municipal water in terms of taste and composition? Or is it just my imagination?--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here in the UK, "spring water" is a commercial term for "water" whilst "mineral water" is what most of us would be expecting.
There are many sources of commercial spring water which are supplied from the commercial water supply network, then bottled. Usually these are further purified, almost always by RO, and then re-mineralised to give a slightly "mineral water like" taste. Some restaurants even purify with their own RO units to provide table water under their own brand. RO water, in its purest form, has quite a distinct taste, partly due to its pH, partly due to its lack of the usual minerals we do expect. Commercial production for bottling though is likely to be sited somewhere where the water quality is already good (in the UK that would mean a soft water area to avoid any chalkiness) but aspects like a prominent chlorine taste can be dealt with by the purification. So yes, you may well find a taste difference just by drinking tap water from a few miles away, bottling is likely to be done from the best of these, and some tastes would have been removed.
Dasani was a failure in the UK, owing to the presence of some unexpected ingredients: [78], then from contamination by the production of bromates. Bromates aren't an issue in natural mineral water, but do arise from a reaction between natural bromides (harmless) and some of the purification or storage processes, such as UV microbial sterilisation or even just a sunny reservoir. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This is an excellent answer. Thank you!--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting point about flavour due to pH. I'm assuming you're referring to the self-ionisation of water? That's only a tiny fraction of the water at any given time, is that going to contribute much to flavour? Or do you mean we're used to water at pH different than 7, due to dissolved minerals etc, and that's why neural water tastes different? Can't say I've noticed that much of a taste difference of RO/DI water myself. Fgf10 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I've drunk distilled water a couple of times, and it tastes flat (as near as I can describe it) -- so self-ionization does not contribute to the taste, and any taste other than flat is due to minerals and pH differences. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This is my experience as well, hence my question. Fgf10 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here area few additional refs on taste and processing of bottled water that you may find useful [79] [80] [81]. N.b., not all tap water is created equal. There are places I've lived where I'd have been happy to have a source of water bottled at the tap of my prior residence :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
One of the things I have noticed is that in some cities the water coming from the tap tastes decidedly better than in neighboring cities, in some cases even better than the bottled water equivalent, though ultimately the water may originate from the same reservoir or water resource. I had in the past attributed it to poor piping.--WaltCip (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
In San Diego the tap water is particularly bad -- I think this could be due to brackish water contamination of the source, rather than the piping (if it was the piping, you'd expect it to taste rusty, but it tastes stale instead). Here in San Jose, though, the tap water is chalky but refreshing. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4DD7:6F54:E487:A4D9 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It depends on where the bottling plant is located, and what its water supply is. For example, there is a local Pepsi bottling plant located about 2 miles from my house, and it is supplied by the same municipal water supply as my own house is, so I wouldn't expect to taste much of a difference in said bottled water. The difference between the taste of YOUR water supply at YOUR house and that of the bottled water sold in local shops can be explained if YOUR water supply is different from that of the bottling plant that supplies those stores. If you want some additional reading on taste tests between tap and bottled water in general, I did find this article from 2011 (only 1 in 3 correctly identified tap water as different from bottled), here is another one with more results in a similar vein. If you want to know why YOUR tap water tastes bad, This article provides a good synopsis. --Jayron32 18:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As a whiskey drinker, I think the 'disgusting taste' which the OP refers to is almost certainly down to chlorophenols and not the piping. A single water utility company may be getting its water from many sources, such us underground aquifers, reservoir and even sewerage plants. The more organic matter (that is too small to be filtered out), gets transform into phenols by the chlorine which is added. Human taste-buds can detect this down to just a few parts in the million and thus leave the water tasting tainted. However, even with my delicate & refined taste-buds I don't have to resort to RO but find that an ordinary inexpensive domestic water purifiers incorporating activated charcoal and ion-exchange resins, makes the stuff coming out the tap acceptable to drink. The actual science ( pH, mineral content and all that stuff) is a little bit more complicated:>< but I think it is worth trying out a cheap purifier first. Bottling plants also treat their water to provide a standard product regardless of where it is bottled, which normally includes passing it through zeolite filters etc.--Aspro (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
One item that I don't think has been touched yet is the presence of air in the water. The water from your tap will have a lot of dissolved air in it (even if you're not intentionally adding it) which will affect both temperature and taste. On the other hand, stowing the water in the fridge may also introduce unwanted flavours as the water picks up the scents of your leftover pickles and olives. Matt Deres (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • My sisters and I grew up getting our tap water from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer at the edge of the South Jersey Pine Barrens, which is noted for its purity. I don't consider it "flat" but I won't drink it without at least ice to give it some character. When we visited my grandparents in South Philly, however, the first thing we would do after greeting them was to crack the icetray and get some ice, which tasted mildly of sulfur. This was even before we'd ask for M&M's or Milkbone Dog Biscuits. I was surprised when I moved to NYC to learn that the water tasted no different from that of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, New York City consistently has some of the best rated tap water in the U.S. See New York City water supply system, i.e. here where it is named one of the top 10 municipal water systems in the U.S. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jayron32, yes; that was sort of my point. Given I was born in NY and lived there since I was 23 it didn't seem appropriate to brag about the quality of NYC water, but it is very good. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
To add an example of how different tap waters can be, consider the Flint water crisis, where they switched from the excellent Detroit water (relatively unpolluted Lake Huron water, etc., that is properly treated) to polluted and improperly treated Flint River water. The difference was not only in taste, but in many measurable ways.
Also, note that letting tap water sit in the refrigerator (in a sealed container), allows the chlorine taste to dissipate. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Do please provide a reference for this. That's a fascinating factoid.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's a source that discusses this method for making tap water safe for aquariums: [82]. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Far as I can tell, that source is only talking about using unsealed containers. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Electrical ant"[edit]

