Wikipedia:Reference desk/all

• About
• Welcome
• Help menu
• Tutorial
• FAQ
• Ask
• Ref desk
• Help desk
• Wikicode
• Glossary

Wikipedia Reference Desk - All recent questions

Search Wikipedia:

Shortcut:
WP:RD/ALL

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.

Return to the Reference Desk main page...

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

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 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

For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:

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

For Wikipedia reference information:

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
The following images are being used under the GNU FDL and/or the CC-BY-SA license:
P computing.svg, P physics.svg, P mathematics.svg, P question.svg, P art.png, P literature.svg, P music.svg, P archive.svg

May 18

Bell connection process loading slow

Is there a page or department on Bell's website that I can complain about the slow connection speed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.229 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Try here. Good luck! --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

studying MS in computerscience

My son got admission in UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON AT USA .Which is better?.We are from India.So pl advise which one would be betteras he is more inclined to do research and he is from prestigious institute in India say IIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.107.212 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The University of Texas has several campuses. If this is the Austin campus, it was ranked by US News and World Report in 2010 as #8 in the USA in Computer Science. Indiana University Bloomington was ranked #53. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it is U of Texas at Austin, that is the better one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on your son's criteria for "better". There can be more to attending a university then raw results in a league table. He might like to consider the quality of university life in Austin, Texas or Bloomington, Indiana, the cost of living (and the course), or maybe the cultural life of Indian Americans, access to places of worship, or the availability of familiar foods, for example. Astronaut (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8

My wife and I are in our 60's and have used Windows XP on our Desktop for several years now, without difficulty or complaint. But the Dell Tower is now about 9 years old and is developing problems that are annoying us to the point we recently decided to go for an iPad 4 (brilliant touchscreen facility for my wife who has severe arthritis in her hands.) And we decided to get a Toshiba Laptop to replace the desktop about 3 weeks ago. I had heard of Windows 8 but had never seen it but was keen to learn all about it. But I am afraid it is so far removed from XP that I doubt we shall ever fully get used to it. Frankly, I would rather get rid of Windows 8 and revert to XP. Is that possible, and if so, how do I go about achieving that? I have downloaded all my important files, documents, pictures and music to an external hard drive so am not afraid of losing any data etc., so thanks for your advice in anticipation. Or else - should I just persist and hope for a "Road to Damascus moment." 77.99.122.161 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Windows 7 has been quite well received, it looks like Microsoft alternates between good versions and bad versions of Windows. The problem with XP is they will be ending all support for it next year so you wouldn't get fixes for the latest exploits on the web. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand you might like to wait a month for Windows 8.1 as lots of people have complained about the changes so the may provide a bit more for those upgrading. And who knows in the interim you my be converted anyway and go all glassy eyed chanting 'I love Windows 8. Windows 8 is my friend'. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that was the preview date, general release will be later but it will be a free upgrade. Dmcq (talk)

I heard that the expected release date is August. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not entirely clear from the question whether you already have Windows 8 and don't like it, or if you are merely thinking of getting it and are worried you won't like it. If it's the latter, I would suggest you go for it. It really isn't so different from XP as the Internet would have you believe - almost everything works the way you'd expect, it's just sometimes kept in a different place. And, as always with Windows products, if you have a problem you can bet that others will have had the same problem - a quick Google for 'how do I find x on Windows 8' normally does the trick. You mention you've been using XP for a while: that and the fact that you've been able to get along with the ipad suggest to me that you're no mugs, and that you'll be just fine with Windows 8. Also, there is a substantial change to Windows 8 which is coming up in July, which is apparently supposed to improve the user experience and bring it closer to how Windows 7 (and hence XP) was. The updates might provide your Road to Damascus moment. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point about Google. See this Tech Support Cheat Sheet for how the usual problems using PCs are solved. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 does have a way to get to the desktop, but it is missing the start button. But you can make it behave more like Windows 7 (with a start button) by installing a program like classic Shell (free) or RetroUI ($5) - see List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

^ This. Classic Shell can actually make everything work pretty much just like XP, nevermind 7. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If found the Learn Windows 8 app reasonably helpful.

If you decide that Windows 8 is just too different, it may be worth running Windows 7 instead. It's not a big step from XP in terms of user interface. (Although for every useful new feature 7 added, they seem to have removed a useful XP feature. I'm not convinced that 7 is better than XP.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Making city infobox montages?

I am aware these aren't made on Wikipedia, but since Wikipedia users make them, could some link me or instruct me on how to make one with Photoshop? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you. Good Luck! --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blender reference images

Trying to make a model in blender, and it doesn't seem to have a button for 'do the thing I just told you to do'

I've followed the tutorials closely, and managed to create a texture with the reference image I want, and assign it to both the world background and a plane behind my model, but the image doesn't appear except when I render it, which is of no use to anyone, I've pushed every button I can find, and changed all the settings, but nothing works. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I've found the problem, the texture has come up entirely transparent, that explains why I had trouble finding the surface it was on too, any idea how to fix this? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Where to find material for shared library programming?

In section Memory sharing of article Shared libraries, it mentioned "... shared code must be specifically written to run in a multitasking environment ...". It seems code designed for shared libraries should follow certain programming rules which are different from normal application programming. Probably (I have no idea) global variables for shared libraries need to be specially protected or functions need to be reentrant like designing kernel module ... stuff like that.

I've google'd for a while for it. Most what I've found are about ELF format, shared library compilation, ... but not what I need in programming aspects. So does anyone knows where to find the related information if any? -- Justin545 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That article is a bit obscurely written, and I think perhaps you've misunderstood it. In real life, very few shared libraries involve multiple programs using the same chunk of memory at the same time (as the "Memory sharing" section describes). The usual case is that each program linking to a library gets its own private runtime copy of the code for the library functions that it uses. Thus in the ordinary case there are no particular requirements concerning multitasking. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So, for example, the shared library (.so) has the code:

int gVar = 5;
 
int shLibFunc(int arg)
{
   gVar = gVar * arg;
   return gVar;
}

and the first program linking to the shared library has the code:

int main()
{
   shLibFunc(3);
   printf("1st program: gVar=%d\n", gVar);
   return 0;
}

and the second program linking to the shared library has the code:

int main()
{
   shLibFunc(-8);
   printf("2nd program: gVar=%d\n", gVar);
   return 0;
}

Then the output of the first program will be:

1st program: gVar=15

and the output of the seconde program will be:

2nd program: gVar=-40

the behavior will like this way? (each program has its own copy of data segment which will be initialized appropriately) -- Justin545 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's what'll happen by default. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, the section is pretty much misleading. Thanks for the quick answer. -- Justin545 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

When a DLL (on windows) or .so (on Unix/Linux/etc.) is imported, the loader creates a custom .data segment in the memory map of the application, copies in the relevant data initialisers, and invokes any necessary initialisers (C) and constructors (C++). From a programmer's perspective, there's no substantive difference between such a dynamic link and a static link; programs which link the same .dll/.so are independent, and global variables and the like behave the same whether there are one or more than one instances of the shared object present in the system. Only if the shared library does something deliberately inter-process (creates files, named pipes, etc., uses IPC objects like doors or shared memory, or on Windows manipulates the global atom table) will the difference be apparent - and this is true whether or not the IPC stuff is done in an application's own code or in a shared library's. So if you write a library as just that - a library of calls that anyone can call, with no system-global state, then there is essentially nothing different to do. But some libraries do decide they need system global state; that's not necessarily a wrong thing to do, but it means the library is performing a service, rather than just being a bunch of code for others to call. If a library wanted to do that, it would be doing IPC (so it might create a shmem block or something) - it wouldn't happen by accident. And managing that state, as with all issues of global state, can get a bit complicated. I'm guessing that the caveats in the article (I agree with Looie496 that the wording is obtuse and unhelpful) are to do with this. An important concern is that even loading a library can invoke code (which is often desirable when using shared objects in this way): on Windows the system invokes the DLL's DllMain() function, and similar behaviour can be performed on Unix thus:

void __attribute__ ((constructor)) so_load (void);
void so_load (void) { // this is called when the library is loaded, implicitly or by dlopen
 // do global initialisation here, akin to DllMain
}

I'm not aware of any restrictions on what this code can do (there's similar destructor code too) on Unix (et al); on Windows (because of the rather complicated way library loading is synchronised) there are all kinds of things that are dangerous to do in a DllMain(), as described in this document. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for M$ stuff about DLLs. They should probably give me something more about shared libraries.

As you mentioned "But some libraries do decide they need system global state; that's not necessarily a wrong thing to do, but it means the library is performing a service, rather than just being a bunch of code for others to call."

So what did you mean the library is performing a service? As far as I know "services" are usually provided by daemons or server processes (e.g. crond, sshd, dbus-daemon, XServer) which are all "running" programs. So how can a shared library together with the system global state provide service? I'm quite insterested... -- Justin545 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Current method I'm using to remove redlink entries in a set of lists - need faster method

I'm removing superfluous redlinks from country outlines.

To remove the redlinks of "Political scandals of foo" (where foo is a country name) from each country outline, I take a list of country outlines (on a user subpage) and replace "Outline of" with "Political scandals of". That list now shows which links are red.

Then I use AWB's listmaker to make a list of all the redlinks on that page, and I paste them back in to the same page and linkify them. Now there's only redlinks on that page.

Next I change "Political scandals of" back to "Outline of". The list is now all the country outlines that contain the "Political scandals of" redlink in them.

I make a list in AWB from that, and then do a regex search/replace with AWB to get rid of the entry in each of those outlines.

Unfortunately, I have to do this whole procedure over again for each redlink I wish to nuke (so as not to nuke the blue links too), and this approach only works with sets of links that share the "of foo" nomenclature. Because AWB has no way to search/replace strings based on redlink status (as far as I know).

If you know of a easier/faster way to do this, please let me know...

Please post replies to Wikipedia:Bot requests#Current method I'm using to remove redlink entries in a set of lists - need faster method. Thank you. The Transhumanist 06:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Game making...

Hey guys! I somewhat recently realized how fun point-and-click games can be; this genre is something I never really considered before but now I'm inspired. Usually, I'd whip up something on The Games Factory (1.06 - the one from the 90s) but the installer for that is unobtainable now so I couldn't move it to my laptop and run it in compatibility mode. So, does anyone know the best way for me to make my own point-and-click adventure games? Freeware is preferable but I'll hear out anyone's paid suggestions. Thanks! --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You might try Adventure Game Studio. An example video of a game produced with it is here (I'd recommend you turn the volume off). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Adventure Game Studio looks awesome! Thanks, Finlay! :) (And, about Scratch - I've used it before and found it a little too limited, ;) but thanks for the prompt suggestion, Gilderien.) --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

btw, if you're just getting into this genre, and you can find it, I heartily recommend Day of the Tentacle -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fun! I'm generally lucky when it comes to finding older games; I guess we'll have to see... --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO Full Throttle and Grim Fandango were pinnacles of the genre. Vespine (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MIT Scratch is a graphical programming language created for beginners that I recommend. Also see Alice. Tarcil (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Spambot question

I was reading a Finnish on-line forum when I noticed that a new user had replied to several threads, all in Finnish. The first was a reply to a thread about jokes, and the message said basically "Thanks, this made me laugh". But then I read a reply to a thread about on-line dating, where the user had replied to a woman, saying "I still suggest you create a test profile for yourself", when the thread had made it clear she already had. This caught my attention, and I soon discovered that the user had copy-pasted random sentences from previous messages in the threads, verbatim. The user's signature had links to on-line video game cheating sites. This confirmed my suspicion that the user was a spambot. It had tried to be clever by copy-pasting messages in Finnish it had found on the forum instead of trying to write in English. Unfortunately, neither the spambot or any of its programmers apparently understand any Finnish. Is this a new phenomenon or has it already been found on several on-line forums? JIP | Talk 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've never encountered this, but I must say it is a step up from the days of "Cool!" followed by a whole bunch of spam links. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My blog occasionally gets comments from people saying things like "yes I agree" followed by a link to a dating site or something. I assumed it was some sort of spambot too so I've been deleting and blocking the commenters. Vespine (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This picture (currently used at Forum spam) is a good example of the generic comment plus spam link tactic. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Google translate worse now?

Is it just me, or has google translate become worse recently (last year or so)? Perhaps they changed their code? Having problems with words that are capitalized (e.g. in languages without capitalization) and German umlauts sometimes appear as "ae", etc. instead of "ä", and generally very often it does not find translations of words at all. For some closely related languages it used to be much better as far as I remember. bamse (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not just you. I have noticed this as well; translations of webpages used to be a lot more comprehensible but now they aren't that great. Also for individual words they often - as you noted - can't find a translation at all. The quality of the translations can be seen through a fun test: type in a word or phrase. Then, translate it to your language of choice. Then, copy+paste the result back into the input box and reverse the translation. Did you get what you started with? Probably not; and if you keep doing it back and forth, chances are the translation will get further and further from what you initially put in until it hits a certain result that won't change. It can produce some funny results, but it shows the poor quality of certain translations. :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you can get very strange things happening if you translate people's names - they're probably trying to bias their translators to be more careful about that. I wonder too whether they mightn't be using translated rubbish from themselves or other automatic translators to update the translations, i.e. reinforcing the gibberishness. Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Citrix weirdness

Hi:

I find that from the same computer, I am able to use the Windows version of Citrix client to connect to my Citrix server at work, but not the Linux version of the Citrix client, where I would get a "The SOCKS 5 handshake failed (SSL error 29)." error. I have changed my computer into a DMZ computer so that all ports are open (I have googled that the SOCKS 5 error could be related to port 1494 not open), but to no avail. Also thinking about it rationally if it is really related to ports shouldn't both Windows and Linux Citrix client be affected? Any insight into this is appreciated! Thanks.

Some specs:

Computer: Pentium 4 Prescott core
Windows: XP
Linux: Slackware 14.0

174.94.46.146 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

DMZ might guarantee all ports are open to the machine, but not necessarily to the application. Do you know you don't have a firewall running on your slackware install? Try something like this or this to check if the required ports are actually open. Vespine (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

How come a shared library could provide service?

In the previous quesiton, somebody has mentioned a different way to use shared libraries:

... if you write a library as just that - a library of calls that anyone can call, with no system-global state, then there is essentially nothing different to do. But some libraries do decide they need system global state; that's not necessarily a wrong thing to do, but it means the library is performing a service, rather than just being a bunch of code for others to call. If a library wanted to do that, it would be doing IPC (so it might create a shmem (shared memory) block or something) ...

As far as I know services are usually provided by daemons or servers (e.g. crond, sshd, dbus-daemon, XServer, Compiz window manager, httpd, ftpd) which are all running processes. Each server process has its own memory to keep variables, constants and all information (which may be so-called system global state) needed to provide service. And client processes can ask for service from server processes by various IPC mechanisms.

On the other hand, we all know that IPC means Inter-"Process" Communication, which is used to communicate between processes. But a shared library when not executed is just a binary file residing in file system. So how could a client process asking for service communicate with a non-process or a binary file via IPC? Is it really possible? Did I miss something? Misunderstood? Or examples? -- Justin545 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a library isn't a process and doesn't have its own threads or memory. If a library is used by two processes, those two can do IPC. Global state can be as trivial as the library storing stuff in a regular file. If a more sophisticated service is needed, the library can double-fork off a proper daemon. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You meant client process calls the library and then the library forks off a new daemon? So the server process is actually created by its client indirectly. Mmm... it sounds pretty interesting...

And you were right. System global state should be kept in shared memory. Regular file may not be ideal for being the place for system global state, as it involves disk IO which is pretty slow (unless the file is mmap()ed). If I don't get it wrong, shared memory block created by shm_open() can persist in the system even if the calling process is terminated. Occasionally, when type command ipcs we can find orphan shared memory block which might be from shm_open().

But may I ask... Why should service always be served by processes? The Linux kernel itself is *NOT* a process anyway, but still it provides almost every services we can imaging very efficiently. -- Justin545 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

State can also be stored in hardware. For example, if your library is an I/O controller (say, even something as straightforward as a file storage API), then reading and writing data to disk stores state. A graphics library may draw data to an external display, and that state can persist, even if the process that performed the data transaction terminates. A power-control library can start a fan spinning, or turn off an unneeded piece of hardware. The software need not remain active in memory if the hardware is specifically designed to hold state. Nimur (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"The software need not remain active in memory" exactly! It is the point! As I replied above, shared memory should be able to persist in the system if it is created by shm_open(). If I don't get it wrong, it is allowed for a block of shared memory exists in the system but without any owner process. In which case, there is no any active code or processes running but the system-global state gets preserved! -- Justin545 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Storing state in hardware makes me think of kernel modules (.ko) which are also kind of shared libraries, semantically. Kernel modules are neither active code nor processes/threads. Yet they can preserve system global state and provide service to client applications. As you said, the state should be stored in hardware. -- Justin545 (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Windows DLLs do allow one to define data sections as shared between different processes, Unix type systems normally don't have that sort of facility provided by the linker, one has to do one's own system call to set up a writable shared area. Other systems in the past have also provided similar type facilities but nowadays it is seen as something the user should do for themselves if they really want it and not something to be encouraged in general. Also there always seems to special requirements which a user can handle better themselves. For instance one might want persistent state whereas a system implementation would normally just discard the data in such an area when the last use of the library unloads. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually what's a more common requirement now is for thread-local storage where a number of threads share the same address space. That causes problems for all writable data, for instance errno needs to be thread local. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the reason why I asked the previous question. I was worried that multiple processes using the same shared library would interact with each other somehow and crash. In your Windows DLL case, the processes interact with each other by the shared data sections. Extra concerns should be made to design shared library code. -- Justin545 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"For instance one might want persistent state whereas a system implementation would normally just discard the data in such an area when the last use of the library unloads.". Yes, that should be reference counting. Windows often perform reference counting on its kernel objects. File descriptors are also reference counted under Unix-like systems.

So errno is not thread-local? I always think it is before... -- Justin545 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is thread-local, that's what I was saying. If one did nothing special it wouldn't be thread local. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok...sorry about that... -- Justin545 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of a facility in Windows DLLs for defining data sections that are shared across processes, and I don't see how it could work in a way compatible with the NT security model. -- BenRG 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You use a pragma to put data declarations into a magic section called .shared - see this discussion for a modern example (although this has been in win32 a long time, I think since win98 or so). As far as I know, behind the scenes the kernel essentially establishes a shared memory block, as if CreateFileMapping had been used. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clearer, you create a special section, put shared data into it with a compiler pragma, and use a linker option to mark that section RWS:

//#pragma comment(linker, "/SECTION:.shared,RWS")
#pragma data_seg(".shared")
  int foobar=0;
#pragma data_seg()

As far as I know (which means I haven't tried it) it still works in current Windows systems. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How to open a port under Slackware 14

Hi:

I am just wondering how do I open a port under Slackware 14. My computer is set up as the DMZ computer of the network so all ports are physically open from the router's end of things. The port in question is 1494. I used an open port check tool website and found that 1494 is closed. I issues the "iptables -I INPUT -- tcp -p 1494 -j ACCEPT" command and use the open port check tool website again and found that 1494 is still closed. So I must not be doing the right thing. Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thanks,

76.75.148.30 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Not the actual solution (the guy's router was at fault), the trouble shooting steps. Vespine (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-proprietary GPS database schemas

Are there any? I was just curious how they get from lat-long coordinates to street, but couldn't find any freely viewable GPS database schemas. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I just did a search and turned up nothing helpful. Hopefully another user will find something. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe OpenStreetMap uses a freely accessible database, but I think it is much less complete than the ones used by major commercial navigation services (and is most complete for parts of Europe). Looie496 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In particular, OSM's Nominatim service does reverse geo lookup. So 37.397444 N by 122.106045 W, when munged into a query string that Nominatim likes, yields this XML data, which has the street address, including house number. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gee, that's awfully close to my house! Are you playing at a point, Finlay? Nimur (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A long time ago, I used to live down on Ortega. Oh how I miss Armadillo Willy's. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So under the hood do they have utterly huge tables with a column containing every possible lat:long pair within the area mapped? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they have a giant geographic database of points, vectors, polylines, and polygons, with labels, layers, and other meta information, all tagged with lat/long. Their database engine lets them do queries like "what is the nearest polyline to this coord" or "what are all the objects in the database that fall within this rectangle". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How would the database engine quickly find the nearest polyline to a given coord, to use your example? Run the pythagorean theorem appropriate distance calculation with the lat/long tags of every polyline in the database and your coords, keeping track of the current nearest and updating with nearers as you go? That would run in O(n) time, but if the database were organized cleverly by the coords, as opposed to the coords just being tags available for each object, I thought something better were being done. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What's important is how the indices are organised; as we want to do spacial queries, we want a spatial index. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

R-tree is a good read. Thanks. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to acceess different parts of a class by different threads?

Hi !my doubts are based on below programme.

---

    class C implements Runnable  
   {  
   public void f1()  
   {  
   System.out.println("Hi");  
   }  
   public void run()  
   {  
   f1();  
   }  
   synchronized void f2()  
   {  
   System.out.println("Hello");  
   }  
   }  
   class synchronized  
   {  
   public static void main (String args[])  
   {  
   C c1=new C();  
   Thread t1=new Thread(c1);  
   Thread t2=new Thread(c1);  
   t1.start();  
   t2.start();  
   }  
   }  

---

Here c1 is object of class C.
I have accessed method f1 of object c1 by threads t1 and t2.
My Doubt:
I want to access method f1 by thread t1 and f2 by thread t2.
Is it possible?
If possible please tell me
--Me shankara (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the same question you've been asking for over a year, over two accounts. Bluntly, there's no indication that you've paid any attention to the very detailed answers that I and several others have given you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Not the way you're doing it. You are giving both threads the same object, and the object's run() method will work the same way. It has no way of knowing it should call f1() in one thread and f2() in another. However, you can achieve what you want by creating two C objects, with different parameters in the constructor, and have the run() method call different methods based on them. You'll have to modify your C class, I'll leave the details to you. JIP | Talk 17:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanku Mr JIP --Me shankara (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me shankara (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fiddling with volume on Windows 7

For some reason, recently, Flash player's volume defaults to low. Very low. To fix it I have to open up the mixer and manually raise Flash's volume every time I load it.

1. Can I reset all of the volumes in the mixer to default? With all the fiddling around I've been doing, a lot of them are on weird volumes, 23, 48 and so on, and getting them back to exactly what they were is fiddly, pixel-perfect work, as far as I can tell.

2. Is there any way to change Flash's default volume?

3. Any idea why this might have happened and what I can do to prevent it from happening again?

94.11.173.214 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like setting the mixer levels back to default isn't possible in Windows 7; according to here, and here. Check out this page for setting the default volume in Flash Player. Hope this helps! --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

the md5 sum of an empty string

Why is the md5 sum of an empty string is d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e? Shouldn't it be undefined? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article MD5#MD5_hashes, there is 0 padding added to the message before the hash is calculated. RudolfRed (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost... RudolfRed is correct that the string is zero-padded; but zero-padding is not the reason that an empty-string has a well-defined hash. If so, an empty string would produce the same md5 hash as a string of just a few zeros. In fact, if zero-padding were the explanation, every set of non-block-sized inputs would always collide with their zero-padded counterparts - for example, we would expect the hash for "\0" and "\0\0" to be identical, as they will both be zero-padded to the block-size. In fact these strings (correctly) yield different md5 hash values. Nimur (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. If it were undefined and you tried to send an empty file, you could not decide what sum append to the file and its recipient would be unable to check if the file was intentionally empty or it was a transmission error. --CiaPan (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no sum appended. Just 0s... (actually this isn't entirely true, the padding is zeroes followed by a length byte... if I remember right). Part of why a zero string goes to a non-zero output is because all of these hashes have constants pre-defined that mix into them. Sort of like s boxes in symmetrical encryption algorithms; I realize that comparison isn't perfect btw. Shadowjams (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So what's the reason of calculating md5 (or any other check-sum) at all? If you do not add it to the message which contains a file, how could the recipient verify if the file is not corrupt? Whether you transmit data as an e-mail attachment, sell it on CD or publish on an HTTP or FTP server, you need to add the check-sum in some way (in a separate file or as a text part of an e-mail message or the web page). --CiaPan (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All of these hashes work by having an internal state which is initialized with nothing up my sleeve numbers, mixing blocks of the message into the internal state, then deriving a hash value from the internal state. A 0-length message is padded to one block, but even if it weren't it would still have a well defined hash value, which would simply be the hash derived from the initial state, with no mixing stages.

The padding method is described at MD5#Algorithm. The important thing is that it be reversible, since that guarantees that different messages will not be converted to the same padded message. Padding with zeroes isn't reversible since the message might end with a zero. One way of making it reversible is to append a single 1 bit, then pad the rest with zeroes. Another way is to encode the original length at the end of the padding. MD5 does both, for whatever reason. -- BenRG 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

computer stuff :3

I just wanna know if its possible to make it so when i turn on my computer and start up the pc profile. If so, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.163.134 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of computer do you have? Are you referring by any chance to Boot Camp on a Macintosh computer? Tarcil (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like it. With Boot Camp, you can run "PC" OSes on a Mac. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the threshold of date/time difference for certificate error?

When I was trying to use https connection with a wrong system time I would receive a notification of certificate error. How much difference in system time and the certificate time is needed for the system to think that the certificate is not valid，e.g. 1 minute late? 1 days earlier?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This depends on how the certificate is validated. The Kerberos system permits a default clock skew of 300 seconds (5 minutes) but is configurable by the system-administrator. Your https certificate may be subjected to any number of distinct client- and server-side technologies for validation. For example, I often use mod_auth_pam and this way my HTTPS connection uses all my ordinary pamd settings. Commercial web servers may use apache and pamd, or Microsoft Windows Server, or any number of alternatives. Nimur (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Webmaster tools - Search results URL removal tool

If someone removes a specific URL, for how long will Google automatically ignore it?, and in other words, if it was removes, is there any period of time that in which the URL will automatically be available in the search results again? (for example, when the webmaster unknowingly open a new pages with the same alias\Url?. Thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

project based question

sir i wish to develop a software in 3D virtual technology.because in new generation the it developed is so far.. we chat with one other person with video or voice likely. what i mean i wish to develop a software when user stand in one side and talk the capture element may be a camp or phone camera. in which it can select the full body of the specified element and project it in to the other direction (opposite side of the user). were he can see the full motion of the other one .

so what i mean please give me some guidance about this question and help me out of this.its my dream project.and give some basic about it. means specified sites ,professors etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anila g pillai (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You might start at holography. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Graphics slow on ipad

Hi all, I'm doing a simple ios app (so simple it embarrasses me) and can't get it to work sensibly. The app involves a graph of about 10000 bezier path points, but these take forever to draw on ipad. It is reasonably quick on the simulator, but somehow tediously slow on the device. It takes about 3 seconds on simulator, and about 50 on the ipad. I'm getting the feeling the problem may come down to something other than the drawing itself, even though (having studied the log file) it is definitely the drawing line ([path stroke]) that takes up the time. So the fault is with that line of code, but it may be not so much the drawing, but some calculation that takes place along with the drawing. The reason for my deduction is that an ipad will run slower than the simulator, except for rendering graphics, where the graphics accelerator will come into its own. Since the ipad is a lot slower than the simulator, I deduce that it is not the drawing bit, because that should not be so much slower.

