Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

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

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

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

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



February 18[edit]

Website without domain name[edit]

(1) If I want to have my own website, can I reserve a numerical address (IPv4 or IPv6) without cost, and thereby avoid the cost of registering a domain name? (2) If I am obligated to accept an IPv6 address because no IPv4 addresses are available, can I promote the website by submitting the website name to search engines?
Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends a lot on how your web content is hosted. Do you already have a host set up? clpo13(talk) 01:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not. What do you recommend in web hosting?
Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(1) No one will use your site without a domain name. Also if/when your IP address changes everything with the old address on it is now wrong. It is technically possible to connect with just an IP address, but a) there is no guarantee every piece of software will allow this, and it might be outright prevented by some institutional (corporate, school, etc.) networks; b) average people will wonder what the heck that string of alphanumeric gibberish is. Domain name registrations are not very expensive. (2) You don't "submit" your website to search engines. That's an idea from the good old days of '90s "Web portals" like (the original) Yahoo and Lycos, where actual humans compiled listings of sites. Today's search engines work by automatically crawling the Web, following hyperlinks. To get your site to show up in search engines, you have to get other people to link to it. -- (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ( ) is good. $5.95 per month basic hosting. Using an IP address is a Bad Idea, because dedicated IP addresses cost more than domain names. Shared hosting (many domain names on one shared IP address) is the way to go. Namecheap ( ) is a good place to buy a domain name. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah the good old days! When one did one's own routing typing in the various ip numbers to get there. What is the point of a domain nobody ever looks at? Because that's what you'd have. And it would be more expensive too. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Without a domain name, you're going to have trouble finding cheap hosting. They want to put a bunch of virtual servers on a smaller number of physical servers. That presents difficulties without a domain name. (Although some might allow you to use a subdomain off of the hosting company's domain. That used to be common back when domains were expensive. Haven't seen it in a while, though.)
If you're setting up your own physical server in your basement, it might be feasable to save $9.95/year by skipping a domain, but only if your ISP offers static IP addresses, which they probably don't.
Nowadays there's not much point to trying to avoid buying a domain name. They cost only ten bucks a year for a dot-com and some of the weird ones cost even less. dot-party domains seem to be available for a buck a year. What a deal! ApLundell (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Reporting spam/phishing[edit]

I've recently received some emails that looked like spam or phishing, and since they were sent from addresses affiliated with major universities, I notified both institutions' IT security offices about these incidents. However, in both cases, my reports got rejected immediately by the recipient addresses (apparently they thought I was spamming or phishing them), so I had to report these cases in a more roundabout manner. The same thing has happened at other times in the past — I can't report something somewhere because the report is misinterpreted by the receiving email server, or even I can't send the report because my email server thinks that my computer's been taken over by a botnet and sending out spam itself.

Since computer science is constantly studying ways to make computers act like humans (e.g. passing the Turing test) and ways to ensure better information security, and since tons of institutions maintain abuse lines where people can report fake emails, I'm guessing that scholars have studied the fact that accurate reports of disruptive emails can get misidentified as disruptive themselves. Could someone point me to research on the subject? Nyttend (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't what you're asking about, but you do realize that the institutions aren't actually involved, right? While the emails might have looked like they came from Harvard and Yale or whatever, they actually came from some anonymous creep. What you did was right-intentioned, but there's not a lot they can do about it. Mark as spam, delete, and move on. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As Matt writes above, it's probably best not to pass on any e-mails with suspicious-looking attachments because they probably came from a dangerous source and had a spoofed sender address. The universities probably have better spam filters than you have. The exception is suspicious messages purporting to come from banks. These organisations often ask for fake messages to be forwarded to their phishing department so that they can take appropriate action to take down any fake websites. I don't know of any research reports. Perhaps someone else can link to some? Dbfirs 13:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
With both emails, the sender's "name" was that of a different university, but in both cases, the actual addresses were university-affiliated, and when I decided to get around the spam filter by +poning people with the IT help desk, they actively encouraged me to forward these emails. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the actual addresses"? It's pretty trivial to spoof most of the headers in an email, so the From, Reply-To and similar headers can't be trusted. The only things that can really be trusted are those that are cryptographically secured, like DKIM-Signature. CodeTalker (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You can trust the last entry in the path -- that's your email system. And you can trust the next one up -- that's where your email system got the email from. If that system is one that you trust, then you can trust where it says it got the email from, and so forth. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You're referring to the Received headers, and what you say is true, as far as it goes. But Received headers can be forged too, and many legitimate emails pass through systems which you may not have any knowledge of, so can't tell whether you should trust them or not. CodeTalker (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

But the fact they can be forged is largely irrelevant since what can't be stopped is your own email system's practice. If you know your own email system's practice you should know which received header was placed by it. It's fairly unlikely your own email system's header was forged anyway, it's just too complicated for most spammers so you don't even need to know where exactly your email system will place the header, just which one it is. But in any case, you just need to pay attention, if you're not sure where your email system will place the received header, just make sure there is only one. If there seems to be 2 each claiming the email was receive from 2 different places then you know there's a problem.

While you're right you can't always be sure of whether you can trust the system the email passed through, often you can be resonably sure for emails from large businesses since they use well established systems and nowadays emails tend to pass through very few external hops. The key point here that I often make (and I think may be at least partially Guy Macon may be making) is that while people often claim you can't tell from the headers whether the email actually came from your bank (or whatever), by the headers without DKIM etc, because everything can be forged, this often isn't true.

If you know what you're doing (and to be fair, this is something beyond the average user) you can generally get a good idea. If your email system says it received the email from your banks email systems (from my experience this is fairly common with important emails send by the bank), then it's fairly likely the email was sent by someone in the bank, or your bank has major security flaws and are allowing unconnected parties to use their system to send emails.

Of course you probably shouldn't always trust everything sent by your bank. And I also question the security practices of a bank who don't use SPF etc nowadays anyway. But the point is these concerns arise for other reasons not because you can't work out from the headers whether it's likely your bank sent the email. Now if your email system says they received it from spammer.spam or some random small business, then it's fair to think it probably wasn't sent by your bank.

If spammer.spam or the small business claims they received it from your bank then yes that's probably forged. Although with modern email practices you don't even really need to know your banks norms to guess there's something dodgy the moment you see your email system received it from spammer.spam or some random small business.

I'm not denying there can sometimes be uncertainity. For example, one bank I referred to which sends important emails directly from their email system also uses Campaign Monitor for at least some of their advertising campaigns. Is Campaign Monitor trustworthy enough that if they say it was coming from my bank this is true? Probably but depending on your security requirements this may not be enough.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with others from your description most likely the uni wasn't actually involved in the emails, there seems to be some contradiction here. It's not clear from your original comment whether this was a phising attempt, but there's no reason why only a bank is going to want to shut down websites used for phising. Any large organisation and most small ones are likely to want to avoid their customers (or whatever) authentication info being stolen. The question is more whether the organisation can do anything than the particular organisation. Banks do probably have larger and more dedicated teams, but that's ultimate the key difference. If someone is sending malware, whether it's claiming to be from a bank, a university or FedEx, most likely none can do much except warn their customers if necessary. This may be more likely with the bank although some other organisations may be just as likely to warn. If someone is sending a 411 scam or adverts for "Viagra", again there may be not much that will be done whether it's purported to come from a bank, a university or FedEx. As said, if someone is attempting to phish using external websites all organisations are probably going to want to shut those down. It may be more likely that something purported to be a bank is a phising attempt but something claiming to be from a university is something else, but that's a different point. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
If you receive spam or phishing emails, per RFC 2142, you should be able to forward them to an abuse email address. E.g. spam from can be forwarded to Ideally, your email won't be rejected, as the mail server should not be screening emails to abuse. That's the whole purpose of that particular email address - it accepts fishy emails to be reported. Spam reporting has some limited info. Avicennasis @ 18:24, 23 Shevat 5777 / 18:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

CPU question[edit]

If you took out the CPU chip out from the motherboard and carefully soldered wires from each contact pin to the corresponding pin on the motherboard, would the CPU function? Would it be slower than directly connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I did something alike in 1980 with an RCA 1802 8-bit CPU and it worked. I believe the clock speed was 1 MHz. Today CPU's are much faster (clock speeds more than 2000 times faster). High speed electronics needs a careful PCB design, not sloppy wires. It seems highly unlikely to me that it would work without drastically reducing clock speed (which could cause it's own problems). Jahoe (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the signals take about a nanosecond to travel a foot, so if you have several inches of wire the delays would almost certainly cause timing problems for gigahertz clock speeds. Dbfirs 21:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Good point to mention the delays. I thought in terms of impedance mismatch, signal reflections, parasite capacity, etc. In other words, signal spaghetti. ;) Jahoe (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
There's also capacitance between the wires to consider. Several inches of wire would create extra capacitance of maybe 20-50 picofarads between them. This capacitance would have a slowing effect on the rise time of the signals the wires carry, meaning that the signals would not rise or fall as rapidly between zero and full voltage states as quickly as they did previously. Unexpected behavior of the CPU would occur in time-critical operations. The extra capacitance also means that a false signal might be induced to appear in an adjacent wire, creating havoc. In general, the computer could be expected to run slow and probably crash. Akld guy (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

what were early 8-bit home computers (with a front panel) good for?[edit]

I'm thinking of the Altair and the IMSAI Asmrulz (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The same thing other computers of the era were good for. Since you mentioned the front panel, I suspect you're thinking all people did was plug them in and watch the lights blink. Actually, to do useful things, you connected them to peripherals. The Altair article mentions connecting it to other devices like teletypes, often via RS-232. A lot of companies were started to sell hardware for the new microcomputers. This was no different from the mainframes and minicomputers of the era. For instance, here are Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson at work on the Bell Labs PDP-11 sometime in the '70s. -- (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not thinking that. But you have to admit the I/O capabilities were limited. And how many people had a discarded teletype sitting around, anyway? I've been toying with microcontrollers for the past year or so. Hence I'm curious what people typically used computers that are hardly more than a glorified CPU evaluation board for. Asmrulz (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The two types you mention weren't really home computers (a bit too expensive for that), but machines for small businesses. They were used for financial administration, word processing, inventory, spreadsheets, etc.
Home computing didn't really take off before the 1980s (3 to 5 years later than the types you mention). These home computers were used for games (tetris, kings quest, leisure suit larry, etc.), word processing (WordPerfect) and as a general introduction to the new technology. Many owners stopped using them after a while (stuck with the same question as you ;), others (like me) got enthusiastic and went on a quest for a real purpose of their new and beloved toy. ;)
Sometimes (varying per country) employers financed home computers to have their staff practice at home in their spare time. (Doesn't sound good perhaps, but I loved it.)
In my view, home computers were fun, but didn't have a real purpose until the internet came to the family home in the 1990s. And even today, most PCs at home are little more than internet terminals. They're a bit like telephones, which have little use without a telephone network.
Well, that's how I look back on it from my own experience. Other people may have completely different thoughts on it. But perhaps this is a (partial?!) answer. :) Jahoe (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
TeleVideo 925 glass teletype
Oh, and those computers with front panel weren't typically used with teletypes, but with "glass tty's", like the Televideo pictured. Connecting two or four terminals was possible, although one was more common. Jahoe (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Altair and IMSAI weren't really marketed to businesses; they were marketed to nerds who wanted to mess around with computers (and I say that as a proud nerd). An individual (with sufficient disposable income) could buy their very own computer to tinker with, some assembly required. That was a big deal when up to that time computers took up at least a room, cost as much as a house, and required at least several experts for care and feeding. The first microcomputers that were marketed to businesses and professionals for "serious work" were the Apple II and IBM PC (which, of course, didn't require you to assemble them from parts). See also history of the personal computer. -- (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Although the Altair and IMSAI were very popular, there were other early computers. I myself started with an NCR Century 100 (My high school bought one and started teaching classes on computers with it), and my first home computer was a COSMAC VIP, which I built from a kit in 1978.
You too can own a COSMAC ELF! See [1] and [2]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I was around at the time. They were so limited that I didn't want one. I either used a mainframe or my programmable calculator, which could store programs to a magnetic strip and read them back. I also had a printer to use with it. I think that a programmable calculator at the time was a lot more useful. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
DEC GT40 graphics terminal running Moonlander
They where special "adult toys", like model railways. You could do little basic stuff with it but they where very fascinating for everyone who liked Enterprise/Star Trek: The Original Series. Actually there also where some very early, simple games availabel back then, like Lunar Lander. They where very rare tho as maybe 1 out of 10,000 People, even or less, had one, which made it double fascinating ofcourse, so they where priceless, for bragging about having one, for some. --Kharon (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Radio amateurs began using early 8-bit computers for sending Packet radio messages, keyboard to keyboard. The first continent-to-continent packet radio conversation was made quite a few decades ago. However, most operation was, and still is, on the 144 and 432 MHz amateur bands. Radio amateurs also set up Bulletin board systems, interlinked between nodes in major cities via radio a decade before the internet took off. Akld guy (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
interesting. where I'm from, non-IP, modem networks such as FIDO were in use well into the late 90's-mid 200x (landline, not radio, though) Asmrulz (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First person to send fax and slowscan TV over the cellular network[edit]

I believe I was the first person to achieve this. How can I place this in Wikipedia in order to determine if this is the case?Bob Moore 100 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't put WP:original research in any Wikipedia article, but if details of your achievement have been published elsewhere in WP:reliable sources then the fact can be recorded here. It is not possible to use Wikipedia to determine whether the claim is true or false, though someone might be able to find references to similar claims. Dbfirs 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, on Wikipedia it's considered not done to write about yourself or your own achievements (at least not outside your user page). Of course others could do that for you just fine. Jahoe (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

Lost Contents[edit]

As I was using MS Word, I accidentally deleted the contents than saved the document. I realised this thereafter reviewing the document. How do I re-collect the information? (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there is a "redo" button. [3] (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Guess "undo" was meant. Only if the Word-session is still open you can try to undo (Ctrl-Z) the deletion and hit save again. Once MS-word is closed, the undo-memory is lost.
If that doesn't work, look in the folder containing the original document for one of those automatic backup files MS-word makes.
Also, you may have a backup of your original file. If not, start to backup your work from now on. Jahoe (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This happens quite regularly where I work (a school) and it is the teachers who usually lose their work. We drum into them, as soon as you've opened a new MS Office document, save it immediately and then carry on working. The autosave means they have a good chance of recovering their work, but only if they have saved it once. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Working in coding and drafting (two fields that produce digital files as an end product), I've always been meticulous about versioning. That is each day, I save a new copy of the file I'm working on. That way I get to keep a series of autosaves, plus distinct daily versions (not to mention the version in the file server backups). End result: no matter what happens (short of a massive EMP) you'll never lose more than a few hours of work, and usually less than a few minutes. This is one of those problems that can't really be solved, only prevented. Sorry, but the best thing you can do now is not let this happen again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lists of large safe primes?[edit]

I'm looking for some safe primes of around 300 or so digits. Is there a standard listing of that sort of thing? I did take a stab at generating them using a fairly efficient computing algorithm - which does fine in the tens of digits - but of course a jump in order of magnitude just creates such a much larger search space that I've yet to see a single prime of that size at this point. Any ideas? Earl of Arundel (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be pretty easy to generate safe primes using the OpenSSL library. Here's a program which claims to do that, although I haven't verified whether it works as advertised. [4] If you're using primes for cryptographic purposes where the primes need to be kept secret, you will of course want to generate your own primes and not rely on any published list of primes, since an attacker would have access to such published lists. CodeTalker (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give that a go. On a side note, one of the two programs I've been running did produce a safe prime overnight:
That was generated by sequential search. The randomized algorithm is still trying to find its first! I actually expected the latter one to locate primes fastest (as the article on generating primes for one suggests). Then again, the randomization routine does impart a bit more overhead than a simple increment, not to mention that a measure of luck is involved with purely random samples. Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Funny, just minutes after I posted that the randomized algorithm produced this one:
At this rate, I just might have a few more primes to work with by the end of the day! We'll see... Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Many math programs can easily handle this size. Below is a simple PARI/GP line which took 2 GHz hours. It could be more efficient by trial factoring both p and (p-1)/2 before prp testing. nextprime and ispseudoprime make prp tests almost certain to produce primes. isprime would make primality proofs but be slower. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so I could simply have PARI/GP first generate a list of suitable Sophie-Germain/safe-prime pseudoprimes pairs and then pass those to the more expensive isprime function to prove their primality. Nice. Well thank you very much, PrimeHunter! Earl of Arundel (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Update: PARI/GP does in fact seem perfect for this task: I have both randomized and sequential search routines implemented which are already pushing out proven safe primes. I was also able to verify that the examples you'd provided are indeed safe primes as well, and very quickly at that (less than a minute for all six of them!). So again, many thanks for the suggestion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Last bullet in list different color[edit]

So I'm trying to figure out the bug in this code:

{|style="background-color:#ffffff; text-align:left" width="100%" cellspacing="10" |- |style="text-align:left;" valign="top" width=170 rowspan="3"|[[{{{1}}}|150px]] |style="text-align:left;" valign="top"|{{{2}}}
Randomtext A:

|- |Randomtext B (if applicable):

|- |align="center" colspan="2"|


The blue part, when there are multiple bullet entries, all the bullets are blue except the last one, which is black. The text remains blue though. Stumped as to why. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you try it in different browsers, to determine if it's just be a bug in the browser you are using. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
StuRat I checked it on Internet Explorer and Chrome, still same issue. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 01:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How's PHP run?[edit]

When you have something like <?php echo '

Hello World

'; ?> in a file and an Apache2 server running, what runs this bit? There's no PHP process running in the server. Does Apache starts a PHP process, runs the bit, and close it each and every time someone hits the page? --123abcnewnoob (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It starts PHP for each request. PHP is programmed to only look for the bits delimited by <?php and ?> and echo the rest verbatim. In FastCGI mode, however, to avoid process spawning overhead, there's one PHP process sitting in memory that may handle many requests over its lifetime. Alternatively Apache may pass the PHP to mod_php which is its in-process PHP interpreter. Asmrulz (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

Sender's messages in Courier New[edit]

Some Gmail messages I received from a person are written in Courier New, while some are in default Times New Roman (the sender's email is also Gmail). Since Gmail now doesn't have the Courier New font, why it could be so? Perhaps copy-pasting and scam? Brandmeistertalk 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The gmail web interface doesn't support Courier New, but html email supports whatever fonts are installed on the system viewing the document. If the email was composed in outlook, for example, the writer would have access to whatever fonts were installed on their system, and so long as you had the same font, it would show up as that, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, not all emails are in html format, plain text format is still common (and supported on gmail). Plain text format emails are typically shown in a fixed width format, and on windows computers that defaults to courier new. Jahoe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Approved Very true. This depends on the browser, as well. But I don't think this is the case because the OP mentioned it not being supported, leading me to believe he's using the web interface, which uses the default font unless otherwise specified (as far as I know; all my plain text emails from work to my gmail use the same font as my html emails). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right I suppose. Anyway, I believe we can safely say the OP shouldn't mistrust these emails, based on the courier new font alone. Jahoe (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
She's now actually asking for 530 bucks, allegedly to be able to fly to me, so... Fishy. Brandmeistertalk 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm... dollars are a better ground for suspicion than fonts. :-) Jahoe (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I get propositioned on social media sites that don't actually exist ( being a typical name, including the obvious spelling error) by users with names like xXSexyGurl69MuahXx and IlOvEaNaL999 about five times a day. Funnily enough, all of them need money to afford the plane ticket to come visit me, too. Even when the social media site is incredibly geographically specific and the email states quite clearly that they live within 4 miles of me and are very very lonely. But then, I've had that email address for going on 20 years now, so I expect plenty of spam. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the local domain tree[edit]

Once upon a time, it was expected that local businesses in the USA would use geographic domains, and .com would be used only by companies with a wider footprint, such as airlines. Of course that's not what happened, but I remember seeing that a couple of ISPs used that form at least for a while: (soon changed to; in Sausalito, near San Francisco, California) and [forgotten] (Chicago, Illinois).

How many of these third-level domains were defined? Is there a map? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a list on WP: List of Internet top-level domains. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I just re-read the question, and realize this needs a further answer. The lower-level domain names you are seeing there are the domains that are traditionally considered the 'base' web name. So the aol in is at the same level of domain hierarchy as the il in The chi in that url is a subdomain, similar to the en in and generally indicated (at the time) that that particular site was hosted on the servers owned or leased by whomever was running the site. The best known sub-domain is, of course, www, used to indicate that the site at whatever domain used that sub was for public consumption, and not, for example, private in-house use. Normally, as you read an file address from left to right, you get more specific. This is not true with internet domains (though it is true of the folder structure that follows the first forward slash /). With domain names, like, the us is the broadest level, and the chi is the most specific level. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Does anyone else need "these", as used in my last sentence, defined? The question is not about the concept of subdomains, or about third-level domains in general (like, but about geographic subdomains of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (If I had a nickel for every time I said "I thought I made clear ...") —Tamfang (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you assume one of the states is missing? When I lived in California, the school district had the URL So, I know that CA exists. Then, I moved to Missouri and they used, so I know that MO exists. I now live in South Carolina and this school district uses I see a pattern. Google Hawaii school district and you will find How about Montana school district... I feel that it is upon you to give a reason why you think that there is a state missing before asking someone else to go through all 50 states and prove that they exist. -OR- You could look at the .us article and see that it clearly states "A two-letter second-level domain is formally reserved for each U.S. state, federal territory, and the District of Columbia." (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The only authoritative source about domain names is of course DNS itself.
I don't believe it's possible to generate the requested map from DNS queries alone. I'm not a DNS expert and if I'm missing something, that would clearly be the way to go.
Of course it is possible to test a domain name for existence (e.g. nslookup That would make it theoretically possible to test all letter combinations (up to a certain length), but I guess this is not practical.
Did anyone ever try to do something like this? Jahoe (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I know it isn't so clear from the followup, but the original question says it's about third level geographic subdomains, not second level. Anyway as I understand [5], [6], [7] and our article, the answer is very high and easily expandable. Note that locality subdomains also don't end at the third level. Note also the use of present tense is intentional, even if few actually use the things. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Nice to know that at least one person went so far as to read the question. — And thanks for the links. Since was not in San Francisco (it's in Sausalito, Marin County), I supposed that the third level was (at that time) loosely analogous to telephone area codes, which (in my youth!) covered regions much bigger than their core cities. Note that the examples in the documents you cited, such as, spell out the city or county name in full, unlike * and * that I mentioned. —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That seems to be deprecated now. In the PDF "In a few cases in the past, a well - known city abbreviation known throughout a locality was allowed, eventually these abbreviated names will be replaced with the fully spelled out versions. It is very desirable that all users in the same city use the same designator for the city." Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW to clarify my answer, while most of these documents are fairly old, my impression is it's still technically possible for an entity to become a delegated manager of a locality subdomain. AFAICT the regulations etc are technically still in place. E.g. [8] [9]. So technically the space can still expand. Practically I get the feeling of you actually tried, you'd have great difficulty finding someone who knew WTF to do. Even for the existing space, I get the feeling e.g. [10] and my earlier links that things are such a mess with WHOIS records incomplete and many delegated managers MIA that you're often SIL. (This also means finding out what exists is likely to be difficult.) Still in some cases you may be lucky. I mean even for something like [11] I wouldn't be surprised if you can find someone who knows or can figure out what to do. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no definitive answer to this, and the question is a little silly: The vast majority of geographic domain names are top or second level. The problems with reserving or formalizing third level geographic domain names are too numerous to count. Obviously, some get used. But as evinced by the IP's example and the examples at .us, it's not a common thing. Personally, I wouldn't ever reserve a domain with three levels of geography in it unless I absolutely had to. I would fight it tooth and nail if it were for a commercial enterprise. Keeping domain names simple and easy to remember is rule number 1 of choosing a domain name. I presumed that the OP didn't have much knowledge of DNS, to ask such a question. That may have been an incorrect assumption, but it was the impression I got from the question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well let's see. In my intro I said that the tiered geographic scheme was rarely used for commercial sites, and that I know at least two domains of the type asked about were used. So obviously I'm totally ignorant. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
U mad, Bro? You sure seem like it. But I apologize unreservedly for attempting to answer your questions. It's a mistake I shall never make again, and I'll be sure to advise others not to, as well. Even when (as was the case here), there is a blatantly obvious answer to anyone who has any knowledge of the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, shall I no longer get answers from people who don't read my questions? —Tamfang (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure WP is full of people who buy into that whole "there's no such thing as a stupid question" tripe. I fully support your quest to prove them wrong. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. Aren't we only talking about the .us space? Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested in this, apparently obsolete, document.
All I can find is archived copies of archived copies, so I'm not 100% sure of it's providence, but I believe it was originally published by InterNIC.
ApLundell (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a fascinating bit of history that they once thought businesses would use this scheme. Imagine "Visit Joe's Pizza at!", and the format for government agencies, which is still occasionally used, is even more awkward.
This must be an artifact of nerds technical experts not realizing that lay people would ever use the system they were building. ApLundell (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT, that some sort of modified version of RFC 1480 [12]. Another version is here [13]. BTW, I'm not sure how much of this is actually technically obsolete. While direct 2LD .us is now possible, as I mentioned above AFAICT the locality/geographical space in .us is still supposed to function the same. Practically almost no one uses it, but as I mentioned above my impression is if you meet the right conditions you could make a new TLD locality subdomain although you may have to try very hard to find someone who knows what to do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]


A simple question but one that's very hard to answer and which probably has profound implications: can a Turing machine, or even a quantum Turing machine, simulate an arbitrary human brain exactly in finite time?

This is clearly an open question. For example, according to the article on the halting problem, we still wonder if humans can solve it. If the answer to that is yes, then computers obviously are not "human-complete".

What work has been done towards this area in (theoretical) computer science?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See computational theory of mind. It's widely believed that it is theoretically possible to simulate a Human brain down to the neuron level (or below), and thus that humans are no more than Turing-complete. Note that both humans and computers can solve some instances of the halting problem, just not every instance (a program without recursion or loops will e.g. always halt, and both computers and humans can figure this out). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that that model of the human brain is not universally accepted. See, for example, this article which refutes many of the assumptions about modeling the brain on computational terms. --Jayron32 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, while that paper makes some interesting points, it is very much mistaken on several aspects. We know about associative memory and distributed representations, and I'm really very surprised about the claim that anyone should think that a complex concept is stored in a single neuron. It reads more like an attack on good old-fashioned AI, but that is very much a straw man when talking about computability and arguments about physical simulation. Nobody nowadays is claiming that the brain runs symbolic algorithms, but we very much believe that we can simulate the sub-symbolic processing of the brain using an algorithm - at least in principle, if not yet in practice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Artificial consciousness article is another interesting read on this topic.
On the more practical front, great strides are being made in Artificial neural networks, and many people hope that this may one day lead to a artificial consciousness, which makes sense, but so far I don't know that there's any experimental evidence that indicates that it's possible even on a small scale. ApLundell (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Strange title on Red Lobster Lobsterfest email[edit]

I received a promotional e-mail from Red Lobster, but it had an incomprehensible title, as follows:

"Aud1 US genPop - dependent on winning SL"

They followed up, a couple hours later, with the same email, but with the title corrected to:

"Lobster Lover's Dream® is back at Lobsterfest®. Come live the dream."

I am curious as to what the first title might have meant. Any ideas ? StuRat (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Most serious web/email advertisers (including Wikipedia) try different ads on different segments of the customer base. No sense bragging about how well a Subaru handles snow or climbs hills to customers in southern Florida, but Denver is another story. so "Aud1 US genPop" is likely "first auditof this ad, send to united states general population". "SL" may be a contest customers can win, it may be a contest among salesmen or between departments, or it may refer to winning a particular contract. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
My read on the 1st part is "audience one: US general population" (the ad's target) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:55A:7C25:5B38:2DC5 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Computer software equivalent to human habits[edit]

A virus is the computer equivalent of a sick person. Antivirus software is like the need to make a sick person feel better.

A firewall is like the need to prevent someone from taking away your ID card.

CCleaner is like the need to go to the bathroom.

