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.
Although Finlay directed you to the relevant article, I think a brief answer here is in order: The red areas mark the times during which radio stations using the international distress frequency of 500 kHz should stop transmitting and listen to see if any distress calls are being sent. --Thomprod (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the alt codes for a, e, i, o, and u with the macron and caron, and what are the alt codes for ü with all four accents (acute, grave, macron, and caron)? --108.225.117.142 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page on Alt codes; the references at the bottom of the page will answer your questions. -- 74.252.5.226 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't have alt codes for any of those characters. --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this page is, but it lists codes for all of the pinyin vowels. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a neighbor that is scared to death to leave her Yorkie (dog) out because we have red-shouldered hawks in the area. I tell her they will not carry her off. Am I right? I told her she should worry more about the Great Horned Owl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.206.48 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And yes. The Red-shouldered hawk is quite small; unless her Yorkie is the size of a chipmunk, it probably outweighs the poor hawk handily. Horned owls on the other hand are larger and much more ambitious... Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ball and chain attached to the dog's collar will prevent even a horned owl from carrying off its carcass. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As would cementing the dog's paws into the pavement. Arguably it's not very useful advice though. --Tagishsimon(talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Especially not if it's a spherical Yorkie. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read about it, it seems like it was a lot better than current math instruction. The focus on abstraction especially seems like it would've been helpful. --146.7.96.200 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on abstraction was precisely the problem -- it produced people who were unable to deal with the concrete. Our article New Math covers the issues reasonably well. As a personal note, I think the criticisms tend to be a bit overstated -- I went to elementary school during the New Math era myself, and the techniques worked reasonably well for me -- however I ended up going to graduate school in math, so perhaps my ability to handle abstraction is a bit better than most people's. Looie496 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It failed for two reasons mentioned in different parts of the article. Primarily, it failed because the concepts of math are cumulative and, to use Looie's terms, children must master the concrete to the point of automatization before they can conquer more abstract notions. The second problem was that most teachers did not themselves fully grasp the notions. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract concepts are easier to grasp than concrete ones (i.e. rote memorization of multiplication tables, etc.). --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... only for some people at some ages. Dbfirs 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
146 is incorrect, unless he's an unusual genius and can do it that way. Learning by the young needs to go from the specific to the general, not the other way around. Tom Lehrer, who taught university-level math, said it well during his song about New Math: "In the new approach, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer."[1] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of ease, but of priority. There is some leeway. But learning to count precedes addition, which precedes multiplication, which precedes algebra, which precedes calculus. Some higher level concepts like powers may take much less effort to learn than mastering the multiplication table, but doing so cannot precede learning the multiplication table. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also just add that it's not clear that it really "failed" in the sense of being expunged. When I was in high school in the early 1990s, I was in a New Math-like program (Interactive Mathematics Program) that focused on concepts rather than rote. Frankly I found the concepts very easy by comparison to the rote, but one doesn't always want to start every calculation problem from first principles. My mathematical skills are pretty crap and have been since then; I somewhat wonder if I had been taught by rote I'd be a bit better off. I can still do all of the rote math that I did in elementary school; pretty much everything from high school onward is lost except for things that were reinforced by rote (like SOCATOA and all that). Just my two cents, results no doubt vary with the student. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Math was introduced in elementary school, or was in my day. I am not sure exactly what you would have been learning by rote in high school, when things like sets, modular math, estimation, and bases and the like would actually have been appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty typical. Things we learn but never use are soon forgotten. This does bring up the question of why we spend years of our lives learning things we will never remember. There must be a better way, with far more specialization in our chosen field. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many 7 year olds have a "chosen field" already? As for learning stuff that in retrospect seems "useless", it was in fact useful in broadening your scope of experience and exposure to things, and with helping to discipline your mind. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 ? That seems a bit early. I probably remember just about everything I learned in school then, since I do use basic math, vocabulary, etc., every day. I'd have a standard curriculum up through grammar school (10-11), then allow students to specialize, depending on their interests. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One, because many children may be interested in mathematics, languages, science etc, but would never have been exposed to it otherwise. How can you have a "chosen field" if you've grown up with no education, in a house with no books and Jersey Shore on the TV? Two, because the most important thing people learn in school is not the content of the lessons, but to sit down, shut up, and do what they're told. :) FiggyBee (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They would be exposed to a bit of every field early on, enough to know what they like and don't like. As for forcing kids to study subjects they hate, this probably is largely responsible for the massive dropout rate in many places. Learning should be fun. Even if they stay in school and learn things they hate, long enough to graduate, those items will be forgotten almost immediately. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New math, like anything new, really, would have to be MUCH better to justify switching to a new method. Otherwise, it doesn't justify all the confusion caused when people using the two different systems try to communicate. Is new math that much better ? It looks like it's not. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My father taught new math in the early 1970s. He said that the mathematically gifted students would learn the abstractions being taught and then be able to reason out the specific examples for themselves, so they learned more than they would have if they had just learned by rote. Average students, on the hand, were completely baffled by it and didn't learn much of anything.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must have also led to some disastrous tutoring sessions where the gifted students tried to teach the others. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did New Maths, the Schools Mathematics Project, loved it, and we were expected to tutor each other, and that worked too. But that was with a particularly good teacher, and the system was too dependent on having good committed teachers. The French national curriculum incorporates some elements that in UK/USA were in New Math(s), in particular the emphasis on functions. I still think that the main New Maths route is a logical one. A bit of set theory, not so much it gets dull, just element, union, intersection, Venn diagrams. Then map one set onto another. One-to-one/one-to-many/many-to-one mappings, they can see when there is and isn't an inverse. Then introduce function terminology and notation, using arithmetical examples. Graphing functions, distinguishing linear, quadratic and cubic functions. Trig functions, and this helps to show that trig isn't just a headache introduced for no reason. And then with luck they should be able to grasp the idea of a derived function. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were often tutoring sessions where gifted students taught the others, StuRat. I was one of those students, and I taught dozens of my classmates. The sessions were far from disastrous, however; they were very straightforward and quite successful. Sometimes the others just needed one-on-one attention that a classroom teacher could not provide. → Michael JⓉⒸⓂ 12:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the Wiki-article, I think they got the balance between setting up rigorous frameworks and just teaching about maths wrong. In my learning and teaching experience, I've found that it is important to separate the two things. On the one hand you want to be able to teach a lot about mathematics so that it becomes interesting. You then don't want to be constrained to have to stick to formulate everyting you do in the form of rigorously proven theorems. On the other hand, you have to later prove things rigorously.
This is how we teach most other subjects. In case of languages, you don't wait with reading books, writing etc. until they have mastered grammar perfectly. Only in math do we have this ridiculous attitude and the results are abysmal. We end up teaching the same stupid sums over and over again, boring school children to death. Because they then don't do very well on average, we wrongly interpret this as these sorts of problems being close to the limit of their abilities. But these same children don't have any problems doing things on their computer that involves more logical/abstract thinking than you need to solve graduate level university math problems. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As recently as 2004 Norway introduced "The Knowledge Promotion"[2]Kunnskapsløftet[3] to school education with a new maths curriculum Matematikk(here in norwegian). One might expect it to recognize the ubiquitous pocket calculator and/or computer owned by every norwegian child, which was not the case when the New Math was conceived in the 1960s. In fact it fails at an elementary level: the symbols that the teacher uses for elementary arithmetic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are respectively + — . :. If everyone agrees to use one symbol for one thing, it doesn't matter what that symbol is. However this teacher does a disservice to an 8th grade pupil who may need in future to share and understand mathematics with non-norwegians, who already has a calculator whose keys look like this and who will routinely encounter advertisements that say SALE ÷ 20% (a deprecated usage of the obelus noted here ). DriveByWire (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very confused if I saw that advert. Is it common in Norway? Dbfirs 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is routinely seen in newspapers, the streets of the capital Oslo, and in Denmark, especially during the January sales. "Salg" is Sale in Norwegian. DriveByWire (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On tonight's meander through Wikipedia I came across the article on Clock-face scheduling, which contains this fascinating sentence: "These developments have led to "integrated timetable islands", which all do adhere to the Germany-wide symmetry minute (58½), which is used also in Switzerland and partially in other European Countries."