Does everyone know, how this Yale Electric Industrial Truck was steered? By the foot pedals?--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a dim memory of similar trolleys being used at London rail termini in the 1960s. I found this picture of one in use, the driver stands facing forward with his back to the truck and steers with the projecting arm (the one in my picture has two arms - not at all sure how that works). I suspect that the operator had to be standing on both pedals to make it go. All this is a bit conjectural, so I'm hoping someone else knows better. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've googled every search term I can think of and only found a toy one. Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Success! Here's a rather jolly lady driving one in the First World War. No pedals though or maybe one big one. But perhaps yours is completely different, who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
A steering device like that is usually called a tiller. --Jayron32 01:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course! I knew there was a word for it - thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

ISIS execution video.[edit]

I saw the video in which two ISIS soldiers drop rock on man's head. The man gushes his blood from his mouth& nose. Why does blood gushes like that? Ram nareshji (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Blood pressure Fgf10 (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

Merlin Holland[edit]

Is there a way to help me find Holland's contact information (if it is public, of course)? The IMdB seems to be offering it but I do not have access. 2A02:587:2916:5800:E9F9:29F6:7FD7:D538 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Look: If this is a serous request, there are many ways to contact such a person. I normally contact their publisher first and ask them to forward my carefully worded email, stating why I wish contact , purpose, etc., in very clear English. Usually works 100% of the time. So like email:[83], (his current publisher). Yet, if you have serous enquiry you might be better off by emailing his agent:[84] ( click on other if you can't think of anything else). First however, think about any win-win agreement that your purpose of contacting him can provide. He may be a busy man and may not have time for a time waster Don't try this at home folks- these agencies have all sorts of weirdos trying their luck but the agents can be sussed them out early on. Yet, for genuine inquires, one can surprising quickly get the guy your trying to contact, in contact.--Aspro (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
"Usually works 100% of the time." But sometimes it works 0% of the time? —Tamfang (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It works 100 percent of the time that it works. I'm reminded of a Casey Stengelism about some particular baseball play: "Sometimes it doesn't always work." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Mailing list[edit]

I signed up to volunteer for several political campaigns, but I don't want to receive email updates from the campaign—only emails related to volunteering. Does clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email remove my credentials (name, address, phone number, email, etc.) from the volunteer list altogether, remove my email from the mailing list for campaign updates, or something else? When I click on the "unsubscribe" link, there isn't any specification on the webpage that the link links to about which list(s) I was removed from. (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. You're found Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. It looks like you were searching for a person's webpage and ended up here by mistake. We don't know what campaign you're referring to or the intricacies of their unsubscribe button. You would be better served by contacting them directly. Matt Deres (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the websites of political campaigns in general. Does the link to "unsubscribe" take me off the mailing list only, or their entire campaign website's log of credentials? (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Every website is different. You would need to contact them directly and see if it's possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You know what I'm asking, though, right? (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure. And the only one who will know the answer for sure is someone who runs the website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

