Miscellaneous desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

allen lacy

I need an introduction to Allen Lacy, an American expert on gardening, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.237.87 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. --Jayron 32 04:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on him, but Amazon lists books of his for sale. Your local library can likely get you a copy. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were seeking a personal introduction to Mr Lacy, which is how I read your question, that's not yet one of our many services. You might like to try this site. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write to him, I'd have suggested c/o his publisher, but he seems to use a different publisher for each book. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White noise of carbonated water and wind

We've had some unusually strong winds lately, making the sound of the wind blowing through the trees louder than normal. At the time, I opened up a soda and realized that the sound of the carbonated water fizzing was, at least to my ear, identical to the sound of the wind blowing through the trees. I have to admit, I was a little freaked out, as I never noticed this before. I guess you could make a white noise machine simply by amplifying the sound of a fizzy beverage. In any case, is there a significant difference between the sound of a strong, steady wind blowing through trees and the fizzing of a soda? Has anyone actually analyzed the sound of a soda? Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the sound of wind blowing through trees with needle like leave sounds quite different to broadleaf plants. Probably due to the different scale of turbulence. Popping bubbles would make pulses of sound. These pulses would be very broadband in nature, and so many together would make a good white noise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a fairly large class of sounds that are white-noise like, but with less uniform loudness than you get in true white noise: wind in trees, surf on sand, distant traffic on the highway. Even the murmurations of a crowd. Not sure if there's a name for those kinds of sounds as a group. Matt Deres (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the 'right' name for them is - but they are all essentially fractal waveforms. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SteveBaker. This is very helpful. Based on what you've said, would the similarity of the sound of the wind blowing through the trees and the sound of fizzing carbonation in my soda be comparable to how the outer shape of clouds look similar to the outer shape of broccoli? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, according to some class notes I just download from the Vienna University of Technology, it says that this kind of white noise is a stochastic fractal, but it seems to actually describe it as pink noise. Strangely enough it says that its physical origin is "mysterious". I didn't expect to read that. Anyone? Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found somewhat of an answer over at Pink_noise#Occurrence. Can anyone recommend any good software tools to play around with this on an Ubuntu distro? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my past work, white noise is simply a random signal where the volume is constant over time. There are many different forms of "random" sequences. Therefore, there are many forms of white noise. I worked with multiple pseudo-random number generators to produce different kinds of white noise. I was working on tinnitus. I noticed that, for myself in particular, only one certain type of white noise would suppress my tinnitus. For others, it was a different kind of white noise. Then, after working that project many years ago, I noticed that the sound of a shower is the exact white noise that suppresses my tinnitus - which explained why I can think so much more clearly in the shower. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an example of a sub par college?

we do not answer requests for opinion, prediction, or debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This college, which I will not name here, specializes in computer-related programs, which makes its other courses, like political science, unpopular among student applicants. In one instance, the social science department only had three students who graduated with a degree in politics. Because of the very small student population, the school only had two political science professors who handled all the major subjects. Would you say that this is sub par college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja2015 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, we are not supposed to answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. This is stated clearly at the top of the page. That many responders disregard that does not change the fact that it is not an appropriate use of the Reference Desks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to know - suppose those two professors were renowned nobel prize winning political scientists, both great and engaging teachers. With a class size of only three, you'd be getting one-on-one tuition with the best minds on the planet...that wouldn't be "sub par" - it would be the best educational experience imaginable. But obviously if these are relatively incapable teachers - then the results might well be sub-par. It's tough because small class sizes are good - but fewer points of view is bad. Where the intersection of those two curve lies is tough to say...and we don't do "opinions". SteveBaker (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could come up with all sorts of speculation, perhaps it's a renowned school for animation and game design, and they have the minimum for other subjects. It's not our place to speculate. The OP can give us some details rather than hypotheticals if he wants actual answers. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of lethal force in the United States of America.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does the colour of an individuals skin alone justify the use of lethal force against an individual. If not, why is this so often the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.128.230 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

repetition of closed and deleted question μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsaharans

The subsaharan country with the largest amount of people of white European descent is South Africa. Why did Europeans favour inhabiting South Africa over other Subsaharan regions? 84.13.58.38 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mineral Revolution discusses the impact of the discovery of gold and diamonds in South Africa. I can't find a mention of climate, but I would assume that climate was a factor. The climate in South Africa is more comparable to that of Europe than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, colonising South Africa gave partial control over the shipping routes from Europe to Asia and also a much needed 'safe' harbour from the stormy seas of the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Agulhas in Cape Colony. Nanonic (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in our article on tsetse fly provides a part of the answer. The map in our malaria article provides another. Lack of ability to control those disease vectors played a huge role in determining which areas Europeans would colonize and which they would administer remotely. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapwater

What would happen if for the first eight months you fed a newborn only tapwater and nothing else? 84.13.58.38 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would die, within a few weeks at the outside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What if the water is very clean, nutrient enriched and fluorided? Would the baby last longer? 84.13.58.38 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, and probably many other countries, you'd make yourself liable to arrest on the grounds of child neglect and possibly cruelty. In addition this question requires speculation and you are now inviting debate Neither of which is encouraged on the Reference Desk. Richard Avery (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the baby would die would be malnutrition/starvation, in particular the lack of calories (although it might die of dehydration once too weak to drink). You may have been thinking it could just live off all that baby fat, but I don't know if that could be converted quickly enough. In any case, it wouldn't last 8 months. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nutrient enriched water" could easily describe powdered baby formula...so the answer is "indefinitely" (or at least "until weaned"). With pure water, I agree with Andy that a week or two would be the limit. So the answer depends on what 'enrichments' are allowed under the arbitrary rules you've decided to surround the question with...and given that, I'm sure that by omitting certain components of the baby formula, you'd wind up with survival rates from weeks to years depending on what you left out. SteveBaker (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it was enriched with all the nutrients the baby needed, then they might last 130 years. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What problems might ensue from an infant consuming fluoridated water? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small amounts of fluoride is beneficial for cavity prevention, while large amounts are toxic. The relevant articles on toxicity are fluoride poisoning, dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis; however, all of these involve higher levels of fluoride than is typical from drinking water (though some ground water is contaminated with dangerous levels of fluoride). At the levels recommended for cavity prevention, scientists generally expect there should be no negative effects, even on infants, though some people dispute this. Dragons flight (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US government recently announced, or recommended, that the amount of fluorine should be reduced in the public water supply. Also, since babies don't begin teething until maybe six months, what could would fluoridation do them as newborns? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]