But what about a trojan virus?? Does it have special properties?? Feel free to answer this question with other special kinds of computer software. Georgia guy (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a firewall is more like a doorman who decides who can go into or out of a club. Antivirus software is like antiviral drugs or arguably antibiotics - although many security experts claim it is essentially snake oil. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A trojan virus is a bit like a wooden horse gift that your enemies have climbed into, waiting for you to open the city gates and then...oh wait...Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If the internet is a brothel, than a virus is a social decease. Jahoe (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
CCleaner is like burning all your paper records in a bonfire.
Sleigh (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Let's try to organize the analogies. We'll go with the brothel one because I'm immature like that.
So your computer is a brothel. A computer virus is like a gonorrhea outbreak that puts many of the girls and boys out of commission. Antivirus software is like the local doctor; as long as he's working at the brothel regularly you generally don't have to worry about an outbreak, and if you do get an outbreak there's a very good chance he can fix it. But it's not guaranteed (Stephan Schulz is right that some experts consider antivirus to be more snake oil than anything, and the reason for that is the ease with which they can be gotten around). Now, the firewall is like a bouncer who works the front door. On his own, he can keep out anyone he's been told has gonorrhea, such as dirty Frank. However, if he works with the doctor, he can prevent anyone with a new gonorrhea infection from coming in, thus helping prevent an outbreak.
So where does CCleaner fit in? CCleaner is the on-call maid service. They come, they clean under the beds, launder the sheets, disinfect and spray, to make sure not only that any trace of gonorrhea is eliminated, but that any trace of any previous customers is eliminated. That way, new customers will never slip and fall in any... 'fluids' that may remain, they will never pick of gonnorrhea from a toilet seat and overall they can come and go without worrying about who's been there before them.
Now we get to the question. So what's a trojan in this analogy? Well, a Trojan would be any customer or potential new girl/boy who has a secret that would hurt the brothel. I understand that this is vague, but it's vague on purpose. The secret might not be an undetectable case of gonorrhea. It might be that the new girl is a spy for a rival brothel, there to convince your customers to take their business elsewhere. Or perhaps the new customer is actually an undercover police officer. Possibly, they're a hostage taker who knows they can get a lot of ransom money from the people in the brothel. The vast majority of the time, they're trying to use your establishment as cover for their own illicit dealings, so that if they get caught, the cops will bust you instead of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess any infections are free to waft in and out of the brothel through its Windows, which are always open. Akld guy (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Too true. lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

From Help desk: WP links[edit]

Resolved: 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E9E4:907C:2027:59D6 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a query over at the Help desk that I initially thought was Wikipedia related, but might be better asked here (no satisfactory reply yet). Rather than duplicate, here is the link: Wikipedia:Help_desk#WP_links --tyia, 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:55A:7C25:5B38:2DC5 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your question is indeed firefox-related. Answered you on the other page. :) Jahoe (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
As Jahoe said on the other page, this isn't cookie (or cache) related, but history related. I use Firefox myself (I have regular with an old copy of firebug installed as well as the developer's edition), and I can clear my 'visited links' from deleting the page the link is to from my history, then refreshing the page I'm viewing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
In my confusion I answered on the other page. Mr. Pants is of course right in continuing here, because the question is not wikipedia related. Jahoe (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing sat nav information[edit]

Does anyone now how the information in a sat nav can be changed? Not by the owner/user but by a third party. This recently happened to me, my HOME information set into my sat nav should have directed me a certain way but directed me the opposite way. The home location had been set in the sat nav from new, I had not changed it and yet when coming along a road, it directed me to turn left instead of right as it usually does. I made some texts about this odd occurrence and within 10 minutes or so it had reverted to its usual directions.Rod Fathers (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Spoofing attack by Alcherin)

Well, the home information is generally stored on the device, and not part of the network. So most likely, you had a brief communication issue between your device and the satellites, which caused it to think it was at a different location than it actually was.
If, however, you checked the home address during this time and found that it was a different address to the one you inputted, then it was most likely a bug that caused some address stored in memory to get swapped out with your home address.
Finally, hacking of GPS systems generally only occurs when those systems are embedded into other devices, due to the difficulty of spoofing a satellite signal, vs the (very) relative ease of connecting to your phone via bluetooth, wifi or 4G and then forcing the OS to change the data coming from the satellites before it gets used by the navigation application. You can check out this article for some information about that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Was your home location changed, or did it just use a different route? LongHairedFop (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Before answering, you should read the person's talk page. I seriously doubt it will be possible to convince him that there is any possibility that it was just a glitch. It must be a malicious hack performed by some unknown shadow agency. (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, this forum exists to provide answers. As long as the editor asking questions isn't being disruptive, there is no harm in providing accurate answers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
While GPS spoofing is theoretically possible [14], it's very unlikely that this would be done to target an individual driver, and it wouldn't cause the symptoms you describe. (It would convince your GPS that your current location was elsewhere, Dangerous on the open seas, but you'd figure it out pretty quick when the roads you saw with your eyes didn't match the roads on the map.)
More likely you were navigating to the wrong address. Either because you typed in a common address and it guessed wrong, (For example, if you typed in "123 Main St. Springfield", it would probably take you to the closest town of that name, not necessarily the one where you happen to live.), you simply typed it in wrong, or you were relying on a preset address that somehow got reset to factory defaults. (Perhaps because of a firmware reset? Or dead battery on an older unit with volatile storage.)
Hope this helps. ApLundell (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot. Some devices (including Google Maps on your phone) take current traffic conditions into account when they plan your route. (See Google_Traffic.)
This means that if there's a traffic jam along your usual route, it will direct you along an alternate route. This sounds like what happened to you. If you sat around and waited until the traffic jam cleared up, you would be directed along your normal route as usual. ApLundell (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone make a router re-send packages?[edit]

If someone is not connected to a router, could he spoof a MAC nummer and make the router resend packages? That would be a kind of DoS attack, but on a private network. --Llaanngg (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Llaanngg: Surely you mean MAC number and packets, right? In that case, that's not how link-layer routing works. The notion of resending packets is done at the application layer (i.e. transmission control protocol).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If someone is not connected to a router, it will be very difficult to make that router do anything. (I would suggest yelling at it as the best way to go. Routers are very timid things and are easily intimidated.) For someone who is not directly connected to the router, it all depends on what they can force a machine directly connected to it to do, and what the router allows that machine to tell it to do. To be clear, Jasper is right that resending packets is not done at the network layer. Check out OSI model for an article about what is handled at what layer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether someone physically close to the router and to the client would be able to spoof a NACK signal (and make it look as if it's coming from the client), and so make the router retransmit the packet. Would a timid router think this is the legit client telling him to send the packet again?--Llaanngg (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Llaanngg: This is one reason for randomization of sequence numbers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And what if I capture a packet send by the client and send it again and again? What would the router do? Llaanngg (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a name for this: man-in-the-middle attack. Also, you might want to read up on TCP congestion control, and note that the router will be oblivious to the whole thing as long as it is not itself the opposite endpoint of the TCP socket. Also, duplicate packets are to be simply dropped by the endpoint (they can be identified by having the same sequence number).
I sense that you don't completely understand how TCP works, so reading up on that would be a good start.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]


February 19[edit]

I'd like to have my car tires vulcanized .......... by Buster Keaton's mechanic[edit]

  • youtu. be/UWEjxkkB8Xs?t=2m31s

In an unnamed Buster Keaton movie, bad guys are after him and he tries to hitch a ride by sitting on a car's rear spare tire. The car drives away and Keaton finds himself remain in the same place. The spare tire is actually used as a roadside sign placed behind the car with a cardboard saying "Vulcanizing" and an arrow pointing to the shop.

Did people of the 1920s really have to have their car tires vulcanized by someone? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Vulcanization describes it as "a chemical process for converting natural rubber or related polymers into more durable materials by the addition of sulfur[1] or other equivalent curatives or accelerators".
Clearly, that was already done to the rubber in tires before it was used to make them. However, the term "vulcanization" was also widely used to refer to the process of patching inner tubes of tires with thin pieces of vulcanized rubber, which I've done myself. You clean the spot around the hole of the tire, apply a solvent to the tire and the patch, then apply the patch to the now sticky rubber inner tube. Since almost all cars of the 1920s had tires with inner tubes, yes, they did from time to time require vulcanization in the sense of "repairing the inner tube of a tire with a patch of vulcanized rubber". loupgarous (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Vulcanisation was the older process of repairing a puncture with a patch of unvulcanised rubber, then vulcanising it in-situ with heat and pressure. It's no longer performed, as later tyres gained greater quantities of filler materials and became less like pure rubber. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Wups. You're right. We called it "vulcanization" when I was a kid, but in the 1960s you had to really hunt to find someone who did "hot vulcanization". But your answer is correct in the OP's context. loupgarous (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Can high levels of stress or anxiety stop, delay, or otherwise affect menstruation? Benjamin (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

According to our article on Amenorrhoea, specifically the section Secondary Amenorrhoea, yes. Quoting:
"Secondary amenorrhea is also caused by stress, extreme weight loss, and excessive exercise. Young athletes are particularly vulnerable, although normal menses usually return with healthy body weight. Causes of secondary amenorrhea can also result in primary amenorrhea, especially if present before onset of menarche." loupgarous (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Can it be caused by stress alone, and if so, how much? Benjamin (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
In standard units, that would be 3.27 mother-in-law days. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The brain actually controls the cascade of events which lead to menstrual flow through the Hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis, part of the neuroendocrine system.. As to "how much stress", that really depends on the individual woman. Each of us have unique bodies, and there's no single amount of stress sufficient to cause any physiological response across the human race - it varies from person to person.
And Stu, I've found mother-in-law mediated stress to be independent of the neuroendocrine system, and in some cases to be pathognomonic of Vistaril deficiency on the part of the mother-in-law. loupgarous (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
In answer to "how much," stress does not have a quantitative measure. In practice, small amounts of what others would consider trivial stress tend to cause far more harm than extreme levels of stress. If you are interested in this area, look into PTSD research. I don't want to make specific statements about veterans in our clinic, but it fits. Those who suffered very little stress have higher rates and worse forms of PTSD compared to those who suffered extreme stress. (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If the Solar System were brought to rest relative to the Galaxy then allowed to follow real physics what would the new orbit be?[edit]

Would the sum pulls of dark matter and gas, dust, and star clouds etc. cause an orbit that's not "drop to the center like a stone?" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but "new orbit around what?" If all the masses in the Solar System lost their proper motion with respect to the rest of the Milky Way (the motion causing their galaxy rotation curve, specifically), strictly speaking the Solar System as a whole wouldn't have an orbit around the center of the galaxy. You'll have to define your question better, and while you're doing so, supply a mechanism by which this might be done. You'd have to supply an arresting force to every mass in the Solar System somehow which discriminated between the orbits of the objects in the Solar System around the Sun and those planets with moons or captive asteroids and their proper motion attributable to their galaxy rotation curve in the galaxy. Then you'd have to keep applying it unless you somehow abolish all the other mass in the Milky Way.  :"Dark matter and gas, dust, and star clouds etc." either part of the Milky Way or they're mass in other galaxies. Working out the resultant vector for a Solar System in which we woke up and found the rest of the Milky Way had gone away... we can't do that here in the Reference Desk.
We could, I suppose, estimate extragalactic masses from observation of their motion, but I don't think we'd get meaningful results, since those motions are likely much smaller than the limits of accuracy of how we measure them. And "dark matter" will be even harder to estimate the mass of, for obvious reasons. loupgarous (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Around the center of mass of the Milky Way Galaxy. Why would you have to keep applying the force? Once it's stopped it has lost all it's galactic rotation curve momentum/proper motion and that is when you turn on real physics again and see what happens. It's not a plan, it's a thought experiment like Einstein's riding on a beam of light (even harder than stopping the galactic orbit as your body cannot reach the speed of light). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. For your thought experiment, you postulated being able to switch the gravitational attraction between the galaxy and the solar system off for a while. If you've ever taken a pail with a rope tied to the handle, filled it half-full of water, then swung it over your head, you've got a heavenly body orbiting a massive object, with the rope representing the gravitational attraction between them. Now let go of the rope. See what happens? That's what happens to the solar system once the gravitational attraction between it and the center of the galaxy abruptly goes away - angular momentum sends the solar system away from the galaxy on a line tangential to its orbit around the center of the galaxy. Unless you are cancelling the Solar System's inertia while you're turning the gravitational attraction from the center of the galaxy off, too.
That's actually more plausible. Once you throw the switch back "on", are you restoring the gravitational pull from the galaxy, or not? loupgarous (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You're focusing too much on how to get there from here. A thought experiment doesn't require that, you just jump to the new state. Nobody worries about how Schroedinger got the cat in the box. "Free prussic acid food inside !" StuRat (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There would be some attraction to the matter in the arm, that might restore a portion of the solar system's original galactic rotation, but certainly not all, causing it to fall towards the center. As it did, it would pass other solar systems, potentially causing chaos as multiple solar systems are pulled out of position. What would happen to ours would be difficult to predict. It might even be possible for it to be ejected from the galaxy, at least temporarily. And the planets might get pulled away from the Sun in the process. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"Might" is a mighty weak word ;-). When two galaxies collide, actual close encounters of stars are still very very rare. Look up one clear night - how much of the sky is taken up by stars and how much by void? If the solar system magically lost its proper motion, it would - very slowly - start to fall towards the center of the Milky Way. Most likely, it would interact with enough other random stars to not pass exactly through the center, but bypass it at some distance. It would then drift out to about the current distance and there momentarily come to rest, before repeating the process. Unless it gains additional energy by some close three-body encounter, it will not be ejected from the galaxy. And the time scale for one full passage (back and forth) would be on the same order of magnitude as the current galactic orbit - hundreds of millions years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
While stars are spread far enough apart that they aren't likely to collide, they are close enough so that they have gravitational effects on each other, especially over billions of years. Take a look at this page on galactic collisions, and note the animation of a simulation of such a collision, about 3/4th down, showing stars flying everywhere: [15]. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a billion stars falling through a billion stars (give or take an order of magnitude). The vast majority of stars form the merged galaxy - the ones that are flung out are a small fraction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct, but that doesn't mean the stars that remain in the galaxy weren't affected by each other's gravity. Indeed, that's critical to changing the orbit of each into the new orbit in the resultant galaxy. If they didn't affect each other, the two galaxies would just pass through each other and continue on their way. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The gravitational pull would reduce as the planet approached the galactic center, so I think the orbit would take somewhat longer. Stars passing by at a distance (so as not to appreciably accelerate the Sun to puppy-dog along behind) would be expected to push and pull by roughly equal amounts. But there is substantial frame dragging from the galactic rotation that would pull on the Earth. Its magnitude is described in this interesting paper which has been published in Europhysics Letters. However, I don't know how to get from that to an orbital deflection. I would suppose the chance of collision should be much higher due to the greater relative velocity between the infalling star and the "usual flow of traffic". Wnt (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actual star/star collision chances would still be low, but the chances of passing close enough for a significant gravitational deflection of one or both stars (depending on relative masses) would be much higher. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Why don't all localised infections become systemic infections? Surely, if bacteria or other infection causing organism has entered the body, it will eventually spread? 2A02:C7D:B921:AD00:F95A:A035:E07C:21D6 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Any pathological organism entering the body will trigger a response from the immune system. Most minor infections will be suppressed but a few may become systemic. The result will vary according to such factors as the age and health of the individual, the type of infecting organism, for example. Try this site or Immune system for starters. Richard Avery (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Then the next logical Q is how infections can overcome the immune system. Some methods are to attack the immune system itself, like AIDS does, or to just overwhelm the immune system when you are exposed to a large dose of bacteria or other microbes. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Search for Alien life[edit]

Have been looking for some information about the search for alien life; Yes i am aware of the usual Carbon based biological search but was looking for some good articles of people thinking out side of the norm and some fresh ideas of what could be a starting point. So the question i guess would be - What is the current thinking with regard to the search for alien life outside of the normal parameters? Also what if any ideas have people come up with to detect alien life forms that do not match the criteria layed down for life as we know it? Thanks for your help and/or thinking Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are way far beyond searching for any particular type of life form. Other star systems are simply too far away to directly tell if they contain life, carbon or otherwise. Rather, searches for alien life have focused on looking for radio signals that cannot be generated naturally (thus far, no unambiguously artificial radio signals have been detected that were not created by humans, obviously). This type of search doesn't matter on the nature of the alien life. Searchers also have an eye for visual signatures of megastructures around stars, which again, doesn't matter on the nature of the alien life. See Search for extraterrestrial intelligence for more information, for starters. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The question asker may be thinking about the chemical tests being performed by Mars Curiosity and not SETI. It's true that the search for Life on Mars has mostly been to look for organic compounds, or evidence of metabolisms like those seen on Earth life. The Life on Mars article is still worth a read. ApLundell (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

See Hypothetical types of biochemistry. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Even biochemistry may be too limiting. Suppose, for example, that the complex magnetic patterns we see in the Sun are actually the result of some type of magnetic plasma life forms. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Search for extraterrestrial intelligence has extensive references and further reading. Blooteuth (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Hypothetical types of biochemistry was a good article Adrian (from the article i am thinking best way to narrow down silicon based life would be to look at sulphuric acid rich environments ( just need a lot of equipment now )then look for structures) ment added by (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Theobromine toxicity[edit]

from the articles on theobromine and theobromine poisoning, it is clear to me that rats and humans can tolerate higher amounts of it because they have a much easier time metabolizing it than other animals, eg cats/dogs. My question is-- why? What digestive/metabolic adaptations do rats and humans have that allow them that much higher tolerance? is it a specific enzyme or something that other animals lack? i didnt see it mentioned in the articles if it was there, so apologies if this is redundant (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there's multiple pathways with multiple enzymes potentially involved in metabolising theobromine. Our article does mention metabolism in the liver by CYP1A2 and CYP2E1. This study shows a different metabolite pattern in different species, suggesting involvement of different enzymes. Fgf10 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
[16] mentions several different pathways of metabolism and different profiles of products but also mentions the key difference seems to be in rates. BTW to clarify your later point, as I understand the source (sort of mentioned at the end of the abstract, but clearer if you check the full article), the same metabolites were mostly observed in all tested species. The qualitative pattern did differ, in other words the amount of each one. While it's possible different enzymes were involved in different species, this suggest to me more likely is the similar enzymes were involved in all species but different enzymes are more significant in each species. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct, my phrasing was inaccurate. Fgf10 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

LDL and HDL are different from cholesterol?[edit]

I have been taught that cholesterol is divided into two: LDL and HDL so when I'm saying cholesterol it includes the two. But now I saw a short lecture made by university of Reading in the UK that states: "So how does HDL work? Well, we're not quite sure, but we think that it may work in the reverse way to LDL. LDL takes cholesterol from the blood into the arterial wall. HDL may take it the other way, from the arterial wall from atherosclerotic lesions back into the blood." it says that LDL takes cholesterol and that means that cholesterol is different from LDL. what is that? I'm a little bit confused. (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's start with your first sentence: "I have been taught that cholesterol is divided into two: LDL and HDL". You were taught wrong. Cholesterol is a

Lipid. HDL and LDL are Lipoproteins.

Cholesterol molecule
Lipoprotein structure (chylomicron)
ApoA, ApoB, ApoC, ApoE (apolipoproteins); T (triacylglycerol); C (cholesterol); green (phospholipids)
Simplified flowchart showing the essentials of lipoprotein metabolism.

Lipoproteins (LDL and HDL) transport lipids (fat) in your blood. Cholesterol is one of the lipids they transport. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope that I didn't understand my teacher properly rather than it's his mistake, because he is a scientist. Now I understand that LDL is like insulin which takes the glucose inside to the cell, but LDL takes cholesterol to the cells, and HDL take them out from there. Isn't it? (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That was a good try, but ... no, insulin is something else. It is a separate signal that goes to the cells and bangs on the door and says, "really, let this glucose in". The glucose just sits out in the bloodstream as a solution and is potentially available to the cells at any time. But a type I diabetic can essentially starve to death for lack of glucose even while his bloodstream contains five times more of the stuff than a normal person's. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, regarding to the first question now I'm reading on an article of the Open university in the UK the following things (which are similar to what my teacher said): "One of the risk factors for coronary heart diseases (CHD) is an inappropriate ratio of different types of fats in the blood, including the two sorts of cholesterol (known as HDL and LDL)." How can you explain these things, are they also incorrect or maybe I don't understand them well? (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an issue where context is important. A "serum cholesterol" lab does not pick out little bits of cholesterol in the blood and count them. It is not a count of the total cholesterol in the body. There is a hell of a lot more cholesterol in the body. The serum cholesterol lab estimates the amount of cholesterol in serum and separates it into the type of lipoproteins used: HDL, LDL, and VLDL. If you want an overly specific name, you can say "total cholesterol being transported inside a lipoprotein in the blood stream." We just say "total cholesterol." (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sort of like saying "a four lane freeway can typically handle 100,000 drivers and passengers per day" when you really mean "a four lane freeway can typically handle 70,000 vehicles per day, all of which contain drivers and some of which contain passengers." --Guy Macon (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there any microorganisms that wouldn't taste bad if you drank or chewed many grams of them?[edit]

Without added microorganism food, waste products, extracellular water etc, just piles of nothing but cells and still alive or at least not rotting yet (some microorganisms produce very polyunsaturated fatty acids that go rancid quicker than plant/animal fats, maybe that'd be tastable). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the food manufacturer that produces Quorn thinks their micro-organisms tastes OK (no comment as to what I think of it). Yet again their is yogurt, blue cheese, lactic acid fermented vegetables, etc., etc.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Many foods contain a small portion of microorganisms, but that doesn't mean those would taste good when isolated. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
And I'd bet much of the home sapiens population would dislike the taste of blue cheese. Maybe the Quorn species wouldn't be bad for most of humanity. Or the baker's yeast species (I forgot about yeast). If it tastes like the dry yeast packets then I'd say it's not bad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Bet most home sapiens can't enjoy a late-night supper with some really good Stilton and a wee dram or two of a really good double distilled malt (which imparts a heavenly peaty taste). Until they have tasted ambrosia they are just treading water, on this, their short sojourn through-this-world. Make the most of of a very short life and live a little; and dare to dip into the cornucopia. Enjoy! .--Aspro (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Pro tip: Do not eat too much yeast. If you drink 2 cups of Snapple and swallow a 21 gram packet it'll ferment in your stomach and carbon dioxide will keep burping out. I imagine that 0.2 kilos of yeast and 0.2 kilos of sugar would be inadvisable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you have just invented the next "challenge" for teenagers to torment themselves with ;) Wnt (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This does sound like great fun although the desired (?) result may be difficult to achieve. The stomach is a highly acidic environment and IIRC from my homebrewing days fermentation stops at pH of 4-ish and below. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe yeast and its archrival baking soda/powder can collaborate on this one. ;) Wnt (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There once was a lady from Ryde,
Who ate yeast and apples and died,
The apples fermented
Inside the lamented
And made cider inside her insides. MChesterMC (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Nutritional yeast is added in fairly large quantities to many recipes. I think it tastes good. Some people put it on popcorn. See also Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)#Historical_use, a bacteria the Aztecs used to cultivate and eat. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Spirulina_(dietary_supplement) can be eaten straight. Tellingly, the article doesn't mention how it tastes. ApLundell (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Need bibliography about how, when and why to apply statistics[edit]

Need bibliography about how, when and why to apply statistics: what the median and the mean tells us, correlation not implying causation, problems that are intractable for stats, and so on.--Dikipewia (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

See arithmetic mean, median, correlation to start. As for when not to apply stats, one of the biggest problems is too small of a sample size. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 9 out of 10 times, you can't conclude that it will continue to happen 9/10th of the time. You probably need over 1000 tosses to consider it a reliable sample size. (If it comes up heads or tails 900 of those times, it's probably not a fair coin.) Then there's the problem of introducing statistical bias, especially problematic when dealing with people, such as doing surveys. There's also the issue of cherry-picking. For example, many stocks can be said to have performed well or poorly, depending on how far back you go.
One interesting problem that can't be solved by stats is the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. Since we have only one sample case to work with (Earth), or perhaps a few more if you include our negative results (so far) looking for life elsewhere in the solar system, we really have no idea how common life is in the universe. See Drake equation. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a great post Stu, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be very useful if the OP provided more details of why this bibliography is needed. Statistics is an incredibly complex area, although the OP's question seems to focus on the most basic of statistics. A couple more articles of relevance at this level are Parametric statistics, Nonparametric statistics, Statistical power, and Sample size - the last 2 are especially useful to avoid ethical concerns if the research involves animals . DrChrissy (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I already included that last link. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I see you did - apologies for the repetition. DrChrissy (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, Correlation does not imply causation. Loraof (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Some additional reading: Inference, frequentist inference, statistical hypothesis testing, frequentist, bayesian, statistical regression, statistical model. We do have a whole category Category:Statistical_theory that you can browse using the little box at the bottom of an article like statistical theory. And yes, we can probably do better than a shotgun approach if you let us know what area your interest is in, or perhaps why. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Huff's How to Lie with Statistics should be required reading for everyone, everywhere. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
M. J. Moroney's Facts from Figures is essential reading. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apollo 8[edit]

Apollo_8#Lunar_orbit "The SPS ignited at 69 hours, 8 minutes, and 16 seconds after launch and burned for 4 minutes and 13 seconds, placing the Apollo 8 spacecraft in orbit around the Moon. The crew described the burn as being the longest four minutes of their lives. If the burn had not lasted exactly the correct amount of time, the spacecraft could have ended up in a highly elliptical lunar orbit or even flung off into space. If it lasted too long they could have struck the Moon."

How did they calculate the exact burning time of 4 minutes and 13 seconds? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember following this mission as it was happening. It was calculated on Earth by computer and relayed up to them before disappearing out of contact with Earth. They then had to time the burn on the Swiss made 'mechanical' wristwatches made by Omega -as the US did not have digital wristwatches at that time. planet-omega, space. This was the technique use on all Apollo missions. Newtons laws gave them all the algorithms they needed and Turing's work told them how to build the computer. Plan B was to use some plastic bags to defecate into; in case plan A didn’t work. --Aspro (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
They had watches, but the Apollo spacecraft had a digital clock (in the computer). I'm pretty sure that the start time and length of the burn were controlled by the computer. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I don't think that the article is right about it having to be that exact. For one thing, it does NOT say that in the reference. Secondly, if it is off a little one way or the other, it would just go into an orbit of a different size. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
On your second point, absolutely correct. They could make as many corrections as they like later on, until the fuel is exhausted, if a particular orbit is required. The reason to get it right the first time is that it is more efficient. On the other hand, mid course may not be (almost certainly is not) the most efficient place to do it either. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In fact they did make a correction to the orbit later. They wanted a circular orbit 60 or 70 miles above the surface. The initial orbit was good at the perilune but 90 or 100 miles too high at the apolune. Another short burn made it more circular. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To Aspro, the Apollo astronauts voided in a specialized item nicknamed a "blue bag", and no improvisation involved. There was an entire, detailed procedure, including things I'll let our readers decide whether to see on this link, or not. NASA may have dropped the ball on the design of the Apollo 13 service module, but they generally knew their shit. loupgarous (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about cryogenic preservation and transgender people[edit]

Out of curiosity--if a transgender person gets cryogenically preserved after they die (especially if only one's head or brain is cryogenically preserved), would it be possible to use stem cells or whatever to grow a new body for this person which matches his or her gender identity? Or would that create a risk of rejection due to the chromosomes (XY and XX) not matching?