So my guess is that it may be something like doing rounded corners with the "kinks" in the graph, that is, with the app trying to draw pretty corners whenever the graph zigzags. If it is getting hung up about making them look good, it might sit there calculating every corner precisely. Does anyone know how to speed this up with really simple graphics? Thanks, IBE (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you answered your own question: simplify the graphic. Another more drastic approach I’ve seen before is to query a remote server which returns a raster image. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but is there a way of just simplifying the drawing process itself? When I draw the pattern under the graph, without drawing the graph, it actually draws quickly. The resulting image is a blue background on top, and a criss-cross pattern below, but the pattern is clipped to the zigzag lines of the graph. It's the same graph without the line to make it snappy. It isn't presentable without the line, but I don't need anything really slick. I don't know what settings or drawing classes avoid this funny business (and technically, I'm not sure it's the computational aspect of drawing, I'm just surmising). If anyone knows, I'd be grateful, because I'm sure this shouldn't happen - it's the most pathetically simple thing and somehow it isn't happening. IBE (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's involved but that seems very slow indeed. You might be able to make one big call instead of 10000 to do the drawing if its just a sequence of bezier curves. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no substitute for profiling. One might speculate that it's due to floating point performance, but the iPad has a pretty decent fpu. One might also speculate that your strategy for double buffering is the problem - see this discussion for some insights into that. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 08:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to take a different approach: why are you drawing 10,000 points? Why not refactor the process so you only need to draw 10 or 100? Can the user meaningfully see and interact with 10,000 distinct entities? If you improve performance in an O(n) fashion, you still have not produced a scalable algorithm. This is critical: even if you tune performance on today's iPad with 10,000 points, are you sure it will work on next year's gadget, or next year's data set with 100,000 points?

A better approach: why not draw only ten or one hundred points at any given time? If the user needs higher resolution or more detail, provide a user-interface (say, zooming in) to render in higher detail on a subset of the data. This is how GIS maps work: it's intractable to draw every side-street in the world at the same time; at any given zoom-level, reasonable map software is only drawing a few tens or hundreds of roads at a time. The software uses a smart data structure - say, a spatial index database or an R-tree - and an appropriate algorithm to select the subset of data that is relevant for any particular instant. Nimur (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is so slow I wonder if there is some interaction problem between the curves or between the curves and something else. If each bezier curve had a check with every other bezier curve for instance the time after every 1000 would go up as a square. Or from what I read above are the bezier curves forming the edge of a mask so everything drawn before is checked against them - how many things are drawn before or is the check done every time a curve is drawn or only at the very end when the mask is complete? Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou all ..... I won't know what the problem is for a while, but this is a great set of ideas and resources to start with. I was going mad, so this gives me a way forward. I agree with the suggestion that it may be an interaction problem - i can see it is rather weird, and the solution, when i find it, is bound to be very simple. IBE (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

Registry Errors, Junk Files and Broken Shortcuts!

Hey everyone! According to AVG's performance checker, the three things above (Registry Errors, Junk Files and Broken Shortcuts) are very plentiful on my laptop. I have a "high" severity of registry errors, a "high" severity of junk files and a "fairly high" severity of broken shortcuts (I had 13% disk fragmentation as well but I fixed that myself.) Now, AVG says I can download their fixer tool and use it once for free; afterwards of course I'll have to pay for it. So, before I do anything I'd like to know: are there any reliable, free tools I can use to fix these errors that anyone can reccomend? (I've heard of CCleaner but apparently it can malfunction.) Also, should I bother with AVG's tool or should I just go with a free alternative from the start (if there is any good free tool out there...)? PS: I have not run any of these "fixer-tools" ever on my laptop (5 years old!) - yeah I know...but I want to fix them now, at least! :) Thanks for any suggestions! --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably if a person installed or otherwise submitted themselves to an installation of an “antivirus” application that wasn’t constantly yelling about things, that person might think the application was not worthing having (or, rather, paying for [or potentially paying for in the future after seeing a nag screen]). There is no antivirus package that will make Microsoft Windows not a mess, but there are antivirus packages that will not spout utter nonsense 24/7—try one of those other ones. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that AVG is lying to me? I don't think so; as my computer's slowness (not unbearable - but noticeable) cannot be entirely blamed on my near-full hard drive (please correct me if I'm wrong.) And AVG certainly does not nag me about its other features. I initiated the check myself, at no recommendation from the software itself. I've been using AVG for years and aside from one problem it gave me back in April, have found it to be noninvasive and reliable. However, after reading some negative reviews I will not be trying out AVG's tune-up tool; so does anyone have a free cleanup tool they can reccomend for fixing the above errors? --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I’m only suggesting that AVG like most AV companies makes more money off of perceived user satisfaction than actual protection (and that using an antivirus company’s application to attempt to make Windows more efficient is probably the wrong approach). :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not going to help you re slowness, etc. (despite all those ads on tv for programs that will fix your old computer that got all junked up) Current versions of Windows are less susceptible to actual registry corruption; most of the "errors" are stray entries left behind by programs that don't uninstall well. This doesn't really "corrupt" the registry in the sense that it makes errors, it just adds a bunch of entries that are never accessed. Now you might think that this will slow things down in terms of accessing the registry, but realize that the registry has millions of entries; even a thousand dead items aren't going to make a dent in it. On the other hand, registry cleaners are better in the hands of experts than the average user they're targeted towards. They're not 100% capable of identifying good vs bad entries, as they imply; it's possible to create registry errors with them. I've done that, which is what started me reading up on the subject, resulting in my change of mind. As for broken shortcuts and junk files, they're even less likely to be a problem or slow things down. Junk files may eat up disk space, depending on their size, but shortcuts aren't very big, just clutter up your directories or your desktop. There are all kinds of junk file deleters, (i think even built into windows?). Broken shortcuts are another leftover from badly uninstalled programs, they can leave junk files too (in addition to all the .tmp files, etc). You might do better with an uninstaller program, that are specifically designed to clean up the debris left by known culprits. i haven't any experience with them myself. the other possibility is that the uninstalled programs are leaving dlls, etc. that are still getting installed into memory, but you need to tread very carefully when entering this territory; very easy to delete something crucial thinking it is vestigial. i imagine you've been advised to try defragging your drives, but again this is less of a problem these days; i can also recommend from my experience a freeware called Soluto which allows you to control what gets automatically loaded/run when you boot, what plugins are installed in your browser, etc. Gzuckier (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Classification of computer language

I'm sure I read a wikipedia article that described a classification system for computer languages, including things like whether two identical objects declared with different names were the same or different, whether there were type declarations, whether methods could be added to existing objects and so on. I can't find it now, and I am wondering whether it was not a wiki aritcle but something else. Can anyone tell me where it is?

List of programming languages by type Comparison of programming paradigms perhaps?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's partly it, though I'm sure I saw a structured pages with the types (structural, nominative, etc.) explained on one page. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions/Comments on Material and Website

The Tab pages of site are not well defined. User can not know how to enter his comments or suggestions regarding material provided. In my opinion, there should be clearly defined window with the heading user comments/suggestions. I think calling 'Muhammad Akram Awan' is not suitable way of regarding spiritual personalities. It should be written in the way 'Hazrat Muhammad Akram Awan'. The history (biography) of Hazrat Muhammad Akram Awan should be as follow: 1. Birth: Date, Location and Family background etc. 2. Primary Education: School/Madarsa etc with Dates and Locations. 3. Higher Education: School/ College/University/Madarsa with type of Education. 4. Occupation Adopted: 5. Achievements/Services in Social Area: 6. Achievements/Services in Religious Area: 7. Spiritual Training with School of Thought: 8. Publications: Urdu/Arabic/English/Etc. 9. Present Services for Public/Govt: 10. Aim of Life: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.74.130 (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The place for suggestions of this sort is on the talk page of the article in question. This page is for general reference questions about computing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Web Development Ideas

[This is perhaps a slightly unorthodox question, but I'll go for it all the same.]

I am currently studying Java, JSF and Hibernate in preparation for a web development role. This is all going well but the big problem is that it's hard to actually find examples or, better still, ideas for larger scale projects. Any examples in the books that I'm learning from are typically covered in only a few pages before moving onto the next topic. Combine this with the fact that I'm really just copying out of a book and not thinking for myself that much and it becomes obvious that this learning process is left wanting.

Does anyone have any suggestions for books, or articles or websites or..., that would guide a reader through the stages of Java based web-development and database persistence that I could use? I think this would be extremely beneficial for my education. If I haven't been specific enough in my question, please do ask for more information. Thanks. meromorphic [talk to me] 11:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you gone through Java Pet Store, the reference web application for Java Enterprise Edition? It is a well-documented example using GlassFish server, Java, and related technologies. Nimur (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

GLEW

Hello, I'm experimenting with GL 2.x programming, following the wikibook. Or I would be, if I could even get off the ground.

GLEW is the GL Extension Wrangler, and loosely speaking "extension" means "shader" which means "modern". Using glew seems like a good first step.

So first I've tried to replace gl.h and glu.h with glew.h - as instructed - just to make sure I can use glew at all. (This is just in a small, simple old style GL 1.x program, for a test.)

(I use Windows XP and Pelles C.)

I got these errors:

...gl.h(668): error #1050: Macro redefinition of 'GL_LOGIC_OP'.

...gl.h(669): error #1050: Macro redefinition of 'GL_TEXTURE_COMPONENTS'.

Why, I wondered, am I getting errors from gl.h when I'm not even including it? Well, it turns out glew.h includes glu.h, and glu.h includes gl.h, which does indeed define those labels a second time.

They resolve to the same values, so I could just comment the lines out, but that seems unwise. Clearly this conflict isn't supposed to happen. What's the matter here?

My glu.h and gl.h files were created 13 years ago, so it's conceivable that I need to update them. Where's the proper place to get new versions? (Or is the problem likely something else?)

- I see I can define GLEW_NO_GLU to stop glew.h including glu.h. That's kind of OK, but means I have to throw out a couple of things (gluPerspective, gluBuild2DMipmaps).

 Card Zero  (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Typically C and C++ headers protect themselves from errors caused by multiple inclusion by having code that looks like:

// source for foo.h
#ifndef _FOO_H
#define _FOO_H
 
// do stuff
 
#endif

Doing this isn't mandatory, but it's certainly good practice. It's done in gl.h on Linux (which uses Mesa), in Visual C++ (which uses Microsoft's own), and Android (which uses SGI/Khronos'). Looking at the SourceForge page for GLEW, they only talk about VisualC++ on Windows, and it's reasonable to infer that VC++ is the only compiler GLEW necessarily supports out of the box on Windows. You might try either the LCC/Pelles mailing lists or the GLEW ones, to see if anyone has managed to wrangle things so they work together - but the path of least resistance (where you're learning about GLEW, not trying to fix it or port it) is to use VC++. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no shortage of #ifdefs in the GLEW header, making distinctions between MINGW32, CYGWIN, BORLANDC, and UNIX, GNUC, SUNPRO_C, APPLE, and (eventually) WIN32. I kind of assumed the WIN32 path would be well-trodden, but it could be as you say that my choice of compiler is causing a failure in the #ifdef logic.

They do all seem to be clearly laid out, though - indented when nested, and with the #endif commented if the block is a long one - and as far as I can see the offending #definitions of GL_TEXTURE_COMPONENTS and GL_LOGIC_OP are outside of any block, apart from #if defined(_WIN32). So the conflict is a bit inexplicable, it should have shown up the first time glew was tested under windows.

Probably this is too involved for the ref desk and I should take it to either Pelle's forums or the (very slow) GLEW mailing list, or perhaps stack overflow. (I guess in the back of my mind I was hoping the wikibook author might turn up here. I've completed the introduction of the wikibook now - without GLU - and succeeded in drawing a large blue modern triangle! Exiting times.)  Card Zero  (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Charging my phone via computer USB compared to wall socket USB plug

Hi, My phone charger is a USB wire that connects to a plug for a wall socket. If I charge my phone using the wall socket, my phone charges just fine and stays a normal temperature. But, if I take the USB cable out of the plug and put it in my laptop for charging, a method of charging that is allowed by the phone manufacturer, my phone charges fine but gets quite hot. Why is this? I know that charging via computer USB is slower than through the wall, so perhaps the more time it spends charging it has more time to heat up. That's my guess. I Googled, and other people seem to find the same thing, but I haven't found why, or if it is indicative of something bad. Given that my phone gets hot charging from my laptop, is it better for it to charge through the wall? Many thanks for any information you can provide! 78.42.201.216 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What model of phone is it, and how long does it take to charge in each case? Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's a USB2 device and port, it (probably) can't draw more than 500mA from the USB port (it depends a bit on which charging specification is implemented - see the Universal Serial Bus article), but on the dedicated charger it can draw 1800mA. So on the dedicated charger it draws a lot more current and thus charges faster. I don't know why it gets hotter on the real port rather than the dumb charger. One possibility is that, because it's having to actually be a working USB peripheral (because it appears to the PC to be a disk drive; see USB mass storage device class) the phone can't sleep, and so is using more power (power-miserly devices like phones try very hard to wake up for a new mS to service an event and then immediately go into a low power sleep mode again). My Android phone, when first connected to a port, allows me to chose what mode it should be in - one option is "mass storage", but another is "charge only". In that latter mode it doesn't appear as a disk drive. If your phone has a similar option, try that, and see if it gets warm even when it's not partaking of a USB connection and just leeching USB power only. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

edgers

I have q 6' circle that I want to put edgers around. The edgers 1 15/16 thick and 15 3/4" long. What angle do I need to cut the edgers to make this work. Does not need to be perfect but close would help.

-Bill Dill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.72.231 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I assume the circle has a six foot diameter. You can draw it (as a polygon) with sixteen line segments of length 14 inches. Those lines could represent the inner or outer edges of the "edgers" (I'm not enquiring what those are for, I assume gardening), or even the centre lines. The angles at the corners should be 78.8 degrees (acute angles) and 101.2 degrees (obtuse angles). You'd have to cut them a bit shorter at the same time (14 inches for the inside or outside edges, depending whether you want them to end up outside or inside the circle, respectively).  Card Zero  (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Or! With 15 edgers, the length becomes 14.96 inches and the angles are 78 and 102 degrees. That way you save one edger, lose one plane of symmetry, and possibly cut things too fine.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23

AutoCAD 3D Modelling

Hello :) I am currently using AutoCAD 2013 version for mac for 3D Modelling.

I have a question regarding 3d Blocks which can be downloaded from the web and inserted into a 3D drawing in AutoCAD

If I download a 'free' 3D dwg. Block from the web then explode it and create a 'new' wblock, will this remove the 'original' block reference (info) and the origin which it came from?? If no, but there is a way to delete the origin of the block could you please let me know :)

Please help!27.253.64.230 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Switch mode transformers

I guess this isn't really a computer question, but are switch mode transformers for mobile phones etc. cheaper to manufacture than those big fat old-timey traditional transformers? I'm guessing they are, otherwise you'd never see 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are now, automatic component placement and the cheapness of silicon components make up for the added complexity unless the power requirement is very low, say an Amp or less. Also you shouldn't ignore transport costs on bigger and heavier things. We have an article about them at Switched-mode power supply. Linear transformers still have some specialist advantages, they're not going to be used on the national grid anytime soon!, but even where a very quiet supply is required switch mode supplies are now making inroads. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

AC adapter has more on the other user cost of a linear transformer and the reason governments want them mostly gone, they eat up more power when the device they are supplying is switched off. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Text emails and hyperlinks

Is there a preferred/recommended way of putting http-links in text only (non-html) emails? Should I just paste them in an email, enclose them in '<', '>' or do something else with them? bamse (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I send all my emails as non-html and I just chuck the links in as is --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can paste them in. There should be no angle brackets or anything else around them as they serve no purpose. I regularly collate hundreds of plain text emails and having to strip out the angle brackets is a pain.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Privacy, js and Google

When you see some js with ajax.googleapis.com (or others) in a non-Google related page, does that mean that Google knows I am visiting the page? And can it aggregate all my navigation with my visits to other pages? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Quantum foam, zero-point energy, the fabric of the cosmos

Various articles in Wiki point mention the paradox of a cosmological constant that should be small, but when calculated, is many orders of magnitude too large. Wiki questions: Why doesn't the zero-point energy density of the vacuum (sometimes called 'quantum foam') change with changes in the volume of the universe? And related to that, why doesn't the large constant zero-point energy density of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant? My question is: what if the 'quantum foam' at the Planck scale doesn't change because it is the real universe (supposedly infinite and eternal), and the Big Bang was only a one-off local outburst? Could that put to rest the paradox of the large cosmological constant? A related question is: If this is a possibility, what property or condition in the 'quantum foam' could have triggered the Big Bang?Robert van der Hoff (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see the value of inventing some random bizarre idea and then asking why it isn't valid. Looie496 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How would you test this conjecture of yours? I think you're delving past science and wandering into philosophy. Praemonitus (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, points taken, but I'm still wandering and wonderingRobert van der Hoff (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

By definition a cosmological constant doesn't change its energy density with the universe's scale factor, that's just one of it's characteristics. By observation, we can say that dark energy appears consistent with a cosmological constant, but we don't know for sure that it's energy density is independent of scale factor. The observational parameter w measuring the equation of state of dark energy has a value of -0.98 +/- 0.05, where -1 means independent of scale factor and something like matter whose energy density scales in direct response to changes in the volume of the universe has a value of 0. As you note, attempts to explain a cosmological constant based on quantum mechanical properties of the vacuum give results that are much too large. At present, no one really knows why that is. Dragons flight (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The mystery remains Robert van der Hoff (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What time of day and date of the year would most people on earth be in darkness?

My guess would be on the Winter Solstice (Dec 21), which has the shortest day in the higher populated Northern hemisphere. I would also think it would be when the sun was over the Pacific ocean, but before dawn in Asia, so perhaps around sunset on the US west coast?

Could we also calculate (roughly) what percentage of people would be in darkness? Jaseywasey (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be correct. It would probably be easier to calculate the number of people with daylight in those circumstances. You would also need to define darkness more precisely. Are you ignoring twilight?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Could take into account this map... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I made a map of this once, with the winter solstice day/night curve, the "earth at night" light data, and, well, I made a guess about what time would be the "most dark". If the time isn't exactly right, it must be close. I guessed 0:30 GMT, Dec 22: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pfly/4133160304/sizes/o/ ...although I made this map with the idea of "most dark", in terms of nighttime lights being on, rather than population. Nighttime lights and population are related, but not the same. I suspect a slightly earlier time than my map shows would put more people in darkness—trading more daylight in the North America for more night in Indonesia and Japan. Pfly (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dark band between two lasers?

At the top right of this image, two laser beams are spreading away from the building and there is a noticeable dark band between them. Is this a form of Alexander's band? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a retouched photo, the original is at File:The Shard, Inauguration Lightshow, 2012.jpg, there seems to be a little of the same effect but it is much less apparent. Personally I prefer the original. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of do too, it's what attracted me to it in the first place. Thanks for the mention, I've replaced the photo in the article with the original. Ok back on topic :) The dark band is still there. The image on the right is the original photo now, and it's still visible. Very curious what's causing it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an example of the optical illusion known as the contrast effect -- see http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_dynsimcontrast/index.html for an especially vivid demonstration. Looie496 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly not any optical illusion as displying the picture full screen or blowing it up shows that the pixels between the two laser lines are quite a bit darker. The mostly likely explanation is that the image was "improved" by digital retouching and the person doing it messed it up. They may have wanted to lighten the sky by chroma keying and forgot the bit isolated between the lines. Wickwack 60.230.253.45 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Ok thank you, I thought maybe this was a real-life occurrence. I ran the original image through "Jeffrey's Exif viewer" online and I see that Microsoft Pro Photo Tools was used, but seeing as how that's a metadata editor (maybe more, i don't know), I guess I really don't know what I'm looking at. I'd simply have to ask the original author if he did any touch-ups himself; that'd more than likely be the explanation I'm looking for. Thanks for all the replies. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with wickwack. I blew this up (on a 17" HD monitor) and looked at it before I read his comment, and the pixels between and outside the rays are the same color when the laser lines are obscured. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your eyes are mistaken, or they're just not sensitive enough, or your monitor isn't appropriately adjusted for this comparison. If you measure the sky's brightness using the tool of your choice, you can see a clear, quantifiable reduction in the area between the two beams in the upper right corner of the image. (For a free tool, download ImageJ, select a line of pixels, and choose Analyze...Plot Profile. The mean gray value is about 20% lower between the beams.) Whether this is an artifact of image processing in-camera or afterwards I can't say. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot (imgur.com) of an 11x11 pixel Photoshop analysis (on the original image as seen above) of three points, two on either side of the band. Using Lab, one can easily see that the band between the lasers is four points darker in the luminosity channel than on the sky outside of the lasers. There is also a slight shift in the a (red-green) and b (yellow-blue) color channels. It's definitely not an optical illusion. The photographer is busy and I'll have to bother him about it at a later date, but I'm not really seeing anything that might give away the fact that the image was edited outside of the lasers only. I can't read FotoForensics.com results either, if that site would even turn anything up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to go to all that trouble. You can just display the image on your monitor at full size. Then, take a piece of cardboard (eg from a business card or a cereal box) and cut two holes in it, about 8 mm diamter and about 25 mm apart. Then place the card against the screen and position it so that pixels from between the laser lines are viewed thru one hole, and pixels elsewhere in the sky are viewed thru the other hole. You will clealy see that the pixels between the laser lines are darker. The card prevents any possibilty of an optical illusion. Medeis obviously was just being silly. Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I ask whether you are just being an idiot, wickwack? Personal comments are not necessary. I did the same thing, blowing up the image to max on a large screen laptop, blocking out the lasers as I said above, and the sky between the beams then appeared no different from outside to me. μηδείς (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So who is being an idiot then? First you posted "I dissagree entirely with Wickwack." Now, after more than one person said you are wrong, you have again asserted what is clearly ridiculous. You have made several silly posts recently, resulting in several people attacking you. Are you on drugs or something? Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)

Please guys...this is a silly argument. Just measure it with any halfway reasonable image tool - and the debate is over. Measuring a patch of sky from just outside of the two lasers got me an average brightness of 91/256, measuring an area between the lines got me 75/256 - so the image is DEFINITELY darker between the lasers. It's not an optical illusion. Furthermore, where the blue laser crosses the green ones, the blue laser is also attenuated...since the atmosphere between the two lasers would have to block that light somehow for this to be a "real" effect, we can rule out things like the two green lasers scattering light in all directions except right between them. For the blue laser to be attenuated, the air would have to become more opaque between the two lasers...which simply isn't reasonable. Hence this isn't any kind of peculiar real-world effect either. Furthermore, doing a Google Images search on "Shard inauguration laser show" produced a gazillion other photos of the event - many showing two lasers right next to each other like that - none that I could see showed this darkening effect, despite many shots from many different angles showing pairs of closely-spaced lasers.

Odds are very good then that this is an image processing artifact. If I had to bet on a cause, I'd say that someone used a "despeckle" filter on the image in an effort to eliminate the obvious noise in the background of the sky...but it's really hard to tell for sure. SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are dogs ever allergic to wheat gluten ?

I just saw an ad for dog food without wheat gluten, and they are obviously hoping people will buy it because they think it's healthier (although I notice they never actually made this claim). So, is it really healthier or is this just a scam ?

Or perhaps they are appealing to people who remember the 2007 pet food recalls, where Chinese poisoned wheat gluten killed many pets ? StuRat (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A trivial Google search show many pages devoted to discussing food allergies in dogs in general, and wheat allergies in particular. Such as [1]. Based on that, it seems to be a real thing. Dragons flight (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Exocrine_pancreatic_insufficiency is very common in some breeds, and can pop up in any dog. Many sources report gluten sensitivity, and recommend avoiding feeding gluten to dogs with EPI. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Machine made of Human parts

I have a question regarding the name of a concept, and thus far have found no answers, save for some delightful articles on related subjects. Seeing as how Wikipedia knows everything, i thought this was the logical course of action.

if it is understood that a Cyborg is a hybrid between a CYBernetic being and an ORGanism, and an Android is a synthetic organism, a 'human' made of machine parts, then what would one call a 'machine' made of human parts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.51.225 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Frankenstein". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Frankenstein's monster", not Victor. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hence the quote marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting 'machine' loosely, dentures were at one time sometimes made using human teeth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Even more loosely: soy sauce, apparently.. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The film Existenz has an interesting take on this concept. Astronaut (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this concept exists outside of sci-fi. Making a machine out of human parts would have the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither. For example, I believe in The Matrix movie series, human "brain energy" powers the Matrix. This is the most absurd source of energy imaginable. It would take many times as much energy to keep the people alive as you would get from them. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Throwing one's hands in the air

Goya -- The third of May 1808

When humans get excited, they tend to put their arms up. Three prominent examples are in worship services (e.g., File:Zhromko.jpg), at music festivals, and at sporting events. Why do they do this? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

When humans get excited, they do lots of things, they dance, they cheer, they clap, it's partially cultural, but I can't actually see what needs an explanation? What else can humans do when they get excited? All we have are arms, legs and voices. Unless you also have a lighter, a phone or a vuvuzella... Vespine (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted a picture showing another type of excitement. Looie496 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Vespine, I do not think it is cultural. I have observed it across cultures, and it comes quite naturally in some situations. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I said partially cultural. There is a cultural component which would help determine exactly how people will react to exciting situations. Look at the history of Applause for example: Within each culture, however, it is usually subject to conventions.. Watching the world cup soccer staged in different countries can also reveal how different cultures react in exciting situations, they're not all precisely the same. Of course I'm NOT saying there aren't common components which aren't cross-cultural, of which lifting one's hands certainly might be one of the most "basic". Vespine (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I once read the following, describing a certain unnamed culture: When speaking, they gesture frantically with their hands in an attempt to distract your gaze from their ugly faces, upon which are clearly etched the marks of their moral and intellectual degeneracy. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I once read in a scientific text that the reason rattlesnakes evolved rattles was because all snakes naturally shake their tails when excited, given they have nothing else to shake. μηδείς (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that this is a gesture that's intended to show the opposite of "defensiveness". You're much more vulnerable to attack with your arms waving up in the air - and you can more clearly see that a person isn't armed. Perhaps this is a way for body-language to say "I'm excited, but not in an angry or threatening way." ?? SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Or an urge to be associated with the win or celebration. Like "I am also part of this victory"; "I was on/cheering for the winning side" ; "I voted for you so don't put me in jail" etc.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just don't get carried away with it.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading a paper claiming that having an "open" or "closed" posture had an effect on behaviour and self-esteem. The study claimed that people who were more confident had an open posture, and that having an open posture led to increased confidence. It had people stay in closed or open postures for 10 minutes prior to being given a job interview, and the people who had a closed posture performed much worse than those having an open posture. Personally I found the methodology dubious for this particular study, but it is indicative of an attempt to link posture and confidence. It could be that when one is celebrating, they are feeling more confident and thus adopting an open posture is natural, according to this way of thought. This is merely idle speculation but it might open some avenues of research. Look up scientific papers on posture and self esteem / confidence. Superficially, Google will yield a lot of pop-psychology self help on the subject as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Decay product

Why does decay product is referred as 'daughter', not 'son' ? Concepts of Physics (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The most likely reason is that in many cases it can go on to be the mother atom of a subsequent round of decay. -- 71.35.111.68 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason, just somebody started doing it that way and it caught on. Gender language, when assigned to anything regardless of it's actual sex (if any) is often arbitrary. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a reason: only the female gender can give birth, thus it would volate that principle to call the decay product a son, as opposed to a daughter. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious lack of airspeed

This 1958 advertisement for Delta announced their nonstop DC-7 service, Atlanta to New York, took 2 hours, 39 minutes. My calculator tells me that's an average speed (assuming 760 statute miles from Atlanta Hartsfield to New York LaGuardia, per Google Earth) of about 286 statute miles per hour. Well and good, but a google search for today's nonstop flights reveals that 2 hours 10 minutes is the fastest scheduled time on a Boeing 737, or a speed of about 350 statute miles per hour. WTF? The article DC-7 gives a cruising speed of 359 mph for that 4-engine prop job, but the latest Boeing 737s have a cruising speed of 511 mph. Another couple of clicks shows that the DC-7 made the journey at an average of 80% of its cruising speed; yet the Boeing 737 travels at an average of only 68% of its cruising speed for the same journey. Thus the trip is only half an hour faster in 2013 than in 1958. Why so slow? Textorus (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Some possibilities:

• Airliners aren't at cruising speed for the entirety of the flight. The approach phase, particularly, is slow and often circuitous. However, that "less than cruising speed" speed is probably comparable between the DC-7 and a modern jetliner (at least more comparable than their cruising speeds), which means the modern jetliner will proportionally experience more delay relative to its theoretical minimum travel time.
• Airliner routing is different over a 55-year span. The DC-7 didn't have to contend with either the volume of other aircraft in the airspace or the post-9/11 security measures that a modern jetliner encounters, both of which restrict the path an aircraft can take. More restrictions mean a longer flight, generally.
• The definitions of "departure time" and "arrival time" may have shifted (this one is just speculation on my part). What is "departure time"? When no new passengers are admitted aboard? When the cabin door is shut? When the plane begins to move? When it actually leaves the ground? That's 15 to 30 minutes of possible range right there, and if the 1958 definition doesn't match the 2013 definition, it's potentially a significant input. — Lomn 13:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Travel times are usually derived from gate-to-gate times. So undocking, pushing back, taxing, runway wait times, takeoff and acceleration times, plus the equivalent on landing all add to the total time without adding commensurately to average speed. Add that to the much higher traffic densities and larger taxiing distances for modern airports, and you should see why it is at least plausible that on shorter trips the times may not have improved much, despite the cruising speed increasing substantially. The large difference between your calculated speeds and the aircraft's cruising speeds tips one off to this. — Quondum 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Departure from Atlanta was relatively straightforward in 1958: roll away (no pushback, since there were no jetways), taxi a mile or so to the end of the active runway, wait for maybe one or two take-offs and landings, and go. Nowadays it's possible to taxi five miles at Atlanta and wait for a dozen planes ahead of you. It's not as bad in terms of distance at LGA, but it's more congested - waiting for a gate (no pulling up on an empty ramp space anymore). Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As Quondum and Acroterion both note, the gate-to-gate time includes an awful lot of time spent not cruising, particularly on a shorter flight. Try working the math the other direction, and see what you get. A 760-mile journey at the DC-7's 359 mph gives 2:07 cruising time; if the total time is 2:39, then that's 32 minutes of taxiing, approaching, and so forth. A 760-mile journey at the 737's 511 mph gives 1:29 cruising time; given a total travel time of 2:10, there's 41 minutes of 'non-cruising' time.

