Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 17

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.

February 17

Youngest person in college

Who was the youngest person ever admitted into college or university in recorded human history? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kearney holds the Guinness record for youngest college graduate (a mark I would consider substantially more significant) at age 10. For what it's worth, he was admitted at 6. — Lomn 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New lady friend

This is a serious Q so please do not delete it. I have just acquired a new lady friend who appears to be over 70 years of age. (I don't know exactly because I'm too much of a gentleman to ask her). Any way what I want to know is: if she cant self lubricate, will she still be able to produce the same sexy odour (that I like so much) from her vagina?--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a gynecologist in the house? We could do with some expert attention to vaginal lubrication. The OP may wish to read about sex pheromones, an understudied phenomenon. Much of the odor of the perineal region and vulva is cused by bacteria, to boot. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What will it matter what she smells like if she passes her chlamydia on to you? Okay...maybe she doesn't have an STD, but my point is that if you don't know her well enough to know her age (or, better yet, whether or not she has an STD), you should probably be focusing on courtship at present. And since a previous RD question of yours conveyed at least an interest in God, I might suggest you also read the articles on fornication and abstinence. --Eustress (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you mistake my slight interest in peoples blind belief in God for a willingness to abide by rules contained in a load of outdated claptrap. The war makers abided by the rules. Your point about STDs is, however, noted. I shall asker her if she has any.--GreenSpigot (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is with sadness that I note a lack of celebratory fervour for Mr Spigot's spirit of adventure. Further expressions of this leaning can be seen here. Bon voyage, Mr Spigot! almost-instinct 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats funny, her name IS Palmer!--GreenSpigot (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A gentleman would not divulge the lady's name - BLOCK :( hydnjo talk 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Over 70 years of age? I'd rather not have to think about this kind of thing...--HootlePooch (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero 3 Karaoke

Are there any places I could get the songs in Guitar Hero 3 on Karaoke? More specifically, I want "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." If there's anywhere else you could get this song in karaoke played by a guitar, that would work too. Thanks --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a neat trick you can to do eliminate vocals from almost any normal stereo recording. If you download a program called 'Audacity' - there is a plugin that allows you to do this easily. What it does is to rely on the fact that almost all sound engineers place the vocalist in the exact center of the stereo field. If you subtract the left audio channel from the right - you end up with a recording with either no vocals - or greatly reduced volume of vocals. SteveBaker (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very clever, but don't you risk losing some of the instrumental part as well? Or, at least, unbalancing it. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It will diminish the quality of the audio, so keep a backup of the original track. "Fortunately," the karaoke singer's voice will "fill out" the tones that have been damped out, and I doubt anyone will notice the damped instrumental section. Nimur (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that when they remove the commonalities, they wouldn't do it for the entire frequency range, just the frequeny range of the human voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that! Thank you so much! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I too was skeptical - but for most pieces of music it's works like magic. The sound engineers generally don't put two or more instruments at a particular spot in the stereo image - so other instruments don't get wiped out to the degree you might expect. Obviously it doesn't work for everything - some pieces work better than others. Duet's suffer particularly badly because (as you might expect) neither of the two singers are placed precisely centrally...and some pieces of music - for whatever reason - don't obey the convention. But if you just want to make a bunch of karaoke music - you'll find plenty of pieces where the vocals simply vanish. It's not necessary to restrict the range of frequencies though - the trick works great with the simplest math. The main problem is that your resulting karaoke track is mono - there doesn't seem to be a way to preserve the stereo information. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Twelve Angry Men

Is there a website which can provide information about in-depth character analysis of the book, 'The Twelve Angry Men'?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzymugger (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had tried searching on Google for a while before I came here and asked but I could not find any results.

Fuzzymugger (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have encountered problems because it was originally a play, not a book. Review 12 Angry Men and look at Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) for its various adaptations. There are some sources for the material that should lead you to more in-depth analysis. --Eustress (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening background tabs of Google in Opera.

Hi,

I am not sure where to put this question, so, if anyone thinks this is the wrong place or something, please feel free to move it appropriately. Thanks.

Anyways, so I use the Opera internet browser and I am quite fond of it. But theres this really annoying problem. Whenever I open tabs of some websites, in the background (websites like Google and all the services of Google), even if I open them in the background, they'll stay in the background for a second and then it'll automatically open up. Its really annoying because I tend to open a lot of background tabs at once (while browsing photographs in an album or something) and they dont stay in the background, and I have to keep going back to my original page everytime. And this problem started appearing about a month or two ago I think. Can anyone tell me how to fix this? Does this happen only in Opera or the other browsers as well. And please dont ask me to change my browser, I quite like mine. :-P Thanks!