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So you would replace an X with a Y, or vice versa, right ? In the case of a male-to-female change, you could double up the X in their XY combo to create an XX, but you would run the risk of making X-linked recessive inheritance problems worse. An alternative would be a donor X or Y chromosome, as needed. See Chimera_(genetics)#Humans for evidence that a person can survive with two or more sets of genes (of course, this doesn't mean that all combos are viable). The bigger problem would be how to get the frozen brain into the new body, including the moral dilemma of what to do with the new brain that developed with the new body. Presumably the brain's development could be halted early on, but that would still be an ethical problem for many. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is very speculative; I would be highly surprised if transplant rejection exists in a world where adult cloned bodies can be grown or tissue printer manufactured from scratch - but I cannot exclude it categorically. Technically little of the Y chromosome is actually needed for apparent maleness; the SRY gene handles most of the obvious morphological details. Functional testes would need other important genes. To make a female, the SRY could be inactivated with similarly little effort. Repairing and reviving the frozen brain is almost surely going to be the tough part. So far it looks like most tissues can be put through a tissue printing process at the cell level of resolution and the cells can figure out where they were supposed to be. But if you do that with a brain you have a blank slate, because the connections are synapses, i.e. subcellular, and long term potentiation similarly is not going to be represented with a newly printed cell. Some will say that any substitution of tissue at all makes it a "different person". (Others like me will say it's all atman so the cryonics is only potentially useful as a means of memory storage) But if you want to go through cell by cell and fix whatever freezing does to them, that could be a very finicky process... Wnt (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all of this information, you guys! Futurist110 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
According to our article Histocompatibility, rejection of transplanted tissue is mediated by Human leucocyte antigens, the genes for which are found on chromosome 6p21, so that changes to the 23rd, sex-determination chromosome pair aren't likely to cause tissue rejection issues. A body and brain in which only chromosome pair 23 is different and the remaining genes are identical would have histocompatible cells and tissues, because their HLA would be identical. No rejection response is likely to occur in your hypothetical recombinantly-gendered brain transplant patient. loupgarous (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

American '80s car[edit]

What car is this on the right? (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a Mercury Grand Marquis, to me. Compare: [17]. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes! you found it, thank you so much!! (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason that it's more healthy to eat unsaturated fats than saturated fats?[edit]

What is the reason that it's more healthy to eat unsaturated fats or trans fats than saturated fats? In the end of the day all of them fats (or lipids). They have the same atoms just with a minor different structure as it's easy to see on wikipedia articles and on google images. In addition I've read that in the room temperature (25C degrees) the saturated fats are solid (because of their straight chains) - such as butter etc. while those which are unsaturated fats are tend to be liquid in room temperature (because of their bent tails) - such as olive oil etc. Then I'm asking another question: Is there relation or correlation between the recommendation to avoid of saturated fats to their character to be solid (and maybe because of that they sink in the blood vessels and make troubles) or no relation between this character to the mentioned recommendation? (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Trans fats are generally considered much worse than saturated fats, not comparatively good like unsaturated fats. But "The exact biochemical methods by which trans fats produce specific health problems are a topic of continuing research" (see Trans fat § Health risks). And there are even several subclasses of unsaturated that have various patterns of effects. For example: "Polyunsaturated fats protect against cardiovascular disease by providing more membrane fluidity than monounsaturated fats, but they are more vulnerable to lipid peroxidation (rancidity). On the other hand, some monounsaturated fatty acids (in the same way as saturated fats) may promote insulin resistance, whereas polyunsaturated fatty acids may be protective against insulin resistance." (see Monounsaturated fat § Relation to health). Some of our articles only go so far as to note correlations with health effects, rather than being able to explain the actual biochemical/biophysical processes. DMacks (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See here, 13 minutes 40 seconds into the video. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There isn't any reason, because it (unsaturated better than saturated) is almost certainly false. (Basically everyone agrees that trans fats are bad, worse than the other two.) What happened is that a few decades ago a vocal minority of scientists, mainly in the USA, jumped the gun and decided what was right based on equivocal evidence. Their (still) unproven (more like disproved) hypotheses became institutionalized dogma - for instance they came up with dietary recommendations which virtually certainly have done more harm to public health than good - e.g. leading to insouciance about carbohydrate intake for diabetics that would have horrified earlier generations. (They horrify me!) But Slllooowwwwllly minds & institutions & recommendations change - e.g. European countries and recently the USA have stopped giving dietary recommendations on cholesterol & demonizing it. Read e.g. Gary Taubes & many others on the history.
The far more important metaprinciple to absorb is - Science sometimes goes Backwards. The human race, no more than an individual is destined to always Do Things Right. The human race gets something right, a brilliant genius or a school of researchers or many competing thinkers discover something, enlighten everybody & then ...... everybody kinda forgets it, it becomes unfashionable, they stop understanding it (or more accurately, enough realize they never did understand it well enough). It is replaced by something inferior, sometimes grossly inferior & a generation can become attached to the inferior cognition, usually because they never even heard of anything else. But however long it takes, the steps forward tend to exceed the steps backward; while individuals often emotionally cannot, the human race as a whole does admit: "Mistakes were made." But again, denying that many spheres of science sometimes go full speed backwards - in many fields & not just in the Distant Past of Yore, but Right Now - is to not understand history & philosophy & the history & philosophy of science, for there really isn't any other way for things could be.John Z (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
But that's not because unsaturated fat isn't so bad, rather it's because unsaturated fat is not as good for us as we used to think, see here: "The Mediterranean Diet is healthy IN SPITE OF olive oil, not because of it." So, the best diet you can eat is a salt, sugar and fat free diet where all your essential Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats come from what is in the vegetables and grains. Count Iblis (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
See cherry picking. There's enough individual studies to back up any statement you wish to make. Understanding comes not from individual studies but rather from the preponderance of all studies. --Jayron32 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Temperature of boiling liquids[edit]

When we boil water in a pot, at what temperature is the surface or middle of the water in the pot when the bottom starts to bubble?

If we heat two mixed liquids (like water and alcohol, which evaporate at 100 and 79 C respectively), will the boiling point of both change? Would the whole alcohol evaporate before water starts evaporating? --Llaanngg (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For your second question, you may want to read our Azeotrope article. CodeTalker (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no easy single answer for your first question. Heat transfer mechanics is extremely messy and complex and requires some serious advanced mathematics to model, especially for fluids such as water. Convective heat transfer is where you want to start your studies. Good luck. --Jayron32 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, for the theory behind boiling points of mixtures, see Eutectic system. This is mostly refered to when melting Alloys but it is the same principle for many other nonmetal elements. --Kharon (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

Where did electronegativity come from?[edit]

Everything I've seen tells me what it is and how it affects chemical bonds, but where did the idea come from? Why did anyone think it was necessary? I read something about energy levels, which makes me think somebody must have measured something, but what did they measure and how did they measure it? Bogwon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Our "Electronegativity" article has historical notes and cites for them if you want to learn more. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
While no one doubts the meaning of "positive" applied to numbers (root is Latin positivus[18]), its usage for a particular Electrical polarity seems to have arisen quite arbitrarily, around 1755 according to the etymology reference. That was before the main electrical current carrier, the Electron was found and has lead to generations of students being taught that "Electric current is electrons flowing in the opposite to conventional current direction". It gets worse when we grapple with n-type and p-type doped semiconductors in explaining how Transistors work. Blooteuth (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the best (and surprisingly easy to follow) books on this subject is The Nature of the Chemical Bond by Linus Pauling. Most of what is taught in a typical first year chemistry class is straight from Pauling's work. --Jayron32 11:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Hormones — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hormones. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What dangerous in Diesel exhaust fluid to human body?[edit]

According to the article (Diesel exhaust fluid) it contains 32.5% urea and 67.5% deionized water. Urea we have naturally in our body, then I think the thing that can damage or interrupt homeostasis is the deionized water. Isn't it? -- (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is found in the human body, in some concentration, doesn't mean it is safe at any concentration. For example, you probably have some arsenic and uranium atoms in your body. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To support StuRat's statement, please read The dose makes the poison. Also, understand why urea is in your body. Urea is toxic, and it's main function is to be a water-soluble way of flushing nitrogen wastes out of your body. Your body doesn't use it so much as get rid of it as best as it can. See also Urea cycle. --Jayron32 16:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"The dose makes the poison". Diesel exhaust fluid is urea, diluted with water until it is acceptably safe to handle. It is still far from safe. This 1/3rd urea solution is considerably more concentrated than even "strong" human urine (3× - 10×). I believe it's similar to that of some pigs, and pig urine will be familiar to anyone with a farming background. Urea creams are used as a topical skin treatment for some conditions such as psoriasis for their debriding effect. Regularly handling exhaust fluid (i.e. mechanics and fuelling staff, rather than domestic drivers) is known to give rise to dermatitis.
The body only contains urea because it's trying to excrete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Does long-term urea touching have a dermatitic effect besides osmosis? Does the bladder, kidney, ureter, prostate and urethra have special urea-resistant cells? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read the article Urinary bladder and ureter which directly address your question. Urine does not normally come into contact with the prostate gland, which is separated from the urine stream by the valves of the Seminal colliculus. --Jayron32 16:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple infections simultaneously[edit]

Is it possible for a human to have multiple infections at the same time caused by different bacteria or virus? For example, maybe a cold from other infected people, a parasitic infection from ingesting contaminated food and another systemic infection (maybe tetanus) from a wound. If this is possible, how would the immune system react to it? Would it cause a major life threatening illness or would it not make much difference? 2A02:C7D:B97E:DF00:C401:C078:9E85:9104 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have several ancestors who caught the flu during the post-WWI pandemic. The one that died was already suffering from tuberculosis. So, the answer is Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Each infection the immune system has to fight weakens it, making the individual more susceptible to further illnesses. Remember that HIV doesn't in itself kill you. It just makes you vastly more open to all the other bugs that surround us. Rojomoke (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your first sentence. Many infections cause an immunity to that disease in the future, and potentially to related diseases. Famously, a mild cowpox infection provides immunity to smallpox. StuRat (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We are reading the statement differently. Each infection the immune system has to fight makes the immune system weaker WHILE IT IS FIGHTING AN EXISTING infection. There is a limit to what the immune system can do at any given point in time. So, fighting an infection uses up resources that cannot be used to fight other incoming infections. That is why you shouldn't get a vaccination when you are sick. The vaccination places stress on an already taxed immune system that can cause it to temporarily fail and cause an even worse infection. (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Superinfection. Fgf10 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

each person has thousand of micro punctures developing in the vascularisation - every day?[edit]

I saw this video (8:20) in which the lecturer say that "every day even in the perfect healthy person, thousand of micro punctures developing in the vascularisation.". Is there any source that supports that claim? (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a cognate of leaky gut syndrome. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Wendy's Frosty[edit]

I'd like them better without trans fats, which they say they have, at least in the large size: [19].

I've noticed if I put one in the fridge for later, it separates into a liquid with a thin skin on top. If I remove this skin, will I also remove the majority of the trans fats ? StuRat (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Both the menu you linked to and our article Frosty (frozen dairy dessert) say it's dessert made with milk and it's frozen, strongly imply there's at least some milk fat. In fact if you check it out, the description of that page you linked to explicitly says "Nothing beats this Wendy’s original that's made from fresh Grade A milk and rich cream." In other words, you should not need to look at the nutrition info to tell you it contains transfat anymore then you need to look at the nutrition info on your 100% organic all natural ingredients ice cream or Kobe beef contains transfat.

P.S. I have zero interest in getting involved in the argument over whether or not naturally occuring transfat are as dangerous as industrially produced ones i.e. whether or not people are right to be concerned over such transfats. Simply pointing out that labelling in most places including I'm pretty sure the US [20] does not distinguish between naturally occuring and industrially produced transfats. So by definition, any product with sufficient naturally occuring transfat to exceed any nutrition labelling requirements, including many products with significant cream and some beef edit: and lamb and maybe very occasionally pork and chicken and other meat products, will have transfats so it's silly to make a big deal over the nutrition labels when simply common sense will tell you already.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wendy's either doesn't provide a full ingredient list of their site is broken. But if [21] is accurate, and that does list the same amount of transfats plus a similar list is elsewhere, it does seem quite likely that most or all of the transfats comes from the cream, perhaps with a small amount from processing to make the dessert. Again I'm not saying whether this means you should or shouldn't be worried, simply pointing out it's silly to be using the nutritional facts info. It's a product which contains a significant amount of cream so it also contains transfats, an educated consumer should already know this. Edit: Actually found [22] which does work properly for me and you can get stuff like [23] which seems to basically be the same ingredient list as earlier.Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've had Frostys. They're just a milkshake. You can find a million milkshake recipes online. A Frosty is perhaps a little thicker than your average milkshake, so a little experimentation with some recipes might be necessary. -- (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, they're similar to a milkshake, but they're not identical. Most people don't use cellulose in their milkshakes. - Nunh-huh 17:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
But that's not likely to significantly change the amount of transfat unless you use very low fat milk (which tends to significantly affect the flavour and texture). You'd need to use some sort of milk fat substitute. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Milk doesn't have any trans fats. Trans fats are created by partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fats. This is not a natural process. A natural product like milk (or even butter, which is just concentrated milk fats) contains no trans fats. Basically trans fats show up in the Western diet in two ingredients: margarine and vegetable shortening. Purely natural fat sources don't have any trans fats. --Jayron32 13:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"Milk doesn't have any trans fats." -- that is in direct contradiction to (my reading of) the table included at Trans_fat#Presence_in_food. It shows that milk and butter both have small amounts of trans fats (0.0007-7% by mass), while shortening (being largely industrially hydrogenated oil) is up to 1/3 trans fat by mass. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There's probably a uranium atom or two in milk also[citation needed]. The question is whether there is any dietarily significant quantities in milk. 0.0007% is 7 ppm. I'm not sure that I'd call that dietarily significant. That borders on homeopathic concentrations. Reading up in some additional articles, it DOES appear that pure animal fats (such as tallow or lard) is about 3-8% by weight trans fats.[24] Which is probably why the OP noticed that the trans fats only started showing up on a large Frosty; at smaller sizes the amount of trans fats rounds down to 0 grams. So, it does appear that natural fats do contain small concentrations of trans fats; the issue should then be do such sources contain enough trans fats to concern ourselves with. --Jayron32 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
more on trans fats, not terribly relevant to OP
I said nothing of dietary significance, nor do I really care. I'm only concerned at the moment with simple clear facts. 7% trans fat in butter is a hell of a lot more than " A natural product... contains no trans fats." as you claimed. I just wanted to point out the error, so that nobody was accidentally misinformed here. It might make sense for you to strike some of your comments above for clarity, in light of reading the information contained in the article you cited. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Since you're more concerned with winning than spreading correct information, let me confirm: You win. Before you even made this comment, I had already confirmed what you said and found a source to confirm what you said. I am far more concerned with getting information correct than winning some silly pissing contest as you seem to be, but if you wish me to concede defeat and proclaim you better than me as a human so we can move on, I will do so: I'm a worthless piece of shit, you're perfect, and we can leave my references there so people can read up more on the amount of trans fats in foods for themselves. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't sulk, it's unbecoming. I posted a simple, polite correction, but you didn't seem to accept it, and instead focused on how 0.0007% is very small. So I clarified what I was correcting, because you brought up things not relevant to my post. I think we're done now, have a nice day! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You still continue to have been correct, and I still continue to have already conceded that before you decided to continue to carry this farther. You aren't going to suddenly become wrong because you argue more. I will not become all of a sudden right because you argue more. Demanding a correction after I already provided one seems a bit beyond the pale. --Jayron32 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(Multiple-EC) Since I know my comments can be TL;DR the key summary is whether you want to worry about transfats and at what levels and from what sources is up to you. But if you do want to worry, you should understand where the transfats are coming from and not be surprised that your cream or beef contains transfat. Understanding this will also hopefully mean you don't think you can avoid transfats by making it at home when actually you're probably going to be using the same key source of transfats.

0.0007% is a tiny percentage but as you've now realised, the percentage in animal fats can easily be far higher, in the single digit percentage range of total fats. AFAIK, fats from cows and evidentally lamb tends to be higher then chicken or pork [25], and it does tend to be transfats from dairy/cream and occasionally beef or ruminants that gets the most attention. But the precise percentage of the fat that is trans depends on diet and other factors. (If you're wondering, I believe that these are mostly produced by the gut bacteria [26] [27].)

As mention, I've no desire to get into the debate over whether it makes sense to worry over the transfats in cream etc. Instead I simply want to establish, that AFAICT, it should not be a surprise that the Frosty contains transfat given it's a product with significant amounts of cream. And all evidence I've seen suggests that the transfat in Frosty comes mostly from the cream. This also means that making one at home is pointless if your only concern is the transfat, unless you intend to use a milk fat substitute.

I do agree that the amount of transfats from natural sources is far lower than that from PHO. I will however note if it's simply an issue of quantity then it also doesn't matter if the Frosty transfat is from cream or PHO. The concern over transfat is strong enough that when safe levels have been suggested they're normally very low e.g. 2 g a day on a 2000 calorie diet [28] a level you likely could exceed just from naturally occuring transfats. Again no comment on whether you should be concerned (or whether you're actually likely to have bigger concerns anyway with such a diet). But I suspect this is one reason why dairy promoters etc, if they talk about transfat at all, tend to talk about how there's no evidence natural transfats are harmful or they might even be good for you and they've been in the diet for 10k years etc [29] [30] [31] rather than just about quantities. (Again explicitly not commenting on such claims.)

BTW, unlike with labelling, most bans tend to concentrate on intentional industrially produced PHO and acknowledge there's still going to be some transfat from naturally occuring sources and some very small amounts accidentally produced during processing [32] [33]. Notably although diet appears to be significant, at least publicly there doesn't yet seem to be a push towards reducing them. Again no comment on whether any of this is justified.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the ban being on artificial trans fats doesn't necessarily mean they are worse, they might just be easier to remove. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In case there is still some confusion (I thought I was fairly clear), I was explicitly not commenting on any possible reason for the ban, whether that was justified or politics or ease or anything else. P.S. One part of my reply which may have been unclear was the last part on diet. What I meant to say is that although diet seems to be a good way to significantly reduce TFA in ruminants, there doesn't seem to be any major public push to doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This was originally part of my reply above, but since the section is collapsed, I'll leave it here as it's IMO significant enough even if completely unsourced. I've been reluctant to say this since it's not something I can reference. But meh, this discussion is already a mess and I doubt there's going to be a referenced answer. I'm fairly sure it's not that easy to simply remove transfat from cream. If it was, dairy producers would be just doing it rather than trying to convince people dairy transfats are good for you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(I didn't intend to collapse your comment, I only collapsed Jayron doing his histrionic admissions of having a mistake.) Also, I think your logic here regarding easy removal of trans fats is sound. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
When I first noticed the collapsed section (after I was ready to post), Jayron32's reply was also part of the collapse and as my reply was partly in response to what Jayron32 said, I felt it untenable to keep it uncollapsed. Jayron32's comment was removed from the collapsed section before I actually manage to submit my reply. I didn't notice this initially but in the end, I felt it best to just leave it be, since other than this part, the stuff most related to the question was basically a repetition of what I said earlier and which remains uncollapsed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I found this source which seems to indicate that trans fats in dairy products can be controlled by controlling the diet of the cows. The conclusion of that study indicates "Milk trans-C18:1 increased from 2.9 to 11.2% of the total fatty acids for cows fed the control diet and the diets supplemented with fat, respectively." Which is to say that a specific trans-fatty acid's presence in milk went up 4 fold when cows were fed diets supplemented with certain fats. I could not find any information on removing trans fats from existing natural products, such as milk, butter, or cream, after it gets out of the cow. But it appears, at least from that study, that one can minimize the amount of trans fats in the final product by controlling the diet of the cow herself. --Jayron32 20:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of that (I mentioned it above and I think several of my refs discuss dietary issues). I also looked for info on removing transfat afterwards (before anyone had replied actually) but didn't find anything either. This is IMO further indication that it's a far from a simple thing, although of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One thing I didn't really look into is removing saturated fats from milk, it seems something that may have been studied particularly when there was greater concern over saturated fats. I did come across [34] which talks more generally about controlling milk composition via diet, including saturated fat. It's clearly complicated stuff. Taking all this together IMO despite all the caveats I even more strongly feel the idea of some simple process to remove transfats (or saturated fats) later is a clear cut case of 'gets little consideration since it's just too difficult without major possible costs and consequences' Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This whole discussion about whether or not certain transfats that can also be found in natural products may not be that bad misses an important point. Fat in general is bad for you, even the most healthy fats like olive oil (you only need to eat a few grams of the essential Omega-3 and Omega-6 fats). What's even worse are saturated fats, and transfats are the worst of the worsts sorts of fats you can eat. If you stop adding any fat to your diet, you'll need to make up for the many hundreds of Kcal in the form of carbs. If you then fill this gap with whole grains, brown rice, then you'll also want to add some more vegetables. Consider the dinner I ate yesterday, 1 kg of potatoes with 700 grams of spinach. This contains pretty much all of the essential fats, moreover it contains all the essential amino-acids including those that are supposedly hard to get from vegetables. The real problem is that lack of exercise causes a lack of appetite, you can then get by with eating 1500 Kcal instead of 3000 Kcal per day (in fact you have the tendency to get obese just by eating according to your appetite), if you then also fill this meager 1500 Kcal with ice cream then there is no room left for you to get your nutrients from healthy sources. Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
[citation needed], not that it matters, you'll just link to some source of questionable reliability that you've cherry-picked to support your idiosyncratic diet. But thanks anyways for sharing! --Jayron32 20:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What can be sourced is the fact that the Institute of Medicine does admit that their dietary guidelines are not purely based on what's optimal for health but also if people are able to stick to the guidelines given their current eating habits. So, suppose that you would have a very solid scientific result that eating only cabbage would be optimal for health (unlikely, of course, but let's assume this for Argument's sake). Then an IoM guideline to eat only cabbage would obviously be widely ignored by the Big Mac, ice cream and pizza eating population, therefore nothing would change. Instead the IoM will adjust its advice by taking into account to what degree people are capable of making adjustments to their current diet. This is pointed out by Esselstyn who has done experiments on heart patients who were in too bad shape to have a bypass and who couldn't be cured using stents. His diet is extremely strict, but adherence was de-facto enforced by the prospect of dying within one or two years. The results look good, but it has been criticized for not being a rigorously conducted double blind study. Now, I'm not going to advocate sticking to any extreme diet here, some of the arguments used by Esselstyn are likely not correct. But a lot of the basic facts are undisputed, they have been used to motivate the research into statins, salt etc. etc.
The role of cholesterol in heart disease was originally uncovered by scientists in the 1950s who noted that in rural Uganda, heart disease seems to absent (when correcting for lower life expectancy, so you look at aged matched causes of death between rural Ugandans and Americans). The role of salt became apparent in studies showing that the Yanomami Indians who hardly get any salt from their diet don't get high bloodpressure as they age, in fact their bloodpressure doesn't rise with age at all and they ar free of cardiovascular disease. This sort of data is undisputed, the problem really is what you do with this knowledge. The approach of modern medicine has been to use this data to get to better treatments of cardiovascular disease primarily using drugs and operations while making some suggestions about lifestyle change. The alternative view is that we need to make more radical lifestyle changes that are not recommended by the IoM (not because they are problematic, but because of the reasons mentioned above) to drastically reduce the incidence of diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.
So, it's in the end not all that different to what you tell your students who you think are not studying hard enough, but who do have a talent for the subject you are teaching. They have choice between studying a bit more to pass their exams and get a good job, or they can do a lot more than that and become experts in the subject. The latter is not what everyone wants to do, but they do have choice here. The same is true for the lifestyle we stick to. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Look I don't think anyone is denying that dietary advice by nearly any party comes with a whole host of caveats including political involvement, the problems surrounding the science to support such advice (including funding, edit: weak correlations etc), the importance over people actually following the advice, etc. But just because this is true, and even if radically dietary change would be better, it doesn't mean some random diet you've come up with would actually work for everyone even if properly followed. Note that this doesn't mean the diet isn't working for you, perhaps it is and you should stick with it. But that's a single point of data. I could point to the fellow who smoked 20 times a day, was fairly overweight, did hardly any exercise, regularly got extremely drunk, consumed a diet rich in saturated fats, highly processed carbohydrates including sugar, salt etc and still lived to 100 without significant health concerns and say hey all dietary advice is complete nonsense. If you have the preponderance of evidence to support your diet then present it. (Of course the preponderance of evidence is a tricky business when it comes to diet anyway.) If not, then while you're free to believe whatever you want and follow whatever diet you want, please don't present it on the RD as something more than it is, your own personal belief. Nil Einne (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC) 23:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See here: "The Yanomamo Indians still lead a life very similar to the last million or so years of our evolution,1 and like primitive man eat a diet that is very low in salt and saturated fat and high in fruit, vegetables and roots.2 The Yanomamo Indians are not overweight, do not smoke and are very fit. Their blood pressure does not rise with age although they spend much of their time fighting and are under great stress.3 This tribe does not develop vascular disease, although many die of infection. However, when they migrate to a Venezuelan or Brazilian town and adopt a western lifestyle, they, like native Americans, become overweight and develop diabetes and premature vascular disease. They appear therefore, to be a group which, though predisposed to vascular disease, is protected by the way they live."
Also note that the diet I'm eating is not suitable for most people simply because most people don't burn enough calories and won't be able to start doing so; it would take years building up their cardiovascular fitness to be able to run fast for an hour a day. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to my reply above after you replied. Anyway so you're admitting then that you don't have significant evidence, just a single study? I'd note even in the study you linked to, there doesn't seem a good way to separate the effects of diet from other lifestyle issues particularly exercise. Nil Einne (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There are many results that I can dig up later, e.g. autopsy studies done on US soldiers and Vietcong soldiers who died in Vietnam which shows a clear difference in atherosclerosis. But note that lifestyle factors that are not 100% clearly identified are still useful. If we know that people who eat a lot of vegetables and exercise a lot do much better compared to people who don't eat much vegetables and don't exercise, then you can choose to do both without first waiting for studies to appear that will point out if the difference is due to exercise or eating vegetables or perhaps both. Unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that eating vegetables or exercising a lot is actually unhealthy, doing both in the absence of more evidence looks like the optimal strategy for the time being. Also, separation may not be an option. E.g. I can eat less dairy products and still get enough calcium from vegetables, only because I exercise a lot allowing me to eat huge amounts of vegetables that contain calcium like broccoli. Today I'm going to eat 500 grams of broccoli, which contains about as much calcium as in one slice of cheese. But most people will struggle to get 500 grams of broccoli into their stomach, so they may need to eat more dairy products, they would risk nutritional deficiencies if they attempt to copy me. Count Iblis (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Eating loads of fruit and vegetables - 10 portions a day - may give us longer lives, say researchers. Count Iblis (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

When looking at the nutritional quality of fats or other heterogeneous biological molecules, it is important to remember that the chemical classification may not be a relevant biological classification. For example, an early generation was urged to use products loaded with trans fats by connivers who used the logic that unsaturated fats were healthier than saturated fats, so partially hydrogenated unsaturated vegetable oils should be healthier than highly saturated lard. But it turned out that it mattered whether an unsaturated fat was bent one way or the other, i.e. cis or trans.
Likewise, if you look at WebMD they say that natural trans fats are not unhealthy in the way of vegetable oil that's been chemically converted into a fake lard over a platinum catalyst. Now why is that? I don't know, but if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that animal digestive systems might be better equipped to break down trans fats produced by animal tissue than fats bent at random places that are not found in nature. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
While I still don't want to get into this argument, I'd like to point out that great care should be taken making assumptions from single sources. Sure it's convient for the dairy (or cattle/lamb generally) lobby if true, as with so many things and also emphasised by Jayron32, you need to look at more than just one random WebMD claim [35] [36] [37]. (The third link to a single study didn't find it harmful, but also didn't find it beneficial as the dairy lobby likes to claim.) Note that this doesn't mean I'm saying it's untrue, but rather scepticism should be applied to either claim, the answer may very well be, we don't know and there is insufficient evidence to reliably conclude one way or the other (this is actually what I believe hence my reluctance to get involved although I also don't claim to have looked into this that well). All of these are duplicates of the refs I included above, but from [38], I'll perhaps also include [39] and [40]/[41]. And before you think the second/third study proves the WebMD claim, note that while this is another study which found the (low levels) of naturally occuring TFAs seemed to be beneficial, it also found low levels of industrial produced TFAs were not harmful so even it's completely true it's not the case that naturally occuring = universally good, industrially produced = universally bad. Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I haven't researched it in depth in part because I suspect that the level of natural trans fats is so low that the equivalent mixture of synthetic trans fats might not be provably harmful in a doable study. But philosophically, I just want to emphasize that two chemicals aren't really members of some class with common properties just because they both kink the same direction - it may matter exactly where in the molecule that is. And so I think of milk trans fats as being components of a natural product with longstanding use, whereas the others are components of a chemical product mixture known to be harmful. There is an assumption that natural is, if not guaranteed safe, at least something tested by biological and cultural evolution over a long period -- and this is built into some regulatory regimes that consider "dietary supplements" isolated or potentially isolated from natural products normally consumed to have a greater degree of presumed safety. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there's 2 grams of natural trans fat in 100 grams of greasy hamburger meat: [42]. Of course, your average glutton may well have 5 times as much. That's getting to be a significant amount, nutritionally. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about the Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation[edit]

Let we have

Spherical Mass M = 5.97219 x 10^24 kilograms (= mass of earth)

Spherical Mass m = 7.34767309 × 10^22 kilograms (= mass of moon)

Radius of Mass M; R = 6371 km (= radius of earth)

Radius of Mass m; r = 1737 km (= radius of moon)

Acceleration due to gravity of mass M = g1 = GM/R^2

Acceleration due to gravity of mass m = g2 = Gm/r^2

G = 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

O/C distance between M and m = 8608 km (center to center)

This means surface-to-surface distance between M and m = 500 km. Let X be the point on the said center-to-center distance of 8608 km where both falling bodies M and m strike each other violently due to Newton’s law of gravitation (F = GMm/d^2).