Granted, that sort of back-of-the-envelope isn't quite realistic – aircraft obviously don't jump instantaneously from the runway threshold to full cruising speed and altitude – but it's not a ridiculous result. Nine minutes difference in the 'non-cruising' time can be down to differences in the way departure and arrival times are defined, increased traffic and delays at the two airports, changes in permitted routes, and the fact that many airlines have slightly reduced their cruising speeds to save fuel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I fly on a regular basis between London and Amsterdam. The flight is timetabled at a little over an hour. However, at Schiphol the plane will often take 20 minutes to taxi between terminal and runway (so much that it sometimes seems like we are going all the way there on the ground), and then spend less than 40 minutes in the air. Heathrow is a busier airport with fewer runways and sometimes long waits for other aircraft ahead. Astronaut (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility that nobody so far has mentioned is that the Boeing's 511-knot cruising speed is only achievable at high altitude (above 25,000 feet) -- below that level, it drops off sharply so that near sea level, the V(ne) (that's the MAXIMUM safe speed) is only 330 knots! (This is true of ALL jetliners, as a matter of fact -- the engines produce less power at low altitude, and the denser, more turbulent air puts unacceptable stress on the airframe.) And since for such a relatively short flight, the plane spends a greater part of the journey at low altitudes, even its average FLYING speed will be lower because of this. (Not to mention the time spent in the holding pattern at the outer marker while waiting to land.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for all the responses. I suppose the relatively slow speed (to my mind) of the jet flight is due to some combination of all the points mentioned above. I see that for comparison, today's best flight time between Atlanta and Dallas (730 statute miles) is 2:25, or 61% of the 737's cruising speed, on average - even worse than to New York! Though from EWR to LAX (~2455 miles), the Boeing gets up to 88% of cruising speed, speaking on average once again - so it seems that the longer the flight, the more efficien the jet plane is.

NEW QUESTION then: Aren't we wasting a lot of fuel and money flying jets on short-to-medium routes? Wouldn't it be better to go back to propeller craft, which - correct me if I'm wrong - don't use nearly as much fuel and get you from A to B in nearly the same time? Wouldn't that help save the airlines, the economy, the trees, the whales, etc.?? Textorus (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true, but the key issue is whether consumers will accept turboprops; industry experience has shown that consumers prefer jets, all other things being equal. A casual google search suggests that the industry may be moving back towards turboprops for regional routes. — Lomn 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting articles, thanks. Textorus (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that, while earlier jet engines were not fuel efficient, modern high-bypass jet engines compare pretty well with turboprops. Wickwack 121.215.140.49 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Human body

What is it called the upper part of the human foot? Thank you.175.157.180.68 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The top is the dorsal, unlike the underside 'plantar' surface (where one gets plantar warts – better known as verrucas). As it the foot, it is therefore the dorsum pedis. Does that help?Aspro (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on foot.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's called the instep. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Original Earth-Moon distance

Hi: I looked up the entry for the Moon, trying to read what was the original distance between the Earth and Moon. I did not see it in the story. Did I miss it or is it not there? Thanks for you help. Red.leaf.flyers (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on which model for the Origin of the Moon you are working with. One of the dominant models is the Giant impact hypothesis, in which case the original distance between the Earth and Moon was 0 km, insofar as they were once the same body. --Jayron32 17:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In a giant impact, material would be ejected into Earth orbit, where it would eventually coalesce to a ball. It is a bit hard to say where the orbit would be, but simulations suggest 3-5 Earth radii (20.000 - 30.000 km). An impact would have a hard time lifting enough material higher than five radii. Closer than about three Earth radii would put the impact ejecta inside the Roche limit, giving the Earth rings rather than a moon. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that since its formation, the moon has migrated from 3-5 earth radii away, to its current position 60 earth radii away? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just always imagined that the moon would have had to form very roughly around it's present position. However I can see now how that doesn't quite make as much sense as I thought it did... Vespine (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Italo Calvino, it used to be close enough to climb up to it from a small boat, by way of a ladder. See La distanza della luna, the first vignette in Le cosmicomiche. It's available in English translation if necessary. Seriously, of course it's off-topic for this desk, but I very strongly recommend it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of the Moon in fiction, Domingo Gonsalves harnessed large geese and tagged along for their annual migratory flight to the Moon circa 1638. Nimur (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At it's current rate of motion, 3.8 cm / yr, the moon would migrate 25 Earth radii in the age of the Earth. However, that is almost certainly a lower bound as the rate of migration should have slowed over time. Dragons flight (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is actually possible to very roughly estimate this initial distance of roughly 30,000 km using a back of the envelope calculation. It boils to the fact that you have an impactor that had a similar orbit as the Earth, so it comes in from infinity at zero relative speed, and therefore the impact happens at escape velocity. If you where to give the ejecta that velocity, it would escape at infinity but, of course, a significant fraction of the impact energy is not available as kinetic energy. Then because the Earth radius is the quantity with the diemnsions of length, what happens is that if you make some rough approximations then whatever fraction is available, you find that the distance ends up being the Earth radius times some dimensionless factor, and that factor is not going to be very large like 100 or very small like 0.01. Count Iblis (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I am an amateur purveyor of all lunar literature, I have a fascinating text, Strange World of the Moon (authored by V. A. Firsoff in 1959) that makes an excellent chapter of dimensional analysis and inference about the origin of the moon. Needless to say, the book and its science predates manned spaceflight to the moon - or in fact, any spaceflight to the moon - so many of its conclusions have since been refined or refuted by better selenological evidence. In addition to the Giant Impact hypothesis, the author considers several other possibilities: tandem formation from a primordial nebula; capture of a separate celestial body; massive ejection by volcanic or other paleo-Earth processes; or simply large-scale fluid flow during Earth's formatory molten-rock era. From first principles of physics, and based on knowledge of orbital mechanics and basic facts of gravity, none of these alternate formation theories seem to sit well with the author; it quickly becomes clear why Giant Impact hypothesis gained traction in the following decades. However, even in 1959, it was easy to see that this was no ordinary impactor; the momentum necessary to eject a moon-sized object would have to be planetary in size. Evidence of the geochemistry of moon rocks - only possible after our first sample return missions in the late 1960s - strengthens the case; and many scientists now believe that the impactor may have been Mars. This is difficult to prove; but is widely accepted as "more plausible" than a mysterious impactor that has long since disappeared. For example, NASA's current science webpage at Solar System Exploration: Earth and Moon origin, asserts that the impactor would be "Mars-sized," without naming any names. Nimur (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As an ex-aspiring astronomer who still reads popular accounts of the current art, I think you're slightly misinterpreting the proposed scenario. It isn't that another planetary body performed a hit-and-run on Earth, knocked off the Moon material, and went on its way largely intact (perhaps as Mars). Rather, the idea is that a (Mars-sized) proto-planet (sometimes dubbed Theia), stuck the proto-Earth, rendering both largely molten, and merged with the Earth: a good deal of the material splashed off from the impact then coalesced to form the Moon with much of the rest falling back to the now somewhat enlarged Earth. Only a relatively little debris would have escaped the Earth-Moon system, and the resulting materials of both the Earth and Moon would be similar but not identical blends of the original two colliders. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the impactor could plausibly have come from L4 or L5 as pointed out here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with several variations on the theme. I think, based on factual evidence alone, there's still a lot of wiggle-room for scientific disagreement. It is my opinion that there are not very many conclusive facts about the early formation of the Earth-Moon system; rather, there are several competing theories and hypotheses supported by our sparsely-available evidence; each scenario varies in degree of plausibility. Nimur (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Did I hear someone mention Immanuel Velikovsky? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A billion years from now interesting things could happen. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As explained here, General Relativity makes the solar system relatively stable: "These results also answer to the question raised more than 300 years ago by Newton, by showing that collisions among planets or ejections are actually possible within the life expectancy of the Sun, that is, in less than 5 Gyr. The main surprise that comes from the numerical simulations of the recent years is that the probability for this catastrophic events to occur is relatively high, of the order of 1%, and thus not just a mathematical curiosity with extremely low probability values. At the same time, 99% of the trajectories will behave in a similar way as in the recent past millions of years, which is coherent with our common understanding that the Solar System has not much evolved in the past 4 Gyr. What is more surprising is that if we consider a pure Newtonian world, the probability of collisions within 5 Gyr grows to 60 %, which can thus be considered as an additional indirect confirmation of general relativity." Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

what is the most amazing tornado footage ever filmed?

I would like to see some clear, compelling footage of a tornado destroying human habitats. Not a Hollywood movie, but real footage. I could just type tornado footage into Youtube and go fishing, but can you recommend a specific video?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Counter-intuitively, a smaller tornado may provide more graphic destruction. The larger ones tend to have a large dust cloud around them, obscuring the action, and the scale also makes it hard to pick out details. (What appear to be dots on the screen might be cars thrown about, for example.) Also, huge tornadoes don't twist much, and that makes them less interesting.

Double or triple tornadoes, where they twist around one another, are also visually interesting. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Start at National Severe Storm Laboratory's tornado education website, maintained by NOAA. They link to several videos. Nimur (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or watch CNN late afternoon US central time this week and keep your DVD recorder on standby. Count Iblis (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or watch this. Count Iblis (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You might consider also waterspouts and fire devils. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoiled Tabasco

Will my tabasco sauce spoil if I don't use it fast enough. Will mold and bacteria infest my precious tabasco sauce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.186 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you let some foreign matter into the bottle, vinegar and salt is a very unwelcoming place for anything to grow. An FAQ at tabasco.com gives a shelf life of five years for the regular variety, after which harmless discoloration may occur, but it shouldn't really spoil. You may want to shake an old bottle in case the ingredients have separated. Spices tend to lose their potency over time, so a really old bottle may taste different. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To make it last longer:

1) Refrigerate it (even if the label doesn't say you need to, this will still extend it's life).

2) Keep bacteria out by keeping the lid on. When you use it, the lid should be off for seconds, not minutes or hours. And definitely don't pour it into a bowl, use the bowl for dipping, then pour it back into the bottle. StuRat (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is purely anecdotal, but I once found an old bottle of tabasco (in my grandparents' larder) on which the lid had split and no longer sealed, most probably some considerable time before. The sauce had lost its red colour (it was a sort of pale green - and no, it wasn't the green tabasco), most of its flavour and all of its heat. The advice about keeping the lid on is good, as is the advice about not pouring it back into the bottle, although the size of the opening on most sizes of tabasco bottle make that nigh on impossible anyway. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would involve use of a funnel. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• One of the main benefits of spices is that they are preservatives, which rubs off on spicy condiments. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just to verify specifically what Medeis has alluded to, Capsicum varieties have been shown to have mildly anti-microbial properties, see this paper for example, mostly due to the capsaicin itself. So, even beyond the salt and vinegar, the Tabasco peppers themselves should be somewhat preservative. Which doesn't mean that peppers never rot, but that they do have compounds within them that inhibit bacterial growth. --Jayron32 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The vinegar and salt would be the strongest of the three preservatives here. But I have never seen jarred hot peppers go bad. Oil also works as a preservative, since most bacteria require a more aqueous environment to thrive. Indeed, I have never had even half and half go bad on me due to the fat content. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be adequately answered, time for a distraction:

• Q: How can you tell that an Iowa couple has been married for a REALLY long time?
• A: They're on their second bottle of Tabasco!

--184.100.92.44 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

why atomic silver clusters catalyze ionic silver reduction?

It's about photographic film development. General background like, silver halide is photosensitive and when it's hit by photon, few but electroconductive silver atoms formed on the silver halide crystals, then silver atom bearing sites become very sensitive to reducing agent and get reduced faster. Now the question, what is behind this atomic silver catalyzator? Why it catalyzes the redox reaction? I don't understand why atomic silver turns to be a catalyzator for silver ions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.94.148 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be a good introduction to the process. --Jayron32 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deriving the Saha equation Using statistical Mechanics

For a system consisting of hydrogen atoms and hydrogen ions, (i.e. where each particle is in one of two possible states: unoccupied (no electron present) and occupied (one electron present, in the ground state)), the Saha equation says that $\frac{P_p}{P_H}= \frac{kTn_Q}{P_e}e^{-I/kT}$

where $P_p$ is the partial pressure of the ionized hydrogens, $P_H$ is the partial pressure of un-ionized hydrogens, and $P_e$ is the electrons pressure. $I$ is the ionization energy.

Is it possible to derive this equation, using statistical mechanics? AnalysisAlgebra (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can start with deriving the fact that in an equilibrium reaction where particles A1, A2, A3react and you get particles B1, B2, B3, according to the reaction formula

a1 A1 + a2 A2 + a3 A3.... <---> b1 B1 + b2 B2 + b3 B3 + ....

the chemical potentials of the particles A1, A2, A3,...B1, B2, B3 satisfy the equation:

a1 muA1 + a2 muA2 + a3 muA3 +.... = b1 muB1 + b2 muB2 + b3 muB3 + ....

Then, assuming that the particles are weakly interacting and that you therefore have an ideal gas, the chemical potential can be expressed in terms of the one particle partition function. The above formula for the chemical potential then implies:

(Na1/Za1)^a1 (Na2/Za2)^a2 (Na3/Za3)^a3...= (Nb1/Zb1)^b1 (Nb2/Zb2)^b2 (Nb3/Zb3)^b3...

where Zar and Zbr are the single particle partition function for particles of type ar and br. Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say $Z_{H} = Z_pZ_e$?? But what are these quantities? What is the energy of an isolated electron? AnalysisAlgebra (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to inser the particle numbers in the formula, the correct expression is

$\frac{N_{H}}{Z_{H}} = \frac{N_p}{Z_p}\frac{N_e}{Z_e}$. The partition functions are quite easy to calculate, you only have to take into account the binding energy in Z_H. If we forget about the binding energy, we have for a particle of mass m that $Z=V\left(\frac{2\pi m k T}{h^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}$. Here V is the volume. Now you have to multiply this by the spin degenracy, whch for hydrogen is 4 and for the proton and electron is 2,. but then these factors cancel out in the above equation. Then, Z_H gets an extra factor of exp[-Eb/(k T)] where Eb = -13.6 eV is the binding energy.

So, to summarize, what you have to do is to use the fact that in an isolated system the entropy is maximla in thermal equilibrium to prove the relation between the chemical potentials. Then you can do the same for a system kept at constant temperature and volume (there the Helmholtz free eenrgy is minimal, which you have to be able to prove also), or for a system kept at constant pressure and volume where the Gibbs free energy is minimal. In all these cases you get the same relation between the chemical potentials.

Next, you derrive the equation for the chemical potential e.g. by usung the fact that the Helholtz free energy is F = -k T Log(Z) where now Z is the full partition function of the system and that dF = -S dT - P dV + mu dN, so the partial derivative of F w.r.t. N at constant T and V is equal to mu. Then the partition function for an ideal dilute gas consisting of Nj molecules of type j is given by Z = Z1^N1/N1! Z2^N2/N2! ...., where the Zj are the single particle partition functions. You can to derive this by using the definition fo the partition function and the fact that permuting the dientical particles doesn't yield a new state. Then if the gas is dilute you only have a negligible contribution to the partition function where more than one particle of the same type are in the same state. This allows you to compute the partition function by taking the products of the powers of the one particle partition function and then divide by the factorials of the particle numbers to compensate for the overcounting. Count Iblis (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So $\frac{N_H}{m_H^{3/2}e^{I/kT}} = \frac{N_p}{m_p^{3/2}}\frac{N_e}{V\left(\frac{2\pi m_e k T}{h^2}\right)^{3/2}}$. But that doesn't imply the statement I want to prove, does it?? For example, there's no extra factor of $kT$. AnalysisAlgebra (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What you get using the ideal gas law and approximating the ratio of the proton and hydrogen mass as 1 is

$\frac{P_e P_p}{P_H}= k T \exp\left(-\frac{I}{k T}\right)\frac{Z_e}{V}$

Ze/V is also sometimes denoted as nQ. You can interpret the single particle partition function per volume as the effective number of quantum states available per particle per unit volume, so, it's a density of quantum states for the electron hence the symbol nQ. To see this, consider that the partition function for a single particle is just the sum over exp[-E/(kT)] over all the available quantum states. While this is dimensionless, it is proportional to the volume because the number of quantum states increases as the volume increases (the spacing between energe levels gets less as the volume increases). So, you can express this dimensionless number as the volume divided by an effective volume VQ. Obviously the physical interpreation of VQ is the volume at which one particle would have effectively just one state available when taking into account the penalty in the form the Boltzmann factor that disfavours states with energy much higher than k T, so 1/Vq is the effective density of available quantum states per particle. Count Iblis (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Teen Invents Super fast battery charger

Is this real? Can anybody shed some more light on this than the poorly written article? It seems highly unlikely that this girl has done what multi-bollion dollar energy companies cant (or just dont want to?)165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems legit. Here is the original press release announcing her invention from the Society for Science and the Public and the International Science and Engineering Fair. She won $50,000 for her efforts, and that doesn't seem like the kind of scratch someone just gives away for fun. If you wanted the full details of her presentation or paper, I'm pretty sure you can contact that organization. --Jayron32 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, it does happen sometimes that rank amateur will invent something on their own, rather than a team of employees in an R&D department for some multinational corp. For as many Wallace Carothers there are in the world, there's likely as many Philo Farnsworth's; Farnsworth had essentially invented modern television in his barn at 15 years old. Also, Steve Wozniak, Lee De Forest, Erasto Mpemba, etc. for examples of people who made significant scientific and technological advances completely independent of any large organization or corporation. --Jayron32 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Mpemba regarded as more of a quasi-mythological culture hero these days? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Erasto Mpemba is known for his student paper of the Mpemba effect, which counter intuitively says that warm water placed in a cold chamber freezes faster than cold water. Trouble is, his results appear to be based on faulty lab work. Also, Steve Wozniak was a 26-year old engineering employee of Hewlett-Packard when he designed his first computer, which was not particularly innovative and certainly no engineering breakthrough. Stories have been repeated about him single-handedly designed it at home, which given that there was no PC-based CAD at the time was certainly an achievement, but not a remarkable one. Wickwack 121.215.10.17 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, forget Wozniak then. He did nothing of import. I suppose that destroys my thesis that sometimes people can invent something at home. I guess no one has ever done that. --Jayron32 01:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. You just picked a couple of poor examples. A number of famous internet and cellphone applications were develoiped by teenagers at home. As a competent Engineer I stand in awe of them. Nor is Wozniack unimportant. In linking up with Steve Jobs, what Wozniack did later led to a profound change in how we think about PC's and what we expect of them. Wickwack 121.215.10.17 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that it's on topic, but I verified the Mpemba effect under controlled conditions in 2006. It's very easily reproducible, and the fact that it's languished so long on the fringes of thermodynamics, almost like a piece of pseudoscience, depresses me. Not that it's on topic... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to verify the Mpemba effect around that time too, but I failed to reproduce the effect. Perhaps my experiment was under less controlled conditions. Dbfirs 07:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That, or mine was. :) I don't think I'm even a scientist in the loosest sense of that term (unless "scientifically ambitious and with access to an industrial freezer" happens to be one of those definitions), so that may be the more likely scenario. It really seems like someone who knows what they're doing should have got a definitive answer by now, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in how both of you did it - what experimental method you used. In Australia, we have on our ABC Radio, a Karl Kruszelnicki who has a regular national science program for kids and young adults. I caught a braodcast of his some time ago where he answered a question on Mpemba Effect from listener. I was skeptical and decide to do an experiment myself. I immediately came up against the problem of how to define the freezing point and how to determine when it happened, given I had only a domestic fridge with a freezer compartment. After some thought I decide to use a diode heater in each container of water. The voltage drop across a semiconductor diode is inversly proportional to absolute temperature (about 0.5 V at 25 C depnding on diode and current, increasing ~2 mV for each 1 K decrease in temperature). Passing a current thru the diode heats it. Since the thermal conductivity of water is much greater than for ice, the point of bulk freezing (ie not a surface ice layer) is indicated by a relatively sudden small decrease in voltage preceded by a levelling off, part way thru a continuous gradual increase. You can choose a very small diode and current such that the fridge can easily overwhelm the heat from the diode, and the temperature differential in the water/ice due to the diode is only about 0.5 K or less. I tried metal containers and styrofoam containers. In both cases the cooler water froze first. Wickwack 120.145.149.52 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You might check out the Slashdot discussion on the subject. Briefly, capacitors are not a new invention. They suffer from a couple of fundamental problems: their power density is tiny compared to batteries; and unlike batteries, their output voltage drops as you draw power from them. No fundamental discovery is in evidence here, more like what has been done before was demonstrated by an attractive young lady, which is catnip to popular media. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

She developed an improved supercapacitor using rutile titanium dioxide crystals which provides 238.5 Farads per gram, with energy density of 20.1 Wh/kg, and power density of 20540 W/kg, and a loss of about 1/3 the storage after 10,000 cycles. Pretty damned impressive stats, since Battery (electricity) says the highest energy density for present rechargeable batteries is 0.46 MJ/kg or 128wh/kg See http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Teenagers-Power-Storage-Project-Lights-Up-Science-World-78085.html . Efficient circuitry to provide a constant output voltage to drive electronic circuits would be needed before we can throw away our celphone batteries and chargers. Maybe the idea is to dump energy into the supercapacitor in a few seconds, then charge the battery from the capacitor through some sort of voltage dropping circuit with an invertor, transformer, and rectifier. The putdowns of her just being a an "attractive young lady" who has done nothing special seem uncalled for. I also see websites where various anonymous persons are claiming first, that the energy storage device is noting special, and second that the real work must have been done by her parents or the professor. That just makes them look envious. She showed quite a bit of initiative in contacting dozens of college professors with a request for the use of lab facilities before she was allowed to use space at UC Santa Cruz. Edison (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to read our Supercapacitor article, but it seems to have been written by someone who is not fluent in English, as demonstrated by "All this first electrochemical capacitors used a cell design of two aluminum foils covered with activated carbon coins the electrodes which are soaked with an electrolyte and separated by a thin porous insulator implemented in a common housing." Anyone out there with an understanding of material science who could take the time to copyedit that article, which is both important and an embarrassment to the project? Edison (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article Electric double-layer capacitor largely duplicates what is in Supercapacitor, but gives a higher energy density for rechargeable batteries than does Battery (electricity). It says supercapacitors store up to 85 wh/kg, in a lab prototype. Ms. Khare's device might or might not scale up successfully. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Melting point of a diamond

What temperature does diamond itself melt at? is it even possible for humans to melt? what device would be used to melt a diamond? Does it crack or burn first before it melts? Are there any scientific processes that involve the melting of a diamond? Thank you Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically predicted phase diagram of carbon

You can't melt a diamond (or carbon in general) at any ordinary pressure. It sublimes rather than melting. The lowest pressure where you can get liquid carbon, if the diagram is correct, is around 10 MPa, which is about 100 atmospheres. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read up on diamond and Carbon#Characteristics. At atmospheric pressures carbon - which is what diamond is - sublimes at about 3,900 K, ie.: it goes straight from a solid to a gas. At much higher pressures and temperatures it is theoretically possible to turn carbon into a liquid, see phase change diagram. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say "theoretically"? 10 MPa is a lot of pressure and 4000 K is hot, but both are obtainable in the laboratory. At least one of the refs in the carbon article has a title suggesting that the properties of liquid carbon have been experimentally measured. --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, because no one has tried? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read my last sentence, it appears that someone has in fact tried. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My appologies. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• See http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/276-time-resolved-study-of-bonding-in-liquid-carbon.html. Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Meowing of male and female cat

Is there a difference in meowing between male and female domestic cat, such as pitch, etc (assuming both are of the same age)?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See Cat_communication for starters. Note that "A "caterwaul" is the cry of a cat in estrus (or "in heat")." --that is a very distinctive, loud, yowling call that only females make. As the article mentions, adult cats don't really meow to eachother, it is a kitten-to-mother call that got co-opted for cat-to-human communication somewhere in the domestication process. Anyway, aside from a cat in heat, my WP:OR is that there is a great deal of variation in meowing sounds among among individuals, with no clear sex-based differences. I have known some surly tom cats with tiny, weak "mew", as some with loud commanding "MEOOOW" -- and also the same for females. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

On average I would expect male cats to have deeper meows than females, since they are slightly larger and presumably have longer vocal chords. Of course, there will be exceptions. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking purely impressionistically, but with a great deal of experience with cats, the males do tend to exhibit vocalizations of lower auditory frequency on average, but of course there is a great deal of variation; bear in mind that although all domestic cats belong to Felis catus by virtue of being able to produce viable and sexually productive offspring, there is a great deal of phenotypical differences between them, and the "voice" is no exception. That being said, the animal's size, health, and of course state of mind will all influence the tone of their meowing. I will say that while I understand the point that Mantis is getting at, it is not entirely true that adults do not meow at each other - they indeed do it a great deal, even in feral colonies and other circumstances outside domestication -- they simple do it under generally different circumstances than the greetings or attention-grabbing (for example, feeding) purposes they use it for with humans. Snow (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm doing some digging for references, but so far this is what I came up with: This paper titled "The effects of articulation on the acoustical structure of feline vocalizations" seems to say, from the abstract, that the qualities of "feline vocalizations" is tied to the physical structures that produce those vocalizations, and that cats could be used as analogues for differences in human voices. While that does not directly answer the question, it does point in the following directions: differences in human voices are tied to differences in the structure of the voice-making apparatus in humans; that is the sexual dimorphism in human voices between males and females is directly related to the differences between the physical structures that make the voices in males and females and b) this paper indicates that similar processes may be at work in cat voices. To make the final connection, we'd need to show that cats directly display the same sort of sexual dimorphism, which this paper does not seem to. Still looking tho. --Jayron32 01:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not cats, but rats: This paper titled "Rat 22 kHz ultrasonic vocalizations as alarm cries" states, in the abstract, that alarm cries in rats "show gender differences", that is you can identify a rat as male or female from its alarm cry. Again, not cats, but still, it does show that gender differences in voice is exhibited outside of humans. If this has been done for rats, perhaps a study has been done for cats. Still digging. --Jayron32 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• No idea if it's a good match, but I did find This book, titled Your Ideal Cat: Insights into Breed and Gender Differences in Cat Behavior. Since it notes gender differences right in the title, it's a possibility it may cover meowing and other vocalization difference between male and female cats. --Jayron32 01:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, after an fairly exhaustive search through every subset of Google, I can't find anything one way or another. It seems that, with the notable exception of "caterwauling" (the calls of a female cat in estrous), there are not significant differences between male and female cats in terms of their vocalizations. Or, at least, there is no evidence of anything in the literature to indicate such a difference (with the very important caveat that the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence). --Jayron32 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling note: estrous is an adjective; the noun is estrus. I'll have to add that to my mental list of this particular spelling bugbear that gets a lot of people. More common pairs to confuse are mucus–mucous and callus–callous. Another slightly exotic one is phosphorus—phosphorous. In each case, the word that ends in -ous is the adjective. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mi scuso, mio amico... --Jayron32 02:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's normally mi scusi as one is asking the other to excuse, not forgiving oneself. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardonnez moi --Jayron32 04:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I thought that part was fine. Scusarsi can mean to apologize. Mi scusi (formal), or (more likely in this sort of exchange) the informal scusami, is a direct command, and these are more usual when talking to the interested party, but if you were talking to a third party in an high register, mi scuso col signor Trovatore would be entirely acceptable.