I can't for the life of me think what a 'Germany-wide symmetry minute' is, but it sure sounds interesting. Can anyone shed any light? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not easy to figure out. The concept developed in European transport scheduling, and the term derives from the German word Symmetrieminute. In fact, the German Wikipedia has a long article about it, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetrieminute. The basic idea, to the extent that I understand it (which is not a very great extent), is to arrange routes so that both arrivals and departures occur at the same time each hour. The usual setup, I gather, is for routes to begin at 1½ minutes before the hour. Why they do it that way, I can't make out. It seems like the sort of thing that only a German engineer could dream up. Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{e/c}This seems to be a translation of the German wiki page, and that has a link to de:Symmetrieminute. Basically you have a whole lot of rail routes running an hourly frequency in both directions, pick major stations one hour apart as interchange hubs, where trains arrive at :57 each hour and depart at :00 allowing change of train. At any other station t minutes from the hub, the standard times are 58½-t in one direction and 58½+t in the other as shown in the diagram on that page. I think that's it anyway. Sussexonian (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I must admit that the German article hasn't really made this much clearer for me (especially since my German isn't really up to dealing with all the technical terms, so I'm relying on GTranslate. That gives me delightful sentences like "The determined in this way symmetry minute is initially a code that help can be determined as follows: When traveling from place A to a given route to a destination B at a different route and return the transfer time in the opposite direction can only be accurately the same if both lines have the same symmetry time. At various times symmetry is that the difference of the transfer times of the direction and the opposite direction is always twice the difference of the symmetry times."
I can sort of see why it's useful for trains to arrive at set times past the hour (buses in London are often advertised on timetables as 'at the following minutes past the hour: 00, 12, 24, 36, 48') but there seems to be more in it than that, all to do with interchanges, and a rather complex gif (right). I'm genuinely interested in why this system is beneficial. Can anyone help to translate the de article? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that gif is useless because it looks like the trains are just going backwards and forwards between two stations each, when actually they are going along whole routes and there are other trains going in the other direction. As far as I can tell, the idea behind this "symmetry minute" is just so that you never have to wait around for a long time when changing trains. Regardless of what train you are getting off, it will get into the hub at 3 minutes to the hour and, regardless of what train you are getting on, it will leave the hub on the hour. That means when you aren't at a hub, the train times in one direction are always the mirror image of the train times in the other direction. The system seems to rely on having trains that are on time, though, so wouldn't work in Britain. Our official statistics only consider a train to be late if it is more than 5 minutes late, or 10 minutes for long distance trains, so if we used a symmetry minute we would constantly be missing our connections. Instead, we just coordinate certain timetables where there are a lot of people wanting to move from one train to another and it is practical to have that train wait for the first one to arrive. --Tango (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the British definition is that a (long distance) train is only officially late is it's over 10 minutes late at its final destination. This gives rise to little timetabling ruses, e.g. the London to Crewe local London Midland services is timetabled to take 14 minutes between Euston and Watford Junction, but incoming trains to Euston are allowed 18 minutes from Watford, which of course improves the chances of a train arriving "on time". -- Arwel Parry(talk) 12:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we imagine the chaos of allowing only 3 minutes to change trains at Clapham Junction? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so, I'll be spending a couple of weeks in america soon, but I'm wondering, having never been there before, what else than flights do I need to organise? any need to sort out a visa or some such beforehand? any idea where I can get a nice travel insurance at short notice? what else might I need to get organised still? thanks so much for your help
it's a nice list, but I can't see whether I need a visa, how to get one or where to buy insurance... 79.66.96.116 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things like visas and insurance are pretty important, did you not think about them before you booked the flights? [4] should have all the info you need--Jac16888Talk 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the IP geolocates to London -- if you are a British citizen, you won't need a visa, although you will of course need a passport. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