Can somebody calculate the following

1- Final velocity of M at the time of hitting m

2- Final velocity of m at the time of hitting M

3- Falling time of M and m when hit each other

4- Location of point X on aforementioned o/c distance 2001:56A:7399:1200:D12B:44DC:83EE:1060 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)EEK

See the top of this page: "We don't do your homework for you." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, especially not for the MIT MOOC on Advanced Introductory Classical Mechanics. Big clue, you know something about the system you haven't considered yet. Do the lecture again. It's not exactly a trick question but it would be tricky to bumble through to the right answer. If you are on the right track it is solvable in about 4 lines. Greglocock (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither I'm not a student nor this is homework. I asked this tricky question for a reason so is there ant volunteer astronomer / physicist. Do M and m really accelarate towards each other or higher type of motion involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7399:1200:DDBE:829F:1B04:5946 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Please do not insult our intelligence. We will gladly help you past the stuck point, but "we have foo and bar, calculate X, Y and Z", including numerical values of more than 3 significant figures, is clearly a homework question.
Moreover, we cannot really help you with stuff like "Do M and m really accelarate towards each other or higher type of motion involved". Making English mistakes is fine, but that sentence does not make much sense. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The answer is very closely related to how long it would take the moon to fall 500 km from a stationary Earth, due to the ratio of the masses. By my working the fall would take 7 minutes, and the earth would move 6 km.Greglocock (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Why does SpaceX choose to use rocket engines to land their reuable rockets?

Wouldn't it be much more efficient if they install an air-breathing engine on (maybe) top of the rocket so they don't need to carry so much oxygen all the way up and all the way down?

The exact weight of the spent rocket is a fixed and predetermined number. They can licence a proven jet engine design and have it optimized for the home coming trip. Maybe a small engine running at the highest efficiency rpm can save much weight of oxidizer and its expensive reusable rocket engines would have more time to cool down. -- Toytoy (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Falcon 9 First Stage Reusability Graphic.jpg
I imagine SpaceX decided there were plenty of challenges in developing a re-usable space vehicle with rocket engine technology alone, and that adding a second engine type would have been too ambitious. Also, you have to use the rocket engine to de-orbit and for the entry burn that slows the vehicle's descent in the upper atmosphere. So the fuel savings in using an air-breathing engine just for the final landing may not be significant. Hybrid jet/rocket engines are being researched - see SABRE (rocket engine) for one example - but they seem to be several years away from a working prototype. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The air-breathing engine would be dead weight on the way up. Not only do you have to carry that dead weight up, you also have to carry the weight of the fuel to carry the weight of the air-breathing engine. This means your dry mass of the stage went up, which means your payload went down. See rocket equation. In Falcon 9, you use the same dry mass for launching and landing, saving significant amounts of weight. Other considerations are that the air-breathing engines would need intake and exhaust ports, which would cause drag, again lowering payload. They would also have a significantly lower thrust than the rocket engines (a three engine landing burn from a GTO launch pulls >10g), leading to higher gravity losses, requiring more fuel and, again, lowering payload. Fgf10 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, to add, the rocket engines don't need to cool down. In fact, they are fired on the way down in a re-entry burn to prevent the rocket from overheating due to the aerodynamic stresses. Fgf10 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course, it wouldn't have to be dead-weight on the way up. You could theoretically redesign the whole craft so that an air-breathing engine used both ways. But then you're talking about moving drastically away from a traditional, proven rocket design into some sort of much more complicated space plane design. ApLundell (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The only part they could really use an air-breathing engine for is the vertical landing - they can't use it for the two earlier burns because they are high in the atmosphere. Gliding down to the landing site can be done by a flying brick a.k.a. Space Shuttle. But they want to VTOL onto a barge in the ocean rather than being dependent on a runway, so they need something at the very end. I suppose it could be a special VTOL jet engine used just for landing a rocket, but ... it's a rocket, with a built in VTOL engine already. Wnt (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"Wouldn't it be more efficient..." is a really complicated question in space flight... I, and many others, are still not convinced that it is efficient to recover the rocket by any method! Wikipedia has an article on the economics of SpaceX rocket re-use.
A lot of the "efficiency" questions boil down to the relative macro-economic costs of fuel, costs of metal (and similar raw material commodities), and costs of non-recurring engineering. I am of the mindset that commodities are cheaper (in dollars) than enormous-quantities-of-skilled-labor; and that enormous commodity quantities of rocket metals are cheaper (in dollars) than enormous commodity quantities of rocket-fuels, ... and if I am correct, the reusable launch system is not an efficient use of resources (or dollars).
For those who want to take an independent stab at the problem: jet fuel falls near $1 per pound, and aluminum falls near $1 per pound; so if you spend a few extra pounds of fuel but you recover a few extra pounds of aluminum, and you also have to hire an extra engineering team at a cost of around $1 per total pound of recovered rocket... well, it's not quite that simple, because you have to carry extra fuel to carry the extra fuel, and you have to carry extra aluminum to hold the extra fuel and build the landing gear ... before long, you're in a quagmire of spherical cow estimates of marginal cost, and there's actually a lot of room for convincing arguments on all sides! Regrettably, the case for SpaceX is made with a lot sloppier math than I have used: Elon Musk actually estimated, in a very public and grandiose speech in October 2016, that SpaceX would soon launch something like 10,000 spherical-cow rockets to Mars. ...For the purposes of cost reduction.
Here's a good presentation: NASA's Cost-Benefit Analysis Used In Support Of The Space Shuttle Program (1972) explaining the benefits of a reusable launch system; and a different opinion published in 2011.
Efficiency can be measured in lots of ways: dollars-per-launch, dollars-per-mass-of-payload; fuel-per-launch, fuel-per-mass-of-payload, ...; man-hours-per-launch, man-hours-per-mass-of-payload...
Until you define your metric, it's not practical to evaluate the efficiency of SpaceX's intent to land its first-stage rocket booster (and presumably, to re-use that rocket booster).
Nimur (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's more than just "a few pounds of aluminum (sic)" that are recovered. There's the small matter of returning 9 very complex rocket engines too.... You are of course right it's not yet known whether reuse will be economical. What we do know is that the first returned core has already been through 8 test firings, and that the SES10 mission will be flown on a reused core. So it's a bit more than some tankange. Your example of the space shuttle is misleading, as the external tank was expended, the SRBs were rebuilt segment by segment for each flight (including shipping from Florida to Utah and back), and the shuttle was pretty much ripped apart and reassembled for each flight. Hardly 'reusable'. Fgf10 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The only part they could really use an air-breathing engine for is the vertical landing" isn't a limitation, if they use something like LACE or SABRE, concepts which have been around since the '50s. Those are dual-mode airbreathing jet or stored oxidiser rocket engines, usually powering a high-speed horizontal flight spaceplane.
However such engines are still a long way from the sort of development stage that SpaceX's more conventional rocket engines were already at. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It comes down to the engineering adage "Keep it simple, stupid!" (that's not directed at OP or anyone else personally). Space X is in the business of putting stuff into space and doing so less expensively than their competitors. By reusing their first stages, they've got a chance to beat Arianespace on price despite the disadvantage of not being able to launch from French Guyana and save on propellant. More importantly, they're already beating the United Launch Alliance on price - to the point they can afford to share costs with NASA on the scheduled Mars shot with their Dragon lander - partly because they can look forward to economies by reusing their first stages.
Doing all this is hard enough without introducing a new air-breathing engine, getting it to work (many trial runs, and a few not-profitable test launches), certifying it to work (so that customers will risk their ghastly expensive satellite payloads, ISS supplies, orbital/microgravity experiments, whatever on it), annnnnd... getting it as cheap or cheaper than Arianespace, or the Russian or Chinese equivalents. I'm sure Elon Musk took a hard look at the Skylon/SABRE system and said "no thanks".
Reaction Engines Limited has shown the way to do air-breathing SSTOs... you have to build the spacecraft around the air-breathing system entirely, and make it do double-duty as rocket thrusters. In doing so, it looks like they've also put themselves in a niche of only making a profit if they have customers needing 11 tonnes of goods placed in profitable orbit per flight, or a major government paying for something else that requires Skylon's secret sauce.
Space X, however, has no such limitations. They can - now - do Falcon 9 launches, make money, or strap them together into Falcon Heavy boosters, and make even more money - and get 22 tonnes to GTO (to Skylon's 11 tonnes), and credibly estimate getting over 13 tonnes to Mars. And all of that without air-breathing engines, which don't seem ready for prime-time space travel yet. loupgarous (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you donate a kidney to someone and then somehow manage to acquire your kidney back and to have it be implanted back inside of your body, would your kidney work and function just fine afterwards?[edit]

If you donate a kidney to someone and then somehow manage to acquire your kidney back and to have it be implanted back inside of your body, would your kidney work and function just fine afterwards? Futurist110 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how well it has been looked after in the meantime. Dbfirs 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
this paper seems to indicate that "reuse" of donated organs is possible, and has been done a small number of times. I doubt it's ever been tried to give it back to the original donor, though. There usually wouldn't be a need. The original donor would either be dead, or have another perfectly healthy kidney. ApLundell (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Kidney_transplantation#Complications outlines problems that can occur. Theoretically, since its your own tissue, tissue rejection might be less likely. But there are plenty of other potential issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Much would depend on whether, after the first transplant, significant amounts of the donor's own tissue had grown in and around the donated kidney. That could cause histocompatibility problems if the kidney were removed (one suspects after the recipient's death) and replaced into the donor. The donor might even need to take immunosuppressants because of little bits of the recipient growing either inside the vasculature of the kidney or on its exterior. And as others have indicated, the need usually isn't there unless the donor's remaining kidney begins to fail. But the likelihood of that happening when the donor's other kidney is available to be retransplanted is very small. There's the chance, as well of the first recipient having acquired a kidney infection, or damaging the donated kidney through the disease process which did both of his original kidneys in, by poor lifestyle choices, or not taking his immunosuppressants (as many as 50% of transplant patients don't, at some point after their transplants), after which the cellular immune system takes over and starts rejecting the kidney. That kidney has a sadly high chance of going back to the donor as damaged goods. loupgarous (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

How long does it take before a volcanic island can support trees?[edit]

I remember at some point I learned that since volcanic islands start barren, it takes a while before it develops enough top soil to support large plants like trees. Gradually, algae will build up on the rocks, then lichens and mosses, eventually building up and dying enough to lay the foundations for grasses shrubs and trees.

I've become suddenly curious about this and I was wondering if anyone had any information on how long this can take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What type of volcanic rock is the island made from? How far is it from other land? What is the local climate? There are too many variables to give a clear answer. A tropical island may have coconut palms quite quickly - but it will take a very long time for Surtsey to turn into forest, given how few trees grow in Iceland anyway. Wymspen (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Loch Voil tree.jpg
Trees can grow without soil. A seed in a crack in a rock will germinate if it has fresh water. Here is one I photographed in Scotland.--Shantavira|feed me 09:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd expect there to be relatively few volcanic island developments in fresh water though. If they're developing as new island material, that's going to be in the sea. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Depends a lot on the bird population. Some plants can grow without soil, provided that there are minerals available from either seaweed (which is a very large algae from a very small attachment) or guano. If the island is near enough to other established islands that birds can occupy it, then plants can follow quite rapidly, without needing to wait for a soil layer to be generated. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Our article on the island of Surtsey describes how plant life built up on a new volcanic island.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The general process by which living things will populate a new land, or change over time, is called Ecological succession and our article on the subject will provide a good starting point for your research. Especially if you follow links to more detailed articles. --Jayron32 13:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Some islands never acquire trees naturally, the Falkland Islands or the Faroe Islands for example. There needs to be a mechanism which allows seeds of the right species to gain a foothold. Birch trees will happily colonise apparently barren slate mine tips [43] but are wind blown and not carried around by birds. Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's [44] a nice research article that has studied primary succession in NZ. They are not talking about a small volcanic island, but it's got good discussion of the processes involved and time scales. The first 10 references also comprise a nice bibliography on the subject of primary succession. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The biology section of our article Surtsey will be of interest. Surtsey is a volcanic island formed in the 1960s, and according to that article Salix phylicifolia was found there by 1998. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Which contains the immortal words "An improperly handled human defecation..." DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Bear in mind though that neighbouring Iceland has only three native "forest-forming" tree species, the downy birch, rowan which is rare and aspen found in only six locations. [45] Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Other articles of relevance include Colonisation (biology) (a bit stubby, alas), and Insular biogeography. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The article was already linked to by by Phil Holmes above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So it was! I hadn't read all the answers before I answered. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Having a caldera above sea level would tend to speed up the process, as fresh water from rain, fertilizer from birds, and sand grains eroded from the peak could collect there. On the other hand, islands in the polar regions may never grow trees (or at least not until the Earth's climate changes significantly). See tree line. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A point where something can be a liquid, gas and solid at the same time[edit]

I read an article here a month or two ago but can't remember where it is. The gist of the article is that at a certain temperature and at a certain pressure water (for example) can be liquid, ice and vapor all at the same time. I can't remember the term and hope I did not misread the article. I believe the term started with a "t" (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Try triple point. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Since the OP brought up water, a bit of trivia. The original definition of the Celsius scale set 0°C as the freezing point of water at atmospheric pressure. The modern definition of the Kelvin scale uses the triple point of water, which is almost at 0°C but at a much lower pressure. Those are not the same temperature; it only turns out that for water (and this is quite a unique case) the liquid-solid separation in the phase diagram is almost vertical, so temperature of freezing water is almost the same at the triple point pressure and at atmospheric pressure. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: the triple point is not defined so that it becomes the new 0°C. Rather, the triple point is defined as 273.16 K, and temperature in degrees Celsius is defined as temperature in kelvins minus 273.15, which makes the triple point exactly 0.01°C. See the SI standard, section -- (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that, as mentioned in the first sentence of our triple point article, that's where the 3 states coexist in "thermodynamic equilibrium". It's also possible to have all 3 states exist, but not at equilibrium, at other pressures and temps. For example, at the melting temp of ice, you will have ice and water but also some water vapor, in the form of humidity. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Designer" benzodiazepine vs "legitimate" ones[edit]

Whilst speaking to a psych nurse friend of mine, she told me about dealing with overdoses of Phenazepam, a Soviet-designed benzodiazepine. The article on it led me to an area I'd never known before - List of benzodiazepine designer drugs. I'd never heard of a "designer benzo" before, and the concept intrigues me.

What do these "designer" benzos do in terms of pleasure-inducing effects, which the "legitimate" ones manufactured by big pharma do not?

As far as I'm aware, one of the highest-in-demand benzos on the street is Alprazolam, and it definitely comes from big pharma, not an illicit lab. Here in Australia, it was re-scheduled to make prescribing rules stricter for precisely this reason.

So my question is twofold:

1. Do any of these "designer benzos" work any better in terms of what a drug abuser would want, versus those variants manufactured by legitimate pharma? I understand that "legitimate" benzos are heavily regulated too, I'm just wondering why someone who wanted a "high" would want a "designer" benzo, as opposed to illicitly obtaining a "pharmaceutical" one? - Is there an "ease of manufacture" issue? Or are they actually any more "pleasure effective"? And if the latter, how so?

2. Where in the world is most of this stuff manufactured? I'd never encountered the idea of an illicit benzo drug manufacturer before. Even though Alprazolam may, gram for gram, be worth more than heroin on the street (it's more potent), the route I had known of almost always involved diversion from a "legitimate" source. Not hard at all in many countries with weak law enforcement, and quite possible even in first-world ones - rumours of "dodgy pharmacists" and "naive doctors" abound, or you just go Doctor shopping. And Darknet markets are choc-a-block with "legit-manufactured" stuff of this sort. Not illicit manufacture. So, where in the world are these labs? What keeps them financially viable, when "legitimate diversion" exists as an alternative? And how hard is it to set up a benzo manufacturing facility? (I assume it's a lot more difficult than a methamphetamine lab?).

Please note, I have ZERO intention of taking any benzo, other than one prescribed to me legitimately by a doctor, or dispensed to me by a hospital. So I can't see this as remotely "medical advice". I'm just intrigued by a new side to the "illicit" market I never knew about, and trying to understand how it operates, and what sustains it. Eliyohub (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines, desiner or not produce their effect by attaching to receptors in the brain. They all have different affinity, that is the ability to activate those receptors. Therapeutically speaking each of them has a potency characteristic, drugs with high potency require small milligrams or even fraction thereof to produce therapeutic effect, others have low potency and are usually prescribed with high milligrams (5-10-25). I don't think there is a principle difference between them otherwise. It is better to avoid using them because they all develop tolerance which leads to the need for a user to take higher and higher dose. Multiple problems will then develop, dependency, etc. Talk to your doctor before using any chemical but the table salt :-) --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I said that - any benzos I use are prescribed by a psychiatrist, and I assume he knows what he's doing. And in my experience, pharmacists tend to be savvy too. When I turned up with a prescription from a different doctor than my previous prescription, he asked me why. I explained (my main doctor was away, he knew who would be filling in for me) and invited him to notify both of them, they'd already be aware of it. But it showed that eyes are watching! Eliyohub (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
First, there's our article List of benzodiazepines, which lists them all, licit, illicit, and off in the shadows somehwere. It's worth mentioning that approval for medical use varies widely by country. Also drugs a physician can't prescribe here are probably either explicitly covered by the US Federal Controlled Substances Act (even banned if someone put them in the infamous "Schedule I"), or by one of its codicils banning "analogues" of controlled substances like benzodiazepines. For example, the "Backdoor Pharmacist" mentions three designer benzos, two of which only differ from existing, approved, US controlled substances by a functional group added on. (This is actually a common practice in Big Pharma - take a competitor's highly profitable drug, slap a methyl or hydroxyl group on its structure, and see if you have the next new leader in that market, or something too poisonous, unpleasant in its adverse effects, inert or expensive to sell).
And that's the story with almost all the designer benzodiazepines - they didn't make the cut for one reason or another, or they'd be "approved, regulated benzodiazepines", and the US Federal government explicitly bans most or all of them for being one functional group away from something they already regulate.
A short 2015 article in the journal World Psychiatry, "Designer benzodiazepines: A new challenge", Bjoern Moosmann, Leslie A King, and Volker Auwärter covers everything you were asking about in part 1 of your question. It's not a simple set of answers - the benzodiazepine family differs greatly, even among drugs which have been tested and are approved for medical use worldwide. Some have, at the prescribed dose, a calming, "anxiolytic" effect. Some, like Versed (midazolam) are strong enough they cause patients to remain calm during surgical or endoscopic procedures, and cause amnesia of events during those procedures. Each member of the benzodiazepine family has its own unique combination of effects on the taker's consciousness and mood.
Since, according to Moosmann et al, none of the "designer" benzos they mention, diclazepam, flubromazepam, pyrazolam, clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, nifoxipam and meclonazepam have been approved for medical use in any country, the testing needed to show what they do to the people who take them is largely not available. Almost all of them were developed by drug companies and papers were published on them by their developers/discoverers, but it's a safe bet that a drug candidate that doesn't get as far as Phase III clinical studies just wasn't likely to be approved by the medical regulatory community for one of a number of reasons - usually toxicity, lack of a good therapeutic index (you get bad side effects at or just above the dose that does you any good), or lack of efficacy.
There's also unprofitability Let's say one of these drugs is so close to (for example) diazepam in its tox profile, therapeutic index, cost of manufacture and general effectiveness that it's a "me too" drug for a generic medication that sells for a few cents a tablet - you won't make your money back testing it in lots of patients and filing for regulatory agency approval. But we don't even know that about any "designer benzodiazepine" - just that in an industry addicted to the almighty (national currency of your choice), these chemicals were never put on the market.
So, there's a huge flashing neon sign in Gothic script over designer benzodiazepines - Noli me Tangere ("Don't fool with me"). You're dealing with potent central nervous system depressants whose only point in common is that they're either too highly toxic, too expensive to make or get approved, or too unpredictable in their effects to be used recreationally. loupgarous (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps somewhat. But even reading that article, I'm still lacking any understanding if there's any "designer benzo" which a drug abuser has shown they prefer over an "approved" equivalent? I assume human testing of this sort would be risky and ethically dubious. But has anyone surveyed the users of these drugs, and had them say they found some effect these "illegal" ones do, over what a "legal" one can? As I said, Alprazolam remains amongst the top choices in the black market, and it is most definitely "approved"! So I still await any surveys or studies on those who admit to using these drugs, and hear significant numbers of them say "this (designer benzo) does something for me which (the closest "approved" alternative) couldn't"?
The question about unprofitability would also work the other way - why would anyone pay for illicit manufactured, untested stuff, when diversion of stuff from a proper factory is so easy and widespread? How does the "illicit manufacture" market compete with the "illicit diversion from legal" market?
Also, any data on manufacturing on this stuff, and where it originates from? And how tough it is to set up a manufacturing facility? I have no idea what's involved in benzo synthesis. Eliyohub (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Eliyohub, did you read the review of the "Backdoor Pharmacist"? The author does, actually, give some indication of three designer benzodiazepines' appeal in the illicit drug culture. That the review was largely negative doesn't mean someone didn't like them, but that they may be a little more intelligent than to write about it to an Internet site that might capture their IP address. In that respect, I can't help you, because I don't play on the dark Web.
Nor can I say why anyone would eat stuff someone made in their bathtub after so many folks who thought they were getting fentanyl wound up dying after one last trip on 3-methylfentanyl, and a similar number of people wound up with Parkinson's disease because they thought they were getting designer Demerol and wound up with some MPTP as an added ingredient. I'll have to defer to actual illicit drug users for the answers to those questions. Good luck! loupgarous (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The best benzodiazepine is aerobic exercise, it produces endorphins, they are close to the benzos chemically, are attached to the same receptors and have similar therapeutic effects. The exercise, although not for everyone, produces other benefits too. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a part of North America that can grow all common and semi-common English plants without crippling them?[edit]

But with little to no human help – otherwise you could grow cactus in Antarctica. Absolutely no weather amelioration (like greenhouses, watering or frost covers). Shade/full sun and whatnot plants would only have to grow in some light regime to not disqualify a part of North America, water hungry plants like willows would only have to grow near water and lilly pad-type things would only have to grow in water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Pacific Northwest of the US and into Canada has a climate similar to England, and the climate can be varied by moving closer to, or farther from, the coast and further up or down the mountains. However, they may be out-competed by native plants, lack pollinators specific to those plants, and suffer from native plant parasites. With those problems in mind, the answer is likely no. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There's no bees in the Pacific Northwest? Did English colonists have difficulties replicating their gardens in the PNW, Massachusetts, New York, PA, MD, or Virginia? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem at all. The early English colonists only had to poke a artists paint brush in to the male sexual organs of a flower and deposit the pollen into the female sexual organs. Just like what bees do.--Aspro (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The hardiness zone of the Boston area in the Little Ice Age must've been a problem for something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow. Wikipedia even has an article... as always! Hand-pollination.--Aspro (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And then the colonists got lazy and imported the European honeybee. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Some flowers are designed to exclude all but one specific pollinator. Here's an interesting example of this: [46]. StuRat (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Does the brain control the heart also?[edit]

or the heart is exception and it doesn't control the heart? I'm asking it because according to what I know there are no nerves in the heart. (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

See Heart#Nerve_supply. The heart normally beats on its own, but the rate is influenced by the brain. However, trauma to the brain alone can cause cardiac arrest, though our articles do not explain the mechanism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Think you'll find the most important is the Vagus nerve. Beta blockers work by damping down the brains control.--Aspro (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Then the brain controls the heart. Isn't it? Now I'm holding a booklet of the Red Cross organization which states (translated) about the brain that it "activating and supervising on the lungs" while the brain "supervising and regulating the heart". The use different terms for the lungs and for the heart. They don't say about the heart the it's activating by the brain. I'd like to know what is the explanation for these different terms regarding to the brain and the heart. (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it depends on what you mean by control. And brain. The normal function of the heart is primarily controlled by the Cardiac pacemaker without direct continuous input from the brain. But there can be things that happen in your brain that influence the function of your heart. --Jayron32 01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason for the difference in description is the nature of the "control". Muscle contractions that lead to breathing are caused by continuous nerve impulses from the brain. That is not the case for the heart, even if the brain can modulate its rate, and the heart cannot beat indefinitely with no input from the brain. Controlled, but not micromanaged? Semi-independent? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd note that while translated, the word which seems to confuse the OP is "activating". I'd suggest removing "activating" is a fair call for the heart. The heart is supervised and regulated by the brain and does need input from the brain long term, but it isn't really activated by it. It "activates" itself by the cardiac pacemaker which is part of the heart. The lungs do need to be "activated" by the brain, if they don't receive a signal they don't work. The Pre-Bötzinger complex is part of the brainstem, not the lungs. Of course control and regulation of these organs is complicated, as with most things, we you should always be wary of reading too much into words whether English or some other language and with no disrespect to the Red Cross, I'm sure it isn't intended to be a scientific text book. Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. The difference between the lungs and heart is that the heart contains its own pacemaker, and the lungs do not. No brain = no breathing, but the heart will beat autonomously... for a very brief time. - Nunh-huh 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
A very rough analogy would be the difference between driving a car and riding a bike - in the car, you control the rate the engine turns by pressing the accelerator, but don't directly affect the details of the motion (analogous to the brain's control of the heart - it can change the rate, but the heart controls the details of the movement). On a bike, your feet are turning the wheels, and there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the movement of your foot and the movement of the bike (assuming fixed gears - this is like the brain's control of the lungs, where it will send a signal for each breath in and out). MChesterMC (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ratio of circumference to diameter[edit]

Could the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter be possibly different in an alternate universe?