The part that didn't quite work was mio amico. Should be amico mio. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed Jayron meant to say "excuse me", (mi scusi); not "I excuse myself". You are right that either works grammatically and according to intention. In Spanish one might say deje que me perdone" (allow me to pardon myself), but perdoneme would by far more common. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the references unearthed by Jayron (well done!) mention this, but altered males (i.e. those who have had their testicles removed) will have higher-pitched meows than entire males, especially if the castration was done at an early age (4 months). OR - my male cat emits a higher-pitched squeak than either of my two female cats, and higher than my late male cat: I believe this is because he was neutered at an earlier age than my late male cat. In other words, castration has the same effect on cats as it does on humans. (No shit Sherlock, I hear you say!) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder whether neutering alters the cat's voice, couldn't find an RS at first glance. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

More questions about earth-moon distance

Hi again. A yesterday I asked "Hi: I looked up the entry for the Moon, trying to read what was the original distance between the Earth and Moon. I did not see it in the story. Did I miss it or is it not there? Thanks for you help. Red.leaf.flyers (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)". Since then I realized I should clarify my question. I regularly listen to a CBC radio science program called "Quirks and Quarks". I was asking my original question based on an episode I heard some years ago, where a scientist in some astro field said that the moon was previously about half as far from Earth as it is now. Apparently there are grounds to think that some substantial impact pushed the moon out much further. I wish I could remember more of that interview. Thanks for all the responses to my original question. Cool stuff! Red.leaf.flyers (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The giant impact hypothesis seems to be by far the most popular one now, given the modelling. The Moon would have been quite closer in than half the current distance. There is no evidence I am aware of of a second impact that would have pushed the Moon out further after that. Analyses of the Moon's composition provide no evidence of that, and its current orbit is entirely compatible with the "Persephone" model; at least there is no contradiction of this in the popular press for the last decade. For other theories see origin of the moon. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Which types of dogs lives longer, larger dogs or smaller dogs?

The Chinese article says smaller dogs lives longer. Are there any differences?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Large dogs are notoriously short-lived, with Irish Wolfhounds and Great Danes living 6 to 8, and sometimes 10 years, as noted in those articles. Generally, the smaller the dog, the longer the lifespan. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good source backing up small dogs living longer: Which dogs live longest? Red Act (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I just found the same article:) this article is interesting. It says that it's the weight that matters not necessarily the height and that generally dogs under 30 lbs live the longest. Vespine (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Measuring entropy

How can one actually measure the total entropy of a system? 130.56.235.221 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Entropy is often defined thermodynamically; you don't measure it directly, you derive it from other measurements of the system. A fairly easy way to define it would be from the Gibbs free energy equation: the entropy of a system is simply S = (H-G)/T; that is you subtract the free energy from the enthalpy and divide that result by the temperature. In practical terms, you don't measure any of these values directly, you measure them as incremental changes as, for example, a chemical reaction progresses. So, we generally say then that ΔS =(ΔH-ΔG)/T, where the Δ values are the changes in those values you get as a result of changes to the system; so for a chemical reaction you can get ΔH by calorimetry, knowing that for a constant pressure system, ΔH is equal to the heat evolved or absorbed during the chemical reaction. ΔG can be calculated from the equilibrium constant, ΔG = -RT ln (K) which itself is calculated from the relative concentrations of the substances involved in the reaction. T is measured directly. So, you can calculate ΔS by going through several sets of calculations based on measurements you can make from first principles (i.e. concentrations, temperatures, etc.) --Jayron32 05:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Special Relativity: follow up

In order for Special Relativity to develop its equations (e.g. Lorentz transformations), it's essential to assume that the speed of light does not depent on the inertial system measuring that speed; Is it essential to assume that the speed of light does not change over time/space either? HOOTmag (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not essential to start from the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein did it that way in 1905 because at that time everyone knew that the speed of light was c but couldn't figure out what that speed was relative to, and he wanted to point out that you can just take the speed to be c, full stop, not relative to anything in particular, without any logical contradiction. There are other ways of motivating special relativity, though. For example, you can derive it from the reciprocity of redshifts: if two rocket ships move inertially away from a common starting point, each one sees the other redshifted by the same factor. That gets you a theory with the same mathematical structure as Einstein's theory that doesn't say anything about the speed of light as such. You can then, in the course of defining your system of units, take the speed of light to be constant. You don't have to, but you can without any contradiction—that's what distinguishes special relativity from Newtonian physics.

So it doesn't really make sense to ask whether the speed of light varies with position or time since that depends on how you define your units of measurement. A real time variation of physical constants would show up as a change in some other measurable quantity, such as the electron-proton mass ratio. -- BenRG 21:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm rather surprised by your response. As far as I understand, Lorentz transformations are results of Special relativity, aren't they? Whereas assuming them is mathematically equivalent to assuming that the speed of light does not depend on the inertial system measuring that speed, isn't it? Hence, assuming that the speed of light does depend on the inertial system, contradicts Special Relativity, doesn't it? I'm just asking whether assuming that the speed of light changes over time - contradicts Special Relativity. HOOTmag (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, it would be more correct to say that special relativity is a result (or an application) of the Lorentz transformation, rather than the other way round - see History of Lorentz transformations. Tevildo (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From a historical retrospective point of view - you're right, but I'm talking from a relativistic point of view. Einstein concluded Lorentz transformations from the constancy of speed of light, not vice versa. HOOTmag (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Minkowski spacetime is homogeneous in space and time, and you need some assumption to distinguish that from some other spacetime geometry that isn't, but I'm not sure that gets at the core of your question. The meaning of "speed" in Einstein's postulate is not obvious a priori, since the paper argued that the seemingly obvious notions of distance and time that physicists had had until then were actually wrong. Einstein uses the postulate to justify his method of synchronizing clocks, and it's not until the synchronized clocks are introduced that the inertial reference frames are defined and the "speed" in the original postulate has a clear meaning. That's okay because all physical theories are circular in that way (see this thread, the final reply beginning "There is an unavoidable circularity...", where I think I explained this better than I'm doing it here). The postulates in the original paper are a jumping-off point for the argument, but because of the circularity they aren't really postulates in a formal mathematical sense, and there's no useful distinction to be made between assumptions and conclusions. -- BenRG 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Logically speaking - every assumption is a conclusion, while for the practical purpose of the current thread - I don't distinguish between assumptions and conclusions. By saying that A is an assumption/conclusion of B, I just mean that the negation of A contradicts B. As for Minkowski spacetime: My original question refers to Minkowski's relativistic equations as well. HOOTmag (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the word for which you're looking is consequence. Conclusions are whatever propositions that are designated as conclusions (i.e, meant to be proved). If an assumption is not designated as a conclusion (and they usually aren't), then it isn't one. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As explained here, the speed of light is not a real physical constant. Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Other users are giving IMO unnecessarily complicated answers, so to keep it simple the answer to OP's question is yes. In his 1905 paper, Einstein mentions explicitly (albeit briefly) that "it is clear that the [Lorentz transformations] must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time", which basically implies that the speed of light doesn't change in space or time. 65.92.6.9 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And, by "homogeneity," Einstein means to say that the value of the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space - commonly, ε₀ and μ₀ - are well-defined and always constant at all positions. From this postulate, the equation of retarded time is trivially found by solving Maxwell's equations. The Lorentz transform is a mere algebraic simplification of the more general form.

By coincidence, I had been reading The Sign of the Four this evening - published 1890 - and it referenced (very indirectly) the Elements of the Philosophy of Newton by Voltaire (Holmes is quoting a pithy bit of French, and alluding to shedding some light on the case). Naturally, my inclination was to track down the text, and read as much of it as I could... it is available online (but not at Project Gutenberg, unfortunately, nor in English translation - here it is at Elementi della filosofia di Newton). It is absolutely amazing! To read Voltaire succinctly express Isaac Newton's optics - to talk about the constancy of the speed of light, and to talk of light as both a ray and as a particle... published in the year 1738 as a regurgitation of Newton's earlier and far more technical writings on optics - a thought crossed my mind, which I will summarize here... "those who think Einstein's work was really amazing have not spent enough time reading the works of his predecessors." Nimur (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See Standing on the shoulders of giants, a quote not created by, but often attributed to, Newton on his own work. It applies to every scientist in history since the first caveman tried to make fire. --Jayron32 04:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The giants on whose shoulders the cavemen stood were, of course, the nephilim. I'm not exactly sure how standing on a nephil's shoulder helps you make fire, but there you are. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

OP's comment: I still wonder which relativistic equation must result in the constancy of speed of light in space/time. The equation of retarded time - just results in the equation: $c = \frac{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}{t - t_r}$, which does not tell us whether the very value: $\frac{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}{t - t_r}$ is constant. Note that Lorentz transformations do tell us that the speed of light does not depend on the inertial system measuring that speed. HOOTmag (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing a result with a derivation. The derivation proceeds along a line of mathematical reasoning that starts by solving Maxwell's equations for a moving source. This gives a description of the electric and magnetic fields at all points in space and time. From that, a lot of algebraic manipulation gives you a wave equation with a propagation speed, independent of the motion of the source. Our articles cover these topics, but this is fairly advanced mathematics and physics. My recommendation is to begin studying the wave equation in its classical form, until it is so intimately familiar to you that you recognize it, even when obfuscated by multiple independent variables. Then you will be able to identify propagation velocity by inspection. More bluntly: even if you are an autodidact, you require a many years of mathematical preparation before you can reasonably interpret and use the equations that govern the relativistic behavior of light. Commonly, this means three to five years of rigorous study of introductory calculus and physics at a university level. It's a bit unreasonable to think that an encyclopedia can expedite that process to just a few days or hours. Nimur (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I was not confusing a result with a derivation: I just wondered "which relativistic equation must result [by a mathematical derivation] in the constancy of speed of light in space/time". Anyways, as opposed to what you've claimed, I don't think one needs "three to five years of rigorous study of introductory calculus and physics at a university level" in order to answer my original question. HOOTmag (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I said that mathematical preparation is usually necessary. You might be a genius beyond everyone's wildest expectations. But you're still asking the same question, which has already been answered incredibly thoroughly, leading me to believe that you don't have the prerequisite context so that you can understand the answer. Which part are you still stumbling on? A constant speed of light is a direct consequence of the assumption that the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space - commonly, ε₀ and μ₀ - are well-defined and always constant at all positions. These parameters define the speed of light in our best theories of electromagnetics, and this premise matches physical experiment. Are you unable to see the link between physical observation and the equation that models it? If so, I suggest you start reading about electrostatics, and then electrodynamics. Nimur (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The well-known constants ε₀ and μ₀ are really assumed to be constant at all positions, and we undoubtedly shouldn't forget that Einstein was highly inspired by their constancy when he developed his relativistic mechanics, even without us mentioning the important role played in electromagnetism by Special Relativity (e.g. by its motivating the "manifestly covariant" tensor form, and by giving formulas for how the electric and magnetic fields are altered under a Lorentz transformation from one inertial frame of reference to another, and by showing that the frame of reference determines whether the observation follows electrostatic or magnetic laws). However, I was not asking about relativistic electromagnetism, nor about the psychological inspiration of the constants ε₀ and μ₀ in Einstein's mind when he developed his relativistic mechanics. I was just interested in relativistic mechanics per se, i.e. in its explicit assumptions (e.g. the constancy of speed of light) and in its results (e.g. Lorentz transforms). Relativistic mechanics involves concepts like: time, space, mass, force, momentum, energy and the like, yet not concepts like electric charge or magnetic field. Relativistic mechanics assumes/concludes some claims, e.g. the equation of time dilation (and likewise), yet not any claim about ε₀ and μ₀, so that one can study relativistic mechanics, without having studied Maxwell's theory, and still wonder whether - one must assume/conclude the constancy of speed of light in time/space - in order to fully grasp the fundamental principles of relativistic mechanics.

As for mathematics: as a mathematician I can assure you that one needs no advanced mathematics for understanding whether the constancy of speed of light in time/space is needed for relativistic mechanics. HOOTmag (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2. It's really not different from the factors of 1 multiplying dx^2, dy^2 and dz^2, which you can relate to Pythagoras' theorem (and which you can change to arbitrary values by using different units for measuring distances in the x, y and z directions). Count Iblis (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The invariant ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2, only shows that c can't depend on the inertial frame. However, this invariant may vary in time, hence - one can suppose c itself varies in time - without contradicting the very invariant mentioned above. HOOTmag (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the c in this equation doesn't have any physical meaning whatsoever, you can just set it equal to 1. It's similar to writing the first law of thermodynamics as dE = dQ - p dW instead of dE = dQ - dW, because we could insist on using different units for measuring work and heat; we could have assigned work a different dimension from heat making the units for work incompatible with the unit for heat. You could then ask if you could prove using the laws of thermodynamics that p is a constant, if it can depend on time etc. etc.

Just like E = m c^2 says that mass is equivalent to energy in the sense that a box containing an amount of mass m in rest will have a total energy content of m c^2, we would say that an amount of work dW done by a system results in removing an amount of energy of p dW from the system. Advanced books on thermodynamics would work in p = 1 units. But at high school level, teachers would insist that work is not energy, as they have different units. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't "just set it equal to 1", because it may equal to 1 meter per second - today, but may equal 2 meters per second - tomorrow. Let's take your simple example of E = m c^2, whereby m is measured in units of mass (e.g. kg), c in units of velocity (e.g. meter / second) and E in units of mass X velocity X velocity (e.g. as above). Please notice that this equation is still consistent with the assumption that c varies in time, so that c may equal 1 meter per second - today, and will equal 2 meters per second - tomorrow. HOOTmag (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But then you should first remove all the extraneous non-physcal degrees of freedom to make sure that any change is indeed a change in the physics. Units are by definition such non-physical degrees of freedom which should be removed in these sort of discussions. What you should do instead is consider the equations of special relativity in natural units and then make these time dependent. Otherwise, what you are doing now is equivalent to actually taking these equations in natural units, insert c considered as a scaling constant in various places see here for details and then saying that this c could be time dependent which then by construction won't affect the physics. Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take Newton's equation: E_k=mv²/2. The units of E are defined to be: mass X velocity X velocity, and nobody claims that we can set v equal to 1. Newton didn't have to use any constant , say p, for making the link between the E_k and the mv²/2, because if he had used such a constant, say p, then we could set p equal to 1!

250 years later, Einstein replaced Newton's equation by the equation: E_k=(m-m₀)c²; Please notice that m₀ is an invariant (i.e. does not depend on the frame of reference), but may still vary in time (e.g. when an electron and a positron collide)! So why can't c (whose unit is velocity) be an invariant which varies in time - just like m₀, while the constant p - which could be supposed to make the link between the E_k and the (m-m₀)c² - is set to 1!

To sum up, my question is very simple: if we assumed that the units of E are still (as in Newton's theory): mass X velocity X velocity, and that the invariant c varies in time/space - just as m₀ varies in time - and just as v (in Newton's equation mentioned above) varies in time, would that contradict any of the (well known) relativistic equations, e.g. Lorentz transforms, or the Minkowski invariants (and the like)? HOOTmag (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If c(x,t) is such that the Riemann curvature tensor is zero, then you get the usual relativistic equations after a suitable coordinate transform. Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You could get the usual relativistic equations - even if c(x,t) could depend on (x,t). HOOTmag (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Introducing a c(x,t) doesn't make c(x,t) the speed of light that you would measure. I think you fail to understand that the units can't be fixed in the way you are assuming, because they are always unphysical gauge degrees of freedom. A simple example would be to consider the Schwarzschild metric. It has an effective c(r) in there, but the speed of light is simply constant and the physics is not the same as what is in a flat space-time. Count Iblis (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do understand that the units are always unphysical gauge degrees of freedom. However, I have already explained - in my response preceding my previous response - why all of this stuff has nothing to do with my original question. So let me remind you what my original question has been about:

1. As I have already shown in this thread (on 17 May at 16:03), it's mathematically provable - from some (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics - that c does not depend on the frame of reference, i.e. that every pair of velocities v,v' satisfies c(v)=c(0)=c(v'). So I've only been asking, whether it's also mathematically provable - from any set of (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics - that c does not depend on time either, i.e. that every pair of moments t,t' satisfies c(t)=c(0)=c(t').

2. All of experimental information we have accumulated - really approves of the assumption that c does not depend on time, i.e. that every pair of moments t,t' satisfies c(t)=c(t'). So I've only been asking whether this experimental fact can also be mathematically inferred from any set of (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics, just as we can mathematically infer a parallel conclusion about the invariance of c with respect to frames of reference. HOOTmag (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To address the OP's original question, if you require that a Lorentz boost has the same mathematical structure that it does now, and that boosts be invertible such that a boost by velocity $\vec v$ followed by a boost by velocity $-\vec v$ should return the original coordinate system then it follows that the speed of light field must be a Lorentz invariant, i.e. $c(x,y,z,t) = c(x',y',z',t')$ measures the same value for all possible Lorentz transforms. This generally implies that the speed of light is a constant independent of space and time. Now, one could replace a Lorentz boost by an integral composition of differential boosts in such a way that one could self-consistently describe a world where the measured value of the speed of light varied in space and time; however, the math then describing a change of inertial reference frame would be more complicated then the current Lorentz transformation. Dragons flight (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, one can also have a solution where only allows the speed of light field to transform with the boost. That version is also fairly natural, but would require forgoing the idea that all observers can agree on the way the speed of light changes in space and time. Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I still wonder about how you derive that $c(x,y,z,t) = c(x',y',z',t')$ in the same inertial frame. HOOTmag (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a trivial consequence of spacetime homogeneity. Dauto (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't showed directly (rigorously) how the constancy of speed of light in spacetime is a consequence of spacetime homogeneity, although the constancy of my velocity is not a consequence of spacetime homogeneity.

Just to let you figure out what I mean by direct rigorous proof, I will prove you now - directly-rigorously - why the relativistic equation of time dilation alone, must assume - and must result in - the constancy of speed of light in all inertial frames, i.e. I will prove directly and rigorously that - assuming the speed of light depends on the inertial frame - contradicts the relativistic equation of time dilation, and the proof for that is quite simple:

Special Relativity results in the equation of time dilation: $\Delta t_v=\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$. If $c$ had depended on the inertial frame, then that equation would have meant: $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ , so we would have received:

(1) $\frac{\Delta t_v\sqrt{c_v^2-v^2}}{\Delta t_0}=c_v$.

However, if we hadn't used the equation of time dilation nor Lorentz transforms nor Special Relativity, but rather had used pure mathematics only, then we would have concluded that: $c_0 \Delta t_0=\Delta L=\sqrt{c_v^2-v^2}\Delta t_v$ , so we would have received:

(2) $\frac{\Delta t_v\sqrt{c_v^2-v^2}}{\Delta t_0}=c_0$.

Combining (1) with (2) gives: $c_v=c_0$ , i.e. $c$ does not depend on the inertial frame.

HOOTmag (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your math formulation is wrong. Consider these two diagrams. Let the case where the two panels appear at rest be denoted case 0, and the case where they are moving as case v. In the first case, light travels:

$2 L = c_0 \Delta t_0$

In the second case, it travels:

$2 D = c_v \Delta t_v = 2 \sqrt{\left (\frac{1}{2}v \Delta t_v\right )^2+L^2}$

Giving:

$\Delta t_v = \frac{\frac{2L}{c_v}}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$

Which ultimately implies:

$\Delta t_v = \frac{c_0}{c_v}\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$

That's the correct relativistic description of time dilation if you want to assume that c depends on the frame of reference. By not including the prefactor, you implicitly assumed that $c_0 = c_v$, which makes your proof circular. Dragons flight (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't assume that $c_0 = c_v$, but your diagram is not mine, so both your calculation and my calculation are correct, since each one refers to a different diagram! Your diagram involves two (right) triangles, whereas my diagram involves one (right) triangle only. Additionally, your calculation uses the Pythagorean theorem for calculating the length of path, whereas my calculation uses the Pythagorean theorem for calculating the length of velocity. Anyways, both my diagram and my calculation are simpler than yours. If you follow them according to my current explanation, you'll realize that my calculation does not assume that $c_0 = c_v$ and is definitely correct. HOOTmag (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the proof is trivial. It requires no math. By definition, spacetime homogeneity means that all properties of spacetime are homogeneous. In other words, all parameters necessary to describe the vacuum are constant - they cannot depend on the coordinates of specific place where you're chose to do your experiments. The constant "c" (known by the misnomer "speed of light") is one such parameter and therefore cannot depend on the coordinates. Dauto (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is it a misnomer? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

c is a constant related to the geometry of space-time. Photons have a mass of zero and travel at the speed of c. But to say that c is the speed of light is similar to saying that the number 0 is the mass of light :) Count Iblis (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what in fact is the speed of light (commonly denoted c), if not what we say in our article speed of light? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The first paragraph makes it clear that c is a physical constant and light - as all massless objects - travels at that speed. We might just as well call it "speed of gravity", or "square-root-of-mass-energy-conversion-factor", but the best choice would be "spacetime conversion factor" because that's what c is: a factor that allows us to convert between two units. To say that c = 299,792,458 m/s is equivalent to say that the conversion factor between inches and millimeters is 25.4 mm/inches. Dauto (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the entire article, but enough. It seems to be saying that the name of the physical constant is "the speed of light" (from which the article derives its title), and its symbol is "c" (this would certainly square with how people call c "the speed of light"). Are you saying that it should be saying something different? If so, what? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No it should not be saying something different. Speed of light is the universally accepted name for the constant. the point is that if you want to really understand the meaning of that constant than you should try to avoid seeing it simply as a description of how fast light moves. It has a much deeper meaning than that. As Count Iblis pointed out, c plays a very important role in the understanding of the nature of spacetime itself. Dauto (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly understand that it's not just light, but all EM radiation etc that travels at c. However, if you can say that "Speed of light is the universally accepted name for the constant", then how can you argue that that very expression is a misnomer? What would you prefer we all call it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a misnomer because being the speed of light is not the only fact (or even the most important fact) about that constant. As Count Iblis said, nobody thinks of the number zero as "the mass of light", why should we think of c as the speed of light. Nevertheless, "speed of light" IS the universally accepted term and that's what we all should call it. Misnomer or not, that's its name. Dauto (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No argument here. I was just looking for any substance to your original point, and we now agree there wasn't any. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a point. You just missed it. Sorry I couldn't help you. Dauto (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dauto, you assume what was to be demonstrated. I'm asking: does any (well known) relativistic equation (e.g. Lorentz transforms, or the Minkowski invariants) need to assume that the invariant c is (as you put it): "one of such parameters necessary to describe the vacuum"? In other words, if we assumed that the invariant c is not "one of such parameters necessary to describe the vacuum", but rather varies in time/space, would that contradict any of the (well known) relativistic equations, e.g. Lorentz transforms, or the Minkowski invariants (and the like)? This is my question! HOOTmag (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a varying c would mess up the invariants. For instance, the invariant mass $m^2c^4=(E^2+c^2p^2)$ would change overtime unless either the energy or the momentum of the particle isn't conserved. Dauto (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

But the invariant mass (i.e. the "rest mass") does change over time (e.g. when an electron and a positron collide)! Einstein has never claimed that the invariant mass (i.e. the "rest mass") does not change over time, but rather that the invariant mass (i.e. the "rest mass") does not depend on the frame of reference. HOOTmag (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of any particle's average speed, for closed systems, energy conservation requires that c = sqrt(E/m) be constant (AKA mass-energy equivalence). --Modocc (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the principle of "energy conservation": it means that for closed systems, E=mc² is constant: This does not mean that for closed systems c is constant - but rather that for closed systems mc² is constant, while m and c may vary. As for the principle of "mass-energy equivalence": If c changes over time, then this principle just means that - the mass existent at any given moment - is equivalent to the energy existent at that very moment, but still this principle does not let you conclude that - the mass existent at any given moment - is equal to the mass at the following moment. HOOTmag (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence and, more generally, its mass-energy conservation are well-established. A changing mass results in an exact corresponding change in energy. With conservation, should c and m change but not E then you don't have an equivalence relation.--Modocc (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, in order to prove the equation E_k=(m-m₀)c² - one does not need to assume that c does not change over time - but rather to only assume that c does not depend on the frame of reference; Whereas the simpler equation E=mc² is only an (unprovable) generalization of the (provable) equation E_k=(m-m₀)c². As for the very principle of Mass-energy equivalence: It is one possible interpretation - among some others - for the (unprovable) generalized equation: E=mc². Of course, the (unprovable) generalized equation itself does not claim that E is equivalent to m, unless we assume that the invariant c - which does not depend on the frame of reference - does not change over time either. Another possible interpretation for that (unprovable) generalized equation could claim, that c - which does not depend on the frame of reference - does vary in time, thus no "equivalence principle" would arise.

