Miscellaneous desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 19

Removed?

I'm not totally sure this question is in the right category, but: If a friend says they are visiting their cousin twice removed, how are they related to them? What does the "removed" part mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.20.8 (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cousin once removed is your cousin's son or daughter, or your mother or father's cousin - that is, the "removal' is by one generation. Your cousin twice removed is either your grandparent's cousin or your cousin's grandchild. See Cousin for all the messy details. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've noticed that some people incorrectly use the term to mean horizontal spanning of the family tree instead of vertical. So they may have meant "second cousin" or even "third cousin". This usage would be completely incorrect. APL (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, some people use "second cousin" to mean a first cousin once removed. This is also incorrect (according to most people who understand the terms, anyway -- you might find it given in dictionaries, as they just record usage and don't prescribe correct usage). --Anonymous, 04:18 UTC, July 19, 2008.

Mustard

Is mustard a use by or best before food? Because for breakfast this morning, I had sausages with mustard. I couldn't find the date on the mustard bottle. 124.176.160.46 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the definitions in the article I'd say best before. -hydnjo talk 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've used mustard in small quantities several years after it expired and it seemed fine. This was stored in the fridge though and was French mustard not that funny American stuff which is more like a ketchup or sauce Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect mustard to rot, but it may dry out, oxidize (darken), or separate, any of which would make it unappetizing. However, they are also all visually apparent, so you could tell if it had "gone bad" before tasting it. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the mustard, but most mustards are made with a large proportion of vinegar, thus making them a kind of pickle (sort of). The purpose of a pickle is to preserve foods for long storage, usually without requiring refrigeration. That's not to say they'll never go bad - if you have a lot of sugar or other such additives you may have an issue. I'm no expert, but I'd probably agree with the consensus of "best before". -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aliens - air and water

I have followed some researches about aliens. Whenever they talk about alien life in other planets, they also refer water, air and climate.

I don't know how these factors also make any sense for aliens.

I doubt there could possibly be aliens in sun and earth too. ;)

--V4vijayakumar (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, water is assumed by many scientists to be necessary for the existence of any kind of life, because of it's multiple useful properties, like its high surface tension and ability to act as a solvent on just about anything, that are not shared by many other molecules. Presumably, any kind of intelligent alien life would also need an atmosphere of some form to survive without exploding (except for underwater life, but arguably an entire planet covered in water qualifies as an atmosphere as well). Climate is a natural consequence of the existence of an atmosphere and the movement and rotation of a planet around a star. I have no idea what the last line of your question means, so I won't attempt to answer it. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just because we breath and drink, we expect the same from aliens? Is it just because we have eye, nose, lungs, heart and brain, we expect the same from aliens? Is it just because we need some kind of vehicles to travel, we expect the same from aliens? We still believe in some kind of weird stuffs aliens could have, like, crystal that attracts gold, or advanced microprocessor technology. Why restricting aliens with in these boundaries?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Evolving the Alien by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. Stewart and Cohen agree with you - they argue that any study or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life that starts with the assumption that life requires conditions similar to those found on Earth is too restrictive. They make a convincing case. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be possible for completely different forms of life to evolve in radically different environments, we don't know that for sure or know which environments to look for. However, we do know that it's possible for life to evolve in an environment similar to Earth, so it makes sense to allocate scarce resources to search those places for life first. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, life that's evolved in radically different environments may be hard to recognise and relate to. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversi

Hello. When would a player use mobility and parity as described in Reversi#Strategy? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play the game, but I believe these ideas are constantly relevant during play. Algebraist 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a mid-level player I go with trying to get the opponent in the position of taking forced moves, then use that to secure corners and their continguous edges, which are then absolutely safe. Then, at the end, those advantages can be used to flip the most discs and win the game. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolving US corporations