Then it wouldn't be a circle. --DHeyward (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Everything is possible in an unspecified alternate universe, so yes.
Outside the realm of speculation, you can try reading about Non-Euclidean geometry, where such a ratio is not even constant. For instance, a circle on the Earth's surface of small dimensions compared to the Earth's curvature will have about the same properties as in planar geometry, whereas a circle on the equator has a perimeter of four times its radius (= the pole-equator distance) (assuming a spherical Earth, which is not exactly true), so that ratio is 4 rather than 2π. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"Pi is approximately 3.1415927, given Euclidean geometry" appears to be a true statement regardless of the nature of the universe. If we lived in a universe that was obviously non-Euclidean, we would still be able to imagine a world that was not. As Tigraan mentions, certain non-Euclidean worlds give non-constant values of pi (pi here being not mathematical pi, but the circumference-to-diameter ratio of an arbitrary real circle). You could even imagine a universe in which particle movement was restricted to triangular or square grid lines on a physically realized spacetime, and wind up with pi of exactly 3 or 4, respectively. But then we could still imagine a Euclidean world, and calculate pi ~ 3.1415927. In logic this is called a logical truth, a statement that (given its underlying assumptions) appears to be true no matter what (in the words of philosophers, in every possible universe). Whether logical truths really exist, and what they mean, has been debated for millennia. Though most people just go about their day and don't worry about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
In Pratchett's Going Postal there´s a machine in which pi = 3. The inventor was really annoyed that pi was so "messy". As a consequence, the machine bends time and space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's different on this planet too.
Pi's value doesn't depend on the universe, but rather the geometry. If you have a non-Euclidean geometry, then pi doesn't have the same value one would expect for a flat plane. Nor do the angles of a triangle add up to 180º.
You can demonstrate this with a large spherical ball (easy to find), or the alternate of a hyperbolic surface (a bit harder to find physical examples of - a Pringle or a trumpet bell are sometimes used to make museum displays). With an exercise ball, some whiteboard pens and flexible tape measure and protractor you can do classroom demonstrations with measurements. As the radius is measured along the curved plane of the ball's surface it is "longer" than you might expect for a circle of such diameter, thus the value of pi is smaller than for a flat Euclidean plane. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor nitpick: that supposes you define π as the ratio of circumference to diameter. Many people define it as the half-period of the cosine function, or a similar definition from calculus; you can prove that the cosine, defined as a power series, has a period without involving geometric arguments. See Pi#Definition. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that still leaves the same basic question, but worded differently "Under what mathematics systems does the half-period of the cosine function NOT equal the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of the circle?" The symbol used to represent those two concepts is identical under the mathematics we all know and love, but that's merely convention. What if they were different numbers? --Jayron32 13:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The broader question is whether mathematics (so maybe try the Maths desk) works the same in an alternate universe, a question that has been asked here many times, most recently here.--Shantavira|feed me 12:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The OP's question amounts to the tautology "If math were different would math be different." The simple answer is "of course it would, you've already stipulated that it was different". The more interesting questions come from asking "If math were different in this specific way how would that one change propagate through the entire system to change other things." Entire fields of mathematics are dedicated to answering that question. Besides the alternative geometries mentioned above in non-Euclidian geometry there are things like Alternative algebra or Non-associative algebra or Non-standard model of arithmetic the like in which some fundamental axiom of a mathematical system is changed, and then further implications are studied. --Jayron32 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Newly discovered earth-size planets at nearby star 40 light years away.[edit]

This[47] page states: "Standing on the surface of one of the planets, you would receive 200 times less light than you get from the sun, but you would still receive just as much energy to keep you warm since the star is so close." It does not make any sense to me. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Compare a candle to a bonfire. To get the same heat energy from the candle as from the bonfire, you'd have to stand MUCH closer to the candle than you would the bonfire. --Jayron32 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


February 17[edit]

Ellipse angles[edit]

How do you find the angle between the major axis and the line made by connecting a point on the ellipse outline with the ellipse focus if you know the angle between the major axis and the line made by connecting the same point on the ellipse outline with the ellipse center and the ellipse shape (major axis, minor axis, eccentricity, whatever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone with a Question (talkcontribs) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(Thinking "aloud" here...) Let's say the extremes of the ellipse are (±a,0) and (0,±b). First you want to know where the line from the center, at a given angle α, meets the ellipse. One way is to stretch the whole figure so that the ellipse becomes a circle; replace α with β=arctan((a/b) tan(α)), x = a cos(β), y′ = a sin(β); stretch back, y = (b/a) y′ = b sin(β). Next you need the coordinates (c,0) of the focus, which you get from the identity b²+c² = a². The angle sought is arctan(y/(x-c)). —Tamfang (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You need to find the equation of the ellipse, given the info about it's shape. Then find the equation of a line at the given angle from the major axis line. Find the intersection of those two equations mathematically. That will give you two points. From each you can find the equation of the line between that ellipse intersection point and either focus point. This will give you 4 equations of lines, which will each have an angle with the equation of the major axis line. Of those 4 angles, there will be 2 identical pairs of angles. That's a lot of steps, but each is fairly basic. This could all be automated in a program. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit: (1) To find the equation of the line from the center with given angle, note that the slope of the line is the tangent of the given angle (assuming you have positioned the ellipse in the standard way with the long axis coinciding with the horizontal axis). (2) Once you have the equation of a line from an ellipse point to a focus, the tangent of the angle between this line and the horizontal axis is simply the slope of the line (so the angle is the arctangent of that). Loraof (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Calculating a constant[edit]

Is it true that Jenny's Constant? If not, what does it equal?    → Michael J    00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is simple enough to type this formula into an online calculator. Wolfram Alpha evaluates it to 867.5309019816854097558275224961431838440297231328116937715. Staecker (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
According to the linked page (as well as OEIS), Jenny's constant is defined as . So, by definition, they are equal. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Theories concerning the interrelationship of congruence classes of a certain form[edit]

I'm looking for references to any theoretical works pertaining to possible relationships between the quadratic residues of prime moduli (specifically "safe" primes here, although just primes in general will probably do) with respect to those of all other prime moduli. Just to be clear I'm basically asking what, if any, correlations can be found between the residues (X*X) mod M1 and (X*X) mod M2 for arbitrary X where M1 and M2 are both (safe) primes? I've had absolutely no luck at all locating anything worth mentioning - it's almost as if it's a topic that just hasn't been covered yet in mathematics, though I really have a hard time believing the likelihood of that. Am I just looking in the wrong places? Earl of Arundel (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating Images, Graphs, and Animations[edit]

What are some preferred (or optimal) ways to create graphs and animations for wikipedia? I occasionally see images/graphs/animations where the code is posted within the picture details (such as GNU plot, or matPlotLib python code). I find that mathematics articles with these kinds of visuals can be very informative and useful. I made a post in the help desk of WikiMediaCommons to ask a somewhat related questions. Popcrate (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Animated GIFs are good for short animations, but the limit of 256 colors per frame means you wouldn't want to use it for live-action. Works well for many math topics, though, like showing a plane cutting through a cone at various angles to create conic sections. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You may want to check in with the folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab who work in this area. You can probably find standards for graphics files there, as well as a bunch of like-minded Wikipedians who are already working in the field. --Jayron32 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I’ve used Inkscape to generate images for articles. It generates SVG files, which are just text files so you may see them posted. The easiest way to get started with it is download an existing image and use that as a starting point, rather than starting from scratch. Wikipedia’s licence means you can modify any of the images here, as long as you give attribution. Animations are trickier: the one I did I also used Inkscape to produce frames, saved them out as GIF files, then merged them with a tool that is no longer supported.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, everybody, for all the great replies!! I'm off to the graphics lab, and will return with some (hopefully) fantastic images and graphs! Popcrate (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Three ζ-like Products[edit]

It is known that the infinite series can be factored, and that its multiplicative inverse can be written as an infinite product of the form with p prime. I was wondering to what infinite series the multiplicative inverses of the following infinite products might correspond:

  • with s semiprime.

Initially I thought, for instance, that the middle one could be expressed as where m stands for all numbers whose prime factorization is of the form but it would seem that this is incorrect, since their two values do not match numerically, being very close to —but ultimately distinct from— one another. — (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For things like the first two, just use the usual tricks that get you the sum-product identity for the zeta function in the first place:
where Ω is the function described here. (In your cases we have .) You can play the same game with the third, but it's more complicated: when you play the game you pick up a coefficient counting the number of factorizations of n as a product of powers of semiprimes. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Chi-squared test[edit]

I have test statistics between categories A and B, and between A and C. Is there any neat relationship/inequality for a test statistic between B and C, exploiting the known test statistics? I'll say that I have the degrees of freedom for each statistic.--Leon (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I would think not. Consider the following case:
A = It being a Monday.
B = Percentage of people calling in sick to work.
C = It being a legal holiday.
You may well find a correlation between A and B, in that people often may try to extend their weekend by a day, and between A and C, as legal holidays are sometimes also chosen for that reason. But the correlation between B and C should be zero, as what's the point in calling in sick if you already have the day off ? StuRat (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Bad example: there's a strong negative correlation between the two! Nobody calls in sick when it's already a holiday!--Leon (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the positive correlation between (A and B) and (A and C) would not have allowed you to predict the strong negative correlation between (B and C). StuRat (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
But to give a pure mathematical answer, let's say that A is the resultant waveform when two sine waves B and C with different amplitudes and period are added together. Some correlation would be expected between (A and B) and (A and C), but that doesn't imply any correlation between (B and C). StuRat (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Copula (probability theory) offers something somewhat similar. But be careful, applying without full understanding of how they work and what their limitations are can have undesirable side effects, like the 2008 financial crisis:
"The limitations of a widely used financial model also were not properly understood." Such meddling with unknown forces "will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees."
Do not delve too greedily and too deep... SemanticMantis (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would think that you could look at it this way. You have variables X, Y, Z with data points The chi squared statistic between any two variables is
You only assume knowledge of and So the unknowns are all the x's, y's, and z's, and So you have a system of 3 equations in 3n+1 unknowns, which is underdetermined and can't be solved uniquely. Loraof (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]


February 18[edit]

Distribution of animal products to supermarkets based on type[edit]

In many non-Asian American supermarkets, pig feet and beef tripe may be sold, but chicken feet and pig ear and animal blood curd seem to be exclusive to Asian-American supermarkets. Do Asian-American supermarkets receive all the animal meat byproducts? Or are most bones and organ meats fed to the dogs or made into plant fertilizer? (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dried blood is a thing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Retail establishments like stores are re-sellers; they do not normally process any goods at all. In a case like this, a slaughterhouse has despatched the animals and sold some quantity to a butcher shop who has further processed it. They would then sell it either directly to a store (which is common with specialty items and 'ethnic foods') or to a foodservice DC, who in turn sells to restaurants and stores. At each of those points, purchasers have an opportunity to buy what they want and leave other things behind, just as you do in the grocery store. They may also to save a bit of money by buying a whole thing (like a whole chicken) and removing the bits they don't want themselves, but this generally gets less common the further away you get from the source. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That probably explains the situation in the USA correctly (which was the question) but in many other countries there is a butcher's counter in the supermarket and an area behind where carcasses are cut up. In Europe there are very strict regulations about handling offal (not always respected), so that kidneys and liver would be delivered to the retailer separately from the carcasses. I can buy a pig's ear from my independent butcher if I ask in advance, otherwise he will throw it away, but I don't think you could often buy one from a supermarket in Britain. You could buy a pig's ear in a supermarket in France. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
If I understand what you've written correctly, that seems very wasteful. If your butcher typically throws out the pig ears, why would he buy them? (I mean, I understand that when he buys them they're still attached to the pig or half-pig or whatever he's ordered, but the point still stands). In North America, the marketing line is that every part of the pig gets used except the oink, meaning that the animal is processed in such a way so that very little gets wasted. Pigs ears would be trimmed and sold separately (perhaps ground into pet feed). Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Meat processing is a multi-stage process. At the abattoir a certain level of cleaning and processing is done before being sent on to butchers and charcuterie. For the record, pigs ears are commonly dried and sold as chew toys for dogs: [48] or fresh for use in people food, [49]. They are a common ingredient in the U.S. cuisine known as soul food, and in a Filipino snack food known as tenga which is similar to pork rinds or chicharrón. --Jayron32 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[50] mentions a "butcher" (whatever is meant by that) in Austria selling pig ears to China. (Although it perhaps goes a bit far in calling them a delicacy. They're enjoyed and eaten yes but my impression as semi supported by Pig's ear (food)#Chinese cuisine is they're more just an everday food in most cases. There may be some places where they're a delicacy, but they're not something like e.g. Chicken feet#Chinese cuisine.)

I think a relevant point is that whether or not pig ears are normally thrown away in parts of Europe or places like NZ* which I don't know, and reducing food waste is good, ultimately you do need to find a profitable way to use the parts which works under your local system. And this includes storage, collection and transport to wherever they may be used. It may be the systems in the US allow this, but those in parts of Europe don't. E.g. we know a lot of fruit and veges are thrown away in much of the developed world simply because they don't look good enough or are too small or whatever and there isn't any market worth sending them to that's worth the cost. (Although one of the problems there is the lower value of even the good products and the difficulty with transport and storage given the ease of damage.)

* = Yes supermarkets here often do have a butchery which processes at least some of the meat sold. I'm not sure what percentage but the butchers definitely do something more than relabelling meat with newer best before dates [51]. See e.g. [52] [53] about various awards won by butchers at supermarkets (both New World and Pak'n'Save are supermarket chains) or [54]. Which is not to suggest there isn't also significant off-site processing [55] [56]. Unfortunately I couldn't find stats on what percentage of meat is actually processed largely on site, perhaps partially because of the difficulty defining such things.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I live in Austin, Texas, which has only about 6-7% Asian people. And our general purpose grocery store H-E-B sells fresh chicken feet. Just an example, the point is different markets eat different parts of animals, across cultures. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
According to our article on chicken feet, it's also a component in Mexican cuisine. Matt Deres (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dunno about elsewhere in the world, but in Britain, chicken feet (and other interesting parts like pippik, ie stomachs) are commonly sold by kosher butchers, primarily for use in kosher penicillin. This is missing from our chicken feet article - I'll look for RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to expand. There are loads of possible sources in Google Books, I just picked one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

swear-in or initiation ceremonies[edit]

Are there any notable organizations that have their swear-in or initiation ceremonies take place at late night? Let's say between 10PM and 5AM. Googling seems to show that it's common for frat houses, but I'm only interested in "real" organizations. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In the original Rover Scouts (members of the Scout Movement over 18 years-old), there was an option to hold an overnight vigil for new members, who would spend the night "in a church or chapel, in the open air, in the Rover Scout Den, or indeed in any place where quiet is assured". The individual was supposed to spend the time considering whether they would be able to live up to their Scout Law and Scout Promise and the "Rover Scout Ideals". See Rover Scouting;, Boy Scouts of Canada, 1952 (pp. 16-18) for details. This sort of quasi-chivalric ceremonial was abandoned by the main UK Scout Association in 1967, but has been retained by some traditional Scouting associations, such as members of the World Federation of Independent Scouts. The mainstream associations in Canada and Australia have both retained Rover Scouting in their programmes, this 1996 article suggests that the Rover Vigil had survived in Canada until that time. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Does the Order of the Arrow still do midnight initiations? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
According to this, the OA "ordeal" consists of an overnight camp using survival gear plus an outdoors service project, and the candidates are not supposed to talk for the duration. It's an American thing, so I have no inside information. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
From Governorship of Ronald Reagan:
  • He was elected, defeating two-term governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown by nearly a million votes, and was sworn in on January 2, 1967 at ten minutes past midnight. In 1988, Reagan explained that this time was chosen because his predecessor, Governor Brown, "had been filling up the ranks of appointments and judges" in the days before his term ended. Professor Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University who studied the Reagans' interest in astrology, regarded this explanation as "preposterous", as the decision to be sworn in at that odd time of day was made six weeks earlier, and was based on advice from Reagan's long-time friend, the astrologer Carroll Righter. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm confused as to why a fraternity is not a "real organization". --Jayron32 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably scare quotes. Fraternities and sororities are of course real, and actual organizations. They are also in the USA generally associated with binge drinking [57], rape [58], and throwing racist parties [59] [60] [61] -- often knowingly and intentionally doing so.
So I can see why OP doesn't want to consider them as "real" (read, notable, upstanding, reputable) organization. The KKK I suppose also has night time ceremonies, but I get the feeling that's not what OP was interested int. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There are 1000s of fraternities and sororities across the US who do not take part in the behaviors mentioned. Of course, that does not show up in the news. Try using a smaller brush when painting pictures like that. MarnetteD|Talk 23:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What he said. --Jayron32 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

Spitting alcohol into someone's face (religion)[edit]

I was just reading a section of a book (Apocalypse 2012 - Lawrence E. Joseph) in which two US Americans went to Guatemala and got involved in a Mayan religious ceremony. At one point, the high priest took a gulp of rum and spat it in their faces. I've seen this before somewhere in films too, although perhaps in fiction or from other areas/religions. What is it called when a priest spits alcohol into someone's face in the course of a religious event, and who (which ethnicities/religions) does it? Thanks, --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Spirits And Spirituality: Alcohol In Caribbean Slave Societies The Akan poured libations and made alcohol offerings to ancestors, spirits, and deities before most undertakings. If the participants had "fetishes" tied to their arms and feet, they would spit the first mouthful of palm wine on them. Failing to do so risked the possibility that they would not be allowed to drink together in peace. Blooteuth (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Spitting alcohol in someone's eyes can be very dangerous to eyesight, so I'd be surprised if this was a normal practice? Eliyohub (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That would depend on the concentration and amount that enters the eyes. The reaction to close eyes, when you see something headed for them, would minimize exposure. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

1989 Yak-40 accident[edit]


This Russian article details an accident of Yakovlev Yak-40 (flying from Przhevalsk to Frunze), reportedly in August 1989. Yet I'm not seeing this accident either in ASN or in databases (seemingly it's not this). Googling was also inconclusive (including the exact date). Any ideas? Brandmeistertalk 13:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the article you linked to (and, not speaking Russian, I was forced to use google translate), I gather that the "hero pilot" in question was most recently employed in some sort of air traffic control role at Ignatyevo Airport at the time the article was written. There are links to the airport's website on our page, though the page is understandably in Russian only. If you email them, they may be able to put you in touch with him? His "official heroism award" MUST be recorded in some Soviet archive? Eliyohub (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
According to the article, he (Andrey Konnov) received the Order "For Personal Courage" from Gorbachev himself for saving 40 passengers. The article says the hydraulic accumulator exploded, stabilizer malfunctioned, the autopilot disengaged and the plane was flown manually. Upon approach they also discovered that the landing gear malfunctioned, so made a belly landing. Very strange... Brandmeistertalk 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Turns out they probably messed up with the month, it was September per 19:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a canonical way of grouping Europeans?[edit]

Is there a canonical way of grouping Europeans? Or is it just a question with whom you want to be associated with (or not)? For example, Germany could be Central, West or Central-East Europe, Italy could be Southern or Central Europe, Poland could be Eastern, or Central Europe.--Hofhof (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

See our articles Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe. The Cold War and the Iron Curtain reinforced a concept of a two-part Europe, as did the Great Schism in earlier times, but the 3-part model has always been popular too. Rojomoke (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The Western part of Europe has for a long time had a North/South division, roughly along Catholic (south) and Protestant (north) lines. One of the more interesting divisions is the Alcohol belts of Europe, culinary anthropologists have noted a butter/olive oil line separating the cooking fat of choice. this article has some interesting ways of splitting up the continent. --Jayron32 02:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
From a British perspective, until 1782 the foreign relations responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Northern Department and the Secretary of State for the Southern Department were divided up as Protestant (Northern) and Catholic and Muslim (Southern). -- (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want meaningful categories, you would have to resort to cultural groups: Romanic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and Slavic. Not sure whether this will settle the issue. Some would still highlight how different they are from the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you missed Celtic/Gaelic in your cultural groupings. And Basque. And Turkic. And Albanian. And Finnic/Ugric. And probably more I'm not remembering yet. --Jayron32 02:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Baltic, Greek and Maltese. Wymspen (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hungarian, at least by language more different from its neighbors than Bengali and English are. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You guys are producing a linguistic classification, but that may not have been what was originally asked for. AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would a big Venn diagram with lots of circles work for you, OP? Since splitting Europe along any one criterion would give a misleading impression of enormous chalk-and-cheese differences between cultures that actually overlap in lots of other ways. -- (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The traditional canonical way is to split them into "us" and "them". "We" are vigorous, cleanly, diligent workers, industrious, independent, creative, and of superior racial stock. "They" are dirty poor lazy mongrel foreigner who steal our women (and today, probably, men), and whose soft life in the south has made them decadent weaklings/whose strenuous life in the north has made them uncouth barbarians without any civilisation. This scheme has worked well for ages, so why change it now? It also easily generalised beyond just Europeans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz -- I think nowadays it's often more along the lines of Stereotype-Based European Joking... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The sentiment was very real when the whole austerity thing was at its height. - (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, the north of North America is lefty weaklings and the south of the US is manly men. Sometimes kids pushing 10 in the deep South literally see snow for the first time in their lives and their fathers are hard-working real men (or uncouth, uncultured rednecks). Also, what you call hardening cold in Europe is nothing special in America. Washington DC's at the latitude of the south tip of Sardinia and is built on a swamp near sea level. It has one of the mildest winters in the North yet has reached -20°C and 71cm of snow in one storm. Buffalo, New York (a city of 1.2 million) is pretty low and flat and closer to the equator than the French Riviera. It's reached -29°C and had meters of snow in one storm. Lebanon, Kansas on an endless steppe at 560 meters below the latitude of Istanbul and Ankara has reached -40°C. Iroquois Falls, Canada (a city closer to the equator than Paris and Stuttgart) has reached -58.3°C, colder than Europe's record low (in a village in bnorthwestern Russia near Siberia) It is only 259 meters above sea level. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Northwestern tribal art[edit]

I debated putting this on the Language Desk but thought here might be appropriate as well.

Artwork such as the logo of the Seattle Seahawks often has a common look to it. Birds heads with curves and some points. The Seahawks article calls it Northwestern tribal art but isn't any more specific. I've also seen this style in other works related to Seattle, e.g. the council patch for the Chief Seattle Council of the BSA which I believe is supposed to be patterned off of orcas. Is there a more precise term for this type of artwork? Do we have an article on it? †dismas†|(talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't know, but I've also seen it on totem poles. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Northwest Coast art. Some have made parallels with early ancient Chinese art styles... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have fixed the link in the Seahawks article. Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
And I added a link from the totem pole article, which even uses the same pic. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! †dismas†|(talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Liberal democratic political parties in Italy[edit]

Does Italy have any political parties with a similar platform to the British Liberal Democrats; socially liberal, economically centrist, in favour of globalisation and the EU but also the welfare state? -- (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

List of political parties in Italy would be a good place for you to start your research. --Jayron32 11:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the European Parliament the UK Lib Dems are part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group - that article lists the parties in each country which are, or have been, part of that group. They may not be identical to the Lib Dems - but they will be close enough to be seen as partners and allies. Wymspen (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that ALDE is a quite broad group, since it includes both centre-left social liberals (like the Lib Dems) and centre-right classical liberals (like Germany's Free Democratic Party). As Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM says below, the Democratic Party (PD) is probably the most Lib-Dem of the four Italian liberal parties (just as the Lib Dems were formed through the merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, the PD was formed through the merger of the liberal Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy and the social democratic Democrats of the Left), but there's one big difference - the PD draws on the traditions of the Liberal Catholicism, while the Lib Dems are more heavily based on the philosophy of secular thinkers like John Stuart Mill (whose On Liberty is essentially the LD party bible). Smurrayinchester 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What about Civic Choice? Our article describes them as "centrist and liberal". --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Civic Choice is really just the party of Mario Monti - most of its left-wing members have now gone over to PD. I don't think it has an ideology to speak of outside Monti's program. Smurrayinchester 12:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Democratic Party (Italy) may be a likely option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Eisenhower Contributions to WWII[edit]

I am researching Eisenhower's effect on WWII, but I am unable to find anything that goes very in depth on what he did. I have been researching for around forty five minutes, but I can only find information on his presidency and variations of that he was a five-star general in the army. I need enough to write an entire paper on him, but I haven't found any remarkable content so far. I know that he must have done something, considering he was promoted in rank, but for some reason I cannot find it.

I do not expect anyone to write this paper for me, but I would appreciate a push in the right direction by providing me with a summary of what he did, or some more information and some reliable websites that I can use to write this.

Thank you so much,

EncycloShoe (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Dwight D. Eisenhower (which should not be a direct source for your paper!) does contain a lot of good information on his role in the war. It is extensively referenced, which means that if you follow the footnotes, you can find the original sources for the Wikipedia article (which are sources you SHOULD probably use for your paper). In general, it looks like Stephen Ambrose's two volume biography on Eisenhower is particularly authoritative; the first volume deals extensively with his military career. In the "Further Reading" Section of the Wikipedia article on Eisenhower, there are also another half dozen books on the subject. A nearby library should probably have Ambrose's biography at a minimum, and probably several others of those as well. --Jayron32 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! EncycloShoe (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
One suggestion is to look for books like "Generals of WW2", rather than specifically on Ike, as the later can be expected to focus mainly on his Presidency. An exception would be if you could find a book written on him before his Presidency. (Ike also had a significant role is disbanding the Bonus Army, but it sounds like you want to skip that, too.) StuRat (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he must have done something – exceptional strategist?:

Following his arrival in London, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower takes command of U.S. forces in Europe. Although Eisenhower had never seen combat during his 27 years as an army officer, his knowledge of military strategy and talent for organization were such that Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall chose him over nearly 400 senior officers to lead U.S. forces in the war against Germany. After proving himself on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy in 1942 and 1943, Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of Operation Overlord–the Allied invasion of northwestern Europe.[62]

Now that would take organisation of a very high order and have its effect Manytexts (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all of the answers. The information/ideas you suggested have been really helpful so far.I was also wondering if you'd consider Eisenhower's best accomplishment as a general getting the Germans to surrender. If not, what did he accomplish as general? My goal is to write about what made him effective as a general, but in order to determine that, I want to look more into his greatest accomplishment, because I am sure his qualities as a general would be displayed there. EncycloShoe (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think Hitler's suicide just prior to the Russians storming Hitler's bunker is what made the German's surrender. Without Hitler, there was little reason left to fight. As supreme commander, Ike's biggest accomplishment may have been in getting all the allies to work together. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Unconditional surrender unlike Japan which was a conditional surrender.
Sleigh (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Field Marshall Alan Brooke had nothing good to say about Eisenhower in his War Diaries, in fact he was very critical. Labelling him a "chateau general" Brooke wrote that "He literally knows nothing of the requirements of a commander in action", and had "...a very, very limited brain from a strategic point of view". [63] Brooke was especially critical of Eisenhower's "broad front" strategy in the Northwest Europe Campaign of 1944-45. In Brooke's view, Eisemhower's talent lay in persuading people to work together (which perhaps was what was required at the time). Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't underestimate the value of getting allies to cooperate. That was critical for victory. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." The Supreme commander in Europe had to design and implement a successful invasion of the continent. This was much more about logistics and politics than it was about military strategy. You might wish to concentrate on the buildup required to permit operation Overlord to succeed. -Arch dude (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Name for weakest part of a castle?[edit]

Years ago I loaned a book on castle architecture to a friend and... it never came back. It was a small cream colored paperback and the friend's gone too. I've tried q&a via google. Nothing. What's bugging me is, what is the name of the smallest door for going in or going out, unseen. It did say the aperture was also the weakest point in the fort because if anyone from outside was tipped off, they could sneak in to attack the castle from inside. Anyone? thanks in advance, Manytexts (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

PS it wasn't "wicket", "man way" or "entry way" because it was quite secret.
Postern? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Postern or sally port. Posterns are more usually in an obvious place alongside a main gateway, sally ports often hidden. It's hard to hide a sally port in a medieval curtain wall castle, as a besieging army can usually see all of it fairly well. With later forts in the era of artillery though (see Vauban et al.) a sally port could be concealed in a hidden portion of a bastion, where it couldn't be seen from outside without standing in an obvious line of fire, but which allowed defending troops to mass in the fossé (the ditch outside the inner curtain) unseen.
Neither of these are really weak points though. Some castles were attacked (or inhabitants assassinated) by sneaking a small number of attackers in through a garderobe (toilet) chute, also various drainage channels (although those don't have a specific name).
There are also barbicans, which are semi-isolated gatehouse outworks forming a barrier on the main entrance. They form a first line of defence and even if taken, this doesn't weaken the remaining defences of the castle. Some barbicans were strong from outside, but the towers were open-backed so that if occupied by attackers they were still susceptible to counter-attack from within the castle. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this so far. I recall that the "door" was discreet, certainly not a full height door but low, and it was the weakest point because it wasn't locked (unless at night). It was secret so that the castle was vulnerable if anyone on the "inside" revealed its existence to an enemy. It might be something like the "chink" or tiniest gap in someone's armour; definitely an Achilles' heel.Manytexts (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a "sally port" as Andy linked for you above. "A sally port, on the other hand, is little known by most people. In medieval times, it was an opening or door within a castle perimeter wall which could allow defending troops to quickly exit the castle and mount a surprise attack on those laying siege outside". [64] The pictures in the Wikipedia article are of later artillery forts, but here are the sally ports at Upnor Castle, Sandel Castle, Pontefract Castle and Knaresborough Castle. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Origin of this image[edit]

Can anybody help me find the source of this image: ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've found it here, in Illustrated London News, January 1844. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So copyright-wise, it is in the Public Domain now. So, neither Corbis nor Getty Images can claim copyright on slavishly copied images, Re: as established in US court. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..--Aspro (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Look! It's on Wikimedia Commons! Kamehameha in council 1844 How did that happen? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I had assumed this would have been claimed under Sweat of the brow doctrine, which in Europe allows a company to claim copyright over public-domain works by the act of digitizing them. As Aspro suggests, the US does not recognize such copyrights, so neither does Wikipedia, and that's why it surprised me to find out that both Corbis and Getty Images are American companies. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not surprising to me. Corbis and Getty Images slap a watermark on a lot of obviously PD images and sell it. I wonder who in their right minds will actually pay $575.00 for this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Courtenay Faggot[edit]