Second, even if we accept the "equivalence interpretation", it may help us in closed systems only. How about open ones - in which c may (apparently) change over time? HOOTmag (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The constancy of c = sqrt(E/m) has been validated by numerous experiments that have included open systems. See the articles I linked to for more on this. --Modocc (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that c changes over time, but rather that c may change over time. I'm talking from a hypothetical point of view, and my original question is hypothetical: Which relativistic equation contradicts the hypothetical assumption that c may change over time? HOOTmag (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been speculated that c has changed, could change, or is perhaps different in other parallel universes. There is nothing inherently contradictory about that kind of speculation other than the fact that its fictitious because there is no evidence for it. --Modocc (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, there is a difference between the constancy of c among the frames of reference, and the constancy of c during time: one can mathematically infer the first constancy - from some relativistic equations (as I've showed above by the equation of time dilation), whereas one can't mathematically infer the second constancy - from any relativistic equation. This means that the second constancy is an experimental fact only, yet not a substantial/essential property of the fundamentals of Relativistic Mechanics. Is this what you claim? HOOTmag (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Its incorrect to infer invariance of c from time dilation. -Modocc (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "incorrect"? I have correctly inferred - the invariance of c - from the equation of time dilation, in my response on 17 May at 16:03, as you can see above in this thread. On the other hand, if you just mean that I was not methodologically allowed to make this inference - although it's a mathematically correct inference (as I have already shown in this thread on 17 May at 16:03), then you have probably missed my original question. Please notice that what I have been asking about (along this thread), is whether Special Relativity must assume the constancy of c in spacetime - in order to develop the relativistic equations, just as Special Relativity must assume the invariance of c - in order to develop the relativistic equations, i.e. I've been asking whether there is any (well known) relativistic equation, e.g. any Lorentz transform, or any Minkowski invariant (and the like), which contradicts the assumption that c varies in spacetime. I haven't been asking that about the invariance of c, because I had already known that Special Relativity must assume the invariance of c - in order to develop the relativistic equations, i.e. I had already known that there were some relativistic equations, e.g the equation of time dilation, which contradicted the assumption that c depended on the frame of reference, as I had already proved in this thread on 17 May at 16:03. HOOTmag (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but substituting c(x,t) in f(c) only shows that c(x,t)=c is a solution of f(c). It doesn't prove invariance. Modocc (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have never proved anything about c(x,t), so I don't know what you're talking about. As you can see in this thread (on 17 May at 16:03), I have only proved - from a (well known) relativistic equation (of time dilation) - that every velocity v satisfies c(v)=c(0). Hence, every pair of velocities v,v' satisfies c(v)=c(0)=c(v'). Hence, c is invariant (i.e. does not depend on the frame of reference). QED. HOOTmag (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You show that c(v)=c(dx/dt)=c are solutions of the time dilation equation. Such an invariance of c (whether it be with respect to space or time) is certainly consistent with the fact that this time dilation is true, but it does not prove what was actually assumed to begin with, that c(v) = c. Except for the substitution you made, your second equation is merely the first equation. Modocc (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you follow my proof, you can realize that - not only have I proved for every velocity v that the identity c(v)=c(0) is a possible solution of the equation of time dilation - but also that I have proved for every velocity v that the identity c(v)=c(0) is the only possible solution of the equation of time dilation (because the proof is based on identities, whereas every identity in the world must point at a unique solution - since "two" different things can't be equal in any identity). Hence (by substituting v' for v) , it's also provable for every velocity v' that the identity c(v')=c(0) is the only possible solution of the equation of time dilation. By combining both identities mentioned above, we infer that every pair of velocities v,v' satisfies c(v)=c(v'). Hence c does not depend on the frame of reference. QED. HOOTmag (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The constancy of c can be obtained in a manner that doesn't depend on light speed invariance, but since my critique (which I believe to be valid) of your proof is only valid if its understood, I will desist on any further comment about it than I've written above and further down, below. Modocc (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think your critique may not be understood? Since I've understood you up to now (although I haven't agreed with you - which is another matter), so I don't see why I won't understand you from now on. HOOTmag (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reply below. --Modocc (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suppose $c(x,t)$ is not constant, and a boost in the $x$ direction with velocity $v$ can still be represented by a Lorentz-like form:

$\begin{align} t' &= \gamma \left( t - \frac{vx}{c(x,t)^2} \right) \\ x' &= \gamma \left( x - v t \right) \\ \gamma &= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \left( {v \over c(x,t) }\right)^2}}} \end{align}$

Consider the inverse boost applied to the new frame, which implies:

$\begin{align} t &= \gamma' \left( t' + \frac{vx'}{c'(x',t')^2} \right) \\ x &= \gamma' \left( x' + v t' \right) \\ \gamma' &= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \left( {v \over c'(x',t') }\right)^2}}} \end{align}$

Simpliying we get:

$x = \gamma' \left( \gamma \left( x - v t \right) + v \gamma \left( t - \frac{vx}{c(x,t)^2} \right) \right)$

$\Rightarrow {\gamma' \over \gamma} = 1$

$\Rightarrow c'(x',t') = c(x,t)$

The easiest way to deal with this, is simply to give up and say that $c$ was in fact a constant. However, one can adopt the alternative point of view, in which $c'(x',t') = c(x,t)$ defines how the speed of light field transforms under a change of reference frame. If you do that, then different observers will necessarily have qualitatively different perspectives on those changes. For example, there will be a privileged frame where ${\partial c \over \partial x} = 0$ at the origin, implying that the change in $c$ appears locally to be purely timelike, while all other reference frame believe the change occurs over both space and time. These sorts of things play havoc with the notion that all observers are equal, which you pretty much have to throw away if you want to propose that $c$ varies in space and time. Dragons flight (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't prove what was to be proven: I've asked whether it's provable that - every x,t,x',t' satisfy c(x,t)=c(x',t'), whereas you have only proved that - every x,t,x',t' satisfying the equations you have presented at the beginning of your last response - satisfy c(x,t)=c'(x',t'); In other words: you just proved, that c was not dependent on the frame of reference, as I did in this thread - more simply - on 17 May at 16:03. So, just to make things clearer, let's put aside the complex case - involving some frames of reference - you have dealt with, and let's discuss the simplest case - involving one frame of reference only. My question is (and has always been) whether you can infer, from any set of (well known) relativistic equations, that every x,t,x',t' satisfy c(x,t)=c(x',t') in that frame of reference. HOOTmag (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course that can't be proved! "For all x, prove f(x) = g(x) ... assuming f ≠ g" - and if you've had any inkling of mathematics, you know how preposterous that is! It's trivial to construct a counterexample! This is called an unphysical equation, and it's a hallmark of Aristotelian physics - rather, the development of a theory from axioms without ever stopping to check whether the theory corresponds to experimental observation. In physics, we do not prove equations. We use them, and only when they are useful.

This discussion has gone on for a long time and is getting you no closer to the answer you seek. What reference material are you looking for - a book, a website, a college course guide - that will help you find what you need? Nimur (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You ignore two facts:

1. As I have already shown in this thread (on 17 May at 16:03), it's mathematically provable - from some (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics - that c does not depend on the frame of reference, i.e. that every pair of velocities v,v' satisfies c(v)=c(0)=c(v'). So I just wanted to know whether it's also mathematically provable - from any set of (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics - that c does not depend on time either, i.e. that every pair of moments t,t' satisfies c(t)=c(0)=c(t').

2. All of experimental information we have accumulated - really approves of the assumption that c does not depend on time, i.e. that every pair of moments t,t' satisfies c(t)=c(t'). So I just wanted to know whether this experimental fact can also be mathematically inferred from any set of (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics, just as we can mathematically infer a parallel conclusion about the invariance of c with respect to frames of reference. HOOTmag (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

With relativity, invariance of c (or the Lorentz transformations) is usually assumed with respect to both space and time. As I've said above, you show that this invariance/constancy is consistent with the formula which already denote c to be a constant and from what I can discern, this consistency is your only result. Its generally known that relativity begins with its postulated invariance(s) to arrive at models contrary to any simpler model that would assume prerelativistic velocity addition, because measurements of light waves show that the non-relativistic Doppler has an apparent extraneous second-order term and therefore published non-relativistic models have not ever accurately modeled the matter-waves' wavelengths, frequencies and energy (and that sorry track record doesn't mean we cannot ever do so). Gravitational theories involving light speed force carriers that at one-time competed with relativity also didn't get the energies involved correct either (for basically the same reason) and therefore were lacking. The thing about paradigms though, such as relativity, is that one can show sets of statements are consistent with other statements, but that doesn't actually prove that the paradigm's statements (some of which are assumed and/or are held to be "fact" based) are correct, which is why Occam's razor and various evidence is important. -Modocc (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "invariance of c (or the Lorentz transformations) is usually assumed with respect to both space and time". However I have been asking whether it's necessary to assume this for developing all of the (well known) equations of Relativistic mechanics.

No, I have shown - not only consistence - but necessity as well, i.e. I have proved that the identity c(v)=c(0) is the only solution of the equation of time dilation. You can realize that by just following my strict proof, but if you don't want to review it, then let me test you: Can you give me another solution of the equation of time dilation? If c(v) is not equal to c(0), then it's equal to what? Give another value, other than c(0) (e.g. c(0)+1 and likewise), and I will show you that such a value contradicts the equation of time dilation! HOOTmag (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned up the page, the time dilation formula you used was derived under the assumption that c is invariant with respect to space, time, and frame. It's not really a proof if you start your analysis by assuming that your conclusion is true. I already gave you a modified version of the time dilation formula that you would need to use if you actually want to consider the case that $c_v \ne c_0$. Dragons flight (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have responded up the page, I hadn't assumed that $c_0 = c_v$. You thought I had, because you thought I had used the same diagram you used, and also because you thought I had used the Pythagorean theorem for calculating the length of path - as you used, whereas I really used the Pythagorean theorem for calculating the length of velocity. To sum up, my calculation is correct and assumes nothing in advance. For more details, see my direct response to your detailed response up the page. Anyways, my original question was not about whether one can prove the invariance of c (i.e. with respect to frames of reference), but rather about whether one can prove the constancy of c (i.e. with respect to time and space). HOOTmag (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not really a proper venue, but its sufficient to say that an apparent (non-relativistic) invariance c = c'(v) can be a result of conflating distinct, reference frame dependent, derivations for c: {c, c', c' ',...} with an appropriate model which involves velocity addition. In other words, each observer computes c even though the underling physics is not relativistic. -Modocc (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You claim that there are also some kinds of non-relativistics mechanics which result in the invariance c = c'(v); As I understand, you claim this new claim - not in order to reject my claim that the invariance c = c'(v) is the only possibility for c under Relativistic mechanics (because your new claim does not contradict my claim about the invariance of c) - but rather in order to claim that Relativistic mechanics must assume the constancy of c in spacetime because invariance alone is consistent with some kinds of non-relativistic mechanics as well. So, let me remind you, that Einstein did infer his Relativistic mechanics (e.g. Lorentz transforms and the like) - from the invariance c = c'(v) alone, so I suspect your new claim is against Einstein's opinion. To make things clearer, would you like to give any new equation of the "non-relativistic mechanics" you propose, so that the new equation may contradict any of the (well known) relativistic equations? HOOTmag (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, to be clear, there are two claims to address: 1)that a different value for c contradicts time dilation (I agree with this assertion) and 2)a different value for c contradicts light speed invariance and time dilation. Both of these claims do not necessarily get contradicted because the mere correlation of these two different claims does not imply that they must logically follow from each other. With Einstein's work, light speed invariance implies time dilation, however, time dilation does not imply light speed invariance if we expand this discourse to non-relativistic assumptions since with a non-relativistic model a value different from c should not get inserted into the time dilation equation (and to do so would contradict it), yet in this context, its an apparent invariant c that gets derived and not an actual invariant c. The reason is simple: it matters whether different observers actually arrive at their measurement for c using identical yardsticks or not. If observers' data vary very slightly with humidity (acceleration in our case), we generally infer that the yardsticks are not identical and have changed in some subtle way, such as by expanding or contracting. However, according to relativity, proper yardsticks (proper time and proper distance) are identical, and with the alternative model, the proper yardsticks used for different inertial frames are not identical in general. Showing, within the proper venue of course, why yardsticks are not always identical and how my derivations entail time dilation and other relations involving the Lorentz factor turns out to be only somewhat difficult (obviously its not a cakewalk) and enlightening (for me at least). Modocc (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• You claim: "With Einstein's work, light speed invariance implies time dilation". I think your current claim contradicts your response (of 19 May at 14:33) preceding your last response, unless I misinterpret you in the expression "time dilation". When I say "time dilation" I just mean the relativistic equation of time dilation: $\Delta t_v=\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ , and if $c$ had depended on the inertial frame - then that equation would have meant: $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ .
• You claim: "time dilation does not imply light speed invariance if we expand this discourse to non-relativistic assumptions". When I say "time dilation" I just mean the relativistic equation of time dilation: $\Delta t_v=\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ , and if $c$ had depended on the inertial frame - then that equation would have meant: $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ . Please notice that I have already proved (on 17 May at 16:03) that this relativistic equation of time dilation necessarily implies the invariance of c (i.e. with respect to frames of reference), as opposed to your current claim.
• You claim: "with a non-relativistic model a value different from c should not get inserted into the time dilation equation". of course! The time dilation equation must be of the form $\Delta t_v=\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ , yet if $c$ had depended on the inertial frame - then that equation would have meant: $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ . However, you had claimed that the identity c(v)=c(0) is not a necessary solution for the equation of time dilation, so I requested to give me another solution, that's all. If you think it's impossible to give another solution, then this proves that the identity c(v)=c(0) is the only solution for the equation of time dilation - just as I have always claimed.
• As for the difference between the relativistic model and the non-relativistic models satisfying the invariance of c, you claim that "according to relativity, proper yardsticks (proper time and proper distance) are identical, and with the alternative [non-relativistic] model, the proper yardsticks used for different inertial frames are not identical in general". I'm asking you again: Would you like to give here any new equation of the "non-relativistic models", so that the new equation may contradict any of the (well known) relativistic equations? HOOTmag (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out above $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ is simply NOT the correct form of the time-dilation equation for an assumption of frame dependence. You need to reexamine the derivation of the time dilation equation if you want to accurately consider the consequences of allowing a frame-dependent speed of light. In that case the correct form of the time dilation equation becomes $\Delta t_v = \frac{c_0}{c_v} \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$. Dragons flight (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you confuse the relativistic "time-dilation equation" (after adapting it to an assumption of frame dependence) with a purely mathematical equation which does not assume any relativistic assumption (nor Lorentz transformation). As for the so-called "time dilation equation" (i.e. the relativistic one), it must be of the form $\Delta t_v=\frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$ , whereas adapting it to an assumption of frame dependence - by simply substituting c_v for c - makes it: $\Delta t_v = \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$ . On the other hand, as for the purely mathematical equation which does not assume any relativistic assumption (nor Lorentz transformation): It's simply $\Delta t_v = \frac{c_0 \Delta t_0}{\sqrt{c_v^2-v^2}}$ , which is mathematically equivalent to a more complex equation: $\Delta t_v = \frac{c_0}{c_v} \frac{\Delta t_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c_v^2}}$. For more details, see my direct response to your detailed response in which you presented this complex form for the first time. Btw, I used (on 17 May at 16:03) the combination - of the purely mathematical equation - with the relativistic "time-dilation equation" (after adapting it to an assumption of frame dependence), in order to infer the invariance of c (i.e with respect to reference frames), whereas my original question has been whether one can similarly infer also the constancy of c (i.e with respect to spacetime). HOOTmag (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Steroids and bodybuilding

Is it possible to get bodies like these [3][4] without steroids? --Yoglti (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it takes a little skill, but you can use this. 86.4.181.3 (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Biology

Give the biological significance of Van der Waal's forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titunsam (talk • contribs) 11:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll say it is a kind of weak force, similar to that that tie students to their homeworks, it's a weak link. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried reading Van der Waals force (and gecko)?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Name the following psychiatric symptoms

What are the psychological terms for the following symptoms:

1. Destroying objects that reminds an unpleasant past incident 2. Performing mental ritual such as touching the door repeatedly before leaving home believing it will be lucky --Yoglti (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Displacement (psychology)?

2. OCD? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Ignoring the 'no medical advice' rule? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

3 . Selective perception? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This question is either a request for medical advice, to whit a diagnosis of the possible symptoms he described, or a homework question. Either way it's not something we should answer, unless the OP shows us what effort he has made to find the answer himself, and where he got stuck. Wickwack 120.145.48.50 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Butterfly effect and scientific method

How can someone test scientifically the existence of a butterfly effect in weather prediction or other complex dynamic systems? I understand that it's not about an unknown butterfly somewhere causing havoc by simply flapping its wings, but about how minimal alteration of the starting system can alter completely a whole system. It's clear that if it were a die, you just could change something really small and see what happens, reaching the conclusion that a butterfly effect exits in tossing dice. But, where is the hypothesis-experiment-conclusion when it comes down to bigger stuff like the weather? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Half the problem is that the butterfly effect is a plain-english description of a phenomenon in chaos theory; and therefore, it is a mathematical development, and not a scientific fact. So, it's not subject to "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion" cycle any more than "2+2" is. It is a mathematical result that certain functions have immensely variable results; applied mathematicians can be very precise and specific in describing these characteristics. For example, the Lyapunov exponent is one quantitative measure of stability. In Control theory, we use phase margin and frequency response as a measure of system instability.

So this is more a matter of whether a mathematical model is applicable to a physical phenomenon. When physicists or engineers study air flow in experimental conditions, they deduce mathematical equations that appropriately model the observations. We can therefore apply the stability measurements to those models, allowing us to understand the limitations of the model's predictive power. This is sometimes formalized as sensitivity analysis. More theoretical physicists use the phrase "the calculus of variations" to refer to the same style of analysis when performed without an electronic calculator.

No reasonable scientist attempts an actual controlled experiment gauging behavior differences with- and without- the controlled release of a butterfly. Nimur (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All Nimur's points are spot-on, but I'll add that there are some "experiments" that people perform to detect if a real system is chaotic (or perhaps more pedantically, is well-described by a model that has chaotic properties). So, if we measure a system, and show evidence that its dynamics are chaotic (with a positive Lyapunov exponent), then in a sense you could say that someone has demonstrated the butterfly effect in a real system. For a feel for how this works, google /detecting chaos in time series/, like so [5]. For another real-world "test of the butterfly effect" (please, understand this is loose phrasing), you might be interested in industrial application of chaotic mixing. The mixing properties of some chaotic systems are basically the same as "the butterfly effect", in that they both are results of the divergence of initially nearby states, due to a positive Lyapunov exponent. See e.g. this professor's web-bio [6], which has a nice overview of applications of chaotic mixing. The mixing is only effective in the real world because the math that describes it also displays the butterfly effect. Finally, the Baker's map is a chaotic process that you can test at home -- start with two similar arrangements of dough, iterate the map on each slab n times, see how differently they turn out! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The above answers are quite good. I would also add, that one definitely does run experiments on global climate models in order to understand the effect of chaos, specifically, the role of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in influencing simulation results. It is now often routine to repeat computer model experiments subject to small perturbations in initial conditions in order to see how the results evolve differently. This allows one to differentiate which parts of the behavior may be predictable from the parts that are heavily impacted by chaos and may only be described in a broadly statistical sense using probabilities. Of course, one needs to make a small leap of faith that the computer models are an accurate representation of our planet's weather / climate, but it is certainly true that the computer models demonstrate the butterfly effect. Dragons flight (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, the answers above are good. I take issue though with Nimur's statement "So this is more a matter of whether a mathematical model is applicable to a physical phenomenon." because it may give the false impression that the butterfly effect is due to some limitation of the models. That's not the correct interpretation of the effect. The models do display the butterfly effect not because they aren't good models. They display the effect because they ARE GOOD models and (correctly) capture a feature of real weather systems - namely, the butterfly effect. Dauto (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to explain how this came about. In the early 1960's Edward Lorenz was working on computer simulations of weather systems tracking across the North Atlantic over a simulated 2 week period. His simulations produced convincing results and he was happy. One day he had to re-run a previous simulation. One particular parameter of the simulation should have been set to 0.506127 - and had been set to that on that first run. But on the second run, he only bothered to type 0.506...meh, close enough, right? Wrong! That tiny change of one or two parts in ten thousand was enough to produce UTTERLY different results. That's what "chaos theory" is all about. It's perhaps better called "sensitivity to initial conditions". If a teeny-tiny change at the start of some process is magnified to a GIGANTIC change in the end result, then the process is said to be "chaotic". If one part in 10,000 can change the weather over a couple of weeks of simulated time - then one part in 100,000,000 will create the same amount of change over a month, one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000 over two months. Over six months, the displacement of a single atom over the diameter of an atom is enough to cause drastic changes in the way the atmosphere ends up. Hence, the flapping of a butterfly's wing is more than enough to cause violent weather anywhere on the planet - given enough time...or to cause violent weather not to happen...or to have no effect whatever. Either way! SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning here that continuing along Steve's line of reasoning, not even very far past the "single atom over the diameter of an atom", quickly gets you down below quantum uncertainty. The butterfly effect tends to be presented as an example of "deterministic chaos", but by my lights the "deterministic" part of that formula is undemonstrated (and has the burden of proof). The default view should be that the exact weather in a specific location, say, two years from now, is simply not determined by the current state of the world. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But, why do you get stable overall patterns, given that a "butterfly" can bring the whole system out of sync? Some places are mostly rainy, and some are mostly sunny. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've spotted a flaw in overly-simplified analogies for very complicated (and complex) subjects :) My answer here is from the math perspective, I'm not going to make any deep statements about the weather. Keep in mind that the state space of the atmosphere is basically infinite dimensional, and the kinds of models applied often operate in Hilbert spaces, or Banach spaces, or other more exotic locales. So there's plenty of "room" for different types of behavior in the same system. Point is, just because some dimensions have chaotic dynamics, doesn't mean they all do. Here's an example of a simple system that has both chaotic and fairly predictable dynamics. Take a large, heavy pendulum, say a car hanging from a crane. Next, put a small gizmo like one of these chaotic pendulums [7], [8] inside the car, and send the whole thing swinging. Because of the separation of mass scales, the little whirly bit hardly affects the car, and we can predict the gross motion of the car pretty well. But that little spinner remains totally chaotic, and we can't predict it's motion at all...

So -- of course there is some predictability to weather, and some stable structures, but there is also deterministic chaos. The jet stream is a good example of both. No butterfly will ever destroy the jest stream, but its precise path is very difficult to predict. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On "deterministic" — see my remarks above, after Steve Baker's contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I did say I was focusing on the math side of things, where the chaos is demonstrably deterministic. Whether non-deterministic or quantum effects have a non-negligible influence on real weather, I cannot say :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dauto above is confused about what a model is and what we know about the real world. What we know, or think we know about the world, is just the model. Nimur is right when he questions whether the model fits the data or not. It might be the more valid one right one, but might be substituted in the future by something better. That's science. No one suggested that the butterfly effect was a flaw of weather models. Knowing it, is knowing a detail about the most valid model that we have. 83.41.31.29 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Damp proof course

Is a damp proof course part of the building code in the usa for a concrete block house? --Jason1267 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, building codes are set at the state, county, and municipal levels. You'd need to be more specific about location. Nimur (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in Columbus, Ohio and Miami, Florida--Jason1267 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, Columbus' Department of Building and Zoning links to the 2011 Ohio Building Code. You can telephone their office for guidance. Often, the city will refer you to a building contractor to answer these sorts of questions, because the answers almost always depend on lots of details; but you can survey the code yourself to get an idea. Nimur (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is bigger?

Which is the bigger ratio, one atom vs one human being, or one human being vs the entire galaxy?114.75.53.116 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratio of what? Size? Mass? Volume? uhhlive (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean by length, by mass, or something else? You can get a rough answer from Orders_of_magnitude_(length) or Orders_of_magnitude_(mass) by calculating the ratios directly. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the question could've been more precise. Turns out that Galaxy-to-human ratio is much larger than the human-to-atom ratio no matter the criteria used. Dauto (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

One vivid analogy I have found useful to remember for comparison is that if a raindrop were the size of the earth, each of its water molecules would be the size of a basketball. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Buying pure elements

Where can I easily get:

List of pure and metallic elements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• metallic lithium
• metallic sodium
• metallic potassium
• metallic rubidium
• metallic caesium
• metallic beryllium
• metallic calcium
• metallic strontium
• metallic barium
• metallic radium
• metallic uranium
• metallic plutonium
• metallic tantalum
• metallic cadmium
• metallic gallium
• metallic indium
• metallic thallium
• metallic scandium
• metallic yttrium
• pure polonium
• pure fluorine
• pure chlorine
• pure bromine
• pure iodine
• pure astatine
• pure boron
• pure arsenic
• pure argon
• pure neon
• pure krypton
• pure xenon
• pure radon?

Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fisher Scientific and McMaster-Carr. A few of these (Polonium?) cannot be easily gotten anywhere. Nimur (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Polonium can be bought at United Nuclear. In the same way as many other radioactive isotopes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Polonium is a component in atom bomb neutron generators, and for this reason is a restricted substance. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your geographical location? Most of these things can be obtained in pure analytical form, from local laboratory suppliers. However, since the Home Guard (or whatever they are called where you are) are looking for anybody that can possibly be sourcing materials for terrorist devices, expect a visit from the men in black or the FBI. P.S. Why, Oh Why, are you asking? Why do you need this stuff?Aspro (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Fisher sells these under their "Science Education" program, typically marketing to high school and college-level chemistry students and teachers. Items that are more hazardous - like polonium and radon - are not usually available without raising a few hackles; but with lots of paperwork, and a reasonable degree of oversight and accountability, a credible educational institution can often acquire these sorts of things; they do have uses other than causing havoc. But just because you're an enthusiast with no ill intention, that doesn't mean you won't get a little extra attention at the airport for the rest of your life! Nimur (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiny amounts of polonium are available in such things as anti-static brushes, with no special red tape needed. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You can get an entire element collection here, from the Red Green & Blue Company, for around 500 pounds. There are also occasional element collections on eBay, usually in the range of a few hundred dollars. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really credible — how do you sell a sample of francium? My guess is that the "francium" tube contains a sample of natural uranium ore, which at any given time will contain a few atoms of francium. Probably the same for several of the other short-lived elements in the U-238 decay chain. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The company doesn't claim to have a pure sample of every element. From the FAQ: "Two radioactive elements (thorium and uranium) are provided as small metal samples. Two others, radium and promethium, are presented in the form of small dabs of luminous paint [...] The remaining seven radioactives are represented by small uranium or thorium bearing ores. These naturally occurring specimens contain complex decay chains of radioactive elements and at any given time will harbour a small quantity of the specified element." --Bowlhover (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in ebay seems genuine anymore. Anyway, a serious company could ship radioactive material that have a short half-life. It only would need to ship it shortly after obtaining it, and not keep it on stock. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the longest-lived isotope of francium has a half-life of 22 minutes, which means that if the shipping company could somehow ship a gram of it in 24 hours, by the time you got it, by my calculations, there would be about 50 atoms left. Of course the heat and radiation it evolved in the mean time would — probably not have gone unnoticed. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Theodore Gray (maker of the periodic table table), the RGB set's sample of francium consists of a chunk of uranium ore, which contains a small but constant amount of francium. --Carnildo (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was almost exactly my guess, if you look at my comment of 18:52 22 May 2013 above. Of course I can't rule out the possibility that I heard this somewhere before. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few suppliers that sell small "samples" and complete sets as diplays of one sample of each of the elements in the periodic table. Theodore Gray and his associates have determined that for radioactive elements that are dangerous and/or have short half lives, or just cost too much, what is supplied is often just an inert material that is supposed to look like the real element (and often does not even do that. the visual appearance of some of the rare high weight elements is not known for sure anyway). See http://periodictable.com (Element Collection, Inc) - highly recomended. Soem elements are not chemically stable and/or are dangerous to handle. In these case, what is typically supplied is some stable well known compound or well known use. Wickwack 121.215.149.172 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Using small LCDs for other purposes

The very small and simple LCD screens we find in cheap watches, which display only black numbers (each made by four vertical and three horizontal sticks), are just grey coated glass slides. Theoretically I know they have "liquid crystals" in them which turn black from transparent when current is applied. I don't find any visible inlets which could take electricity inside them. Yes they do have soft a rubber line on their base which contacts the numerous metal contacts held in a long line along the circuit board that clearly seems to be the appropriate number of "sticks" that form the digits. My problem is that how can one directly manipulate them ? Is the usual 1.5 direct current from a small battery appropriate ? 124.253.173.16 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately LCD if far more complicated to drive then LEDs. They are typically driven by a special driver circuit because they require AC, not DC. I have some experience with amateur electronics and honestly, I wouldn't bother attempting it. If you want to play around with Seven-segment_displays, I would storngly recommend you just buy a couple of LED units instead, something like this, dirt cheap and far easier (and prettier IMHO). Then you can play around with actually displaying stuff, not strain your brain working out how to display stuf in the 1st place. Vespine (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no direct experince of watch displays, but I have designed circuits using the larger LCD displays used in small travel clocks, pocket digital multimeters, and the like, and I would asume that they are very similar. In all these displays, conventional connectors are not used. Instead, conductive traces embedded in elastomeric plastic is used, as the glass should be protected against mechanical stress and vibration, and the current flow is minute, so very high resistance does not matter. Typically, about 3 volts is required to turn a segment on (make it black). A micropower transistor invertor is used to get a stable 3V or so from a single button cell (1.2 volt). To use an LCD display, you will need to identify the connection to the backplane ( a transparent sheet electrode common to all segments, as well as the connection to each segment (ie what you refered to as "sticks"). It is absolutely critical that NO DC voltage appears between the backplane and any segment connection (and betwen segments). The display will fail rapidly if even the slightest DC is present. This is achieved by starting with an accurate squarewave - by accurate I mean that it has EXACTLY unity ratio between "high" and "low" durations, as well as a clean square waveform. This squarewave is used to drive the backplane. To turn a segment off (ie transparent & showing the grey background) you apply the same squarewave to the segment connection. To turn a segment on (ie black), you apply an inverted squarewave to the segment connection - again an ACCURATE square wave, precisely timed to the backplane squarewave. It is more than possible that a tiny watch display needs less than 3V. You could discover the voltage required by constructing a circuit that can generate a two-phase square wave of variable voltage and, starting from zero, gradually increase the voltage until the segments turn black. DO NOT test with DC. Do not use more than about 30% more than what is requied to get black segments.