Jayant,19 Years, India • contribs 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That behavior is probably caused by javascript in the offending pages. You can disable "raising of windows" under Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Content->Javascript Options to prevent any page from taking over the screen, or you can disable javascript manually on the offending site(s) with right-click->"Edit Site Preferences"->Scripting. – 74  13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It works! Awesome. Thanks a lot! I owe you one. :-) Jayant,20 Years, India • contribs 13:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, questions like this are normally asked at the Computing Reference Desk. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

why is gold valuable?

My question is why is gold valuable? It has some limited practical applications in things like electronics, but gold seems to have some sort of inherent value not related to practical applications. Any time I ever ask someone this question, the answer I get is that gold is valuable because it has always been valuable, but that is a circular argument. Any insight into the matter? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is valuable because people value it. Sorry, but that's the only reason anything is valuable. You'd have to ask each person in turn or realize the obvious, I'm afraid. I like it because it's pretty. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is that there is no real reason gold is valuable, it is just some sort of economic bubble? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No more than anything is a bubble. "Value" is something people assign a thing empirically. We can form theories about why one thing is more valuable than another, but the only way to quantify a thing's value is to sell it at auction. You seem to be saying that there is such a thing as intrinsic value, and I can't think of anything that has that except food, whose price is set by supply and demand like everything else. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the best answer is its relative scarcity and the effort required in obtaining it. --Ericdn (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with you Ericdn, but scarcity alone does not assign value. I could make a one of a kind piece of sculpture, but as I am no artist, there would be no demand for it, thus no value. I guess the main question I am asking then is why gold is in such demand, and the only answer I ever seem to get is because it is valuable. Demand drives value, if value drives the demand of gold, then we have circular reasoning and massive confusion for me. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold is valuable today for precisely those non-practical reasons you mentioned. See gold#history. Gold was the first metal prehistoric people manipulated regularly. It is likely early people came to value it because it is a metal yet it is easy to work into jewelry and ceremonial objects using small amounts (gold plating or foil), was relatively easy to get ahold of because it can be surface mined in pure form from placer deposits (not because it was rare!), and has a nice looking color, is shiny, and doesn't tarnish or rot. Gemstones, pretty minerals, and stone were more difficult to work with because they required appropriate hard cutting and polishing tools. Clay was fragile and could break. Wood would rot over time. Dyes and the organics they were applied to eventually lost their color due to oxidation, lack of color fastness, or rot. Gold has a whole lot of alluring characteristics that other workable materials available to prehistorics lacked, so it isn't surprising gold became valuable to them. 152.16.253.109 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold has useful electrical and medical properties. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But, gold was valuable before those uses were discovered. The questioner wanted to know why gold became valuable in the first place. 152.16.253.109 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And why are bits of paper valuable to people if they have been deemed "money" by the government? Because that pile of money can be exchanged for goods or services. Similarly, I think a lot of why nations (and their citizens) consider gold valuable is the now rarely practiced idea of the Gold standard. Under this system, which was followed in the US until Nixon ended it in 1971, a currency was worth a designated amount of gold. So people valued gold for the same reason they value currency, it is recognized as a medium others will respect and allow them to use to purchase other goods and services. Gold is no longer formally tied to currencies (or vice versa), however people still accept that gold is a valid form of "convertible wealth" and value it as they would a big pile of money. Only it's better cause it's also shiny and stuff. TastyCakes (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was used for the gold standard because it was valuable, though. You have cause and effect the wrong way around. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Historical reasons made gold a "precious metal" while others such as copper and lead weren't, due likely to its scarcity and its pleasing properties as you pointed out. But as far as why it is valuable today, it is entirely a matter of the confidence that the owners (and non-owners) have in it, just like a government currency. And its choice as a modern median of wealth is somewhat arbitrary, as the existence of the Silver standard shows. One could similarly ask "why are diamonds the most valuable gems", when they are more common than other gems such as emeralds? It is exactly the same reason as gold, they are recognized as valuable by enough people to make it a legitimate currency (not in the formal sense of the word). People know they can trade them for goods and services and so are willing to buy or sell it accordingly. It is a giant "confidence game" if you want to look at it that way, only with diamonds it is decades old rather than millenia old. And investors in gold should, in my opinion, understand that, like silver, confidence in precious metals can be lost and its corresponding value drop precipitously. I should probably also mention tulips, but I think I'm rambling enough already. TastyCakes (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this line of discussion would find Official gold reserves interesting. As has been mentioned, the US currency is no longer held 1:1 for gold, but it maintains significant reserves from the Bretton Woods system. Central banks still see value in backing their fiat currencys with gold.NByz (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it should be mentioned that most Central Banks without large gold reserves back their currency with US Dollar reserves, which are primarily backed by gold. NByz (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, it became associated with royalty, and rulers would acquire as much of it as they could, thus denying it to the common masses. The same was true of certain colours - purple, for example. The colour of gold was the thing that attracted people to in the first place, imo, regardless of any practical uses it might have had. It is intrinsically attractive to humans, because most humans are primarily visual; and because it's rare, it's therefore intrinsically valuable. If it were abundant, everyone would still have a whole pile of it because it brightens up a room. But it would be freely available, or could be purchased at a much lower cost than it has today. It's a bit like music: it's intrinsically attractive to the human psyche. The combination of attractiveness and rarity does the trick. The same is true of diamonds, and gemstones generally. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Purple was a status symbol because the dye was very hard to make and so rare and so expensive. It was something of a Veblen good, I guess, so its value is rather strange. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I recall that Palladium became about as expensive as gold for a while about 20 years ago. That might still be the case except for... oh,well. It now sells for about 1/5 the price of gold, about the same as before the the event. hydnjo talk 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't 20 years ago, but palladium spiked around 2001 after automotive regulations required catalytic converters, the main supplier of palladium became unreliable, and large automotive companies started stockpiling[1]. Things have since calmed down, and palladium has returned to a relative bargain. – 74  04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold became valuable as a currency or instrument of trade because it was one of the first common (but not too common!) items that people encountered that didn't depreciate. Wood rots, clothes tear, iron rusts, even copper turns green (although bronze and copper coins were used). This gave it one of the first important characteristics as a useful currency: it acts as a good "store of value." Gold is also infinitely divisible, malleable (easy to form into standard sizes/weights, usually mixed at a fixed rate with another metal) and - by the time it was used as an international currency - was in relatively limited supply (however, whenever a new deposit was found, like the Aztecs, South Africa or California, significant inflation occurred). This last point ensured that the domestic citizenry could't counterfeit the currency at will.