Who has the power to dissolve a corporate charter within the United States? --harej 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation itself, obviously, and the courts. (Although the courts may only be able to do so indirectly, in certain circumstances, say by seizing all the corporation's assets to pay a judgment against the corporation.) And, perhaps, in the case of corporations like Halliburton, they could be dissolved by Dorothy, using a bucket of water (let's hope Cheney gets splashed with the water, too). :-) StuRat (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

girl problem

hi, i just want an answer to my problem

i was talking to a friend of mine when i suddenly splurted out (accidentally) about her ex-boyfriend, and she got emotional and all... and she is very upset what shud i do to make her happy? give her some of her favorite chocolates? or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.248.79 (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect an apology would go a lot further than chocolates. —An gr 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe chocolates and an apology! Richard Avery (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you're pondering what to do, ponder this - there are no accidents. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else going on there if she's that emotional about an ex-boyfriend. Only you know if what you said was really wrong or if her reaction was out of proportion based on her lingering feelings. I agree with Angr and Richard, but if what you said was an honest mistake and not something you should've known better about, then I think that should be reflected in the type of apology you give. -LambaJan (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the above. Unless you said something truly insensitive or mean relating to this girl's ex, it's really not your fault. She's clearly very sensitive or traumatized about this fellow, and there's nothing you can do to fix her or make her happy. She just needs time to get over him; maybe she should apologize to you for putting you in such an awkward position. If she's truly your friend, she won't make you have to walk on eggshells every time you're having a normal conversation.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter riddle

it's above letter j and i .What am i? i assumed the answer to this riddle would be a dot. Could that dot have a special name .Or if anybody knows the answer to this infamous riddle please assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dot over i and j is technically called a tittle, though riddles like this usually have less obvious answers. —An gr 09:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a b c d e f g and h, if you consider the alphabet, but that doesn't seem right, either. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or the number 8, if you look at a qwerty keyboard. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beale Ciphers

I recently came across this site. It claims to have solved the Beale Ciphers. Does anyone know whether or not it is true? Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's crap. The site has apparently been in operation since 2001, according to the copyright information on their site (the Wayback Machine goes back to 2002). Note that they provide no information about how the ciphers were solved. Why would they hide that? There's nothing to be gained by keeping that a secret, and publishing that information would lend them an instant air of legitimacy and credibility. (They do have a picture that shows the letter substitution they used to "decode" the message, but no information as to how they came to use that letter substitution that I can find.) They have "pre-dig video footage", which shows essentially nothing, as well as a bunch of pictures of their "excavation site", but they have no video footage (or, indeed, any pictures at all) from inside the vault. Why not? What, they couldn't bring a camera in there? Sure, they have some pictures of old things that were supposedly found in there, but none of them have anything to do with Beale -- they could've been found anywhere. Also: this is a fairly famous mystery. If these guys had anything, surely the media would have been interested and reported on it? Yet the world at large seems to consider the Beale cipher unbroken. Nope, it's crap. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was rather dubious about it but a second opinion is gratefully received. Thanks for taking the time. Harland1 (^t/_c) 11:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolicon page on Wikipedia

After opening the page expecting to find an explanation of Lolicon I found an artists drawing of three girls.

This is now illegal in the UK.

How is it still visible on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torres24 (talk • contribs)

This drawing doesn't violate Florida laws and Wikipedia isn't censored. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm not sure what the UK's definition for illegal material is, but considering that the three girls in the picture are wearing clothing that is less revealing that most swimsuits are and the characters aren't posed in a particularly erotic manner and there's really nothing overtly sexual about the picture, I'm a little skeptical as to the illegality of this picture even in the UK. (Even the erotic context mostly comes from the fact that the caption uses the word "erotic" rather than the picture itself.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...also, let me quote the article itself: "Non-photographic images of children have never been illegal in the United Kingdom[.] However, on 13 December 2006 [it was] announced that the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse — including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse — after pressure from children's charities. The Government published a consultation on 1 April 2007, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine." Has this plan now been turned into a law? Is the article out of date? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of may 2008 ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm the proposed law has not been made yet. (I think).87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Wikipedia is not in the UK, it's in Florida. APL (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more relevantly, the image doesn't depict child abuse. —An gr 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

schopenhauer identifies pederasty as afflicting those too old or weak to reproduce; in this sense their obsession with loli-porn/fur-suits etc can be considered a blessing in disguise.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out that the article on platypus contains a depiction of such an animal in voluptuous full frontal nudity, which may motivate people of bestial inclinations to perform disgusting acts whilst lustily ogling this lurid image.

Even worse, the article on stiletto heels shows such a profoundly pornographic fetishistoid tool of slippery leather and vile erotic gleam, potentially luring the innocent cobbler to orgies of depraved lust and sinful obsession.

There is the clear danger, that all shoemakers succumb to hirsuteness of the palms and visual impairment, resulting in suitable footwear to become extinct. Whereupon the last solution is the breeding of genetically engineered platypus slippers.