Ideally, you need an ocilloscope to verify you get all this right, but by using well known circuits you could get by without it. If all this does not deter you (and Vespine gave you good advice to leave it alone), I suggest you search though past issues of the magazine Elektor, which should be available at better public and university libraries, or do some good google searches - someone's bound to done it before. Keit 120.145.156.222 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Non-Newtonian Play-Doh"

For a business assignment, we are to make Play-Doh (salt dough), create a brand for it, market it, etc. To be creative, I thought back to my days of elementary school when we would mix cornstarch and water to make "oobleck," and I was considering adding the oobleck substance into the play-doh mixture, which we will need to make ourselves (using 1 cup of water, 1/2 cup salt, 1 cup flour, 1 tbsp oil, 1 tbsp cream of tartar). If we added cornstarch and water to the mixture, would it make the play-doh non-Newtonian in any way? Would it ruin the mixture? Would it just not do anything? Thanks so much! 174.93.65.84 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could easily try it, since that whole assortment of ingredients can be bought for less than a dollar -- but I'm pretty sure you would just get a bunch of sticky glop. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly, I would say that oobleck is "non-Newtonian Play-Doh". That is, if you're going to get that sort of interesting sometimes-solid-sometimes-liquid response, you need to be ready to brand and market something that will spill like water (or, at best, syrup) if you tip the can over. Sure, you can make slightly-thin Play-Doh (or really thick oobleck, depending on one's perspective), but if it's thick enough to be a non-spillable kids toy, then it's too thick to do "interesting" non-Newtonian things (where "interesting" is defined as "more like oobleck, less like Silly Putty"). — Lomn 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is Play-Doh-like material that is highly non-Newtonian (it can flow off a table, it can bounce like a rubber ball, and it splinters if hit by a hammer). We used in in chemistry lab 30 years ago, and I recently saw it in a materials lab as a demo piece. I don't think it was quite the same, but Silly Putty might help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

ADSL filter with 2xBS 6312 sockets and one ADSL (RJ11 is it?) socket...

Does such a thing exist? If so, what's it called? Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They exist, Maplins sell them with built in surge protection as well for £15. And a quick Amazon search shows a few more (just on a basic search for ADSL filter). You won't find many though as it's easier (and cheaper) to just plug a BS6312 splitter into the filter phone socket. Nanonic (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yah, I was thinking of that too, but I was having trouble finding a BS6312 splitter that had a length of cable coming from the back - as opposed to just being a box with a plug coming straight out (which would block the RJ11 socket on my existing BB filter). Then I saw one, just after posting my Q. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23

Bodies of water silting up

Do we have an article that discusses the phenomenon of water becoming land as it silts up? I'm thinking of a pond that gradually fills with soil (I'm writing an article about a cemetery whose sexton intentionally did that to a pond, since mowing a little extra grass was cheaper than keeping a pond), or of an estuary that gradually becomes floodplain; I checked Wigtown, where the latter happened, but I found nothing relevant. Siltation (to which silting redirects) is related, but it really doesn't care about much other than silt pollution; I was hoping for something more closely related to the process of filling in a watered area, but can't find anything. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is called Deposition (geology). The Wikipedia article only covers coastal deposition in any detail, but I got to that article from River delta, which is basically what you're talking about, river deltas form by a natural silting process that you're talking about. Deliberately filling in bodies of water is called "landfill" (different definition from the place where you bring your trash) and the Wikipedia article that covers it is called Land reclamation. --Jayron32 03:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the succession of plants in such areas may have more to do with the transition from open water to dry land than does siltation per se. You may find the article Hydrosere of interest. Deor (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Validity of the ideal gas law

For what temperatures and pressures is the ideal gas law a valid approximation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.81.186 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What did your teacher say when she taught you this in Chemistry class a few days ago? -Jayron32 04:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The various gas laws, such as Boyle's law, Charles's law and the ideal gas law, were discovered over a century ago by scientists whose experimental equipment was very rudimentary by modern standards. These scientists were only able to investigate the behavior of gases at pressures close to atmospheric pressure, and temperatures close to those found on the Earth's surface. These gas laws are valid at around one atmosphere (low pressure) and typical terrestrial temperatures. At very high pressures and very low temperatures, gases begin to behave a bit like liquids so the various gas laws become increasingly inaccurate. Dolphin (t) 06:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite wrong to say the approximation works around atmospheric pressure and is les good far from it. What is important, for the ideal gas laws to be a good approximation, is to be sufficiently well away from the vapour saturation line (a curved line from the high triple point to the liquid/vapour critical point, plotted on a graph of temperature vs internal energy - a line where to the left of it the substance is a mixture of liquid and gas, and to the right of it is purely a gas). The critical point of any substance is where the specific heat of the substance becomes infinite. The triple point is the temperature and pressure at which liquid, solid, and vapour phases co-exist. Plotted on a graph of temperature vs internal energy, the triple point is a straight line, stretching from the Low Triple Point (min internal energy) to the High Triple point (max internal energy). Lines of constant pressure can be plotted on a temperature vs internal energy graph as contours. These contour lines are straight diagonal lines well the the right of the vapour saturation line, and increasingly curve towards the horizontal as they approach the vapour saturation line, abruptly changing to the horizontal just at the VSat line near the triple point, transitioning to a gradual curve that is horizontal at the critical point. Where the constant pressure lines are straight diagonals is where the substance behaves as an ideal gas.

For water, the critical point is 647.1 K and 22.064 MPa, and the High Triple point is 273.16 K, 611.7 Pa, and 54.01 MJ/kmol, and water (steam) will not behave as an ideal gas at atmospheric pressure. For oxygen, critical point is at 154.58 K & 5.043 MPa; High Triple Point is at 53.36 K, 146 Pa & 7.315 MJ/kmol. Other substances have very different triple and critical points, at higher and lower temperatures, and higher and lower pressures. A few gasses follow the gas laws pretty good at ordinary temperatures and pressures, many do not. The NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables, published as Monograph 9 by the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, gives full details in tables for a hundreds of common substances. Any good university library will have it.

Wickwack 121.221.2.127 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will you get the course credit instead of this student for performing his work for him? I don't really need to pass general chemistry again, which is why I directed him to review what his teacher taught him... --Jayron32 12:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The ideal gas law is, as the name suggest never precisely valid, it is only valid in the limit where the molecules in the gas don't interact any more and where the gas becomes infinitely dilute. These are two independent conditions, the former is quite obvious, the second has to do with quantum effects. Even if you have an ideal gas w.r.t. to the first condition, i.e. a gas consisting of hypothetical moleculs that don't interact with each other at all, you will still have deviations from the ideal gas law due to quantum effects. These deviations only tend to zero in the limit that the density of the gas tends to zero.

In practice, the devations from the ideal gas law due to the interactions of the molecules are seen in the conditions mentioned by Wickwack above. Quantum effects that cause significant deviations from the ideal gas law are seen in practice in extreme high density matter. E.g. certain types of supernova explosions are triggered due to a star having run out of fuel, contracting as a result causing the temperature and density to go up again and then fusion starts again. But the fusion then starts in matter that is so dense that the ideal gas law isn't valid, the pressure does not depend on the temperature anymore. This independence of the pressure on the temperatre causes a supernova explosion. This is because the rate of fusion reactions increases very rapidly if the temperature increases. Then an increase in the rate of fusion reactions would lead to more heat being generated and to even higher temperatures and therefore much higher fusion reaction rates. What stops such a runaway increase in reaction rates in a normal star like the Sun, is the increase in pressure of a region at higher temperatures which causes such a region to expand and become cooler due to performing work. Count Iblis (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any scientific evidence about spirits and their ability to affect the living?

I am from Asia, where almost everyone around is very superstitious. What they do all the time is praying for some blessing of the gods rather than relying on themselves. I only trust myself, but there was an event occurred in a nearby village (just hundreds meters away) that troubled me. The story is long but I'll keep it as short as possible.

The villagers noticed that many adults in the village had died rapidly in the last few years. All death were quick (like traffic accident) and sometimes mysterious (had an unknown fever and died). A shaman said that it was a female ghost that did all the tragic (maybe she loved these guys, lol?). The villagers decided to raise big funds (just around $3000, but it was very big in my country) to hire a local monk and 6 famous shamans which came from far away to perform the ritual, in the hope of stopping the tragic. The ritual took place just a few days ago, with the observation of hundreds curious people.

I was not at the event, but according to my mother, their work was to met the ghost, ask her about the reason and to negotiate with her. The ghost did come, and possessed a female local villager. It turned out that the ghost was male, and he claimed that he had lived in that village for 320 years! According to him, the village road was 6 meters wide, with daisies on the 2 sides. But the villagers expanded their houses to "his road", and now the road was only 4 meters wide, causing movement difficulties for "his horses and elephants". He said that he let "his horses kick and his elephants stomp" the villagers to their deaths. He demanded the villagers to break their house wall, and return 2 meters for his road. I thought that the dead can fly, but this one need a wide road to walk. Funny, right?

The ritual to call the deceased to possess a living is performed frequently in my place, mostly for those who died suddenly, to ask them about their wishes. Some do not even need a ritual, they can do it by themselves. The wife of my grandfather's brother, for example, she possessed her son's wife on the 50 and 100 day anniversary of her death (yes, twice).

To this days, I still don't believe these stupid things much after all. Does science ever acknowledge the existence of these entities and their ability to affect the living? Or is there any study or result about this subject? -- Livy (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 05:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Science doesn't even understand how we possess our own bodies, never mind somebody else's. Gzuckier (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jayron32, but I think more can be said, I think Gzuckier's answer is a flat copout, science does have a lot to say about how we posses our own bodies, for one, we can be fairly certain it involves our physical brain..> Back to the OP, firstly, congratulations for having some skepticism in a place where you are steeped and surrounded in such incredible events. In the west, there has been an old and strong tradition of people who have challenged these ideas and beliefs and examined them very closely. From Harry Houdini to James Randi, they challenge people to demonstrate these abilities under controlled conditions and for the last century, not a single person has been able to give any compelling evidence that their powers or abilities are more then just psychological "tricks" and illusions and a lot of the time just plain fraud almost identical to methods used by stage magicians. Vespine (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Gzuckier is right — science has nothing to say, and will never have anything to say, about how "we" possess our bodies. The materialist explanations amount to denying that there is any such thing as "we". Science can tell us a lot about how our brains control our bodies, but that's a different topic altogether. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you have nothing to say about how we possess our bodies. Neither do today's scientists, because nobody understands consciousness in a meaningful way. To claim that nobody who will ever be born in the trillions of years to come will figure it out is pure hubris. If and when somebody eventually understands consciousness, I guarantee that it will be through science (just like every other discovery about the natural world), not religion, mysticism, or making stuff up. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is much study of the paranormal. see Paranormal#Skeptical scientific investigation. Many people and organizations who don't believe in spirits and the supernatural have offered substantial prizes to see if anyone can demonstrate, with scientific thoroughness, the existence of these things. See List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal. (None of these prizes has been claimed!) James Randi is a famous person who has exposed various paranormal claims as being nothing but trickery. Dolphin (t) 06:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

2 years ago many of my relatives met a shaman for calling the spirit of my mother's sister' husband. He first possessed his own wife (my mother's sister), then switch to the shaman herself. I cannot tell if it was him or the shaman talking us but the shaman knew every people in my family, and even who had attended his funeral! It is incredible... Is there any spirit possession ritual or the like in the West? -- Livy (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called cold reading. Vespine (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See Spiritualism. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that spirits, if they were to exist, cannot interact with us to give rise to the effects that are commonly attributed to them. Basically, it boils down to such effects violating the known laws of physics, and that there is a huge amount of evidence for those laws of physics. This means that if you were to take up the Randi challenge as mentioned by Dolphin and Vespine above and were to prove that a non-trivial effect does exist, it would be similar to proving that somehow Copernicus was wrong and that the Sun does revolve around the Earth. But, of course, just like you can always put the idea that Copernicus is wrong to the test, you can also put the claims of psychics etc. to rigorous tests in the laboratory.

Uri Geller in the 1970s did put himself through some tests, because he knew how he could deceive naive scientists. Randi criticised these tests for being too naive but at the time he was ignored for being a radical sceptic. Randi then proved his point by letting two magicians present themselves as psychics and let them go through the same tests. When it was reveiled later that they were just magicians, Randi's objections were taken serious. One mathematician who was involved in testing Geller who until that point was a strong believer in his abilities then thought that he could just invite Geller back for the same tests, but now he would make sure the spoons would be labelled. However, Geller did not want to be tested anymore :) . Count Iblis (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Measuring roughness

Is there a good way of measuring how rough or smoothly varying a surface is? I have data fields specified as T(x,y), and I'd like a way to quantitatively distinguish fields that change gradually as one varies x and y from those that vary rapidly. In both cases the overall change is generally bounded, so there isn't a lot of net change over long distances, but some vary much more over short distances than others. Viewed as an image, you might say some fields are noisy while others are smooth. I'd like to have a good way to quantify these differences. What are some standard techniques / measures that people use to describe the roughness (or noisiness) of a field? Dragons flight (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Roughness of data, and roughness of a physical surface, is commonly measured/expressed as the Root Means Square (RMS) roughness. You take the error from the mean or ideal value for each data point, square it, and calculate the average of all the squares, and take the square root of that. In mechanical engineering, it is called RMS roughness. In statistics and for numerical data generally, it is called the standard deviation. Wickwack 120.145.149.52 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink - Surface roughness seems to give a fair bit of maths to help you out. 80.254.147.164 (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An RMS measure that considers only the deviation from the mean is poor indicator of roughness and doesn't really correspond to human perceptions of roughness either. Consider the two diagrams:

  ---
--   ---   --
        ---

 -   -   -
- - - - - - -
   -   -   -

Those examples are identical from an RMS perspective, but one surface would generally be perceived as varying more rapidly than the other. It is cases like that for which I am looking for a natural way of quantifying that the top panel experiences gradual change and the lower panel undergoes rapid change. Dragons flight (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the RMS deviation or standard deviation value does correspond to the human "feel of it" pretty well, and is usually the most useful mathematically in most applications. However, if what you want is an indication of rate of change, then I suggest that you do a discrete fourier transform over the extent of the surface (in other words, treat the surface as regularly repeating segments, each of size equal to the surface in question. The result will be a a histogram of frequencies, and make the most significant frequency immediately visible. You can then weight the frequencies and calculate an RMS or mean value of them, to taste. This value will reflect both ammplitude and rapidity of change. Wickwack 120.145.149.52 (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A simpler approach is to calculate the slopes (T/x) between data points, weight them according to peak-to-trough amplitude,and take the RMS value of all the weighted slopes. Wickwack 120.145.193.132 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17

Hyper-Exponential Function

$f(x) = \frac1e \cdot \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{n^x \over n!}$

1. Why does this function return positive integer values for all positive integer arguments ?

Obviously, this is related to the fact that $e = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{1 \over n!}$ ... just not sure how exactly ...

$f(n) \in \N^*\ , \forall\ n \in \N^*$ — Proof here

2. Are there any simpler methods of computing these positive integer values, either directly or recursively ?

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...
f(n) 1 2 5 15 52 203 877 4140 ...

— Have you seen A000110, which gives hundreds of ways of computing these numbers?

70.162.4.242 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

— See also

79.113.240.146 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Does this function have any special meaning or interesting properties ?

— They represent the number of partitions of a set with n members, as well as the coefficients of the Taylor series for $e^{e^x}$.

79.113.212.91 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

— They're called Bell numbers and that formula above is Dobinski's formula.

Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

May 18

Most efficient way to place rooms in a compound whilst following certain criteria

I'm trying to design a large underground compound in Minecraft that would use a modular, cell-based room/corridor system. The piece to be tiled is a 15x15-cell area. Each cell can be either a room or a corridor, with the exception of the center cell, which is a staircase. Rooms have only one entrance/exit.

I'm trying to design the 15x15-cell tiled piece to fit the following criteria:

• The center cells must be connected by a straight line of corridors.
• The corridors must not have any "dead ends" - each path of corridors must be followable from one center cell to another without the need to turn around.
• Rooms must connect to at least one corridor. Connecting diagonally doesn't count.
• The design must have 90-degree rotational symmetry. Thus, it must be able to be split into identical quadrants that are rotated in 90-degree increments.
• There should be as many rooms as possible.

When I tried to work out a solution (with a bit of help from Freenode's ##math channel), I got this. When tiled, it looks like this. Black pixels are rooms, white pixels are tiles. The staircases are the blue pixels. I count 124/225 rooms - using a total area of 55.111%.

Can anyone help me with figuring out the most efficient solution to this situation?

Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If edge conditions aren't important, it might be easier to think about things if instead of having the staircase in the center, you think about the staircase and straight-line corridors forming a grid, with a 14x14 square between. (Made up of four 7x7 blocks still with 90 degree rotational symmetry in the center.) This way you don't have to worry about connecting the edges, as any corridor that ends on the edge will automatically connect with the stair corridor grid. Past that, I'm not sure what you consider to be rooms versus corridors, or what additional limitations you have. (e.g. what's keeping you from carving out the space entirely, or almost entirely.) -- 71.35.111.68 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The space in question is a square 15 cells wide. Each cell is the size of one room/corridor. The drawing is not that of a single 15x15-block room, but of a 15x15-chunk area (16 times larger than the former). The most obvious and most efficient design would be to arrange the rooms in aisles like this, but that doesn't follow the rule of the design having rotational symmetry. Rotating it to fit this would cause dead ends to form. If one were to remove one row from each quadrant like this, it is less efficient than the manner linked above. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How about this

variant on the design with 132 rooms out of 225? Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the branch of mathematics which deals with these problems. I guess it is Combinatorics or Discrete Mathematics. Am I right? Solomon7968 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Rational sine

sin(pi/6)=1/2. Are there any other rational multiples of pi, less than pi/2, with a rational value of their sine? If not, how can it be proved? 86.139.121.71 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider a primitive nth root of unity z=e^2kπi/n. (Hence k and n are relatively prime.) If the real or imaginary part of z is rational, then z belongs to the field Q[i] or, at worst, a quadratic extension of Q[i] (i.e. an extension of degree 2). This implies that the degree of z over Q must be 1, 2 or 4. Thus the cyclotomic polynomial Φ_n, which is irreducible over Q, and hence is the minimal polynomial of z, must have degree 1, 2 or 4. Therefore φ(n) must be 1, 2 or 4, where φ is the Euler indicator function. It can be checked that n must therefore be among 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. I haven't checked these, but this means you only need to check multiples of 2π/n for these values of n (not necessarily in the first quadrant). 96.46.198.58 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Among these cases, only n=5 and n=10 present any difficulty. It is easy to see, after reduction to the first quadrant, that it is enough to check the sines and cosines of 72° and 144°. Let z be a primitive fifth root of unity. The cosine c of the corresponding angle is given by 2c = z + 1/z. From the equation Φ₅(z) = z⁴ + z³ + z² + z + 1 = 0, we obtain 4c² + 2c - 1 = 0. Since the discriminant of this equation, 20, is not a perfect square, c cannot be rational. The sine s of the angle satisfies s² = 1 - c² = (2c + 3)/4. Since c is irrational it follows that s², and hence s, is irrational. Therefore the example you gave that occurs for n= 12 (and/or its divisors) is the only one (other than the trivial cases of 0° and 90°). 96.46.198.58 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.139.121.71 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a proof in this article that the rational cosine of a rational mutiple of π can only be 0, +/-1 or +/-½. It uses the angle doubling formula

$2 \cos (2 \alpha) = (2 \cos \alpha)^2 - 2$

to show that for α with rational cosine, doubling α squares the denominator of 2 cos α in its lowest terms. If α is a rational multiple of π then the sequence of doubled angles 2^k α mod π is eventually periodic so sequence of denominators of 2 cos (2^k α) takes a finite number of distinct values, and we have a contradiction unless 2 cos α is an integer. Argument is easily extended to sines. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the nice, elementary proof. I enjoyed it. The theorem at the end of that paper also provides an improved and streamlined version of the one I gave above, in which the possibility that φ(n) = 4 is eliminated for theoretical reasons (albeit for cosines, not for sines - but that is easily remedied). That saves time and is quite satisfying. 96.46.198.58 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How does x^2 + x + 3 relate to area in real life?

I am never afraid to ask a "dumb" question.

I have to admit that I can see the point of a second order polynomial such as f(x)=x^2+x+3 as simply representing a continuous sequence of numbers or a real life curve that a machine could cut but I have trouble understanding as to how it may relate to actual real life area.

There is the always the mention of crop yields in ancient times to illustrate this but I have never found a satisfactory simple explanation about it, can anyone help me on this one?

Ap-uk (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps if you gave an example of something that you consider to be real life and something which you consider as not real life it would help thanks. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the area of a field can be x^2 i.e. 10m^2 but how can you have an area of 10m^2 + 10m +3 ? Ap-uk (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example: A field is twice as long as its width. The field can be farmed up to 1m from its edges (i.e. there is a 1m uncultivated border). Express this algebraically.

If the width is x, the length is 2x, then the area that can be cultivated is

(x - 2) (2x - 2) = 2x^2 -6x + 4

x is in metres and the formula calculates the area in square metres. To confirm it plug in some numbers. E.g. if x = 10 it gives 144. So a field 10m x 20m with 1m borders had an area of 144m^2 under cultivation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) Ap-uk (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nm conversion to pound/feet or poun/inches

What is meaning of Nm and how does it relate to pound/feet and/or inc/pounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanodizoppola (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nm is a newton meter an SI unit of torque. Do you mean pound-foot? --Modocc (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Reprised Confusion over Wikipedia Definitions of Sigma Additivity

Okay; now that I can actually preview the math that I intend to place inside of my posts before I submit them again (if you care, you can see the details surrounding that fiasco here; otherwise, just ignore my griping and keep reading,) I can actually get some work done. Unfortunately, that still requires me to ask questions about what I am trying to work on, so here goes: the question I need to ask today has to do with how sigma additivity is defined here on Wikipedia, especially because several of its articles seem to have become quite disagreeable on the subject even though they are linked together. Having said this, how does one reconcile these sources' contents into a single definition that I can use when they all disagree? Please notebefore clicking on the links that I have provided to the three sources in question, however, that I have also quoted the text from these articles that I thought you might find most applicable to my conundrum. As such, my first source, the article on probability axioms, defines the concept under its third heading as the following…:

This is the assumption of σ-additivity:

Any countable sequence of disjoint (synonymous with mutually exclusive) events $E_1, E_2, \dots$ satisfies

$P\left(E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \cdots\right) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty P\left(E_i\right)$.

Some authors consider merely finitely additive probability spaces, in which case one just needs an algebra of sets, rather than a σ-algebra. Quasiprobability distributions in general relax the third axiom.

—Wikipedia contributors, Third axiom mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Probability axioms

…whereas my second source, the list of defining characteristics of a measure, states that σ-additivity is defined thusly…:

• Countable additivity (or $\sigma$-additivity): For all countable collections $\left\{E_i\right\}_{i \in I}$ of pairwise disjoint sets in $\Sigma$:

$\mu\Bigl(\bigcup_{i \in I} E_i\Bigr) = \sum_{i \in I} \mu\!\left(E_i\right)$.

—Wikipedia contributors, The list of defining principles included in the article on mathematical measures

…and my third source, the the section on σ-additivity as a property of setfunctions in the article on sigma additivity, defines the concept as follows:  

Suppose that $\scriptstyle\mathcal{A}$ is a σ-algebra. If for any sequence $A_1, A_2, \dots, A_k, \dots$ of disjoint sets in $\scriptstyle\mathcal{A}$ one has

$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n)$,

we say that μ is countably additive or σ-additive.

—Wikipedia contributors, the section on sigma additivity as a property of set functions in the article on sigma additivity

Before anyone answers my question, though, please let me mention that I would like to point out that, as I will quote below, I have attempted to ask this question before. Here is the text of the conversation in which I did so after attempting to merge the definitions of sigma additivity from my first two sources on my own:

Are the following two definitions of sigma additivity equivalent? If so, how?

$\mu\left(\bigcup_{i \in I} E_i\right) = \sum_{i \in I} \mu\left(E_i\right)$ for all countable collections $\left\{E_i\right\}_{i \in I}$ of pairwise disjoint sets in any sample space Ω – i.e.: this statement $\forall \left\{E_i\right\}_{i \in I} \iff I \subsetneq \mathbb{N} \land \bigcap_{i \in I} = \varnothing$

$\mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n)$ for any sequence of disjoint subsets A_n in any sigma algebra $\mathcal{A}$ – i.e.: this statement $\forall n$

RandomDSdevel (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure I follow what the statements are, but I'll have a go. I believe these are inequivalent, but both are arguably incorrect definitions. To start with, by definition any countable set I is basically the naturals. This leaves us with two potential differences: 1) (pairwise) disjointness and 2) the sigma-algebra rather than being a general subset of $\Omega$. The disjointness is a problem because the word pairwise is often omitted from "disjoint" - the only other thing it could mean is that the whole intersection is empty, which in most cases I know of is clearly not what's wanted from context - both definitions are the same. For the second, if your function $\mu$ is defined on all subsets of $\Omega$, then this is the same thing with respect to the sigma-algebra "all subsets"; in general, however, it won't be (think of non-measurable sets). Does that help at all? Straightontillmorning (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

—RandomDSdevel (talk) in an online conversation with Straightontillmorning, Sigma Additivity Definition Confusion, an archived thread from Wikipedia's mathematics reference desk

In retrospect, I'm pretty sure that what Straightontillmorning meant by his reply was that the first statement, which I compiled from my first two sources, could not become equivalent to the second one, which I basically copied from my third source after attempting to summarize an explanation of the conditions applied to that definition as provided by the said definition's preceding paragraph, unless I made a couple of changes first. One of these, of course, would be to take his advice and make the second statement work 'for any sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets A_n in any sigma algebra $\mathcal{A}$' instead of just for disjoint subsets. The other modification that I would have to make, obviously, would have to address my acquaintance's concerns over the fact that the second definition is only equivalent to the first when its domain is restricted from all sequences of pairwise disjoint subsets of the σ-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ (which one could, in this case, set equal to the power set $\mathcal{P}\left(\Omega\right)$ of a sample space Ω) to only the sequence of pairwise disjoint subsets of thisσ-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ – in this case, Ω – that contains all of the possible members of such a sequence. I assume that this is correct, but could you make sure that I understand this problem correctly?
Thanks in advance,
RandomDSdevel (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that all instances of "disjoint" are meant to imply "pairwise disjoint", and so it might be helpful to make that explicit. Other than that, the three definitions are equivalent. No other change is required.

Straightontillmorning was concerned that your sequence might contain nonmeasurable sets, but the definition avoids this by specifying that the sets are drawn from $\Sigma$.--80.109.106.49 (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The two statements that you posted in the original thread were not using mathematical symbols in any recognizable manner, thus rendering the two definitions that you posted meaningless (to me). The definitions in the articles are all equivalent to one another. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusing symbols, Slawonir; I was, because of my rudimentary understanding of the subject, using the symbols of mathematical logic as shorthand for longer statements to explain the conditions that apply to these statements. Anyhow, could you show me howthese definitions are mathematically equivalent to each other? And which version would you pick as most readable and, therefore, most easily communicable to other people?