As for why gold retains its' value, industrial, dentistry and jewelry uses have already been mentioned. The fact is, as long as Central Banks keep using it as a reserve (not 1:1 anymore, however) it will hold its value as a currency.NByz (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why that is. If people finally realise that jewellery is dumb (yeah, I know: big if) and if we stop using gold for its other uses, will it still retain its value as long as it's used as a reserve? Would central banks continue using it if they are the only source of demand? They'd have to continue purchasing it to keep its value up. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with both the "Jewelry is dumb" comment and that logic dictates that gold shouldn't retain it's value in that situation, I have to say the answer is yes. The line between a currency and a fiat currency isn't too clear. They both provide similar value. Everyone sees the value of having something that we will all accept as a means of exchange. Otherwise trade would be dependent on what economists call the "double coincidence of wants" - or someone wanting to trade something that they consider to be of the exact same value as something that someone else wants to trade.

A currency has to be scarce, constant and not easily counterfeited. But, even if the US dollar was suddenly not backed by the "full faith and credit of the US government", I think something similar would be retained in its place.

The current thinking in monetary economics is that currencies only retain their value if time is infinite. A currency retains it's value as an instrument of savings (vs. a "medium of exchange" or "unit of account") to you if it's reasonable to assume that it's going to be valuable to the next generation of people. And so on... And so on... As soon as a finite limit is introduced, agents can no longer make this assumption, and the currency loses all value except as a consumable good. Gold included. (For an EXTREMELY TECHNICAL review of these ideas, I recommend Modeling Monetary Economics, 2nd Edition by Bruce Champ and Scott Freeman.)

Most of every currencies' value comes from the fact that others will likely find it valuable in the future. For example, dollar bills are only valuable to you because you can trade them to someone else who will find them valuable for a similar trade in the future.

Well... Most of us don't use gold in this way. But Central Banks do. As long as some central banks find it valuable in the future, all will today. The fact that the average Joe can enjoy this increased demand is just collateral.