Do we know if the Courtenay Faggot has survived and, if so, where it is? If it hasn't survived, do we know when it was lost? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Acording to Historical memoirs of the town and parish of Tiverton Martin Dunsford (1836) pp. 42-43 the description comes from The Survey of Cornwall by Richard Carew who claims to have actually seen it. As Carew wrote this some time before 1602 and Google can find me no other mention of it, I wouldn't hold your breath :-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate, scam or something else?[edit]

In the late 1970s, early 1980s, when I was a kid, I'd read youth magazines. There were these advertisements for a so-called "sweepstakes". At the top, the headline would say "PRIZES OR CASH". Then some items were displayed. At the bottom, they referred an 800 number to call and ask for an operator's name. One part of the fine print said "Operators can only take names and addresses, cannot answer questions". I was too ashamed to show the advertisements to my mom. The reason, I was afraid she'd freak, assuming I'd sign up via phone, which I didn't, of course. Does anybody out there remember what I'm trying to ask about?2604:2000:7113:9D00:DDC4:6A18:4693:B935 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You are using an IP address that is based in New York City (according to one website) or in the Washington DC metropolitan area (according to another). Was this in NYC, or DC, or somewhere else? (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I original saw the advertisements in San Francisco. But the youth magazines are/were nationally known.2604:2000:7113:9D00:617F:9785:1132:6AE (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a list at Category:American children's magazines that may spark your memory as to which magazine it was. It may help someone find the advertisement for you. --Jayron32 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The most reasonable way for such a company to make money is by collecting information to build a mailing list of potential youth magazine customers. The prizes would have to be real, to avoid criminal fraud, but the odds of winning them would have to be absurdly low, for such a business model to be profitable. So, if you signed up you'd probably get junk mail, but nothing else. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Catholic doctrine on humans of other species[edit]

Does the Catholic church hold that Neanderthals and early hominids have souls? (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe it holds that they were NOT human, but were some form of "soulless" animal. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for that, Stu? --Jayron32 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Right below. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll note that you did not provide those citations. --Jayron32 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
In a 1996 text by Pope John Paul II, there was talk of an "ontological discontinuity" in evolution that marked the leap between non-humans and humans, with only humans being able to enter into a full relationship with God [65]. The pope seems to have avoided speculating about where and when during evolution this leap would have taken place, however. But you may have some more luck searching from there. Fut.Perf. 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is definitely no shortage of people asking the same question, as you can see by Googling neanderthal catholic, but I haven't seen any official sources yet. Here's an interesting one that goes a bit deeper than just the Neanderthal problem. Matt Deres (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What about the possibility of animals like dogs or elephants or cetaceans having souls? are there Catholic theologians discussing that? (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a different source from the same website I used above. That website is pretty good, I would use it to search the answers for further questions on Catholic doctrine. --Jayron32 17:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It is so, so, so unfortunate for your question that this turned out not to be real. Matt Deres (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Monkeys younger than humans, NO evolution: "I saw the mother of Semiramis hunting the animal described by Job under the name of behemoth (Job 41 & 42 crocodile?), also tigers, lions, etc. I saw no monkeys in those early times. I saw similar hunts upon the water, upon which idolatry and numerous abominations were generally practiced. The mother was outwardly not so dissolute as Semiramis, but she possessed a diabolical nature with amazing strength and temerity." -- (talk · contribs) (now blocked)
I'm afraid I don't see any link to the doctrine of the Catholic Church in your response. It doesn't meaningfully help the OP to merely link to a Bible verse and then give your own personal interpretation of said verse. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Plain as table. Earlier human cannot descent from later animal. -- (talk · contribs) (now blocked)
Whatever that quote is, it certainly isn't from the Bible. It seems to be the mystical visions of a nun Anne Catherine Emmerich though their authenticity is doubtful and they certainly are not to be taken as a statement of catholic doctrine. Wymspen (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It's from the King Gibberish version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Does the Catholic Church even believe there were such creatures as Neanderthals? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course they do. Why would you think they wouldn't? --Jayron32 01:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
When confronted with skulls obviously different from modern humans, some explanation is needed. If it's just one of two you can claim they were deformed humans, but as the numbers pile up, some other explanation is needed. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See Catholic Church and evolution and Pope Francis on evolution. Most mainstream non-American Christian denominations seem to have no problem with evolution. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Most American ones don't either. Remember that loudness =/= most. --Jayron32 18:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm an Independent Baptist, one of the most fundamental denominations in the United States and while some people I know do reject evolution, I will tell you, the Bible says God created the world in seven days, and I believe that to be true, but it does not say how he created the world in seven days. I am open minded to ideas for how God created us, but the idea that God could not have created us through other species isn't really scriptural, and in fact, the Bible says that God created Eve through Adam, which debunks a lot of the "there's no way I descended from a monkey" arguments. That's not to say I endorse the theory of evolution, but I'm not closed minded to it. That said, Roman Catholics are not nearly as adherent to Biblical literalism as my denomination, and other denominations which infamously oppose evolution. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there are two different creation stories within the first couple of chapters of Genesis. In one, man is created last. In the other, man is created first. You can tell where one story separates from the other by the fact that Elohim is the word for God in the first story, and YHWH is the word for God in the second story. The first story, except for the time line, is not that far removed from scientific theory about the creation of the universe and life on earth. The second story is the Adam and Eve story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to leave that at there's a lot of disagreements on the interpretation scripture, hence the existence of different denominations in the first place, hence the reason for the question of whether or not Catholics believe in neanderthals or evolution. I could preach an entire sermon on how science and the Bible and fundamentalism are not as incompatible with science as people (Christians and non-Christians alike) think, but that's an entirely different rabbit hole for another day, since that would take us entirely off-topic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 04:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Many various degrees of degeneracy as a consequence of sin. An example of going from single perfect to many degenerated: -- (talk · contribs) (now blocked)
Again, the OP never asked a question about sin, and you've provided no meaningful information about Catholic Church doctrine. Please stop derailing the discussion. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Martin Gardner has an interesting brief discussion of the implications of Catholic doctrines as of 1950 near the end of Chapter 13 of his 1957 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, not mentioning Neanderthals specifically in that context, but concluding that one likely implication is that the first humans with souls were born of parents who did not have souls, which he finds "odd" but not "illogical". (Of course, according to some views of scientific species classification, the first member of homo sapiens would be born to parents who were not homo sapiens -- I think Dawkins discusses this somewhere). AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Replace "soul" with "consciousness", and you have an equally odd but probably true statement. MChesterMC (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Quotation about a rose girl[edit]

In The Roses of Picardie by Simon Raven a character quotes the lines:

Rose girl bearing your posies
What are you coming to sell?
Is it yourself or your roses,
Or yourself and your roses as well?

I would be interested to know the source of the quotation. It is possible with Raven that this is his own translation from a Classical source. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Google knows only Raven's book. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That's why I asked here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I did find a French version
Hé, la fille aux roses ! tu es gracieuse comme une rose... Mais que vends tu ? toi ou les roses? ou les deux à la fois?"
... in Il y a rose et rose : les végétaux comme métaphore du corps amoureux dans l'Anthologie grecque by Pascal Luccioni who ascribes it to "Denys le Sophiste". Searching "Dyonisius the Sophist" led me to an English translation in Great Short Poems from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century titled "Rose Girl":
Rose girl, you with the rosy charm,
Pray tell,
Is it your roses, yourself, or both
That you sell?
I have no idea who Dyonisius the Sophist was, but the Greek text appears to be "ἡ τὰ ῥόδα, ῥοδόεσσαν ἔχεις χάριν ἀλλὰ τί πωλεῖς; σαυτήν, ἢ τὰ ῥόδα; ἠὲ συναμφότερα" see Perseus Project ---Sluzzelin talk 01:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well done! I was able, with the information you gave, to find another translation in "Odes of Anacreon, Anacreontics, and other selections from the Greek anthology", privately printed by Nathan Haskell Dole, Boston, 1903. The Greek Anthology is exactly the sort of place I should have expected Raven to find juicy snippets in. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This Dionysius is also known as "Dionysius Sophistes" and according to Willis Barnstone's Ancient Greek Lyrics was "One of many poets, sophists, philosophers and miscellaneous writers of the same name who lived in the Roman Period." DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotation about apples[edit]

In Morning Star by Simon Raven a character quotes the lines:

As the last apple hangs,
High on the topmost bough,
As the last apple hangs
Which the pluckers forgot somehow -
Forgot it not, nay, but got it not,
For no one could have it till now -

and then breaks off. I would like to know the source of the verse. It sounds a bit Housmanish to me (in mood at least) but I'm pretty sure it's not his. As with my question above, it may be Raven's own translation of a Classical piece. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[66]; it seems to be Raven's reworking of Dante Gabriel Rossetti's translation of Sappho's poem. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah excellent, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hyman G. Rickover:[edit]

From Hyman G. Rickover:

"Rickover was assigned to the Cavite Navy Yard in the Philippines, expecting to be transferred shortly to the Bureau of Engineering in Washington, D.C. Rickover arrived in Washington after a trip overland across China, Burma, and India, by air across the Mideast to Athens and then London, and by ship to the U.S. "

Any idea why he went the "long" way around instead of just crossing the Pacific? The Pearl Harbor attack didn't happen yet so it should have been possible for an American to travel from the Philippines to the US by a more direct route. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That bit of the article cites a book by Francis Duncan. In Google Books an earlier edition of the book is available in snippet view. I was able to get this snippet. That URL may not keep working, so I'll quote it:
...Rickover traveled widely, visiting in particular the Dutch East Indies and Indochina, often going third class from one point to another to better observe local life. In May 1939 he left Cavite, traveling across India and Europe to report to Washington...
So the answer would be that he wanted to visit those countries to see how people lived there. (And presumably he was not under orders to take the fastest route.) -- (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, the only scheduled commercial trans-pacific air service at that time was Pan-Am's "clipper" flying boats, which could take 4 days to go from Manila to San Francisco and cost $950 (quite a bit of money in the 1930s). AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agencies which work with ICE[edit]

Is there a way to find out which law enforcement agencies in the United States cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I know the local sheriff where I live does because I've seen "Hold for ICE" in people's arrest reports here, but I'm curious about other agencies in my, area and surrounding areas, not for any particular reason though (I was born in the U.S. to a family which has been in the U.S. for generations, so no need to worry about giving legal advice). (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day.

Have a look at Sanctuary city. You'll immediately run into the problem that not all policies are well publicized, there is no comprehensive database on how every law enforcement agency in the country treats suspected illegal immigrants, and there is no agreed-upon definition of "sanctuary city". As our article gets into, a "sanctuary city" could be one that doesn't share information with certain federal law enforcement agencies, one that doesn't inquire as to an arrested person's immigration status, one that only holds suspected felons for transfer to ICE, and cities that will transfer anyone to ICE that ICE requests, but will not use public funding to house suspected illegal immigrants before the transfer takes place. My own jurisdiction gives ICE a time limit to request custody of a suspect and then arrange their transfer to another jurisdiction, or they will treat the suspect the same as they'd treat a citizen. Is my jurisdiction a sanctuary? Talking heads disagree. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to the confusion, while a good number of these sanctuary "cities" have city police departments, arrested individuals are often booked into jails operated by a county sheriff. For example, the city of Punta Gorda, Florida has its own police department, but PGPD officers take prisoners to the Charlotte County Jail, which is run by the sheriff. Obviously a pro-ICE chief of police would be limited by an anti-ICE sheriff in such situation, but in a vice-versa situation, I suppose a police department could have policies affecting ICE enforcement on the streets, while the sheriff would work with ICE when those police department arrest an immigrant for other crimes. There's yet another layer of confusion when considering places like Liberty University, where there's a campus police department at a college (which I believe is) within the city limits, which is the jurisdiction of the Lynchburg, Virginia Police Department, which is in turn under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff. How does that effect whether or not a city is a "sanctuary city"? It's probably unlikely, but what happens if you have a very pro-ICE campus chief in a county which works with ICE, but within a city which is otherwise considered a "sanctuary city"? Another question I have is, are there any agencies that outright refuse to work with ICE at all, even with convicted felons and such? From what I've read, it seems even San Francisco will deport illegals if they are convicted of serious felonies. (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day.
San Francisco is a bit weird. They will cooperate in the detainment of illegals who are also felons, but only if said felon is currently suspected of a new crime. That is, if the person was convicted of a felony, served his time, and is not wanted for anything else, SF will not hold them. They will also detain anyone suspected of a felony. New Orleans has one of the most extreme policies I've seen, barring nearly all cooperation with ICE, but the law still permits the police to participate in the case of anyone suspected of a felony, and "matters of public safety". Their police officers are even explicitly ordered to ignore warrants from ICE unless it is for a felony. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NATO defence budgets[edit]

So we keep hearing how most of Europe is freeloading off the American defence budget. Is there a list I can see of countries which currently don't spend the NATO requirement of 2% GDP, but have announced firm plans to start doing so? -- (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see NATO Public Diplomacy Division - Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2009-2016) and look at page 2. However, this does not show who is planning to increase their defence spending. This article says that the countries which have increased their budgets since 2014 "are mostly in eastern Europe, where the threat from Russia is felt most keenly. These countries also tend to have relatively small economies by NATO standards. Estonia and Poland now meet the target, and Latvia and Lithuania are on course to do so". A simpler graph is here. Note that Canada is not a European country but significantly underspends. Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Such data is compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute amongst other organisations. Links from that article may lead you to what you're looking for. {The poster formerly known as} (talk)
(EC) Depends what you mean by "firm plans". [67] mentions both France and Germany's intentions. If the Germany one seems a bit unclear, [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] mentions more on how Germany is currently doing. Technically you could argue that any country which has consistently increased their military budget in the past few years and said they intend to continue to do so has a plan, even if it may not mean they'd meet the 2024 target. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


February 17[edit]

Wheel war[edit]

So I know what this means on Wikipedia, but I thought that in real life, it came from monster truck battles. As in the trucks would drive over ordinary cars as they raced. The encyclopedia article doesn't mention that at all and only talks about Unix admins fighting. Have I completely made up the bit about monster trucks? -- (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I can find nothing about the concept in any searches. --Jayron32 18:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
A "big wheel" is an old term for someone who runs things. If two of those come into conflict, that could be labeled a "wheel war". At least that's what I've always assumed that term means here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 18:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wheel war says the term as used among Wikipedia admins arose in the Unix community in Standford before 1983, in reference to the Unix use of "wheel" to refer to privileged users. Monster truck says that these trucks were first made in the late 1970's, so it's entirely possible that whoever started using the phrase at Stanford was picking up an existing phrase. There are no instances of the phrase in either the COCA or COHA corpora; and of the eight instances in GloWbE and the NOW corpora, four seem to be about the trucks you are talking about, and the other four are figurative uses referring to commercial or market competition involving other kinds of wheel (bikes, and Ferris wheels). --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If there was any pop-culture influence on the naming of the "wheel" bit, I'm guessing it might be The Who's first recorded song "I'm the Face" (1964), which had nothing to do with monster trucks... AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
On, the term "big wheel" is used at least in the 1850s, apparently referring to the drive wheels of steam locomotives and the like. The term "wheel war" I saw in a 1922 paper about problems with bicyclists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Traditional vs simplified Chinese?[edit]

Is this edit correct? [74] It changes 创新无止境 to 創新無止境 and 贾续福 to 賈續福.

It looks to me like this changes simplified Chinese to traditional, but I could be way off. If so, I think that would be incorrect in an article about a mainland company. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these are changes from simplified to traditional. But I don't think the general approach on Wikipedia is to restrict simplified to mainland subject matter and vice versa - in any case Lenovo operates all around the world, not just in mainland China. I think it would be appropriate to use both here if there's room, but a gratuitous change from simplified to traditional as such is wrong. -- (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


how many and what are language Macrofamily in the world?--2001:B07:6463:31EE:C914:BDEE:35E0:EC5E (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's highly dependent on the validity of such things as mass language comparison which are controversial among scholars (more accepted among some in related fields than among linguists themselves). AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Also see Lumpers and splitters which discusses some of the controversies in general with language classification schemes. --Jayron32 18:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
A macrofamily (as I understand it) is a grouping that includes more than one generally accepted family, so it's controversial by definition; and some of them overlap (and thus conflict). —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Mayors of Yazd[edit]

The city of Yazd, Iran, has published a list of its mayors (1979-present) in Persian:شهرداران-قبلی For each name on the list, what is the English language equivalent? -- M2545 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(Top to bottom, right to left) Eskandar Aslani, Muhammad-ALi Vahdati, Ali-Akbar Farshi, Muhammad-Hassan Khorshidnam, Hosseyn A'laii, Muhammad-Mahdi Sherafat, Ali-Akbar Aramun, Morteza Shayeq, Ali-Akbar Mirvakili. Omidinist (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Credit here. -- M2545 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Now I'm curious, because I haven't seen Arabic given names hyphenated like that before. Are the hyphens in the original? —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Language in signs: Cyrillic Mongolian or Russian?[edit]

Hi, I just uploaded two photos of bilingual signs I took some time ago in Erenhot in Inner Mongolia. The one language is obviously Chinese, the other is Mongolian in the traditional Mongolian script used in Inner Mongolia, but I'm not sure about the third. I'm guessing that it is probably Mongolian in the Cyrillic alphabet, but it could of course also be Russian, since Erenhot is a border town with both Mongolian and Russian traders going there. Anyone here know enough Russian or Mongolian to tell which one it is? Thanks --Terfili (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The Cyrillic text appears to be Mongolian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't help with the question, but looked at the signs out of curiosity. I observe that the word BUS in the first sign is not in the Cyrillic alphabet, but in ours: it's in English (or some other Western European language that uses the same spelling). Perhaps they are treating the English letters for BUS as an international symbol, sort of like the way stop signs in some non-English-speaking countries use the English word STOP. -- (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, or it might just have been the most English they were confident about putting on the sign. Putting a bit of symbolic English on signs is pretty common in China, even if it wouldn't actually be of any help to foreigners either because it is so obvious without adding the critical info (like this sign, which tells you that it's a bus stop without giving you any clue about the destination) or because the machine translation is so bad. Often I think it's not really there for tourists, but just for added prestige. Like when you go to some small Chinese town and the local shop selling cement and metal pipes advertises so in both Chinese and (machine translated) English on the store sign. Just in case a tourist passing through needs some cement I guess...--Terfili (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

THe Cyrillic is Mongolian in both photos. The storefront one is also unintentionally funny (if you're 12) Asmrulz (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 :-D I wonder what the word actually means in Mongolian. --Terfili (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Business --My another account (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I once read a rather bad novel set on another planet where huy means 'female'. Funny in hindsight. —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As a crude heuristic, Mongolian spelling has many doubled vowel letters, Russian very few... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Both photos have Chinese, Mongolian Cyrillic, and Traditional Mongolian. No Russian. —Stephen (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers! I was pretty confident that it was Mongolian, just because there were so many Mongolians from across the border in Erenhot but not many Russians, but I had no way of being sure. Thanks, --Terfili (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
...and, additionally, a plethora of Э ("hard E") letters, which is pretty rare in modern Russian. No such user (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And the letters Ө Ү. —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

English usage question...[edit]

Over at WP:Reference desk/Science I write "Both cats and dogs are members of the order carnivora, but that is an evolutionary classification that does not necessarily has anything to do with current culinary requirements or preferences." For some reason, my language-feeling Necker-cubes between "has is obviously correct" and "shouldn't it be have?" Any comment and insight is welcome to de-Necker me.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The singular goes with the auxiliary verb to do, so does not have is the only option here unless you prefer to write has nothing to do with .... Dbfirs 19:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
"... an evolutionary classification that does not necessarily has have anything to do with ...". Because it's in the third person singular negative. In positive it's: I have, you have, it has. But in negative it's: I do not have, you do not have, it does not have. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Negative has nothing to do with this, Jack, except that we more often use an auxiliary verb for the negative. Would you write "an evolutionary classification that does has to do with current culinary requirements or preferences"? Dbfirs 20:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. That's a positive statement anyway. And a beautiful example of a straw man. Given that, as you say, we more often use an auxiliary verb for the negative, the negative has rather a lot to do with it, I'd say. My point was that, in positive statements it's the principal verb that is declined (have/has), but in negative statements it's the auxiliary verb that's declined (do/does) and the principal verb is unchanged (have). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Now you are getting closer to the principle, but I'd still say that the negative has not much to do with it, other than the loose statistical connection with use of the auxiliary. Stephan was asking for the principle, not tenuous associations. Dbfirs 21:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both, that is very helpful! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The principle is that a verb governed by an auxiliary (other that have and be, which have special functions) is always in the base (or infinitive) form. Not the plural, or the singular, or the present, or the past: the base form. And it makes no difference why the auxiliary is being used, whether negative, potential, conditional or whatever. --ColinFine (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: May I ask you a somewhat personal question? Sometimes I'm just being curious of how the brain of a speaker works. Your English seems to be pretty good, however, what made you believe, in that particular context, that the form has is the right one?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm a computer scientist, so I think everything should be logical. In the original, "classification" is singular, so I would say "the classification has certain features" - and I don't see why negation should change that. On then other hand, while I learned English in school. a lot of my proficiency comes from reading, and it read funnily ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Negation doesn't change that, but use of the auxiliary verb does (as explained by Colin more clearly than by me). Dbfirs 10:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: Didn't does ring the bell? Does and has at the same time? Or rather why did you ignore/forget about does? Is it because in German hat nicht? But why didn't you, then, write has not? Really if there is a dilemma, it's rather about "has not or does not have?".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Have" is correct. "Does not have" rather than "does not has". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Where I'm from it's "don't got no," regardless of person or number. Much simpler than having to remember all this "has/have" stuff. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, as a non-native speaker with a strong Wernher von Braun type accent, it's a bit risky to use overly colloquial speech. If I start speaking red-neck, they might think I'm a hick. Already, much of my English language sarcasm falls flat because people think I made an unintentional language error and politely ignore it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The more sophisticated folks would say "ain't got no." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As in "I Ain't Got Nobody". Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep. That could be Alcor's theme song. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I assumed you first wrote "has nothing to do", started to change it to "does not have anything to do", but missed part of it. I see such errors quite often. —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Name for non-face cards in a deck[edit]

Is there a name, other than "non-face cards" for those cards in a standard deck? e.g. the ace through 10. †dismas†|(talk) 20:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pip cards. See Playing card and Pip (counting)#Playing cards. Akld guy (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
In my experience reading books about bridge, that term is not used, but "spot cards" (or "spots" for short) is. At least in a bridge context this usage excludes aces, which are high in bridge. Although the articles cited by Akld do not deign to mention the term, it will be found in the Wikipedia Glossary of card game terms and the Glossary of contract bridge terms, and is used in the bridge-related articles Signal (bridge), Rule of 11, Card reading (bridge), Suit combination, and Vacant Places, among others. -- (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. The term is specifically mentioned in the second reference I provided. Did you even read it fully? Akld guy (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
76.71 is not wrong, you simply misunderstood. They're saying that "spot cards" and "spots" are not mentioned in those articles. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see his phrasing was ambiguous, because he used "that term" and "the term". He meant that I hadn't mentioned spot cards. Akld guy (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that the articles you linked don't mention "spot cards", even though in my experience it is the usual term. And in fact I didn't read them; I didn't need to, because I just searched each page for the word "spot". -- (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
David Parlett's glossary of card-playing terms has the entry "numerals: Number cards, as opposed to courts. Also called pip cards, spot cards, spotters, etc." I get the impression (from googling) that "pip cards" is frequently used in books on tarot cards. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all. †dismas†|(talk) 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


February 19[edit]

Hamadan Terminal[edit]

In what year did the Hamadan Terminal (fa) in Hamadan, Iran, begin operating? Is it a passenger transport depot for buses or for trains? City website about its history is here in Persian. -- M2545 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

How did “like” change from a noun meaning “body” to the modern verb?[edit]

As pointed out here, saying "I like X" in old English would have to be formulated as "X pleases my body" and the word "like" would represent "body" in that sentence. But it's not clear to me how "like" ended up becoming a verb in modern English. Count Iblis (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a simplification of a much more complex process. Etymology online says "The sense development is unclear; perhaps "to be like" (see like (adj.)), thus, "to be suitable." Like (and dislike) originally were impersonal and the liking flowed the other way: "The music likes you not" ["The Two Gentlemen of Verona"]. The modern flow began to appear late 14c." Bear in mind that even today the word has two very different meanings, one closer to the original root. I like cheese is one meaning. I smell like cheese is the other. French took a different route - and ended up with one word meaning both to like and to love. Wymspen (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The OED says of the old noun: "In sense 1 [form, shape, guise] perhaps partly representing the reflex of an ultimately related Old English noun. Currency of this noun in Old English is perhaps implied by compounds, especially mannlīca human form, image of a man, (more specifically) sculpted image, statue (cognate with or formed similarly to Old High German manlīhho , manlīhha , manlīh image of a man, statue, Old Icelandic mannlíkan image of a man, supernatural being in human shape, Gothic manleika image, form); compare also eoforlīc and swīnlīc , both in sense ‘figure or image of a boar’ (with reference to decorated helmets in Beowulf):
OE Beowulf (2008) 1453 Swa hine [sc. the helmet] fyrndagum worhte wæpna smið, wundrum teode, besette swinlicum.
OE Daniel 174 Þære burge weard anne manlican ofer metodes est, gyld of golde, gumum arærde.
lOE Adrian & Ritheus (1982) xlviii. 40 Twege manlican beoð on mannes eagum; gif þu þa ne gesihst þonne swilt se man and bið gewiten ær þrim dagum.
However, if such a nominal derivative had occurred in Old English outside compounds, it would probably have shown ge- y- prefix (compare Gothic galeika person of the same body) and been merged with noun uses of ylike adj.; compare ylike n. 2. Compare discussion at like adj., adv., conj., and prep.
With sense 3 compare Old English efnlīca (a person's) equal, apparently a noun use of efnlic evenly adj. (forms of both noun and adjective showing y- prefix are also attested, i.e. respectively ge-efenlīca , ge-efenlic ).
The early Middle English form læche (see quot. c1275 at sense 1) probably reflects confusion with leches , læches (plural) looks, appearance, demeanour, countenance (a word used several times in the same source; showing the reflex of Old English lēc look, regard < the same base as lōcian look v.)."
... and of the verb: "In Old English the verb typically occurs in constructions with the person experiencing the emotion in the dative, either in impersonal construction (occasionally with non-referential it ) or with nominative of the thing liked (compare sense 1a). In the course of Middle English and early modern English, constructions with the person experiencing as subject increasingly establish themselves as predominant. The details of this development have been much discussed, and the syntactic analysis of some attested constructions is disputed, especially with regard to early Middle English (compare sense 4a).
In some uses (e.g. sense 1c) early impersonal constructions may have been influenced by uses of e.g. classical Latin placēre to be pleasing (see placet int. and compare please v.), libet it pleases, it is pleasing (see quodlibet n.), which can both be used either absolutely or with dative.
Competing verbs.
In Old English (and early Middle English) like v.1 is the usual verb in impersonal constructions, while queem v. is more common in personal constructions (and constructions with the nominative of the thing liked). During the course of the Middle English period like v.1 comes to predominate in personal constructions, while from late Middle English onwards in impersonal constructions (and constructions with nominative of the thing liked) it in turn increasingly loses ground to please v. See discussion in M. Ogura Verbs in Medieval Eng. (1995) 124–6."
. I don't know whether this helps. Dbfirs 10:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Finger thing[edit]

What do you call ‘the thing’ a person uses in their finger to turn pages? (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I call them Finger stalls, but we have no article. We have Finger cot, which is not really the same thing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That article mentions the terms "thimblette", "rubber finger", "rubber thimbles" and "finger cones" for the purpose the OP is asking about. The Textile Research Centre, Leiden's website adds "rubber finger tips", and has some more information in their entry on "Thimblette" (apparently "more and more quilters are using thimblettes" too). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Delightful extract from one advert: Thimblettes are known by a number of names including rubber thimbles, finger cones or “those spiky rubber things you put on your fingers”. Wymspen (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Google Image "rubber finger" and you'll see a whole bunch of them, branded that way or by similar terms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And you might find some things you didn't expect. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Luckily, I had child protection "on". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We all need as much protection as we can get against those evil monsters called children. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Or as they're officially known in America, "rug rats". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"Thimblette" was definitely the term in the City of London before the "paperless office" concept. "Finger stall" also had some usage, but can also mean one of these. If you ask for a "rubber finger" in the UK, you might get one of these :-) Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