Confused, 

RandomDSdevel (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I can report that I was correctly interpreted above. It is obvious that the three definitions are equivalent, the differences are in notation. Specifically: in the first definition, the measure is called P rather than mu; writing a sequence of unions ... is the same thing as writing a union over an index set, and (by the definition of countable) it makes no odds whether we take a countable index set I or the naturals. There is no need to harmonise these definitions any further - particularly, replacing P by mu on the page discussing probability is liable to confuse (P is standard for a probability measure), but using P for mu in the case of a general measure is equally likely to confuse. Does that clarify anything? Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the definition of sigma additivity can apply to either a probability measure P or a generic measure μ, but I'm still a little confused by the differences in notation between the given equations. Since I'm sort of new to set and measure theories, could you explain to me why and how one could find these differences to be negligible?

— RandomDSdevel (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let's do this in obsessive detail to be on the safe side. To begin with, the definition does not apply to either a probability measure or a "generic" measure - a probability measure is a measure, and the definition is the same. The hypotheses you have listed in the definitions are as follows:

• Any countable sequence of disjoint (synonymous with mutually exclusive) events $E_1, E_2, \dots$
• For all countable collections $\left\{E_i\right\}_{i \in I}$ of pairwise disjoint sets in $\Sigma$
• for any sequence $A_1, A_2, \dots, A_k, \dots$ of disjoint sets in $\scriptstyle\mathcal{A}$

As we said before, disjoint means pairwise disjoint in all three cases (and would be understood as meaning this.) If I is a countable set, by definition there is a bijection between I and {1, 2, 3, ...}; that is, we can write the set as I = {i1, i2, i3, ...}. Hence all three sequences are the same (in the second, writing "a countable sequence E_1, E_2, ..." is more or less redundant.) It clearly doesn't matter whether we call a set A or E or the sigma-algebra Sigma or script A. It only remains to explain that this sigma-algebra requirement is implicit in the first case by use of the word event which is linked earlier in the article to event (probability theory).

and the three conclusions are:

• $P\left(E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \cdots\right) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty P\left(E_i\right)$.
• $\mu\Bigl(\bigcup_{i \in I} E_i\Bigr) = \sum_{i \in I} \mu\!\left(E_i\right)$.
• $\mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n)$

Using the same statements about how we can treat I as {1, 2, 3, ...}, and the difference between A and E is negligible, and observing that the definition of the dots in $E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \cdots$ is just "take the union of the whole sequence", i.e. is $\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n$, these are all obviously the same.

I hope that's clear. Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Parzen density estimate conditional variance

A Parzen estimator for a bivariate probability density given data points $(x_1,y_1),...,(x_n,y_n)$ is $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n \mathcal{N}((x_k,y_k),\sigma^2I)$.

I believe I can calculate the conditional distribution and mean. If you denote $f(x,x_k) = (2\pi)^{-1/2}\sigma^{-1}e^{-(x-x_k)^2/2\sigma^2}$, the estimated probability density becomes

$p(x,y) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^n f(x,x_k)f(y,y_k)$

so

$p(x|y) = \frac{p(x,y)}{p(y)} = \frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^n f(x,x_k)f(y,y_k)}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^n f(y,y_k)}= \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n f(x,x_k)f(y,y_k)}{\sum_{k=1}^n f(y,y_k)}$

$\mathbb{E}[x|y] = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n x_kf(y,y_k)}{\sum_{k=1}^n f(y,y_k)}$

Can anyone calculate $var[x|y]$? AnalysisAlgebra (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Convergent or Divergent ?

Let ${\color{white}.} \quad F(n) = \int_0^\infty{e^{-f_n(x)}}dx\ ,\quad {\color{white}.}$ where ${\color{white}.} \quad f_n(x) = \int_0^x{e^{t^n}}dt\ .$

$\lim_{n \to \infty}\ F(n) =\ ?$

We know that F(0) = ¹/e , and that for n > 0 the graphic of F(n) is strictly increasing... but I can't tell whether this ever-decreasing strictly-positive growth is asymptotic, or —on the contrary— whether it is similar to that of $\scriptstyle \sqrt n$ and Ln (n), which do NOT converge at $\scriptstyle\infty$ ( despite having an ever-decreasing growth ). The only question would be: to which of these two similar-looking-but-completely-different categories does our function belong ? And if it does fall into the former category, what exactly is its limit, and does this limit have a closed form ?

Furthermore, in the case that it is convergent, does the following integral also converge ? And if so, then to what value, and does this value possess a closed form ?

$\int_0^\infty{[\ \lambda - F(n)\ ]}\ dn =\ ?$

where ${\color{white}.} \ \lambda = \lim_{n \to \infty}F(n) \ {\color{white}.}$ — 79.113.240.146 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Calculate the pointwise limit of $e^{-f_n(x)}$. We have

$\lim_{n\to\infty} e^{-f_n(x)}=\begin{cases}e^{-x}&0< x< 1\\ 0&x > 1\end{cases}$

So if interchanging the limit and integral sign were justified, we would get $\lim F(n) = 1-1/e$. But interchanging the limits can be justified by dominated convergence using the uniform bound $e^{-f_n(x)}\le g(x)$ with

$g(x) = \begin{cases} e^{-x}& 0<x<1\\ e^{e-1-e^x} & x>1\end{cases}$

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's even easier to see that the interchange of limits is justified using Lebesgue's monotone convergence theorem. On $(0,1)$, the sequence $f_n(x)$ is decreasing, and on $(1,\infty)$, it is increasing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

→ The value of F around 3.4^- seems to be more than 0.66⁺, which itself is more than 1 - ¹/e. — 79.113.240.146 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that the sequence is monotone (and 0.66 is not far from 1-1/e). Where n is small, changes in F(n) are dominated by the $0<x<1$ part of the integral. But when n is large, they're dominated by the $x>1$ part. (Differentiate with respect to n to see this.) So it's more reasonable to think that the sequence increases and then decreases. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean ${\color{white}.} \ F'(n) = - \int_0^\infty{f'_n(x) \ e^{-f_n(x)}}dx\ ,\ {\color{white}.}$ where ${\color{white}.} \ f'_n(x) = \int_0^x{t^n \ln(t) \ e^{t^n}}dt\ {\color{white}.}$ ? — 79.113.240.146 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Large n, the contribution from the integral in the $0<x<1$ regime is negligible (because of the additional $t^n$). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

But this would then imply the existence of a point of maximum when f '_n (x) = 0, whose value I don't know how to calculate. :-( — 79.113.240.146 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you should expect to be able to calculate it explicitly since the integral is very non-trivial for finite positive n. I was just suggesting a plausible line of reasoning why your sequence is ultimately decreasing rather than increasing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Minimum value of difference of Powers of Integers

The actual question is:

• What is the minimum value of $36^m - 5^n$ where m and n are different. The most likely guess is $36^1 - 5^2$ or 36 - 25 or 11 is the solution. Is it right or can the expression have a value less than 11. I want to learn the method of solution and trying to generalize it. Any help appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer 11 is correct. Modulo 6, $36^m-5^n$ is either $\pm 1$ depending on whether n is even or odd. This means that the only possibilities less than 11 are $1,5,7$. Clearly 5 is not possible on divisibility grounds. 7 is not possible because the digits of a power of 5 written in base 6 must add to a multiple of 5, but the base 6 digits of $36^n-7$ are $55\dots545$. Finally, 1 is not possible since $36^n-1$ is divisible by 7 (and so can't be a pure power of 5). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Rationalisation

If 2^1/2=1.414 then the value 6^1/2-3^1/2, upto three decimal places is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.216.131 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My guess is the point of your homework is to understand exponents, rather than to just calculate the answer. If you apply the property of exponents, you actually don't need a calculator to come up with an answer. (Hint: Try to think of ways you can re-write 6^1/2 - especially ways which will allow you to use the information that 2^1/2=1.414 ) -- 71.35.111.68 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how you get the value of root 6 minus root 3, knowing only the value of root 2? 86.139.121.71 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been wondering the same thing. 14, are you sure it was a minus sign? 96.46.198.58 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

Twin primes

The recent news articles about "twin primes" confuse me. In the infinite set of all integers, why can't we immediately conclude that there's an infinite number of twin primes, for the same reason we can conclude that there is an infinite number of integers divisible by 7, and an infinite number of integers divisible by 7 billion? Tarcil (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Every 7th integer is divisible by 7 so there is obviously infinitely many integers divisible by 7. Similarly for 7 billion. I don't understand why you would think "the same reason" works for twin primes. Lots of things occur no or only a finite number of times among the infinitely many integers. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, there are only finitely many prime numbers divisible by 7 :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

why can't we immediately conclude — Because maths is based on proofs, not assumptions. — 79.113.209.71 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the summation $\sum_{\text{twin primes}}\frac{1}{p}$ is known to be convergent. Count Iblis (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh!? If you could explain why, or provide some relevant links, it would be very much appreciated! — 79.113.209.71 (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See Brun's theorem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If it were proven there are infinitely many twin primes, what would be the value of that knowledge? Could it be put to any practical use? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the other way around; if the summation were divergent then you could immediately conclude that there are an infinite number of twin primes. This isn't the case and there are probably no such similar shortcuts allowing for an immediate conclusion that there are an infinite number of twin primes. Count Iblis (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

Free loop generalization of Chen's iterated integrals

Hi all. I was searching for some parametrization and backtracking invariant way to describe closed free loops in ℝⁿ mathematically, and I found exactly what I need in a paper by Chen Kuo-Tsai (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1993193), but alas for open paths instead of for free loops. I would think someone must have generalized Chen's work to free loops, but my many internet searches have come up with nothing, as did messing around on my own. Anyone able to help? More specifically, I need a series of numbers/tensors/forms/whatever defined for free loops (i.e. without basepoint) such that two free loops have same shape/orientation/etc. (up to insertion of tree-like bits) if and only if the series of numbers/whatever is identical for the two loops. (If that makes sense for anyone.) MuDavid (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

Catholic bishops and cathedrals

This is going to be a convoluted question, largely because I don't know enough to ask an intelligent question.

1. First off, I've heard of cathedral parishes. Are the parishioners just average Catholics who hear Mass at the cathedral instead of at a non-cathedral church? Or is there something special about the parish, e.g. you somehow have to "qualify" to be a member there in a way that you don't have to "qualify" to be a member of a normal parish? Perhaps the membership is composed of the priests from across the diocese?
2. What responsibilities does a bishop have for a cathedral and its parish? Are they basically the same as a typical priest's responsibilities for his parish? Bishop (Catholicism) doesn't mention the issue, only mentioning the bishop's responsibilities for the entire diocese. I'm also unclear how a cathedral's Rector (ecclesiastical) fits in.
3. Do bishops typically work out of an office at the cathedral, or do they spend most of their time visiting the various parishes to keep up to date on what's going on? Or do they decide on their own schedules, making this question impossible to answer?
4. When a diocese has two cathedrals, does the bishop have equal responsibilities for both, or will one be more important than the other, or is this question unanswerable because the situation varies from diocese to diocese? Co-cathedral doesn't specify whether a building designated "Co-Cathedral" is equal or subsidiary to a building designated "Cathedral".

Perhaps a little context will help; all this grows out of seeing a "Reserved for the Bishop" sign in a parking spot at St. Joseph's, the cathedral for the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. It left me wondering what he was supposed to do there versus what he had to do at the Charleston co-cathedral and at the other parishes. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Cathedral comes from the Greek word kathedra which literal means "seat", and through Latin and French is the source of the English word "chair". A cathedral is essentially a church with a little more grandeur suiting a bishop, who is the head of a diocese. Bishoprics can move and new cathedrals be built; it doesn't require the old one to be destroyed. As for parish, a Catholic is supposed to attend and support his geographically closest parish church. That may end up being a cathedral. My youngest sister ended up being baptized in a Roman Catholic church due to geography, along with some other complications, even though we were Byzantine Catholic. Only later did the bishop comment he would have happily had her baptized in a Byzantine church had he known. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you're answering my #1; thank you. I don't see answers to #2-#4; do I misunderstand you, or did you not intend to answer them? Not trying to complain; I'm still a bit confused by the situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Bishop (Catholicism)#Duties help any? Diocesan bishops (those appointed to head a Diocese) are expected to say Mass every week, in addition to that, they are also the chief administrator of the Diocese, and have similar duties to other administrators in any endeavor: staffing all of the parishes with pastoral priests, maintaining the finances for the diocese, etc. Bishops also preside over certain sacraments, such as Holy Orders and Confirmation. --Jayron32 05:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem — I read it before asking this question. I was left wondering if they normally said Mass at the cathedral (and in the case of double dioceses like Wheeling-Charleston, both or just one?) or if they would rotate around parishes, or if both were valid options; and also I was left uncertain of how they were required (or if any requirements existed) to perform the other duties. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. As for #2 and #3, The cathedral is just the church itself, the bishop will have a rectory (or its equivalent, that's what they call it for parish priests) which serves as an office and usually has a very close by or attached residence. Jayron pretty much answered #3. The bishop sets his own schedule and can communicate, often by letter, both with the priests and the parishoners in his diocese directly. When I attended church I remember there being a letter about yearly and on special occasions or about special issues from the bishop. When The Life of Brian came out, a letter from Archbishop Krol of Philadelphia was read (in the role of bishop) forbidding Catholics from viewing it. As for his duties, he could be thought of as the district manager of a corporate business (he literally is this) watching over the branch offices as he saw fit. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no need to apologise! Didn't realise that rectories were often offices; I know that lots of Protestant ministers (including many in my denomination) have offices at the church (and many of the exceptions are pastors of tiny congregations who need to save money everywhere possible, including by working at home), so I simply figured that the church would have rooms where priests would do their paperwork and their studying and meet with parishioners. I understand much better now; "the bishop sets his own schedule" makes the situation substantially simpler. I guess that I wasn't aware of the extent of bishops' autonomy; instead of being district managers, I imagined them as being comparable to mid-level bureaucrats who always have certain procedures to follow and lack the right to make important decisions independently. Does that answer my #4 too, i.e. the bishop can decide which of the two cathedrals is more important, or he can make them equal? Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't comment on #4 since I have no familiarity with the issue. But what is important to keep in mind is that the bureaucracy is not ceremonial or sacramental. There are certain things you have to do during mass to do it right. But the administration of dioceses is organic and inherently different and follow what in the corporate world are called "local practices" (see alansplodge's comment below for difference between UK and US). As an example, in my family's local parish, there was originally a single small building called the rectory with an office, a kitchen, and rooms for the monsignor and the second parish priest. Over time the parish expanded, separate residences were built for the serving and retired priests, and the "rectory" became just an office. None of this has any religious significance, however, so it's just a matter of administrative decisions based on supply and demand. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cathedral itself is usually managed by a team of clergy called the Cathedral chapter which is led by a Provost and supported by an administrator called the Dean. However, that last link says that in the US, there are no chapters, and cathedrals are directly managed by a Rector. The Bishop isn't involved with the day-to-day running of his cathedral, and may only lead the worship there on special occasions and major feast days. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy Medal in silver 1915

Who got the Guy Medal in silver in 1915

• Sydney Chapman (economist) or Sydney Chapman (mathematician)?

Did anyone of the below got the Guy Medal. None of their wikipedia page have any mention of Guy Medal. Neither is there any clue on the internet.

• David Forbes Hendry - 1986 bronze
• Joseph Shield Nicholson - 1918 silver
• Ralph George Hawtrey - 1936 silver

Any help appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything explicit on Google, but this biography of Chapman the Maths says that after a spell collecting data at the Royal Observatory, he returned to lecture at Cambridge in 1914, which doesn't sound like anything you'd win a stats prize for. He was also a conscientious objector, which in 1915, would have made him the target of public vilification. Chapman the Economy was meanwhile busy putting the nation's industries onto a war footing and seems far more likely to be gathering laurels, given the patriotic fervour in the Britain of 1915. Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Also (circumstantial, I know), the economist definitely had a J to match the "SJ Chapman" on the Royal Society's list whereas I can't see the mathematician ever used a middle initial. What about asking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange whether someone with a Times subscription can search their archive for 1915 for an announcement? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Couldnt find anything in the Times about the medal in 1915 but a paper by Professor S. J. Chapman, MA and Mr David Kemp was read to the society in January 1915 on "The War and the Textile Industries", this would point to Sydney Chapman (economist) being the receipent. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Professor J Shield Nicholson and Mr R G Hawtrey are in the RSS's list of previous silver winners, and Professor D F Hendry in the bronze list. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• According to Who Was Who, Sydney John Chapman (b. 1871) was a Guy Silver Medallist (no year given). He was also Vice-President of the Royal Statistical Society in 1916. The other one definitely had no middle name. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hipsters

Which countries have the highest and lowest proportions of hipsters as a percentage of the overall population? The definition is as per the linked article i.e. "associated with independent music, a varied non-mainstream fashion sensibility, liberal or independent political views, alternative spirituality or atheism/agnosticism, and alternative lifestyles." --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept is so nebulous that it's probably impossible to say. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Idle (though infallible) speculation: The Vatican would be fairly low on the list. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Count the number of goatees? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Given my experience part of the hipster m.o. is that they do not admit that the existence of other "hipsters" and certainly don't catalog their numbers, as Walter Sobchak might say if seeing that behavior "Hippsstteerr . . . very un-hipster". And if even hipsters won't count their population how are us squares supposed to? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't we have this question not very long ago? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Before it was cool, perhaps? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, about a month ago, from memory. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would hazard to guess that the country with the highest proportion of hipsters would probably be Luxembourg. It is a fairly liberal country politically... well plugged into the trends in broader European culture. However, because its total population is small, even a small number of hipsters will be a large percentage of total population. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

By (nebulous) definition, this is an urban, indeed principally metropolitan, subculture. Luxembourg doesn't have a city big enough to come even close to being a metropolis. (Luxembourg City has a population of between 100,000 and 160,000 depending on how you define the city limits). Valiantis (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As the article in question refers almost exclusively to the US and indeed primarily to the New York area (there's also a reference to Vancouver) then I'd suggest the only realistic answer is the US. "Hipster" is an English term. The interwiki links all direct to "hipster" as an English loan word and the text in those that I can read refers mainly to the US - and New York specifically - as the stomping ground of such folk. (The Italian interwiki also identifies Hoxton and Shoreditch in London, Prenzlauer Berg in Berlin, Belleville, Paris, and Bologna in Italy). I'm mainly familiar with the term from US TV etc. where it seems to be well-understood enough to be used in mainstream comedy shows (off the top of my head both 2 Broke Girls and Happy Endings regularly poke fun at hipsters and use the term when doing so). There does seem to be some currency for the term in the UK in print and web media, but I can't think of comparable UK TV programmes which use the term as a readily understandable type. Valiantis (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, most of the images are of Chicago. Sindonwe (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there even any evidence that hipsters/hipsterism exists outside the US as a defined subculture/concept? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

World War I is missing: which one should it go in, and why?

Outline of War

Eras

• Prehistoric
• Ancient
• Medieval
• Gunpowder
• Industrial
• Modern

Generations of warfare

• First
• Second
• Third
• Fourth

Battlespace

• Air
• Information
• Land
• Sea
• Space

Weapons

• Armor
• Artillery
• Biological
• Cavalry
• Conventional
• Chemical
• Cyber
• Electronic
• Infantry
• Nuclear
• Psychological
• Unconventional

Tactics

• Aerial
• Battle
• Cavalry
• Charge
• Cover
• Counter-insurgency
• Foxhole
• Guerrilla warfare
• Morale
• Siege
• Tactical objective

Operational

• Blitzkrieg
• Deep battle
• Maneuver warfare
• Operational manoeuvre group

Strategy

• Attrition
• Deception
• Defensive
• Offensive
• Goal
• Naval

Grand strategy

• Containment
• Economic warfare
• Military science
• Philosophy of war
• Strategic studies
• Total war

Organization

• Command and control
• Doctrine
• Education and training
• Engineers
• Intelligence
• Ranks
• Staff
• Technology and equipment

Logistics

• Materiel
• Supply chain management

Other

• Asymmetric warfare
• Cold war
• Mercenary
• Military operation
• Operations research
• Principles of War
• Proxy war
• Trench warfare
• War crimes

Lists

• Battles
• Commanders
• Operations
• Sieges
• Wars
• War crimes
• Weapons
• Writers

• Early modern warfare
• Modern warfare

World War I is missing from both of the above articles. Which one does it belong in, and why? The Transhumanist 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A good question. Early modern warfare says that "the late 18th to early 19th centuries... mark the end of this era", while Modern warfare on the other hand states that "Modern warfare, although present in every historical period of military history, is generally used to refer to the concepts, methods and technologies that have come into use during and after the Second World War and the Korean War.[citation needed]". I think that we can assume that whatever else is wrong, the suggestion that "modern warfare" was "present in every historical period of military history" is either entirely nuts, or meaningless. On the other hand, there isn't actually a requirement that Wikipedia articles be logically consistent with each other. I suspect that this may be a question for military historians to answer: is there an agreed definition of when 'early modern warfare' began, and what period followed it? Perhaps there is a 'mid-modern warfare' period? Or maybe historians don't have any agreed common definition (which wouldn't be that surprising). Whatever the answer is, we should beware of redefining the scope of one article or the other without proper sourcing. It needs proper research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but American history commentary usually describes the Civil War 1861-1865 as the turning point, which began with soldiers marching in formation and ended with ironclad armored hulls, machine guns and submarines (and concentration camps and the "total war" of Sherman's March). WWI had a similar trajectory, with soldiers in formation and bright uniforms giving way to gas, guns, trenches and tanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sherman's March to the Sea is an example of the "scorched earth" military strategy. "Total war" means commitment of an entire economy to a war. The Transhumanist 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, transhumanist. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Our "history of war" template (inserted above on the right) classifies WWI as part of the Industrial warfare era, which lies between the Early Modern (aka "gunpowder") and Modern eras. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This solves my problem. I've treated it (in Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of World War I#Nature of World War I) as follows:

• Industrial warfare
  • Includes aspects of both Early modern warfare and modern warfare

There is no doubt that World War I is not "early modern warfare." But as Looie points out there are finer grades that you can classify it as opposed to just calling it "modern." (In general, "early modern" usually means 16th-early 19th centuries, though in some contexts it can go earlier or later.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The guys at WP:MILHIST might be able to help out here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left them a note to invite them over. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the confusion is a result of the differences between how historians use the word "modern" and how its used in the vernacular. Generally speaking, the terms line up with the early modern and modern periods in European history. A common delineator between the two is the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period (so the 1797-1815). The periodization is especially coincidental, owing to the major changes in warfare (for instance, the levee en masse - mass conscription, the advent of total war, etc.) the marked a significant break from the Frederickian style limited war of the early modern period, and led directly to the industrialized warfare of the 20th century.

So to answer the original question, World War I is firmly in the "modern" era. I hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - World War I is often referred to as the first truly modern war in that all particpants were industrialized, and the fighting took place on land, sea and air and involved complex strategies, logistical arrangements and communications. Wars such as the American Civil War are seen as being precursors to WW1. That all said, there wasn't a clear delineation. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article on how stupid the word modern is as an adjective for a historical period, one that will obviously eventually not be all that modern. What's the next period in warfare? Post-modern? And then...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I could just imagine a teenager in 1,000 years buying Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and sitting down in front of his virtual console and thinking, "Hang on....this is ancient warfare......" KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally the "modern period" is the 20th century to the present. Yes, over time that becomes increasingly long, but people of the future will just rename stuff. Nobody called themselves "early modern", or even "medieval," either. This are terms always applied retrospectively. That they shift over time does not preclude their usefulness. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what you're referring to is the contemporary period (and it again highlights the difference between how "modern" is used by historians and by the general public). The modern period (as historians define it) goes back to the 16th century (including the early modern period). Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Pocky

Do the majority of Japanese people actually eat Pocky on a regular basis? I personally suspect that it's not as often as Japanophiles in the west think that they do and that it's mostly a stereotype/misunderstanding, but does anyone know for sure? --87.112.113.5 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I lived in Japan for ten years, and I can say they are very common at parties, or as snacks when going on a journey somewhere. However, they are not commonly eaten at home or in the office (at least not in my house or in my workplaces), but they may be given as a snack for visitors to a house. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Ronaldsway culture

would like information / article on Ronaldsway culture that existed on the isle of mann thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.76.87 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Ronaldsway there's an airport and an historical battleground there. It also seems to be close to Ballasalla and Castletown, both of which seem to be a bit more "happening" than Ronaldsway. --Jayron32 03:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've amended your header to something meaningful, since virtually all questions we get here stem from a lack of information. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ronaldsway culture refers to a neolithic archeaological stratum, not the local fine dining establishments. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

meta-discussion of how to answer this question; see talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Watch it, Jayron. If I had given that answer to the OP's question I'd have been accused of undermining the sanctity of childhood, universal healthcare, honey bees, and the fabric of time and space with my part-time trollery. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait what? --Jayron32 04:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow the link I provided, then reread the thread carefully, including spelling, then let me know if you are still confused. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by why you accused me of trolling. I'm not confused by your link. --Jayron32 05:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of actually trolling. I said that if I had accidentally made the apparently inadvertent joke you did out of ignorance, I would have been accused of intentionally mocking the OP. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see how this works now. Jayron32 tries to give informative answers which wikilink to our articles (as is the point of this reference desk) while other editors patronisingly link to Google search results or to Youtube videos which have no relevance. No wonder this website is ridiculed from some quarters, some long-term editors should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ronaldsway culture refers to the neolithic flint tool artifacts found at the Ronaldsway airport on the Isle of Man. They date from the 3rd millennium BC. BBC has an overview (with video) here. However, it seems the most thorough info is in a book, The Neolithic Culture of the Isle of Man: A Study of the Sites and Pottery, by Stephen Burrow, Archaeopress 1997, ISBN: 0860548724 ([9]). It looks as if retailers such as Amazon carry it, so a good library probably will as well. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a brief Archaeology section to the Ronaldsway page - feel free to add to it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What time of day and date of the year would most people on earth be in darkness?

Moved to the Science desk. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna - unidentified detail

I photographed this in St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. It is located in the shop entrance.