79.66.96.116 probably doesn't need a visa, but not all UK passport holders qualify for the waiver. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As your IP suggests you're in the UK, I'll answer with regard to that. You may not need a visa. See Visa Waiver Program for those that don't (it depends on your citizenship, type of passport, and some other stuff like arrest record); if you qualify you fill out an ESTA online a few days before you travel - it's your responsibility to ensure that you do qualify (those articles link to US government website that explain), and if you don't they'll refuse you entry. If you don't qualify, you need a tourist visa from the US embassy in London (and you're probably much too late to apply for that). You can get travel insurance from any travel agent, insurance office, supermarket, or from the post office. Phone your credit card company and tell them you're going, so they don't see the unusual transactions and cancel the card when you're abroad. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is fun, to get an ESTA organised, I need flight information, but I don't know what flight I'll be getting until I know how long it'll take for the ESTA to be organised. any advice? 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ESTA doesn't take any time to be organised - there's no paperwork. It's just a website; you go there 3 days before your flight leaves and enter a small amount of info (e.g. "are you a war criminal [yes/no]") and you pay online. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is it three days? the website implied that it was about that, but could potentially be more or less in some situations 79.66.96.116 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1 minute, really. ESDA is just a formfill; it's not a visa, and having done it doesn't amount to any human having looked at your records and approved anything. It's the electronic equivalent of mailing in a paper form, but they don't mail you back. They only say 3 days because they don't want you to wait until the last day and find the website is broken that day. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entry to USA can be severely complicated if you have a criminal record. Some useful links and a bunch of anecdotes here. The cynical line seems to be that it's a problem especially (rather than even) if the record is for petty crime, the implication being that if you'd done something seriously bad, you'd be welcomed. Not sure that's true. --Dweller (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the British police really cooperate with the Americans to share information about unconvicted arrests? --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, and I don't think they're very specific about saying what they share and how far back. The trouble is that if you chance not disclosing your apple-thieving past, you risk the bureaucratic tangle of supplementary inspection and expedited removal. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the specifics of the US, but I'm pretty sure when it comes to tourists most countries rely primarily on honesty when it comes to things like arrest or criminal records. (Immigrants or those planning to stay for long periods may be required to provide the records.) Similar to what FM said, when people lie, they're likely to find themselves deported at a minimum (which may make it almost impossible to get back in to whatever country in the future, and likely even more difficult in others even if you could have gotten in with just the crime or arrest) and probably fined, and in some countris possibly even detained or arrested so there is a disincentive to lying. There is of course the risk immigration authorities will be aware of the information, e.g. [5] suggests Canada and the US share most information on arrest and criminal records. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the above ref also suggests the UK does not routinely share such information with the US immigration officials (I didn't mention it because I wasn't confident on its accuracy), but [6] (original source [7]) and [8] ([9]) seem to confirm it's the case. Even Australia and NZ don't routinely share such information [10]. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting you lie, as I mentioned it seems a dumb idea particularly if you have a fair chance of being allowed in anyway with some additional bureaucratic hurdles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know specifically about the US, but given what I've read I doubt they'd be very different from NZ and Australia. If so, bear in mind technically qualifying for the visa waiver (i.e. right passport, no criminal record, having a return ticket) doesn't mean you'll actually be allowed in. If whoever processes you when you arrive doesn't believe you are genuinely going for the purposes allowed by the visa they probably have the right to reject you. Organisaing your travel at the last minute to the extent of not even knowing what you have to do or how you're going to get there is likely to be a big red flag. Coming from the UK will reduce concerns some what (although not if you've recently travelled to various parts of Africa, South America or Asia). If I were you, I would at least contact the US embassy and explain your situation. You also want to make sure you have things like travel plans, accomodation and finances sorted since the lack of these are likely to be additional red flags. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key things to gaining admission to any country (if you are not planning to immigrate to that country) is clear evidence of a paid return trip to your home country, in your case, proof that you have paid for your return flight. Other key things are 1) evidence of prearranged overnight accommodations at least for your first night or two, such as a hotel or hostel reservation confirmation, and 2) proof of funds sufficient to cover your expenses during your trip. Something like a bank statement should show that you have more than enough readily available money to cover your travel plans — maybe $100 or roughly £60 for each day of travel if you plan to get around by bus and stay in youth hostels, more if you plan to stay in nicer hotels or hire a car with more evidence of prepaid flights helpful if you plan to get around on domestic flights. That said, unless you have an arrest record or have traveled to countries viewed by the US government with suspicion (such as Yemen or Pakistan), if you are a UK native and have enough money for your trip, you should not have any problems. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where in the world are the urban cabel cars and what do they do?[edit]