Will it last forever? Tough to say. But society has shown that it needs something to act in this capacity. And I suspect something always will.NByz (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for a good read on the subject, BTW, I recommend Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money. NByz (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gold became valuable pretty much universally because it is widespread but rare everywhere, as as a metal it was an good store of value and because it reflects yellow light it would have evoked the sun and fire to all of its discoverers. It was only useful decoratively helped make a statement like "Hey, I've got so much stuff I can waste some of it acquiring a shiny cup/statue/sword at a high cost due to the difficulty involved in obtaining the metal". Thousands of years ago, nothing you made could have required gold so why use it? These displays of extravagance and worship reaffirmed its value continually and its divisibility meant it was great to barter with, while the easiness of calculating the precise amount you had was useful too. From there it pretty much hits a cycle of being valuable simply because people made a choice to value the shiny pretty metal over any of the other ones. If you imagine you've never seen light from anything but the fire or the sun and you see a hundred pounds of gold in the blazing sunshine then you can see why people were impressed. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard this years ago on a TV documentary series, probably either The Ascent of Man with Jacob Bronowski or Civilisation with Kenneth Clark, and I believe I am remembering the line verbatim: "We value gold because it is scarce; the ancients valued gold because it is incorruptible." It retains its shine and color without rusting like iron or tarnishing like silver, and is even immune to most acids. --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, February 18, 2009.

It's Bronowski - in the book it takes the form "To us gold is precious because it is scarce; but to the alchemists, all over the world, gold was precious because it was incorruptible." (page 136) DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I didn't remember the wording quite as well as I thought. --Anon, 04:33 UTC, February 19, 2009.

Or he tweaked the wording for the book. DuncanHill (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something that might show how value can become widespread through the appreciation of a significant/powerful minority. In US prisons, the previous store of value, cigarettes, is now outlawed and has been replaced by mackerel, which is valued by bodybuilders who want protein. Presumably the huge guys with the bulking arms have some influence in prison... 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a great story. I know plenty of economics nerds who would love to mention that to their undergrad classes. Thanks!! NByz (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Diamond-water paradox. --132.216.19.215 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasons for gold being inherently valuable for jewelry:

1) It's rare.

2) It doesn't tarnish (oxidize).

3) It's unique in appearance. That is, it's yellow, which is uncommon for metals, most of which are silver/gray/black. So, while platinum is also rare and doesn't tarnish, it looks just like silver or many other cheaper metals.

I don't include malleability and electrical conductivity, as being soft is also a disadvantage for jewelry and electrical conductivity isn't important in jewelry. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Swimming in the ocean, and keys/belongings

If you're at a swimming pool, you simply take a locker key, place your belongings in it, and attach the pin to your shorts or whatever when you go swimming. Also if it does get lost, there are people there to help, and there is only a finite distance to the depth of the pool therefore can be removed, also they will have a spare key for the locker. All safe and done.

But what about swimming in the ocean? What if you and another person or group of people want to go swimming in the sea? Is it necessary to have one person watch over your keys/belongings? I know it's not a good idea to go swimming on the beach alone, but say it's at a crowded beach where you feel your belongings may get stolen if no one watches over them, but you are also alone and swimming only a small distance into the sea, so it's safe, yet you cannot attach your keys to anything or give them to anyone to hold, especially if your room your are renting's landlord is not there to take your keys. What then?--XerxesK (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Booby trap your belongings almost-instinct 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the beach, there may be lockers or other secure storage available. Generally though, you shouldn't bring your valuables to the beach in the first place. If you have a (secure) vehicle you could lock any other keys in it and just take your vehicle key with you (it's also a good idea to have a spare key, either with a friend or locked in the vehicle). It is slightly more complicated if your vehicle keys have keyless entry buttons built-in, but you can probably use a keyholder/lockbox to safely hold those keys. Still, you shouldn't need more than one or two keys (leave the rest at home), and you can easily take those with you (just make sure they are securely stowed). – 74  00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Travellers tend to have a waterproof bag or small, threaded, container into which money, keys, watch and sometimes even a driver's licence and passport can be secured. This is then tied around the waist. I have a hard, red, plasctic "box" about four inches tall, by two inches deep, by three inches wide that is strung with a cord for my waist. (It tends to bob up in a distracting fashion if you are male, or slight of bust, so you have to keep it snug.) I also have been known to put such valuables into a double, zip-lock, plastic bag, removed the air and then put the bag in a waist money-belt. You just rinse out the belt when you get back to where you are staying in order to remove the salt. (This was obviously an ocean swim.) My book and my towel just have to take their chances. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checked my wayback_machine and recall that the beach lockers had a key attached to a wristband. hydnjo talk 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something like this [2] is useful for car key, a credit card and some pocket change. Everything else should be in the hotel safe or watched by a trusted friend. Depending on where the beach is cars and trunks are not safe. If you have to leave something inside make sure it's not exposed. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you do simply lock your stuff in the car, do not go in the sea with the remote locking keyfob in your pocket. I know from bitter experience that the keyfob is not waterproof, and getting a replacement is a massive inconvenience and extremely expensive (nearly £100 some 7 years ago). Astronaut (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally I just trust people not to steal my dirty clothes, smelly socks, and worn out shoes. I don't bring anything worth taking. Plasticup ^T/C 21:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)