How did British and American English come to differ?[edit]

I read some time ago that British English showed in the influence of the UK's proximity to France whilst American English remained closer to the Latin roots of the words. This page of The Oxford Dictionary says that the American versions are the modified ones. Which language is closer to the original at the point at which they started to diverge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

British English and American English may contain some clues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Language change has happened to both of them after they split geographically. Broadly speaking, it isn't strictly correct to say that, in their modern forms, one is more "true", but rather that they both have diverged in different ways. Even that isn't strictly true, even within Britain dialects of English have changed dramatically over the many centuries, and even today you can find WIDE dialectical differences between "British" dialects of English. If we're talking the "standard" dialects of the languages, those are usually taken as Received Pronunciation in the UK and General American in the U.S. and our articles discusses the origin of both of those. Generally, the more a language speaking population comes into contact with other populations, the more its language tends to change over time; geographically isolated communities tend to retain their language in more conservative ways. That's true in the U.S. of dialects like Tidewater English, High Tider English, etc. --Jayron32 15:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally well put, but I would quibble that RP and GA are both forms of spoken English, whereas I suspect the OP was talking more about written English. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Orthography follows its own rules which are not necessarily connected to spoken language in any meaningful sense; for example the great vowel shift was not reflected in changes to English spelling, which is why English vowels don't necessarily match continental vowels. It's also why you can get the same language written in different writing systems (i.e. Serbo-Croatian, Norwegian language). --Jayron32 16:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, so why did you start talking about spoken language, when it seems rather clear to me that the OP was talking about written language? --Trovatore (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Because I am horrible and useless and should never be listened to at all. --Jayron32 12:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that Bokmål and Nynorsk differ not just in orthography, but also in grammar and vocabulary -- considerably more so than standard BrE from standard AmE. A similar case would be Taraškievica vs. Narkamauka for the Belarusian language: the two linguistic norms use the same writing system, but differ in orthography, grammar and vocabulary.
There are, however, many genuine cases where the same language is written in different writing systems: e.g. Azerbaijani, Kazakh, Mandarin, Mongolian, Uyghur, Uzbek -- (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the OP asking about pronunciation, or merely about spelling? As you say, there is a lot of variety in pronunciations within the English-speaking world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The OP's source does not mention Latin at all so I wonder what words they are considering as English is not a Latin-based (Romance) language but a Germanic one. Rmhermen (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well sort of. English evolved from Germanic languages, but it has fallen far astray of its roots. As you can see at File:Origins of English PieChart.svg, only about 26% of English vocabulary is of Germanic order. By comparison, 58% comes from Latin or French. So, yeah, historically English is Germanic in its root structure and it's evolutionary history, but by the words it's more Romance. It's quite a bastard, actually. --Jayron32 20:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
A wise person once wrote that "English is a fruitcake made with Germanic flour, Romance fruit, and spices from all over the world".--Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
He is most likely thinking of the spelling differences and arguments of etymology detailed at American and British English spelling differences. - (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
At the point when the languages diverged, spelling was just beginning to be standardised (or even standardized). Noah Webster had a big influence on American spelling, but Samuel Johnson continued to be the main influence on British spelling. Changes are still going on, with the "ise" endings now being taught in British schools to simplify British spelling in the same way that Webster simplified American spelling. For most of the differences, both variants of the spelling were found in both countries before they split. Dbfirs 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
But in the US there was a definite drive to reform and simplify spelling, see Simplified Spelling Board. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
... an early example of an executive order being largely ignored! Dbfirs 11:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
... and see English-language spelling reform for earlier attempts. Dbfirs 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Turkish used to be written in Arabic script. Since the 1920s it's been written in Roman. Urdu is virtually Hindi but uses Arabic script. (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh? —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad Man[edit]

Spurred by the previous question, I found the statement in American English, that "bad man" is a relatively new addition to the language from the Cowboy era. Did we not call them that before the 18th/19th centuries? Rojomoke (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what's meant is the term badman, spelled as one word. The WP disambiguation page on Badman also has "The contemporary term, along with "gunman", for the people now called "gunfighters" or "gunslingers", in the 19th-century American frontier". Here's the ngram of "badman" and "badmen" (1800 - 2000). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there are any "bad men" in the King James Bible, but plenty who are "evil" or "wicked". Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not in the KJB, nope, but you can find things such as "A bad man may make evil to come out of that which is, in itself, good" (The Cottager's monthly visitor, Oxford University, 1823), or "If, however, he admitted him into his friendship as a good man, but he becomes a bad man, or should appear to have become a bad man, is he still to be beloved?" in Thomas Taylor's translation of Aristotle's works (1811), or "for it matters not, whether a worthy man has cheated a bad man, or a bad man a worthy one; nor whether a good or bad man has committed adultery" in another translation of Aristotle's works, A New Translation of the Nichomachean Ethics by one R. Pearson (1819) etc. Or, even older: "Mr. Love has been heard to say, that Ponton is a very bad man" in The Affair of the Warmister [sic] Workhouse Truly Stated... (Oxford University, 1760). I found older examples, from the 17th century too, sorry for not having started there. If requested, I can add them later.
I believe that the pairing "bad man" in the sense of "wicked man" or "evil man" was neither invented in or limited to the American Frontier, just that particular spelling and meaning of "badman" referred to above. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

All said and done[edit]

In Dolly Parton's 9 to 5 (which I'm performing in in a few weeks) one number has the repeated line "When it's all said and done". I've had some difficulty saying this line, because to me the idiom is "When all's said and done". I wondered if this might be an idiosyncrasy of the script, perhaps for metrical reasons; or whether it was a US variant. I've looked in a couple of corpora, and found that in COHA (Corpus of Historical American English) the form with "it" doesn't occur at all until 2000, and is then represented by just 4 instances, against 19 in that decade for the form without "it" (199 over the 200 years of the corpus' range). I looked at the GloWbE corpus, which is drawn from the web, and classified by country of origin; and found that the form with "it" has 427 instances, against 1620 without; and that US sources account for almost half of the former (207), but less than a third of the latter (507).

My conclusion is that this is a recent change in the idiom, and has spread from North America. My guess is that it arose because "all" is no longer recognised as a pronoun in many people's speech. Has anybody got any more solid information about the origin and spread of this change? --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a rudimentary ngrams analysis here. Sadly, I couldn't use the whole phrase because google limits a phrase to no more than 5 words (and it counts it's as two words), but when I compared "When it's all said" to "When all's said" (which should catch at least some of the trends in the idioms). Hope that helps. Google ngrams is a powerful tool to track written English usage. --Jayron32 20:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, small changes like that are commonplace in any performance, so I would say it the way that works best for you. Nobody will boo. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The OED has only one cite for "when it's all said and done", that being from the New York Times Magazine of May 11th 2003: " I have to be an athlete. But when it's all said and done, I'll be a normal father." (I must admit that I hadn't realised this was a recent innovation, and I might well have used the newer form without realising I was mis-quoting.) The earliest cite I can find is from 1916, in "Our Navy, the Standard Publication of the U.S. Navy" Dbfirs 21:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"When it's all said and done" sounds more natural to me, and I'm an old Canadian geezer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Neither version sounds right to me! I mean, they're both correct English, but what I think of as the normal phrase is "when all is said and done", with no contraction. And adding "when all is said" to the NGram search produces results matching my opinion. (I may also be described as a Canadian geezer, but I have British and American influences.) -- (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
In English use of the contraction is optional. So "When all's said and done" and "When all is said and done" are equivalent. (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily in idioms - "All is well that ends well" just sounds strange. MChesterMC (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The two phrases do not, to my understanding, mean exactly the same thing. The idiom "when all's said and done" implies completion of everything - the answer to "what is said and done?" is "all - everything." By adding the "it" and saying "when it's all said and done" the answer to that question is limited to "it" - whatever that pronoun may be replacing. That leaves the possibility that there remain other things which are not yet said and done. I am not familiar with the song, so cannot say if that subtle difference is intended there, or if it was just a misuse of the familiar idiom. Wymspen (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that reading may make sense if there is a possible antecedent of "it", but otherwise it only makes sense to view "it" as basically a dummy pronoun, leaving the meaning the same as the other expressions. -- (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Another Term for Strategic Thinker[edit]

I was looking for another term to refer to someone as a "strategic thinker." I have been a little repetitive in my use of the term "strategic thinker" and feel that the use is lessening the quality of my writing at this point. I was wondering if anyone knew of a phrase/term or another kind of wording that could be used to essentially say, "Jim is a strategic thinker."

EncycloShoe (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Long-term planner" ? You might also use forms like "somebody able to" ... "see the forest for the trees", "conceptualize/visualize the overall situation", "plan all the moves like a chess grandmaster", etc. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Is there some reason you don't just call the person a strategist? has this to say about "strategist" and this to say about "planner". Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Tactician? Bus stop (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As I understand the terms, strategy is for the long term, tactics is for the dragon in front of you. —Tamfang (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow! These are a lot of great ideas. Thank you so much! EncycloShoe (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


February 17[edit]

La La land[edit]

What relation does the opening sequence (with everyone junping on their cars and dancing and fooling about) have to the rest of the film? I nearly walked out during this waste of time before the film got started properly! -- (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a musical, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You either understand what the film is about, or you don't. Sadly, if you don't it cannot be explained, as you could not understand the explanation either. Wymspen (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in reading "Crowd Song" and "Spontaneous Choreography" at TV Tropes. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It appears the OP is unfamiliar with Musical film or its close relative Musical theatre. Both have a long tradition in both Western cinema and theatre (see, for example, Busby Berkeley and Broadway Musical and West End theatre) and eastern Cinema especially (see Bollywood). La La Land comes from that long tradition. --Jayron32 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the problem with most musicals is that they challenge our suspension of disbelief. That is, how can we believe that people will, at random times, drop whatever they are doing and engage in a song and dance routine ? In some rare cases they are able to better integrate those numbers with the plot, such as if the characters are actually dancers and singers. They still wouldn't be likely to jump on top of cars in a traffic jam (as in the opening to Fame (1982 TV series)) and start dancing (at least not if they value their safety), but you could at least expect lots of singing and dancing in such a movie, whether their final performances, auditions, practice sessions, or just singing in the shower. For non-artists, there could still be some singing and dancing, such as singing a lullaby, work songs, and dancing at actual dances or talent shows. If watching a movie about chess, I want to see actual chess moves, not random, illegal moves, and while watching a musical I don't want to see random, illegal dancing on cars either. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC) If I am reading your initial question correctly, you are not asking why do people sing / dance in a musical (movie musical); rather you are questioning the reason for the inclusion of the opening number in relation to the rest of the film. Which is actually a very astute question in regards to musicals; especially this one. Most (re)viewers who are "pro" La La Land question "how" this opening sequence was filmed -- because they are so impressed by its sheer magnitude; but not the more important: "why" was it filmed. However, some theatre critics reference the more scene setting opening sequences of musicals that preface what is to come for the audience or set the mood of the piece in general: "A Chorus Line", "Little Shop of Horrors", "42nd Street", "Sweeney Todd", etc, etc, etc -- and of course, the one that started them all: "Oklahoma" -- from the man who first asked: "why is this person singing here?" (Oscar Hammerstein II) The opening sequence for La La Land was almost not put into the film; and certain critics have pointed out that while the lyrics (that set the scene with appropriate words by the characters who speak them -- setting the scene in a rather despondent tone) fits the situation they find themselves; yet the upbeat music and over-the-top dancing do not. So your question is not that far-fetched. That being said: the director himself was quoted saying he drew from Busby Berkeley: the master of large musical numbers that had nothing to do with the plot line or furthered the story in any way. I think there's your answer, and perhaps the reason why you (and others) felt the need to walk out after the opening sequence. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

help finding background song?[edit] this is a mashup and really really want to find the instrumental BG song in this any idea how to find out? :/ (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Golden Boot for own goals?[edit]

Hi! In the unlikely scenario that a player for a team at a major FIFA sanctioned competition (i.e. Men's or Women's World Cup) scores more own goals than any other player scores proper goals will the player with the most own goals be awarded the Golden Boot? Say for example, player y scores 7 own goals over the course of a tournament and player x scores 6 proper goals. Will player y win the Golden Boot award for scoring the most goals? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No the award is for scoring goals against the opposition. BTW if a player were to score more than one or two own goals I would check to see if Professor Quirrell had purchased tickets. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Ha ha ha! Thanks for the confirmation! Jith12 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Could be just protesting a referring decision AS Adema 149–0 SO l'Emyrne or trying to avoid a match with a team allegedly supported by local criminal elements [75] (I'm not sure how many goals individual players actually scored). Although I think most commentators have suggested that the first case is unlikely to happen in any major modern match, the referee will intervene. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the history of organized soccer, intentional own goals are exceedingly rare, but not unknown. See Barbados 4–2 Grenada (1994 Caribbean Cup qualification) for perhaps the most famous example. These are usually always due to poor planning on the part of tournament organizers, who designed tie-breaker systems which encourage the behavior. Usually, the first time as team tries to exploit such a loophole, the tiebreaking system is altered to remove the glitch, so it really almost never happens. --Jayron32 13:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

TinTin Asterix[edit]

Looking for comics like Tintin and Asterix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried bookshops? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Try Franco-Belgian_comics#Notable_comics.--Shantavira|feed me 08:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Of those listed, Lucky Luke is probably closest in terms of humour (and in terms of the racial and national stereotypes that seem a bit uncomfortable today). It's a Western parody, started by Asterix author René Goscinny. If you want things that look similar, look up artists in the ligne claire style. Unfortunately, few French comics get translated into English; if you want to go deeper into French-Belgian comics, you really need to be able to read the language. I love the Les Cités obscures comics, but the translations went out of print long ago (I rely on my wife translating them for me!). Smurrayinchester 10:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
For children, Boule et Bill is good - we lived in France when our girls were younger, and they loved that. Recently I noticed that they are now producing some of the French classics in the same format. We spotted someone with the comic version of Notre Dame de Paris (Victor Hugo) - known in English as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Wymspen (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I used to like Benoît Brisefer (Starke Staffan in swedish) and Les Tuniques Bleues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some volumes of Achille Talon, e.g. Viva Papa and Le roi des Zotres, are adventures comparable in style to Astérix (though in modern settings). Jean Giraud alias Moebius drew surreal adventures in a style somewhat similar to Tintin's ligne claire. —Tamfang (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Diference between quality streaming movies[edit]

Specifically streaming movies on Amazon Prime, but i guess it wouold be the same on any streamed films/TV. i have a QHD monitor so 2560x1440 pixels, somewhat higher than HD but not 2k/4k.

Streaming on good quality looks basically the same as great quality (great quality is x4 the bandwith ((i understand that double the reolution equals four times the pixels that have to be displayed)), but still stated as HD, nothing higher). Do any others find that there's a diminishing return on high quality video?

Thanks in advance (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that they are using a lossy compression method that effectively drops the resolution to 1080, at some point in the process. Once they've done that, upconverting to your resolution won't make much improvement. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
i understand lossy formats for still images as a graphic designer, but that's a very small drop in quality for a huge saving in file size. i'll follow up reading the article you linked ty, but my gut reaction is that if that is the reason, then why is it x4 the bandwith for a stream that looks the same. (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you mostly target bitrate rather than quality, then the bandwidth can easily be x4 whatever else. But in any case, GIGO and all that, if you have upscaled, even if you target a quality level the codec is still generally going to use a of extra bits for that resolution even if it doesn't actually seem much better. (Note that GIGO is entirely fair anyway. You're never going to get close to the same as the original resolution presuming you properly recorded at 4k, but the upscaler is making a significant difference and could significantly beat your own upscaling solution if it's crap.) But as said below, I don't think this is relevant. I doubt you're getting 4k video. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You mention a 2560x1440 monitor. Does that mean you're using a PC (including laptops, Macs and any non specialised Linux devices)? Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This might get a more complete answer on the Computing desk. I am far from an expert, but the initial question I would ask is: if the host knows you can view more than 1080P, but not full 4K, does it even have a stream between those standards to send you - or does it just send a 1080 signal because that's the highest standard you can view? And pixels aside, what kind of frame rate is being sent? Again, I'm barely above novice at this stuff, but there are lots of missing pieces to this that could influence the answer. I will also say, based on experience, that Amazon's customer service is top notch: if in doubt, contact them. Matt Deres (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers, i might ask on the computing reference desk as suggested. I also agree Amazon is great with their streaming algorithm, and i hadn't considered a frame rate when i asked the question, a very good point. (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK Amazon justs used H.264 for their streaming as does most of the internet (with small amounts of WebM, and 4k normally using HEVC). There's nothing particularly special about Amazon's algorithm. I'm not even sure if they're using x264 generally considered the best H264 codec in terms of quality. (But they may I think a lot of companies do.) I doubt the frame rate will be different between good quality and great quality. It's fairly rare frame rate is reduced except at fairly low qualities. As for frame rates above 23.976/25, it's possible but I don't think these are common outside of sport and UHD. P.S. It's fairly unlikely Amazon has any resolution between 4k/UHD and HD/1080P. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I should have said VP8 and VP9 above rather than WebM Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer to my question so I'll post this as is. I don't use Amazon Prime, but I'm pretty sure if the video is UHD it should be clearly labelled as UHD and you'll need to choose UHD not HD resolution. Further, I'm pretty sure Amazon Prime still doesn't support UHD streaming on PCs [76]. Nexflix has enabled it recently under certain limited conditions [77] but I cant find any mention that Amazon has.

In other words, it's fairly likely the difference between the streaming qualities just relates to the compression used and all this talk of beyond 1080P is irrelevant. I'm fairly surprised the bandwidth difference is so high, how did you determine this? I mean it's possible, but from my experience most streaming services don't generally have that level of difference between 2 levels. Often it's less than 2x.

In any case, in terms of the general point, lossy compression is complicated. But once the compression is transparent or close to it for a certain individual then significant increases in bandwidth aren't likely to make a noticeable difference. I mean if you can't tell the difference between uncompressed video or the compressed video, then you won't generally see the higher quality lossy compression as better. And I think most codec viewing tests suggest transparency for the average individual (those who aren't experts on detecting the artifacts etc) is at a lot lower quality setting than a lot of people think. Especially when simply viewing the video rather than comparing them side by side or with still images. Also codecs (particularly including the software) tend to be targeted at certain use cases. It's definitely true that many codecs, significantly increases in bandwidth doesn't significantly increase the perceptual quality even for those who can see the quality problems. In fact older simpler codecs can sometimes perform better at these bit rates.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I should also mention even 4k/UHD is unlikely to be 4x the bandwidth. I didn't find figures for Amazon, but NetFlix uses 15.6 Mbps for their 4k and 7 Mbps for their 1080P [78]. This is HEVC versus H.264, but even if someone were using H.264 for both, and NetFlix evidentally can use HEVC for 1080P, it's unlikely that many would use 4x. Maybe if it were 1080P25 versus 4kP50 HDR with the same codec I suppose. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]


I've been trying to improve the Composer fields of my iTunes library, filling in full names and birth/death dates wherever possible. The song "You're Still You" is credited to Ennio Morricone and Linda Thompson. Is that Linda Thompson (singer) (b.1947), or Linda Thompson (actress) (and songwriter; b.1950), or some other? —Tamfang (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A number of discography-type sites list her as Linda Thompson-Jenner (e.g. So that would be the actress and songwriter, b. 1950. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This backs up Sluzzelin's info. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
From what I can gather: both. Linda Thompson actress / songwriters are one and the same. [79] I think the birth dates have confused the same person. The song is credited to her: [80]; but has not yet been added to her category of song: [81] Maineartists (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the Linda Thompson (singer) article? It's clearly about a different person, not a confusion. Perhaps the titles of the two articles should be changed to something like Linda Thompson (British singer) and Linda Thompson (US actress-songwriter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]


February 18[edit]

Intelligence and orientation in the US of A[edit]

I've been watching thump...and it begs the question whether there truly is any correspondence in IQ and political affiliation. Where do things stand between the Republican V Democrats in the faculties between the ears department.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IQ stands for intelligence quotient. Or in other words: the score gained from undergoing certain tests. Nothing to do with social/machiavelli abilities.--Aspro (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
One thing you can be sure of: Each side thinks it's smarter than the other side.[citation needed] I don't have to cite that the sky is blue.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll just copy my comment from the last time this came up: High IQ correlates well with self-identification as a liberal, and low-IQ with self identification as a conservative[82]. It's not an enormous difference, with "very conservative"s averaging out at 95 IQ points, and "very liberal"s averaging out at 105 (so a difference between slightly below average and slightly above, rather than a difference between genius and brain damaged as some might suspect). This correlation is consistent in the UK as well. It's interesting to note that intelligence also correlates similarly well with degree of religiosity, so there could be a connection there. Also, now please also consider all of the problems with measuring IQ. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
If liberals are so smart, how come they keep losing elections? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
They don't. Obama won twice with wider margins, while Trump only won the electoral college, losing the popular vote by millions. And the difference between the two we can blame our founding fathers deciding that no matter how small a state's population is, it should still get 3 electoral votes, giving rural states disproportionate power in presidential elections. If you want to go back further, the younger Bush also won by narrow margins, while Clinton won by wider margins. See US presidential elections. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
They do. From state government to Congress, liberals have consistently been losing since 2008. See Democratic losses since 2008--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a rather short-term argument. Political trends tend to last for a decade or two in the US. That doesn't mean the wind will never change direction again. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
If Albert Einstein was so smart, why was he not a famous athlete? Why is reality TV popular? Intelligence is often not the deciding factor in winning things. (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Intelligence is overrated. Persistence often whips intelligence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
One thing that may contribute to this perception is how conservatives often ignore science, facts, etc., such as believing the easily disproven lies Trump and team send out daily. This looks like a lack of intelligence to liberals, but it's more of a "willful ignorance" than a genuine lack of intelligence. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
[citation needed] on your claim that Trump and team send out "easily disproven lies" daily! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Have there been any days when Trump and team didn't say anything? If so, that would technically "disprove" StuRat's comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump keep his mouth shut for an entire day ? Are sutures allowed ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect it's more accidental. There are other notable correlations to be found in this sphere, such as a decreased interest in educational attainment among evangelical Christians (possibly because Universities are bastions of liberal heresy), and uneducated whites tending to work in industries harmed by more often by the democratic party than the republican (or at least, that's the perception). I find the argument, "Republicans court voting blocks that happen to correlate (very slightly) with lower IQ", is much more compelling than, "Republicans are stupid and everyone who votes for them is stupid." Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are 80 lies, spread over Trump's first 28 days.[83] That's an average of one every 8 hours 24 minutes. (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Does that average take sleep time into account? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure he's working on a way to tweet his dreams out, too. Maybe a voice recognition system that activates whenever he talks in his sleep ? StuRat (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This from a source which claims the election polls were accurate when in fact they were almost all off by 5 points or more! Before accusing our President of even misspeaking, let alone lying on purpose, they should look themselves in the mirror! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that the polls were accurate, at the time, or that people lied about who they intended to vote for. And you can fact check what Trump says yourself. For his claim that he won the most electoral votes since Reagan, just look at United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_college_results. Of course, lying politicians are hardly new, but what is new is Trump's blatant and transparent lies. Most politicians only tell lies that are believable. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's NOT possible they were accurate at the time -- I was talking about the poll results on Election Day! As for Trump's statements, of the ones listed in that "80 lies" source, many were actually TRUE, and of the ones that were false, most were semantic errors (i.e. misspeaking), as opposed to deliberately lying! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
In that list of 80, it's claimed that Trump refused to take 1,250 "refugees" held by Australia, with Trump calling them illegal immigrants. In fact, Trump was correct; they are refugees who travelled into Australian waters by boat, thereby entering Australian territory illegally. Scroll down to "What you need to know about the refugee deal" here. Travelling into Australian waters changes their status to illegal immigrant. Continue reading down, where it is stated that Australia refuses to take asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Akld guy (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See Refugee#Legal definition. Australia signed both the 1951 Refugee Convention that defines a refugee as "A person outside the country of his nationality..." and 1967 Protocol that removed temporal and geographic restrictions. Wikipedia has an article Asylum in Australia that describes that country's peculiar "punitive approach" (quoting UN OHCHR Special Rapporteur François Crépeau) towards migrants who arrive by boat. Blooteuth (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It's possible to be a refugee who becomes an illegal immigrant by entering territorial waters illegally. Trump was correct. Akld guy (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Semantic errors" can be deliberate deception. For example, saying that 80% of the district court's cases are overturned by the Supreme Court (when it's actually only about 1%, when one includes the vast majority never challenged in the Supreme Court) is designed to make it look like the district court is totally incompetent, which is not borne out by the true 1% figure. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Winston Churchill.
In general, political lies are so commonly told by such a broad ideological cross-section, they can't be used as evidence of intelligence, character, or lack thereof. There have been exceptions, although it's said that Governor Earl Kemp Long of Louisiana was involuntarily committed to an inpatient psychiatric hospital for telling the truth at the wrong times (as when he publicly alluded to some of his political opponents having engaged in miscegenation).
If one considers inaccurate statements made by the current President of the United States to be evidence of a cognitive deficit, the door swings open for his predecessors to be so considered. Barack Obama made so many false statements that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site has four pages of them. Bill Clinton was disbarred and found guilty in Federal court for perjury, which is the act of lying under oath - a serious offense Clinton just missed being declared a felon for having committed. Never mind all the times that other Presidents of both parties lied.
So, it goes back to "can you prove he lied - as opposed to honestly being mistaken in his facts, or inexact in his language?" Many of the same people who call Trump stupid or insane for the false statements he may have made were passionate in insisting that the several lies Bill Clinton told under oath when sued by Paula Jones, and with connection to his extramarital liaisons with Monica Lewinsky were excusable and even testimony of his good character ("he lied to protect a woman's reputation" being a common refrain at the time).
If Trump supporters are intellectual lightweights, what's that make the people who ardently support Barack Obama for his even more egregious immigration policies (which literally ignored the express will of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress who declined to change Federal immigration law in the way Obama demanded)?
Most of those false statements Obama made shown in the Politifact Web site were made in the same amount of time (during his 2008 Presidential campaign) that the "80 lies Trump told" were made. What's that make the people who swallowed Obama's statements uncritically? It certainly doesn't speak better of their political judgment than ignoring Trump's tweets does for his supporters.
It all comes down, in the long run, to the issue of intellectual differences along partisan political axes being one more mud-slinging contest.loupgarous (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not just that Trump lies, but rather the volume of lies and how absurdly easy the lies are to disprove. For example, the claim that 5 million fraudulent votes were cast for Hillary, and not one for him, or the claim that his electoral college victory was the largest since Reagan. This brings up the Q as to why he would lie so poorly. Does he really believe these things ? That would make him delusional. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Stu, the Politifact Web site shows Barack Obama made four pages of false statements, mostly during his 2008 campaign. The fact that Obama's lies are craftier doesn't make them less false. Nor does it make Barack Obama less delusional - if that can even be said of Donald Trump. Not once has Barack Obama retracted a lie he told on the campaign trail. He "regretted" having made slanderous statements about voters who opposed him (the "clinging to their faith and their guns" remark) because it was costing him politically, but did not retract the statement. That's more probative of Barack Obama's worldview being informed by falsehoods, because Trump will admit when he's been caught saying what is not true. Barack Obama doesn't ever seem to have done so publicly.
In fact, Trump's falsehoods being more palpable, while not a good thing, is less disconcerting than that Barack Obama was able to win such broad-based support for policies based on a skein of falsehoods.
The fact that the press is actually paying attention to when a President lies, after eight years when they mostly were his unpaid public relations firm, is heartening. We were closer to an elected autocracy under Barack Obama - with the enthusiastic permission of most of the people - than we're ever likely to get under Donald Trump, because people are paying attention to what he says and does - for once. loupgarous (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Obama was in office for 8 years, with two election campaigns. The Donald has been in office for just about a month. He already has 7 pages of "false" statements, plus an extra 4 pages ruled "pants on fire" (Obama's fiery pants fit on a single page). 75% of Obama's statements are ruled "Half true" or better, while over two thirds of Trump's statements are "mostly false" or worse. Sure, politicians often have a flexible approach to inconvenient facts. But Trump trumps them all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it's the motivation for the lies that is the concern, along with the volume. It's simple to understand a politician lying if they think they can get away with it. But Trump's lies are more difficult to explain, precisely because any intelligent, competent person would know he wouldn't get away with such lies. So why would one tell lies, knowing they will get caught ? If you are late for work, do you fib and tell the boss there was an accident ? Or do you tell the boss you were transported to another galaxy and just got back ? In the later case, your mental state is in question, but not in the former case. StuRat (talk)
Motivation for both the politician and the press is out of whack. Trump (and his crew) are telling silly lies that are easy to debunk. The press is trying very hard to turn absolutely every word Trump says into a lie. Example: Trump said that antisemitism is bad and needs to stop. The press struggled greatly to figure out how to turn that into a lie, finally agreeing that since he didn't say it was bad a year ago, he must have been thinking it was good a year ago and, therefore, at that time he was implying a lie by omission. (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump was extremely rude (big surprise) to the conservative Jewish reporter who said he wasn't accusing Trump of antisemitism but wanted to know what Trump would do to halt it's rise in the US: [84]. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
To look at just one case of "willful ignorance", Trump promised coal miners that all those mines would reopen and they'd all get their jobs back. Any realistic assessment would say that this won't happen, because to return to the high point of coal mining, we would need to return to heating out homes with coal (mine still has a coal chute, but I won't be converting back any time soon), need to build new power plants to generate electricity from coal, and return to cities with smog and acid rain-affected dead lakes. We would also need to prohibit the robotics which would be used to replace workers when the mines are reopened, and ban competing technologies to produce fossil fuels, like fracking and imported Canadian tar sands oil. So, the truth would be to tell ex-coal miners they need to accept low-paying jobs and work more hours, although at least they won't have to fear cave-ins and black lung disease. But, if you are an ex-coal miner, you can't be blamed for believing any lie that promises to return to the "good old days". StuRat (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hamedan Airport[edit]