where in the world are the urban cabel cars and what do they do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.122.81 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to finally get a Kindle 3G Touch, with the intention of using it mainly as a traveling companion. One of the biggest selling points for me is that I'd be able to use Wikipedia for free while on the road - that alone would cut down the number of travel guides I have to lug around by about a dozen per trip :) . I read our article and did a bit of googling around, but I don't seem to be able to find out whether the Kindle can access en.wikipedia only or all language editions. I'd sure miss it.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia while traveling...can anyone who owns a Kindle 3G shed any light on this? As a side question, if the Kindle is able to display all language editions, is its web browser able to display Kanji? If it isn't, accessing the Japanese Wikipedia might be slightly difficult. Thanks in advance, Ferkelparadeπ 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kindle 3G accesses Wikipedia through an experimental browser. You can use the browser to access pretty much any website, though navigation can be slow, and I had trouble accessing email through my Kindle Keyboard when I first got it. Having just typed jprs.jp into my Kindle, I can confirm that it displays Kanji (or something similar - I can't read Kanji).--Wikimedes (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - so I can actually use the web browser over 3G and not just over Wifi? I read conflicting things about that, the latest articles I read seemed to indicate that web browsing over 3G was limited to amazon's whispernet which provides a mirrored copy of Wikipedia (hence my question, I was curious whether they provide a mirror of en.wikipedia only or of the whole range of languages). -- Ferkelparadeπ 15:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure whispernet provides a mirrored copy of Wikipedia? Since whispernet is simply Amazon's cloud storage solution [11] which deliver documents over either 3G or wifi, I don't get why they'd bother mirroring wikipedia on their cloud storage unless the do something like remove images or compress it in some way. The big data cost is going to come from the last mile for the mobile (3G) connection, it's unlikely delivery from their cloud storage is going to save much money. Unless perhaps they can't be bothered limiting whispernet access to the wikimedia servers properly so it's easier for them to just limit access to their mirror. (But I believe the WMF is fine with working with companies interested in providing wikipedia access for free, e.g. the zero project.) Or do you mean they deliver a mirror of wikipedia over whispernet (I guess only when wifi is present otherwise they could easily spend more data by caching the whole of wikipedia for everyone) which is then cached locally? Either way, many sources quoting Amazon's clarification on the webbrowser seem to suggest you can access wikipedia (but not other sites) over 3G, although don't explicitly mention if it's from the wikimedia servers or some Amazon cloud cache [12]. Bear in mind if they've set up their limiting poorly, you may still be unable to access non English wikipedias even if it's coming directly from the WMF servers (the servers are the same, but the domains aren't if they aren't using the old secure site). In the absence of someone confirming it here, your best bet may be to ask Amazon and hold them to their word. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Touch Kindle 3G seems to only allow the Experimental Browser over WiFi. The keyboard Kindle 3Gs allow it over 3G as well. Not sure how that impacts the question, though; I have a keyboard Kindle 3G though and can definitely access any language Wikipedia with it. On the keyboard Kindle, when you highlight a word, you can look it up on Wikipedia automatically, which just shunts it off to the Experimental Browser. So if there are really 3G limitations there, they would almost surely apply. Don't have a Touch to test it with, alas. The Japanese Wikipedia looks fine on it, though I don't read Japanese. But it's got all the Japanese-looking characters. I'm a little dubious that Whispernet is "mirroring" Wikipedia, but I don't really know. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the older Kindle Keyboard 3G, which probably has the same terms as the Kindle Touch 3G. I could access any website (that didn't require plugins) over WiFi, but only Wikipedia over 3G. I could access both the English and Spanish Wikipedias, and I could do so in multiple countries (New Zealand and Argentina). Access was to the live Wikipedia (and I could access the mobile Wikipedia also at m.en.wikipedia.org). I even made an edit with it, although it was a painful process without a touch screen. I would recommend you use the "Chick" skin for Wikipedia with a small screen such as the Kindle's as it removes the left toolbars and gives you more screen space.-gadfium 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not assume, a priori, that the Touch and the Keyboard Kindle 3Gs have the same capabilities. That is the technical point of contestation in most of the posts on the subject; the Touch has differently listed abilities as the Keyboard (it only says browser over WiFi), and it's not clear whether that is entirely inclusive or not (in terms of meaning, only over WiFi, and not 3G). I don't know the answer, personally. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the link above with the clarification from Amazon at the time of launch appears to agree it means browser only over wifi. But it excludes wikipedia. I don't really understand why gadfium has a different experience from what the Kindle Keyboard is supposed to support (as their experience is similar to what the Touch appears to be like), but perhaps the experimental browsing over wifi is only promised for those in the US? I believe Amazon has been somewhat inconsistent in where you can use the 3G and whether you have to pay any additional fees. (Their desire to keep things simple and let people use 3G inmost places without fees is likely one of the reasons why they exclude browsing over 3G in the Touch, with wikipedia being important enough that they are probably willing to bear the cost as they do with content they sell.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kindle Keyboard 3G allowed full access to the internet via 3G only in the USA. I believe the Kindle touch has the same limitations (only Wikipedia via 3G) in the USA as in other countries. My earlier post failed to make clear that I was not considering US users.-gadfium 01:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