IPC Training and Certification in Elelctronics[edit]

What is IPC Training and Certification in Electronics and how is it helpful in the manufacturing industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldertraining (talkcontribs) 13:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a great many meanings of IPC - - quite a few of which could have something to do with manufacturing industries. A little precision might generate an answer. Wymspen (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
However you probably mean IPC (electronics). Why don't you read that article and let us know if you have any specific questions. Rojomoke (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Currency Converter website.[edit]

Any reliable source would be appreciated… (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one run by the Canadian firm OANDA. Does that meet your needs? --Jayron32 20:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You should define what you mean by reliable. Plenty of websites will do currency conversion with no attempt to falsify the exchange rates, but what does vary from site to site is how often they update those exchange rates. So, is once a day sufficient, or do you need more current info ? StuRat (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Another is But as others have said, it's not really clear what you're looking for that a simple internet search for 'currency conversion' or something similar won't find. I mean heck, even major internet search engines like Bing and Google do currency conversion themselves. Since we have articles on both of those websites, there should be (and appear to be) WP:reliable sources (according to the wikipedia definition) mentioning them, but also a lot of others. Probably includes some we don't have articles on yet, both because the articles haven't been created and because we require more than a brief mention for an article. If you want to actually convert currency both the earlier mentioned websites are associated with such service, as will many websites that you find in a search. But which one works for you will depend a lot on where you live, what currencies your trying to convert, what form the original and converted currency is going to be in, how much is involved etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Over the breakfast table[edit]

Spotted in the Daily Telegraph:

The El Transcantábrico covers about 400 miles between León and Santiago de Compostela, journeying via Bilbao and Santander in northern Spain on narrow-gauge tracks, with excursions by luxury coach each day to parts the train can't reach.

I have travelled by train to Santander and the tracks didn't look narrow-gauge to me. I thought Spain had a five - foot gauge "to prevent trains, whether troop or otherwise, entering from Europe." Can anyone elucidate? (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

According to our article on the Transcantábrico, it does indeed operate on meter-gauge tracks, narrower than standard gauge.
According to our article on Rail transport in Spain, the majority of the rail lines in Spain are a broad gauge of roughly 5'6".
According to our Iberian gauge article, that gauge was originally chosen because it was six Castilian feet. There's discussion in the "Causes for the difference from international standard gauge" section of the theory you cite, which is evidently commonly believed but not supported by the evidence. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification of encrypted files[edit]

I have a notification on my desktop page saying my files are encrypted and I don't know how to get rid of it and it is there every time turn on my computer How do I delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If it lists a phone number to call to fix the problem, and they then want a credit card number, it's a scam. Your files aren't really encrypted. So, you can ignore the warnings. Hopefully somebody else can tell you how to get rid of them. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This is either actual Ransomware or an imitation of it (which hopes you'll try to pay them off even though your computer isn't really locked). Ignore any appearance of the message being "official" or having been done by some Police Force or similar – locking someone's PC like this is always a criminal act by the locker. Trying to pay for unlocking isn't a good idea as often they won't anyway, and they will also exploit your payment data to rob you. Such malware can often be cleared by rebooting your computer (preferably in Safe mode) and updating and running all the anti-virus/malware programs you have in turn (one may not clear it, while another may). You may have to repeat this a few times as, if the particular malware is new, it may take an update or two before the appropriate countermeasure is disemminated by the security programs involvesd.
You may also find that the message only appears when you use one of your internet browsers, while another doesn't show it (I've had one like this twice in the past fortnight) – you can then more easily use an unaffected browser to search for and download more antivirus programs. You should also be able to visit the website of your Operating System provider (e.g. Microsoft Windows, and run a recent anti-malware application from it.
If none of this works, take your PC to a professional shop to deal with it. (You may have caught the virus from a "dubious" website, but don't be embarrased – they've seen it all and far worse many times before.)
Disclaimer: I have no particular IT expertise, I've merely had to deal with this sort of thing several times over the years, and so far have always been able to sort it out myself – If you're not confident, go straight to the professionals. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)