Warning, this - seemingly harmless - last link contains Satanic viruses! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have what he's having! --Sean 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia copyright

How come Wikipedia copyright rules are so strict? Most websites use any images they want and just credit the copyright (or not even that sometimes). Is this illegal? PS: I am not asking legal advice. --217.227.123.3 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would normally be illegal (IANAL, and there are plenty of exceptions). Wikipedia's policies are strict because Wikipedia is supposed to be free content; anyone should be able to legally copy anything on Wikipedia for any purpose. Of course there is a compromise between the free ideal and the goal of creating a good encyclopedia, and so we have the (hotly contested) Non-free content criteria. Algebraist 16:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're trying to make it so that people can recopy the content of Wikipedia and do anything they want with it, so the less copyright confusion we have to deal with, the better. --Masamage ♫ 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "IANAL" mean in English? Edison (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't try IANAL Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the case that as Wikipedia becomes higher and higher profile it opens itself up to greater and greater risk if it had sloppy handling of copyrights. "Most websites" are just tiny affairs—not many readers, not many administrators, not much money exchanging hands to keep it afloat. With greater prominence comes greater scrutiny, and greater possibility of problems. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Angr#A parable. —Keenan Pepper 18:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now available as a free-standing essay at WP:VEGAN. —An gr 18:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a weird pot-luck dinner indeed if there was an intention to produce one high quality example of every possible food item. If the pot-luck did have such lofty goals there would have to be many compromises to its vegan nature. Such a massive pot-luck dinner would require a vast number of contributers, many of them would be more interested in completeness than vegan-ness. If you ask me, the metaphor doesn't really scale properly while retaining the moral its writer intended. APL (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdays

Is there a bias in the distribution of birthdays? I mean are there more "spring babies" than "dead of winter babies" in some nod to our primal nature? TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the "official" answer, but a lot of my cousins got pregnant one winter, and my uncles agreed it was because of a big snow storm we had. So that resulted in several autumn babies. --Masamage ♫ 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have an article, but there's a brief discussion in footnote 3 of birthday problem. Algebraist 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are statistics for the USA quoted here [1] which give July as having the most births and February the fewest, but it also points out that February is the shortest month. It also says "Generally speaking, the numbers are so close for all 12 months that the National Center for Health Statistics warns there really is no single trend." Another survey, of all births at a particular Dallas hospital throughout one year, found that "most births occurred in the fall, between September and November. Child births were least common in the winter during the months December through February." [2]. So yes, there does seem that there may be a summer/winter bias, but not a big one, and it varies. Ka renjc 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much I trust this data: [3], but it has some interesting features. For one thing, it shows a surprisingly strong weekly periodicity, with Sunday being the least popular day. I would have thought the distribution in gestation times would be broad enough to smooth out such weekly variation, but apparently not. Once that weekly variation is averaged out, the data shows a large, broad peak around August-October, corresponding to conception dates during the winter holidays, and a smaller but much sharper peak centered at November 14, corresponding to conception on Valentine's Day. —Keenan Pepper 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the paper from which that data is taken; it looks pretty legit: [4] —Keenan Pepper 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday is less popular because hospitals don't induce birth out of working hours. Algebraist 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At http: //www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/11_21_98/mathland.htm is a table of US data for 1978-87 showing average daily birth frequencies for each month, i.e. it is corrected for the month lengths. Here is a graphical presentation of the table.

   MONTH     DAILY FREQUENCY         GRAPHICALLY        9TH MONTH EARLIER
   January      .0026123          *                        April
   February     .0026785             *                     May
   March        .0026838              *                    June
   April        .0026426            *                      July
   May          .0026702             *                     August
   June         .0027424                 *                 September
   July         .0028655                       *           October
   August       .0028954                        *          November
   September    .0029407                           *       December
   October      .0027705                  *                January
   November     .0026842              *                    February
   December     .0026864              *                    March

As you see, this data set shows a small but distinct peak in births from July to September, corresponding to conceptions at the time the weather is getting colder. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, July 20/08.

I've been told that if you are in a group of 30 people, it is likely that 2 people will have the same birthday: month and day. We checked this out at work at a staff meeting and another woman had the same birthday as me. The data above is logically sound. My own experience is not. Perhaps I have another case of selective observation.Quakerlady (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all birthdays were equally likely and leap years did not exist, a pair of unrelated people would have a 1/365 chance of sharing a birthday. Well, a group of 30 people includes 435 different pairs of people. (Person 1 can be paired with person 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 30; person 2 with 3, 4, 5, ..., 30; and so on.) Once you think about it that way, it should not be at all surprising that you would find a pair with the same birthday.