In what year did the Hamedan International Airport in Iran begin operating? -- M2545 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


What is best for heating a small room; an oil filled radiator or a convention heater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Define "best". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Guess convection heater is meant. Note we have articles on convection heater and oil heater.
Much would depend on your local circumstances. Is a natural gas line available? Or a propane/butane tank? An existing central heating system perhaps? Or should it be electric and, if so, is there enough power available (fuse rating etc.)?
Also posibilities and energy prices vary highly around the world. Perhaps you'd be better off with an advice from a local expert. Jahoe (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the OP was asking about two types of electrical heater. If so, then convector heaters tend to use more electricity and provide more heat, but they heat the air to a higher initial temperature. Oil-filled heaters tend to be slightly lower power (for the same size) and heat the room by radiation as much as convection. Some people find them more comfortable if you are sitting nearby because the heat is more gentle at a lower initial temperature. A convector heater circulates the warm air round the room more efficiently. Dbfirs 21:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I love my oil-filled radiator. It's virtually silent (I just hear a click when it turns on and of), doesn't stink (got to love the smell of a hair stuck on the element of a forced air electrical resistance heater), and if I keep it on low, it can't burn me or start a fire, should something flammable land on it. There are some slight disadvantages, though, such as it being slow to heat the room, and heating the ceiling, and hence the room above (might be an advantage, if you need to heat that room, too). StuRat (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This site suggests that if you are "heating a whole room for a few hours or more", a convector heater is best. [[85]] In my experience there is very little difference between the two but in general, the convector heater will heat the room quicker although not as fast as a fan heater.--Ykraps (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Youngest age for an erection?[edit]

What's the youngest age that it's physically possible to have an erection? Can babies even do it. What about with medically induced stimulation even? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In the womb, even. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's a good idea to discuss that here. Jahoe (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No discussions necessary. Just search "fetal penile erection" for ample references. -- ToE 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
We happen to have an article on erections that contains the answer to your question (article contains nude images). Before posting a question to the Reference Desk, please try looking at articles to see if they answer your question. -- (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you talking about Californians, or just in general? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter where someone is from? Why do you specify Californians? (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As opposed to Brits, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you just trolling now or something? What does nationality have to do with the physiology of erections? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Nah, Bugs specified Californians because he geolocated the OP and thought it would be smart to show the OP that he knew where he was from. He does that on a regular (but not frequent) basis. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

How to play 1970s era VCR tape[edit]

I've come across several old VCR tapes that appear to be the Grundig variant mentioned at the end of this article. They look identical to this except they have a yellow "4" instead of a green "2". How would I go about playing these tapes? If I transferred the actual magnetic tape off the original spools and into a VHS housing, would a standard VHS player be able to recognize it? The tape inside looks the same as VHS tape visually.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A standard VHS player would have no idea what to do, for a slough of different reasons; the formats are very incompatible. Your best bet is to find a commercial conversion service -- I searched for "vcr" conversion service and found several candidates that might have the equipment to read these tapes. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen the players for sale, but I do see the cameras come up for sale now and then. You can buy a Grundig camera and use it for video playback. It won't be cheap though. I just checked eBay and they are going for around $600. (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

Exif data - subject distance[edit]

The Exif data on this photo says that the subject distance was 19.95 meters. I figured that it gets this from where it focuses. But looking at this satellite view, I was actually about 120 meters away. Why is it off by a factor of 10? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The 19.95 meters is more believable. Why take a pic of a house from 120 m away ? BTW, that's a factor of 6, not 10. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, it is a factor of 6 instead of 10. But I know where I was when I took the picture yesterday. I was 120 meters away. I was that far away because I didn't want to go on private property, as you can see in the satellite view. You can also check that the focal length of the lens was 130mm on a crop sensor camera, so you can calculate the approximate distance from the field of view. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it doesn't calculate that from the focus ? Or it may just be a bug. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My suspicion is that it is telling you the distance you would have been at to see the house as it is in the photo without zoom - it is telling you that 120m with your zoom is equal to 20m without zoom. Wymspen (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A quick calculation shows that is at least close to being right. I can experiment and check it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at some other photos taken the same day and I think they are all wrong. I first looked at the one at the top because I was wondering how far I was away. When I saw the 20 meters I checked with the map since I knew that was wrong. I looked at some I took from across a street and it said about 10 meters. It had to be at least twice that. Then some others said 2 meters and I think those were about twice as far. And one had no data. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Academic etiquette - letters of recommendation[edit]

I'm increasingly being asked to write reference letters for students. In this context, I am often asked to include information on how I got to know the student - which is typically before they earned their current degree. Do I use their current title and (and particular honorific) when talking about the person before he or she earned the corresponding degree? E.g. "I first met Dr. Miller when he was an undergraduate student in my algorithms class"? Or is it "Mr. Miller" in that context? I used to work around this by using first names ("I first met Max when he was an undergraduate student..."), but at least one institution suggests to avoid first names altogether. Thanks for any help! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The former. You're talking about when you met the person he is today, not the person he was then. --Viennese Waltz 10:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe academic titles are retroactive, so you can safely address them as "Dr." La Alquimista 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Dr. Smith weighed 6 lbs, 9 ounces at birth." ? Perhaps "The future" should be prepended to such a statement. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I had considered that, but it reads very stilted, and also does not, IMHO, seem to meet the tone for a personal letter of recommendation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This crops up in the law reports, where judges refer to previously decided cases. The formula is

I've written and read a few rec. letters in the sciences. I've on occasion just used last names when I thought it smoothed phrasing. E.g. "Schulz is a fine researcher, though he does sometimes get a bit too focused on small-scale wording changes to his manuscripts". When you say "I first met Dr. Schulz when he was an undergraduate...", that means you're talking about a guy called Dr. Shulz now. Even "Dr. Shulz weighed X at birth" is completely fine. There's a guy we call Dr. Shulz, and he weighed X when he was born -- no problem whatsoever.
You can of course attempt to clarify via "I met the future Dr. Schulz when he was..." but IMO that sounds very awkward, and if anything would indicate you had been using some sort of time travel. "I met the man who is now known as Dr. Shulz..." avoids that particular problem, but sounds even worse. Recall that readers of rec letters value concise and clear writing - not unnecessary gymnastics that use up a lot of words to clarify something that nobody was confused about in the first place.
Just call them Dr. if they've earned the title, or Shulz if that seems better in specific sentence. That's the advice I've received and followed, your mileage may vary. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(Also searching "[title] was born" is a great way to find tons of examples of this usage, from blogs to books to newspapers. Almost nobody was a priest or doctor or king or president when they were born, but that's ok. E.g. here's a selection of scholarly articles that use "president was born" [86].) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks (all), that's really helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And there is nothing wrong with attention to detail in writing! If you expect people to read it, put in the effort. If not, there is no point in writing it in the first place! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course not! Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, just having a little light-hearted fun with my example sentence:) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Me too, as I hope is clear ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
As Posthumous birth, it is actually possible to be born a king (or queen regnant for that matter), albeit very rare. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Re "at least one institution suggests to avoid first names altogether", how preposterously arrogant. It's your reference. If they don't like the way you write, they can edit it themselves. The use or non use of someone's first name by the referee bears no relevance to someone's suitability for a position. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion was made in the context of writing gender-neutral letters of recommendation. I don't know if the mere fact that the first name usually encodes the gender is the problem, or if the institution has seen a pattern of "Dr. Miller" for men vs. "Veronika" for women. Or, always a possibility, that some admindrones were task with writing recommendations, and just wrote something without deeper thoughts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on slavery[edit]

Why is there no mention of Democratic lead segregation in the South and the KKK in the article on slavery?Petitechatterousse (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)petitechatterousse

The usual answer to questions of the form "Why is X not mentioned in article Y", Petitechatterousse is "Because nobody has added it. If you have reliable published sources for the information, you are welcome to add it to the article; or if you are not confident in doing that, or if it is likely to be controversial, please start a discussion on the article's talk page". --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Which article do you seek more information about? The Wikipedia article titled Slavery is a very general overview and does not deal with Slavery in the United States extensively. The article Slavery in the United States specifically mentions the Democratic Party's position on slavery in the section on the 1850s. The Ku Klux Klan did not exist until after abolition. --Jayron32 19:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
See Solid South for the era when segregationist white Democrats controlled the Southern US. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Luggage bag[edit]

What kind of luggage bag is currently used by many (human beings) that could take weight of up to 23 Kg or more for migration purposes from country to country? (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on this subject is at Baggage. You can peruse that article to find information about many types of luggage. You can even follow links to more articles about individual kinds of luggage, and come to your own conclusions about a bag appropriate for your needs. --Jayron32 19:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A trunk (luggage) ? Note that if you will have to carry it yourself over a distance, you will need wheels. See luggage cart and wheeled luggage. You will want to avoid any soft-sided containers for such weight. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Military backpacks/rucksacks can take up to twice that weight - and soldiers going into combat may well carry such a load. Wymspen (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with using soft-sided luggage with that kind of weight is that if anything with a hard edge, like a jewelry box, finds it's way to the bottom, that could cause a tear. Also, the risk of theft is higher if anyone with a knife can cut into the bag. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Jesus. Tough luggage like "hardside" or "hard shell" is available from many manufacturers, such as Samsonite. Otherwise just pack a normal bag, like 99% of the rest of the world. I regularly travel with normal, non-hard luggage across the globe without fear of a "jewellery box" destroying it from within, or rogue thieves slicing my bag open to steal my underwear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
23 kg is more than the usual amount of weight for one bag, and that weight implies more than just underwear. I use soft-sided carry-ons, but I can keep an eye on them, and the flexibility makes it easier to jam them into tight compartments. But for that kind of weight, in checked baggage, nope. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. Common airlines such as British Airways allow 23kg in each carry-on bag. Please, get some facts and stop using anecdotes. The Rambling Man (talk)
I didn't claim they won't allow it. I said it's a bad idea. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This site[87] lists the fees for baggage. Most or all of them have a 50 pound limit on checked baggage. (Translated to approximately 23 KG.) This appears to be checked baggage. Presumably your carryon could be heavier, unless they are now weighing carryons as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It would have to be something rather dense to get the that weight in the size of a carry-on bag, and imagine a person trying to lift such a bag into an overhead compartment, especially your average woman (God help the person sitting there if the bag falls on their head). StuRat (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's to be hoped that someone carrying a more-than-50-pounds bag would already have tested hefting it to eye level. What I'm unclear on is whether they test the weight of carryons. It's been a while since I've flown, and the rules keep changing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Most airlines theoretically restrict carry-ons to 7 or 8 kg, and also to rather small dimensions. They have tape measures and scales (and more and more often size boxes that your luggage is supposed to fit). However, checking luggage is expensive and takes time (for the airline), so in practice you can get away with basically any weight or remotely plausible size. It's a win-win-lose situation, and the loser is the guy who has to share your overhead compartment, so nobody with influence. The one time I flew business class from Jakarta to Frankfurt I took my main suitcase (plus my normal carry-on back-pack) as cabin luggage - 20 kg, complete with shower gel, tooth paste, deodorant, nail scissors, and other assorted toiletries, with no problem. I may have been lucky, but experienced business travellers tell me this is reasonably normal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
They usually have scales and measuring devices in the terminals, but they don't seem to be used often. I've flown a moderate amount, but only once have I had my carry-on weighed. ApLundell (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What I've seen most often is a box that your carryon is expected to be no larger than. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
So, going back to the OP's question (What kind of luggage bag is currently used by many (human beings) that could take weight of up to 23 Kg or more for migration purposes from country to country? ) most luggage bags will take 23kg. The rest of this discussion is navel-gazing and just about people who think they might have travelled a bit telling other people who probably haven't travelled at all about luggage. That's not the purpose of the Ref Desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What's your specific reference for "most luggage bags will take 23kg"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This depends on how you intend to travel, but from the sounds of it, this for a flight, right? I have been in this exact situation, and just used a Tripp Superlite case, which will take 23 kilograms (say, a week of work and home clothes, essential homeware, toiletries and a few books) no problem, plus a backpack for electronics and valuables that I didn't want to check in. Vacuum bags (also called space bags or compression bags) will help you compress the clothes and fit more in. Although it's a soft case, has a hard protective lining so it can't be cut through easily, and it has the advantage of being expandable to fit awkwardly shaped objects. In my case, moving from country to country meant a flight and two train journeys - if you can do the journey by car, I'd recommend cardboard moving boxes, while if this migration is on foot you'd want a backpack or at least a heavy-duty waterproof large-wheeled case (if you are certain of always following a paved road). And of course if you can, bring only what you need immediately and can't find in your destination country - the heavy stuff can be sent by surface mail. Smurrayinchester
    Good answer to the OP's original question. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

What is the rate of depletion of minefields from animals blowing themselves up?[edit]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Search for wildlife landmine; you'll find some good information in the first few sources. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 06:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It will obviously very enormously depending on the location. Landmines are designed to only explode if a certain amount of pressure is applied - specifically so they do not get detonated by small animals but only by the people they are intended to kill. Therefore only larger animals are going to detonate mines, and the number of them will depend on the local environment. Wymspen (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
People too.
Sleigh (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd hardly describe it "blowing themselves up". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do most glass jars have constricted openings?[edit]

In my experience most glass jars usually have a constriction at the top which makes it difficult to remove the last of the contents using a knife. Is it easier to manufacture them this way or is it just a tradition or something else? -- (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. I think it is a good question. The best answer I could guess is that screw-on metal caps function better in smaller dimensions. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
For secure packing and transport, the sides of the bottles need to be in firm contact with each other - which could not happen if the sides were vertical and the lid then overlapped, which is necessary in order to get a good seal. If the lids prevented the glass jars from touching each other, they would be hard to pack, and would rattle about in transit with am increased risk of breakage. The narrowing at the neck allows the lid to seal properly, without extending beyond the sides of the jar. Of course, a lot of the more ornate and complex shapes are purely about branding and recognition: Marmite could just as easily be in a simple cylindrical jar, and there is no other reason for a square jar with a round top. Wymspen (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely sure I've understood you correctly but if you are talking about jars with big shoulders like the Marmite shape mentioned, then these type are normally used when one wants to fully submerge something in a liquid, such as a pickle. With a narrow opening there is no need to fill the jar to the brim and so the liquid doesn't flow out when the lid is screwed on. Of course this isn't necessary with Marmite and the shape of the jar is just marketing. If you mean that a more or less cylindrical jar has a very slightly narrower opening, as opposed to having the thread on the outer limits of the jar, then I'm not sure, it may be something to do with structural integrity or it could be ease of manufacture. I have tried to find some videos of how jars are manufactured but as yet, drawn a blank. Best guess is that the jar is blown as a cylinder and then the thread is cut into it so the opening must always be smaller than the jar.--Ykraps (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One (common sense) reason is to have one size of lid fit several different sizes of jars.--TMCk (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then one would expect the lid from a small Marmite jar to fit a larger Marmite jar and I'm not sure it does.--Ykraps (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There are probably multiple design considerations, but I think TracyMcClark has at least one of them here. There are probably standardized lid sizes, that the bottles are designed to match ones of them. Looking at difference sizes of Mason Jars is instructive. the smaller jars have straight sides, and the lid fits over them. The larger jars use the same lids, and therefore the top has to be highly curved. That's not a complete answer though, since the smaller mason jars surely prove that it's possible to have a jar with straight sides. (I'll point out that mason jars never need to be shipped with their lids on, though.) ApLundell (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You could read about the bottle (which is what I think you're actually asking about) and the jar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This page[88] indicates that ketchup and other sauces were made with narrow necks so that they could be sealed with a cork, as with wine bottles (and as per the bottle) article. As for getting the last bit of ketchup out of the bottle, you can sometimes find tools to do that at your local kitchenwares specialty store. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but those are bottles. Why do peanut butter jars come in at the top? It would be much so more convenient to the user if the sides of the jar were perfectly straight all the way up to the top.
I suspect Wymspen has the largest part of the answer. If the sides were perfectly straight, the lid (Which must go around the outside of the bottle) would be wider than the rest of the bottle, causing wasted space when they were packed in a box. To avoid that they shrink the top of the jar, so that the outer diameter of the lid can be the same diameter as the jar itself. ApLundell (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's a picture of a Skippy jar.[89] In comes in at the top just far enough to allow for a lid which is in line with the sides. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, many mason jars have no "neck" or "shoulder", they have straight sides, so as to allow freezing the contents without expansion potentially breaking the glass. See e.g. here [90] for more info. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find a source that directly references Wymspen's idea. But the idea that all packaging should pay close attention to "cube utilization" (That is, how much stuff can be packed in a cubic unit of space.) appears a LOT in the literature. So I think it's safe to say it's at least part of the explanation for tapered necks even on small jars. ApLundell (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to rename this the "I suspect Desk". Are you actually answering the question or just talking about stuff you think you know something about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OR: One possible reason is that larger lids can be harder to open, especially if food has been spilled on the threads and dried there. I've found this to be the case often. Another more sinister motive is that they don't want you to get all the contents out, they'd rather have you go buy another. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I was just going to link to this textbook on the subject that references a study that lids larger than 85mm are hard to open for some people. [91] Which explains why giant pickle jars have a next that goes down to that size.
Still Doesn't explain the why smaller jars like peanut butter jars don't add a few millimeters. That's probably the packing issue discussed above, but I can't find a source that discusses packagine and shipping issues. ApLundell (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's down to ease of production, reduction in material costs, particularly when using glass, and strength. And these days some of it is tradition, people like the way glass bottles look. Packing is absolutely irrelevant, such items aren't packed so closely that a few millimetres saved here and there. To assert otherwise is patently wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

First you criticize others for giving opinions without refs to back them up, then you do the exact same thing ? StuRat (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm just acclimatising to the sort of thing you and the others here do. I can happily spend hours giving my uninformed opinion and will do so whenever I like, just like you do. What's the problem all of a sudden? You don't like me joining in with you doing that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to The Collective. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The difference is I don't criticize others for that, unless they are being a hypocrite, like you. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the difference is that you offer nothing other than your opinion, and when I start doing the same, you get upset about it, like you own this kind of approach. Once you start adding references or links to your responses, we can take you seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I often give refs, as I proved when you said the same thing on the talk page. You just boxed up the discussion and ignored my response. You just do cherry picking to try to support your absurd opinions. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Saying "Don't do X" and then immediately doing "X" will upset anyone involved regardless of whether or not they are personally doing X. Odd that you're not aware of this perfectly normal aspect of human behavior. ApLundell (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I assumed you were all dogs? My bad. As for absurd opinions, StuRat, you don't just own the t-shirt, you own the pan-galactic manufacturing plants which churn them out hither and thither! [citation needed] The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just more baseless opinion from you with no facts to back it up. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the response containing the greatest logic concerns preservation of space as concerns packing jars for shipping. I think the most interesting approach to answering this question concerns not design concerns but practical concerns, and not instances in which the production run is relatively small and/or the product is relatively expensive, but rather those instances in which the product is relatively inexpensive and produced in relatively large production runs. Therefore I tend to think of mayonnaise and peanut butter. Larger rather than smaller quantities I think should interest us more as concerns responding to this question. Mayonnaise fits that bill. Here are some images for consideration. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, slightly tapered bottles does not save at all on packing space. It would make the packages lighter, but not smaller in volume due to the size of the base. As for getting stuff out of these bad boys, see Bottle scraper. Awesome! I always find it easier to push a cat or a shrew into the bottle to get the last bits out. Problem comes when they eat so much they can't then escape. Hence the phrase "Shrew in a Bottle". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We're talking about jars not bottles. A jar without a neck will have a greater outer diameter.
Grabbing a jar I happen to have handy. (17 oz Chocolate-Peanut Butter Jar) I find that the diameter is 75mm. The neck saves about 10mm of diameter.
If the sides of the jar were straight all the way, there would be a 28% increase in shelf-space required.
More relvantly, in a 40in box your could pack 196[92] with 75mm lids, and only 151[93] with 85mm lids. ApLundell (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well if it's a slight taper, like a honey jar, then there's no issue with getting the residue out. Yes, it would make the packaging marginally smaller, but who uses "40in boxes"?! The example given is very "interesting" but can be tailored according to the argument. It's most likely that a 5% saving would be possible. Of course, that's clearly not always the case, see this for instance. A modern jam jar, which gets larger towards the top. Like an upside Mount Everest! Mind you, I've seen that mountain on Google, it's not that big, it's quite small actually, about 200px wide. Yawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
After eight edit conflicts I just want to say that there is a somewhat unsolvable problem here, given standard technology of jars and caps. You either create an overhang inside or outside the outer limits of the circular jar. The questions involve tradeoffs. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure "slight taper" describes it. The neck (Of my chocolate peanut butter jar I measured earlier) is more of a lip, as it comes in at a slope that is almost horizontal. ApLundell (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also note that you can boil/sterilize more volume, using square jars, in home canning, because they pack together more closely, but that the downside is that it would take longer to sterilize them. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I find the Talenti packaging unusual in the degree to which it fulfills what I see as the ideals that we are discussing, namely that the interior is straight all the way from the bottom up to the top. It is made out of plastic, both body and lid. Here are some images. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and note that the larger lids do prevent the sides of the containers from contacting each other, which may be an advantage on the store shelf, allowing customers to get a finger hold on each. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
How important is it that the design allows "customers to get a finger hold on each"? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That would depend on the clearance on top, and if customers can reach the top. If not, it could be quite difficult to grab one off the shelf and the customer might well pick the next brand. StuRat (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump on Uranium[edit]

Recently, Trump spoke on Uranium. He's what he had to say : "You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things." Is this a broadly truthful description of Uranium. Or else, what is he trying to express? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump often speaks in a kind of shorthand. Obviously, Uranium by itself is not a nuclear weapon, it's merely a radioactive element, of which some type(s) can be fashioned into a nuclear weapon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In context, he was referring to the rumour that Hillary Clinton sold 20% of the US's uranium to Russia (by allowing the company Uranium One to be bought by a Russian company). You can read a detailed analysis of this claim at Snopes, who consider it false (there's no evidence that Clinton had the power to make or break the sale, and the person who allegedly bribed her had already left the company during the Bush era). Uranium can be used directly in nuclear weapons, or converted into plutonium-239 for more powerful bombs. It's also used in nuclear power, and less radioactive forms are used to make heavy bullets, radiation shields, weights, and other things. I wouldn't say you can do "lots of things" with uranium (in its highly active form, weapons, power, and plutonium manufacturing are about the limit), but it's broadly truthful insofar as it's how I might describe uranium to a child. (That said, nuclear weapons manufacturing currently uses very little of the world's uranium supply - civilian nuclear power is the main market. In fact, there was a glut of uranium recently, because nuclear weapons are being disarmed) Smurrayinchester 16:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for a great answer, unlike the preceding "thoughts" which don't belong at a Ref Desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, Snopes is not a reliable source, having been caught in several flat-out lies in recent years -- if you really want a reliable fact-check site, go with 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:5449:B142:2C91:DC0A (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
News to me. Can you cite any cases where Snopes was caught in a lie? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • See Independent fact checkers tend to consider Snopes accurate, and it forms the basis for automatic fact checking systems including those used by Facebook. It seems like a reliable source for our purposes. (And if you don't believe them in this case, you can follow the links they provide to their evidence and make up your own mind. Everything in that article is supported by the facts.) Smurrayinchester 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the rare uranium-235 isotope is needed for a sustained nuclear reaction, while the more common uranium-238, which can't be directly used for that, can be converted into U-235 or other fissile isotopes and elements, using a breeder reactor. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No, breeder reactors do not convert U-238 into U-235. There are two commonly proposed fuel cycles for breeder reactors. One converts U-238 into Pu-239 (neutron capture to make U-239, which decays by beta emission to Np-239, and again by beta emission to Pu-239). The other converts Thorium-232 to U-233. I don't know of any practical way to make U-235 in quantity. I think it's a primordial nuclide. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      Ah, looking at the Plutonium-239 article, it seems I have to issue a small erratum. You can make U-235 with a breeder reactor — if you're really patient. That's because you can make Pu-239, and Pu-239 decays to U-235. With a half-life of 24,110 years. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info, but note that we don't have to wait for half of it to become U-235. After all, less than 1% of uranium is U-235 in nature, so anything in that range would be as good as a natural source, and even lower amounts might still be usable, if mined uranium was in short supply. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm, well, if you're willing to wait as long as some producers wait for Scotch whisky, in about 30 years, 0.1% of the Pu-239 will have become U-235. It's chemically different from the plutonium, so presumably easier to separate than U-235 from natural uranium. So if for some reason you need U-235 for something that Pu-239 won't work for, I suppose it's not completely impossible that this could be a competitive process — one would have to look at the numbers. But in any case this is not the process used in breeder reactors, to any noticeable extent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How can I ask a question to administrator at imdb[edit]

The message boards are gone now. (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They have a "contact us" link in the footer of their main page. Jahoe (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Which gemstones symbolize friendship?[edit]

I love gemstones. (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions: [97]. But, if you send me any gems, I will be your friend. :-)StuRat (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Including Gem blades? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Diamonds are a girls best friend. :) Jahoe (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
And they are Forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
They certainly aren't indestructible, so won't really last forever. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just like the friendship they symbolize... Jahoe (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
...forever marked with blood. Blood diamonds, De_Beers#Diamond_prices, price fixing, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Harrumph! Girls get diamonds, but what do men get? Dogs! -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If you google "friendship gemstones" you'll find plenty of options. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's [98] an explanation of several nice stones symbolizing friendship in different ways. Here's [99] some discussions [100] of Victorian use of gems as symbols. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Your reference to Paczki Day[edit]

It is not Fat Thursday, it's "Fat Tuesday"..please correct.

2601:406:8002:C670:B576:CC26:5C51:91D7 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fat Tuesday is next week.
Fat Thursday is today. (Depending on your timezone.)
The mainpage holiday list is correct. ApLundell (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Curiously, as this is the English Wikipedia, our article isn't called Shrove Tuesday which is the English name for it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe you mean an English name for it. There are multiple varieties of English, and the particular one you learned as a child is not the only one there is. --Jayron32 13:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)