Note: this is not how you calculate the actual probability; see birthday problem for that. It's just a way to help you see how unsurprising it is that the probabilty of a repeated birthday is large even if all birthdays are equally probable. (For 30 people it's actually about 73%.) A slightly uneven distribution of birthdays such as I cited above will raise the probability a bit more, but only a bit. --Anonymous, 19:31 UTC, July 24, 2008.

In the British coal miners' strike of January/February 1974, in an effort to economise on electricity the government decreed that all TV channels had to close down at 10.30 p.m. There was an appreciable spike in births nine months later, which demonstrated what people did for entertainment when there was no TV. -- Arwel (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite please? --Anon, 19:31 UTC, July 24.

Making fun of rape

Is it ok to make fun of rape of males, but despictable to make fun or rape of females? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, esp. if rape of males is occurring in prison. This is, I imagine, because rape of females is seen as the powerful taking advantage of the less powerful, whereas rape of males is supposed to be more commensurate (and males who get raped are seen as having failed at being truly masculine). But that's my ad hoc, cheap analysis, and is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't think rape of males—esp. prison rape—is really that funny either. (It speaks poorly of the US justice system that such a thing occurs quite regularly. It is a savage and unlawful, certainly "cruel and unusual punishment", and the fact that it seems practically condoned as part of "serving the time" is, well, unsettling to say the least.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not okay to make fun of rape ever. --Masamage ♫ 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the opinion of the late great George Carlin, (paraphrasing from Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics) "You can joke about anything. Even rape. People say rapes not funny. I say it is. Just image Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. Why do you think they call him 'Porky'? ... I wonder if there's more rape at the equator or at the North Pole. I mean proportionally. I know there's more people at the equator. We have millions of people at the equator. How many eskimos do we have? Five? ... Now, the biggest problem that an eskimo rapist has... How to get wet leather leggings off of someone who's kicking!" So, you asked if it's "ok". I'd say it depends on who you ask. Dismas|^(talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest, I wouldn't ask George Carlin anything, and find that quote pretty intensely horrific. But yes, there are people with whom you can joke around about rape and who would find it hilarious and not be offended at all. Most of them are male. --Masamage ♫ 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape is as funny as any other horrible subject. See black humor for more examples. For a skilled satirist or humorist, all ugliness/horror/tragedy/absurdity in life is fair game; there are Holocaust jokes, pedophilia jokes, 9/11 jokes, not all of them altogether without value.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also would not ask George Carlin anything, but only because he's dead. APL (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could ask, but he wouldn't have much to say in reply! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Brooks is another comedian, and a Jewish one, who's said (explicitly, after being asked by Andrew Denton) that it's OK to joke about the Holocaust, because in his view there is simply no subject that is not a fit subject for humour. Hence The Producers. But it takes a skilled comedian to be able to do it and get away with it without offending people. I'm sure he wasn't in any way downplaying the suffering of the Jews when he wrote Springtime for Hitler. It's possible to have a joke the subject of which is rape (whether male or female) that raises a smile even on the face of the staunchest and most obsessive anti-rape campaigner, or on the face of a rape victim. But don't pervert that concept into making it OK to go around willy nilly joking about rape (or pedophilia, or the Holocaust, or whatever). From a moral point of view, there's no difference in degree of harm between the rape of a woman and that of a man - or a child. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz said it well. A clumsy comedian cannot pull off this sort of joke without making mainstream audiences wince in disgust.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if prison rape jokes were ever funny, they're certainly tired by now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also that consideration, heh. --Masamage ♫ 08:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with User:Dismas. It depends on who you ask. Many people find jokes like that funny and many do not. The Reader who Writes (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But don't forget the guys who go in "straight" and come out (no pun intended) having discovered their true sexuality. OK, they didn't go looking for it - it just found them out - and they never looked back (again, no pun intended). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.200.239 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does happen; and one can discover one's sexuality in the most unexpected ways. But I doubt any of those guys are going to be thanking their prison rapists for helping them find their true nature. It's not like "Stop! Help! .... no, actually, I kinda like that so keep going". Rape in any circumstances is horrific brutality, and has nothing to do with sexuality, or even sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of black humor is that a person can make fun of themselves or their group with good credentials. Mel Brooks can make fun of the holocaust because he's Jewish. Germans should probably not do the same. I've seen handicapped comedians make fun of handicaps, ethnic comedians make fun of their ethnicity. I don't expect handicapped comedians to make fun of ethnic background. So I guess a person who had been raped would have the credential to make jokes about rape. I doubt that will ever happen. It does remind me of a joke... (I'll refrain)Quakerlady (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did once hear a German comedian make a holocaust joke, and it was one of the funniest things I've ever heard largely because it was so unexpected and deadpan. But thinking about it, it was sort-of a joke at the expense of Germans rather than the victims. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Thomas Pocket Watch

I have a Seth Thomas pocket watch which I would like any information on. The watch is an open face 18 size.The only information on the back plate is the date =8.1.99. There is no serial number. The name (model) on the back plate is Railway. There is no indication as to the number of jewels the watch contains. The word adjusted is also shown. The watch is a full plate and appears to be identical to a Maiden Lane model with the exceptions noted above, plus some differences in the regulator which appears to be of the star type.

The face of the watch has a double sunk porcelin Montgomery style dial with the numerals 13 through 24 in red on the center sunk portion of the dial. The seconds bit is in the other sunken portion of the dial

Any help you could give me in identifying this watch would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.70.251 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you open the watch and look for a serial number on the mechanism inside? That is where it is on old pocket watches I have examined. Do not attempt this if you are not capable of doing it without damaging it. A jeweler should have no trouble opening it. Edison (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital picture frames

From our Digital photo frame article:

Certain frames can also load pictures over the Internet from RSS feeds, photo sharing sites such as Flickr, Picasa and from e-mail. Such networked models usually support wireless (802.11) connections.

Does anyone know which exactly as I've been unable to find them in google? Can this be done remotely. For example uploading pics for your friends display from your own house. Fanx. 190.190.224.115 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are these just regular LCDs or are they somehow boosted for crisper colors and better viewing angles? I assume that every single depicted example for sale has had the demo photo photoshoped in as they always appear crisp and with intense colours. 190.190.224.115 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you search for? My first Google search http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=Digital+photo+frame+network] gave [5] as the first result. I haven't looked into the details, but I don't see any reason why this couldn't be done remotely. Worst case scenario and the device doesn't use TCP/IP, you set up a listen server on a computer (remote desktop, SSL daemon, VNC, or even a customised web server) in your house which is remotely accessible and does whatever needs to be done to update the image. More likely, the device probably just uses standard TCP/IP so provided you have a firewall/router capable of forwarding the appropriate ports and your remote computer has the appropriate software and is likewise set up to send the traffic over the internet it should be fine. If this really doesn't work, use a router with (or run on your computer) a VPN server and connect to the router/computer with your remote computer. Simce you now have access to the remote LAN there's no reason why it shouldn't work. And yes, images 'displayed' on display devices depicted in a photo are nearly always added after the fact be they digital photo frames, TVs, whatever AFAIK. A random guess but AFAIK you can generally make LCDs with better viewing angles and better colours and better contrast if you are less worried about the response time although I have no idea if digital photo frame LCDs are of that kind. Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i guess it was the word "network" I was missing in my search. Thank you Nil. 190.190.224.115 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime

The primetime article here on wikipedia states that primetime is 8-11 pm eastern and pacific, and 7-10 pm mountain and central. However, this doesn't make sense to me. if the mountain time zone used the east coast feed of a cable channel (obvisously local channels have theirs set up as they wish), than primetime programs would be 6-9 pm. If it used the west coast time, it would be 9-12 pm for the primetime programs. Please help me understand exactly what this is saying.--Ac1983fan 22:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hours long predate the existence of cable. It's more a social thing -- I suspect central and mountain time zones had higher proportions of early-to-bed early-to-risers. Predominantly rural vs. predominantly urban. I wonder if the concept of prime time goes back to radio days? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that TV stations in the Mountain time zone record the Eastern feed, and then play it back an hour later.

I found a similar question as an old Google Answers post: TV times in Mountain time zone. The comments there suggest that it's up to each Mountain time station which feed they receive and how much they delay it. It's also pointed out that the Mountain time zone only includes 6% of the population of the continental 48 states, and that time-delay equipment is more economical than a separate Mountain feed.

You can verify the actual times programs are shown by entering different zip codes on a TV listings website. For example, TV stations available in zip code 84101 (Salt Lake City) use the 7p-10p prime time, according to Yahoo TV listings. --Bavi H (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]