. Any information concerning the function and surrounding text will be appreciated. Etan J. Tal^(talk) 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile question answered in German WP - pls disregard Etan J. Tal^(talk) 15:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer on German Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating a communist society

This has long ceased to be anything other than a shared soapbox

Suppose you were a revolutionary socialist who had just managed to overthrow the government in a highly developed, first-world country (pick any one you like). Starting from here, how would you build "true communism"? I'm not saying "communism" is necessarily good or evil, but I would like to know if it's actually possible. From a quick read through Soviet history, it seems like they never got anywhere close. 78.105.228.3 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't do hypotheticals, debates, speculation, what-ifs, crystal ball gazing and the like here. We deal in matters that can be referenced. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an unreasonable question at all, and I'd be very interested to see what answers people come up with. It's simply asking for the theoretical steps by which a communist society would be achieved. That doesn't sound like speculation or crystal ball gazing to me. --Viennese Waltz 12:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The usual way of dealing with hypotheticals like that is to point to an article or book which tackled a subject like that. Mark and Engels The Communist Manifesto would be a start on that. You'll see where all the turgid mind numbing prose of communism came from. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I just looked up longest speeches expecting the communists to have a overwhelming pole position but in [10] some Indian politician speaking to the UN security council took over eight hours, easily beating Castro's four hours and 29 minutes to the UN general assembly. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

V. K. Krishna Menon was the first defence minister of India not "some Indian politician". Solomon7968 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Viennese Waltz, he wants more than the theoretical steps. He says the Soviets never got anywhere close, so the theory didn't work there. There have never been any actual, real-life examples of truly communist societies, so to get from the theory that failed in the USSR and has manifestly failed in other so-called communist countries, to one that might actually work, he wants ... well, more theory. Trouble is, he hasn't asked for what reliable sources have said about this new theory, he's asked how to actually implement and achieve it. Nobody in the world knows that, because 100% of attempts have failed. It's unanswerable. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The followers of Marx and Engels many flaws were the perfect case study in how to fail, using gulags. Societies artificially constructed by a tiny group of individuals can never compete with those that develop naturally. 71.127.137.190 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Marx nor Engels ever advocated 'societies artificially constructed by a tiny group of individuals'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As Margaret Thatcher said "The problem with socialism [or for that matter communism] is that you eventually run out of other peoples money". The example that is most telling to me is that of Cuba, an immensely wealthy island that is capable of feeding the world and one of the last colonies Spain was willing to fight for up until almost 1900. Today nobody does anything because Castro "owns" everything and the nation can't feed itself, in its quest for communal equality of outcomes it punishes innovation and creativity and is basically a race to the bottom, but hey you have the greatest equality there, everybody was suffering, until capitalists came by with more tourist dollars in the last 15 years. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've got John Galt's theory about why communism can't work (certainly it contributes to Cuba's backwardness in major areas, but look at its closest neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean which have never come nearly as close to implementing communism, and see if you think they're doing better in most sectors) to get some idea of why it hasn't worked, you might take a look at the kibbutz experiments in Israel, which were never on a national scale but the cards weren't stacked against success by the abandonment or resistance of so many unwilling participants. There, it looks as though whatever economic challenges the founding generation encountered (and they were significant), the death knell seems to have been sounded by the next generation's rejection of the discipline and attraction to the opportunities they felt were only accessible outside the system. They left and didn't come back to raise their children. FactStraight (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the fatal mistakes in communism were it's dismissal of religion and democracy. Religions should have been appropriated and put to use, not banned. True Christianity, for example, has a long tradition of charity and egalitarianism. It could be argued that a true socialist nation, where everyone "works according to their ability and takes only according to their need", is the best form of government for a Christian nation. Similarly, if you convinced the population of that, so they were willing to work hard, not for rewards in this life, but in the afterlife, then democracy would ensure that leaders who actually believed in the cause would remain in power, too, as opposed to those who just give lip service to communism as they steal from the nation. StuRat (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And now we have exactly what I told the OP we don't do here, a round-table discussion or debate about the flaws of communism. That was not what he asked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And I still maintain we could have answered the question without descending into such a discussion. I don't know a whole lot about communism, but one thing I do know is that it calls for redistribution of wealth. Therefore, one possible answer to the OP's question would have been that a hypothetical revolutionary socialist leader would build communism by redistribution of wealth. What is unacceptable about that? --Viennese Waltz 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, he's gone beyond the hypothetical. He's not interested in the theory (he cited the USSR as a notable example of how that theory failed) and is asking what would ACTUALLY work. Trouble is, we cannot point to an example of how communism has actually worked, because it never has actually worked. All we could ever do is give cites about what people say, think, assert WOULD work, but they're untested, and hence still in the realm of theory, and hence inadequate as an answer for what the OP is asking for. There is no answer we can give that satisfies the question. I'd say the same thing about a question asking what could Politician X do to guarantee he becomes the next President of the USA. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he starts by asking "how would you build "true communism"?" That sounds pretty hypothetical to me. The statement "I would like to know if it's actually possible" doesn't really fit with what has gone before. I would be tempted to ignore it and focus on trying to answer the first part. --Viennese Waltz 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if you regard communism as inherently hypothetical and unrealisable, which the OP seems not be doing. If he'd asked "How would you build a house" or "How would you travel to Patagonia", we'd answer that as a real and un-hypothetical question. This question is being asked on the same real basis (albeit within the context of a hypothetical overthrow of the government in a highly developed, first-world country). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, even if I agreed with you that it's a hypothetical question, we still can't answer it because of our policy of not answering hypothetical questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer OP's "how would you", perhaps the banishment of Wikipedia? The almost total control of information was a common thread among many communist regimes, in which case JackofOz's point is supported in another way. And hey in reference to several posts above the John Galt response wouldn't entirely work since my userpage clearly demonstrates an aversion to Objectivism ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Stalin said something along the lines of "Ideas are more powerful than guns, and we don't let enemies of the state have guns, so why would we let them have ideas?" --Jayron32 02:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent find there Jayron32! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree with Jack of Oz that a lot of this discussion has shown the problems with these sort of questions on the RD. Since the OP themselves believe the Soviets didn't get close to achieving true communism, and we can assume that they don't believe anyone else did either (otherwise they would already have a model), I don't get the relevance of all the other failures to demonstrating how to achieve true communism, unless you're saying you should not do that which doesn't appear to be what is being suggested here. Even then, it's illogical to assume that everything they did was the wrong idea, so ultimately you'd need a more careful analysis (and really a whole lot of hypothetical and highly debately arguments) to tell whether anything was a good or bad idea in achieving true communism and that's not really something we should be doing. You could also use this as an argument for why it's not possible to achieve true communism but again you'd need a more sophisticated and detailed consideration (and this doesn't seem to have been the suggestion above, at least by Marketdiamond).

However I don't entirely agree with JackofOz on this question being unsuitable for the RD, although nor do I agree with VW. We shouldn't be coming up with our own OR and ideas on how to achieve true communism, that's not the purpose of the RD and while we tolerate it to some extent in some cases, this is the sort of case where it just doesn't work. But even though the OP's question was perhaps poorly phrased, there's no reason it can't be taken as a decent RD question, i.e. a request for references. And there must surely be many references with various ideas of how it can be done including those concentrating on first world countries and where all the others went wrong, and a lot more saying it's not possible with reasons given both of which would likely be of interest to the OP. Perhaps the only issue is the OPs scenario starts with the unclear 'overthrow of government' which is problematic particularly since the vast majority of highly developed first world countries have decent democracies with fairly free and fair elections. So overthrow of government would seem to imply some sort of coup by a small group of people which lacks popular support. I suspect a number of commentators who do still believe achieving true communism is possible would suggest trying to achieve it in such a scenario is difficult or impossible.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe The State and Revolution is the classic work on the subject.-gadfium 01:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Counter-intuitively, communists haven't spent much time analysing a potential transition to communism, focusing on the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. The most relevant Wikipedia articles are stateless communism, the (very weak) world communism, and Engels' withering away of the state. Warofdreams talk 10:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Frank Zappa once said that communism doesn't work "because people like to own stuff." The OP would have to get past that barrier somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To further evolve on Zappa, see Liberal paradox or an interpretation of the "architect" here since despite communism theory there will always have to be organization which is centralized and total in nature, again to add to JackofOz's overall point, wikipedia like google and Youtube in China would be censored to the point of being useless and banned, so its a bit ironic asking it here. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

the Anamithim

I've heard many references in Faerie folklore and such to creatures known as the Anamithim, but they were always vague and obscure. What are they? What is their origin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.51.225 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

When I search google books for the term, the earliest reference is the Charles de Lint novel Blue Girl[11], from 2004. [12] Unless there is another spelling, it doesn't appear to be a term from actual folklore but an invention of de Lint. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A plural word ending in "-im" sounds more Hebrew than Celtic anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't assume that 'Faerie folklore' would have any reliably Celtic content. But yes, it sounds quasi-Hebrew, but I'd be willing to bet that it either doesn't have a valid root, or the root has an irrelevant and inapt meaning unknown to the person who invented the word. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you try to interpret it as a Hebrew word, "-ith" is one transcription of a feminine singular ending, while "-im" is a masculine plural ending (the two do not occur side-by-side in real Hebrew words), while "Anam" doesn't seem to occur except in an obscure proper name in Genesis 10:13. Apparently in some Greek manuscripts of Genesis 13, this name has an extra "t" in it (Αινεμετιειμ), so if there's any connection with Hebrew, it's probably that... AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Alex Linder's middle name

I have been trying to find a reliable source to cite to add Alex Linder's middle name to the biography. Many sources say his full name is Alex Ruedy Linder, but I don't know if any of them are reliable. Vanguard News Network is obviously not reliable, even though he mentions his full name there. How should I know if Ruedy actually is his middle name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The closest I've been able to come to confirming his middle name is this, and I don't think that's a reliable source. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Efficacy of detachable faceplates for deterrence of car stereo theft

I'm looking into the efficacy of detachable faceplates for car stereo theft deterrence. Is there any research that demonstrates this? Quotes from police departments? I can't find any research that's been done in this area. Sancho 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Need help identifying piano work

Can anyone help me identify the first work played in this video? The beginning is cut off, as is, most likely, the identifying card that is shown for the other works played in this concert. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's the 3rd and final movement (Presto agitato) of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. The slow first movement is the famous one, but there are 2 others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone asked recently about one tune inspiring another. Hard telling in this case, but you may know that Victor Borge used to seamlessly segue from "Moonlight Sinatra Sonata" to tunes like "Night and Day" and "Happy Birthday to You". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess more was cut off than I thought--it must have been about 10 minutes. Chick Bowen 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of consciousness is coming up independently with the the 'hard problem' - who has already said this?

I remember reading somewhere the idea that good evidence of consciousness (in the sense of the hard problem) is independently coming up with the concept of the hard problem of consciousness.

My question: who was it who said/wrote this? Is it part of some of existing theory / body of thought?

It seems a very simple and strong idea, but I have not been able to find it (in general web searches and in Wikipedia).

For example if some computers, or aliens, are overheard discussing the hard problem of consciousness, without having been introduced to it by human beings, then this seems very good evidence that they have consciousness.

The fact that other people discuss the hard problem is also good evidence to me that I am not the only person who is conscious.

This is such a simple argument I find it difficult to understand why it is not used more often - or maybe there is a flaw in it that I have not noticed. Could anyone point out such a flaw?

In the article Philosophical zombie, what seems to me a weaker version of the argument is used: "If someone were to say they love the smell of some food... If zombies were without awareness of their perceptions the idea of uttering words could not occur to them." It seems to me quite easy to conceive of something without hard-problem type consciousness coming up with that statement - it seems on the level of a simple robot going towards or away from a light source; two fairly simple computers fitted with appropriate sensors and a simple vocabulary could come up with that statement... There is a lot could be debated here - but my reason for mentioning it is: why didn't they use instead the (what seems to me) stronger argument about discussing the hard problem as being evidence of consciousness?

FrankSier (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

For reference, Hard problem of consciousness. Rojomoke (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that, but the argument seems unsound. The basic idea underlying the "hard problem of consciousness", as David Chalmers formulated it, is that an entity could in principle behave exactly like a conscious entity without being conscious. That's what it means to be a philosophical zombie. But talking is a form of behavior, including talking about the hard problem of consciousness. Therefore talking, regardless of the topic, cannot provide evidence for having genuine experiences. Rejecting this reasoning is equivalent to rejecting the validity of the "hard problem of consciousness". (Let me note that this whole topic strikes many people, including me, as absurd. Daniel Dennett explained the absurdity in a compelling way in a well-known essay titled The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies.) Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What I find absurd is Dennett's position, so much so that I have trouble believing he's actually sincere.

But we're probably not going to get anywhere talking about that. Let's just take the consequences of the arguments as presented. The p-zombie argument says that it's possible in principle that an entity yada yada yada as you say. It doesn't say anything about how likely it is, and indeed that's entirely irrelevant to the argument. So behavior can indeed be evidence of consciousness. Just not proof.

Of course, all bets are off if someone is intentionally trying to deceive you. --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank. Todd Moody has a paper, "Conversations with Zombies" in Journal of Consciousness Studies, volume 1, issue 2 (1994), pp. 196-200. The argument is not exactly like you report, and in the corollary, but he is saying essentially the same thing: While zombies that live among us may be able to ape the talk of primary consciousness, zombies from an alien planet would not develop such discourse. Also, I want to second what Trovatore just said, more or less. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Atethnekos, thanks for that. I have found an online copy [13]. The paper matches just the sort of thing I was thinking. FrankSier (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maggie Q in Mission Impossible 3

Can anyone explain me the context of the vatican city scene in Mission Impossible 3 of Maggie Q.

• Is wearing backless dress allowed in vatican city?
• What was she trying to prove in the backless dress?

Thank you. 117.99.1.139 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film but perhaps you could answer this question for us. Why wouldn't a backless dress be allowed in Vatican City? Granted, it's a religious country but backless items are common in this day and age. So why do you feel that a point would need to be made by wearing something so common? Dismas|^(talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if you believe Angels & Demons wearing short shorts is banned too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it allowed to meet the pope by wearing backless dress. Again I have no idea of Vatican City? Can I just go there and meet the pope? Thank you. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Googling turns up lots of discussion of the strict dress code to enter St. Peter's Basilica, which is not just a tourist attraction but a place of worship. The rule seems to be no shorts, no miniskirts, no bare shoulders for either sex. Here's what looks like an official warning: [14]. Doesn't mention backless dresses, but since the Swiss Guards are pretty strict, you'd be well advised to take along a sweater or other modest top to wear over your dress. Textorus (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This was the answer I was looking for Textorus. I wonder why some people like Dismas not knowing answer of a question instead tend to harass the person asking the question. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You can consult image File:Vatican-tourists-queuing-at-St-Peter-6598.jpg. Doubt there are too many restrictions in Saint Peter's Square (most of which is technically not part of the Vatican), but when entering more controlled areas things would be different... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "most of which is technically not part of the Vatican". I have *zero* knowledge of vatican city. Explanation needed. If any simple guy wants to visit the pope (not necessary in backless dress) where to contact? 106.198.135.241 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This article contains information and links for people wishing to get tickets for a papal audience. You can apply for tickets directly yourself, and they are free. There is no guarantee you will meet the Pope personally at such an event, although you will see him, but the Holy See's website is here if you want to investigate further. As for the dress code inside the Basilica or in St Peter's Square, this news article shows that the dress code has been extended to the Square itself at times, and this Tripadvisor thread makes it clear that enforcement is not consistent and can depend on the guards on duty. Since a backless dress would probably expose at least some of your shoulders, which is not permitted under the dress code, I suggest you wear something else - not shorts either - if you get your ticket and will enter either the Square or the Basilica itself. - Karenjc 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

106.198.135.241 -- I probably expressed it wrong, but the Italian police often has jurisdiction over the piazza for crowd-control duties, which is not true for the rest of the Vatican... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To the OP, I didn't mean to harass but when a person can find their way to this desk to ask a question, knows how to use the bold function (though I don't know why you needed it in this case) and has the same access to the Vatican City article as the rest of us, I don't see why you wouldn't at least skim that article first. If you had, you would have seen the culture section. Following that link provides you with a section on the dress code within the Basilica. You've said twice now that you don't know anything about Vatican City and yet you have quite a bit of information at your finger tips. Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They won't let you in some places with bare shoulders, definitely. There are lots of scarf-sellers and so forth immediately outside who take advantage of this to sell you overpriced coverings. You can get away with being bare-shouldered inside buildings, if no one is watching... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See papal audience. My boyfriend saw John Paul in and was in jeans and a muscle T (my boyfriend, not John Paul). μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I had been meaning to see this movie and have had it in my Netflix queue for some time. MI2 was such a horrible movie that it soured me on the series (I actually re-watched it before watching MI3 just now and stand by my earlier assessment. MI2 is horrible!) but thought I'd give MI3 a shot anyway. So, I watched the movie and I'd like to redeem myself for my previous comments and provide you with some answers to your question. We've gone over the first already, "Is a backless dress allowed to be worn in Vatican City". But the second, what was she trying to prove? I wouldn't say that she was trying to prove anything. It was a decision to further the con that the MI team were playing on the bad guy, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. For those who care, here are a few screen caps from the movie. First, Maggie Q isn't the only actress wearing a backless dress. Not by a long shot. See here, here, and here. I would agree that it is by far more revealing than other backless dresses in the scene. For instance, see here and here. In that last one, the pale portion next to her hand at the bottom of the frame is her leg. While she didn't have anything to prove, I would say that there are two points to why she wore the dress in that scene. The first is for the benefit of the men in the audience with shots like this where she has to pull something from her garter. The second point in her wearing that dress, which was actually relevant to the plot of the film, was to seduce Hoffman's character here. As for why it was in Vatican City, it didn't need to be. They just needed an exotic locale and Vatican City fit the bill. There is absolutely no reason why this scene couldn't have happened in New York, London, Venice, or Bangkok. The particulars of the scene would have had to change to fit the city but in the end it was just a location with some glitz. With all that said, besides reading up on Vatican City, the OP might also want to read the MacGuffin article. So, I apologize for my earlier comments and hope this makes up for them. Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

egalitarian opposition to lotteries

With all this talk about reversing the US income disparity we have just recently had a lottery jackpot of $590 million.[15] A half-way billionaire. Do egalitarians also oppose this practise? I haven't found such on wiki. Pass a Method talk 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lotteries provide upward mobility for a very few (randomly-chosen) winners, but are often considered to be a useless economic drain (or "stupidity tax") on predominantly lower/working class lottery ticket buyers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The state will bark about "reversing the US income disparity" up until the point it takes money from the state, and lotteries make tons of money for the state . . . how am I so sure? The state(s) have rapidly expanded lottery products in the last 40 years, government only grows something if it benefits government. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article lottery has mentions of opposition throughout and sections headed "problems" and "social corruption". "Egalitarian" is undefined here and I don't see how we can comment on a vague class of people's opinions. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to lotteries typically has to do with the fact that it's a state-sponsored "vice", which could lead a gambling addict to ruin. That's the moralistic argument. The practical argument is that it is often supposed to be for funding education, but that somehow other projects manage to get their mitts on it... and that it doesn't really raise enough money anyway. Not sure where the "egalitarian" part comes in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't help that I could be the worst craps player in the world (and by i worst i mean the worst odds) and still get better odds than most lottery players. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Mathematically speaking, the odds of winning big in the lottery are almost the same whether you actually play or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If by "almost the same" you mean infinitely greater. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They both round to 0, even when taken out several decimal places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The ratio between any real positive fraction and zero is so infinitely large it is undefined. This is basic pre-calculus. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, why not link to an article for a change, per the purpose of this reference desk? Division by zero might be appropriate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is division the issue here? An extremely slim chance (e.g. 0.000001) is "almost the same" as zero chance in the practical world of betting odds. If you went to a restaurant and ordered a nice steak with all the trimmings, and you were served a plate that was devoid of food except for a single pea, and you remonstrated with the waiter saying "But you've brought me nothing", and he responded "Oh, no, sir/madam, it's infinitely greater than nothing if you calculate the ratio of the weight of the pea to nothing", and you picked up your fork and stabbed him in the heart, would anyone blame you? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of Dogbert selling "half-priced day-old lottery tickets". He justified this in that the new lottery tickets cost $1 with a 10 cent return, on average, while his day-old lottery tickets cost 50 cents with a 0 cent return. Thus, people lose 90 cents when buying a regular lottery ticket, and only 50 cents when buying his, so he was doing them a favor. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of the opposition for lotteries comes from the fact that people are presented lotteries as a way to make up funding shortfalls for governments; that is that the state doesn't make enough money on taxes, so lotteries provide a way to generate a "voluntary" tax, so the state can make more money for necessary programs (education is a commonly cited "public good" which is funded by lotteries, i.e. the North Carolina Education Lottery). This pamphlet from Illinois explains some of the opposition, but the biggest opposition is that lottery money is fungible with all other government funds. What this means in practical purposes is that, while the lottery is sold to the public as a way to make more money for schools, there's no requirement that the state doesn't then just take tax money previously designated for the schools, equal to the amount of lottery-generated income, and spend it on other projects. That is, while the lottery gets sold to the public as "this pays for schools", it's equally likely that some creative bookkeeping turns essentially all of it into kickbacks (excuse me "tax incentives") for businesses that fund campaigns for candidates for political office. --Jayron32 01:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Here's another list of common objections to lotteries, from Salon.com. --Jayron32 01:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Primogeniture

Let's consider a family of British landed gentry in the 1100's or 1200's. The father owns estates that provide for himself and his family. Let's assume he has more than one son. Because of the system of primogeniture, upon the father's death, the entirety of the estate would go to his firstborn son. How would the younger sons provide for themselves then? Were they expected to earn their own estates somehow (eg. warfare)? I know the primogeniture system was often amended with appanages, but was it common among the lower gentry or mainly restricted to the higher nobles? 88.112.32.233 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To a large extent, fathers could and did provide for younger sins in their wills; see Legal history of wills for the differences across various times and places (that article focuses on England, which was your question). They could also be provided for through marriage (see Dowry#History). In addition there were several paid occupations that were socially acceptable for members of the gentry; in the era you are discussing, these could include priests, military work of various kinds, as well as being a civil officer for a yet higher-ranking aristocrat (see bailiff); even a manservant was acceptable employment if the master's rank was sufficiently high: dukes, earls, and kings frequently drew their servants from younger sons among the lower gentry. Despite all that, it was often a problem, and friction between oldest and younger sons in an aristocratic family was very common (as portrayed in literary works such as Shakespeare's As You Like It). Chick Bowen 23:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as for when primogeniture applied: it chiefly applied to land. Differences of rank among the landed had little legal standing for something like that. Chick Bowen 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP might learn a lot on this subject by reading about the Paston Letters, a hundred years' worth of one wealthy but non-noble family's letters and legal documents, which unusually and almost miraculously were preserved intact from the 14th-15th centuries and were eventually published in the Victorian era. They can be read online, but a layman might get more understanding of the legal and social milieu from reading the two recent books written about the Pastons, which are named in the wikiarticle. It's a fascinating story that covers a large family down through five or six generations. Textorus (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They lived a bit later than the OP's 1100s-1200s though. The differences would not be too major, but 12th century England is rather different from the 15th (and even from the 13th). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, younger sons didn't inherit, or at least were not always expected to inherit enough to support themselves; lots of them were "encouraged" to enter the religious life. I'm not exactly sure if he had older siblings, or how many he had, but the life of someone like Thomas Becket would be quite informative for the life of a son of middle-class Englishman of the 12th century. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

88.112.32.233 -- England and Scotland were completely different countries at that time, as were parts of Wales up to 1282, so "British" had little practical meaning then. In parts of England, ultimogeniture or "Borough-English" was practiced among ordinary people (probably not among the nobility). One significant difference between England and France (though it did not fully manifest itself until long after 1200) was that in France all male-line descendants of nobility had theoretical noble status, whereas in England younger sons often became military officers or church clergymen, and their descendants often gradually merged into the middle classes... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You may find the story of how King John of England got his nickname and how he acceeded to the throne enlightening. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

Kansas Real Estate Commission - Statutory Authority History

Please provide history - detailed (with legislative intent if available) for history of the Kansas Real Estate Commission.

74-4201 currently shows:

74-4201: Kansas real estate commission; membership. (a) The Kansas real estate commission shall consist of five members appointed by the governor. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 75-4315c, one member shall be appointed from each congressional district and the remainder from the state at large. Each member shall have been, for a period of five years immediately preceding the member's appointment, a citizen and a resident of Kansas. Not less than three members shall have been real estate brokers for five years and not less than one member shall have never engaged in business as real estate brokers and shall not be so engaged while serving on the commission. (b) At the expiration of the term of any member of the commission, the governor shall appoint a successor for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. In the event of a vacancy in the membership of the commission, the governor shall appoint a member to serve for the unexpired portion of the vacated term and until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Each member of the commission shall, before entering upon the member's duties, take and file with the commission an oath to faithfully perform the duties of the office.

History: L. 1947, ch. 411, § 6; L. 1959, ch. 260, § 5; L. 1961, ch. 391, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 308, § 66; L. 1980, ch. 164, § 41; L. 1981, ch. 304, § 9; L. 1992, ch. 262, § 12; July 1.

I am looking for records as far back as possible. I want to see the changes - or find someone who has access to scan me copies of the changes of the laws of the KREC over the full history of the state agency.

I am specifically interested in the powers granted to the agency - but more especially with this specific statute 74-4201 which outlines the construct of the KREC members.

What is a member: From what I read - there are 5. Since there are now 4 congressional districts - the 5th member must never have been a licensed broker and not work as a broker while serving on the commission.

My desire is to answer the following:

1) Can the 5th "public" "member" be a licensed sales person. What is the specific intent of having a member of the "public"? There are Sales Agents and Brokers - 2 types of licenses in Kansas.

2) For the other 4 district appointees - I read that there must be at least 3 that "have been" brokers for 5 years - but does this mean that the original intent is to only appoint currently licensed which have held their KS Broker license for at least 5 years - or can it include a now unlicensed person, perhaps a retired professional, who held a broker license for at least 5 years in Kansas and is also a resident for the required time?

3) Also - can one of the 4 district appointees be a sales-person or a unlicensed person who was formerly licensed?

The intent is to find and document the legislative history and intent behind the formation and selection of commissioners of the Kansas Real Estate Commission so that I can provide some more detail to the governor's office of appointments to aide in their selection of members. The KREC has many - many problems and needs to be cleaned up from the inside. Making sure the governor's office has useful information in this selection process might allow a wider range of applicants to consider. Their current statement to me is that the intent of the law was for 4 active licensed brokers to be appointed 1 from each district - then one member of the public who was never in the real estate industry - as a "lay person"... I do not believe the intent was so strict but I can not prove it yet. GoZippy (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)GoZippy

Sorry to inform you but this is a global reference desk and even if you had someone very skilled in Kansas legislative history this may also violate the ban on "legal advice" even in a non-suit manner. Since you seem to be in contact with the governors office and are displaying some very deep knowledge of Kansas law, have you attempted to research this at the Capital or state libraries? Given my experience in these matters not only do local governments assist you in finding these resources but several have specific employees whose only job it is to facilitate such citizen and organizational inquiries. If these statutes are as problematic as you say searching news references for their legislative history may help, for example many Florida media outlets have done stories on that state's "all-party" recording law's history. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The kind of information the OP seeks requires someone with detailed knowledge of Kansas law and legislative history. The best thing to do might be to contact a reference librarian at either the State Library of Kansas or perhaps the Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, and ask them to assist in digging up the answers. Textorus (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The folk explanations of the cause of Kennedy tragedies?

In the Chinese article I saw some news reference[16] gives some possible folk explanation of Kennedy tragedies, but I didn't see any of these in the English article. So are there actually equivalents of these ideas in the English world, or is the news article just talking nonsense?

Explanation 1: This one is popular in South United States in the 1970s, says that Joseph P. Kennedy II(Or Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr? Otherwise it will not explain the earlier events happened) sold his soul to the devil in exchange of power and wealth.

Explanation 2: American writer and media worker Klein(not sure if it is the right name) once wrote that Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had been the ambassador to Great Britain. in 1937, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. had a Jewish priest who has just escaped from the nazis on the same ship with him. Kennedy complained to the shipmaster to ban the priest from doing his prayer, so the Jewish priest cursed the Kennedy family.

Explanation 3: When Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was the ambassador in Britain, he refused to give visas to 500 Jews for not getting United States involved in Europe. Rabbi Gutnick (?) of Australian Hebrew Association says: "This the curse of the Jews. This is a retribution."

--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll want to read John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Lots of this stuff is mostly batshit crazy, and for that reason doesn't bear mentioning in the main articles on the assassinations themselves. Some of it, though batshit crazy, is widely reported and thus has its own Wikipedia article, separate from the main article where it doesn't really belong. --Jayron32 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the assasinations? I just wondered whether those explanation actually exist in English media, or if they are just hearsay and creations of the Chinese media.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Americans generally don't believe in the power of curses. Very few really believe that it is possible to literally sell your soul to the devil either, although there are many stories of such things. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

i.e. Faust. Though I think that story is German... --Jayron32 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of The Devil and Daniel Webster, plus all the stories of Blues musicians selling their souls to the devil. Looie496 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There really is a book about Kennedy Curse with the author named Klein...[17]--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what non-Jews may imagine, believe, and promulgate about a so-called "Jew's curse" - there is actually a limited stock of curses within the religion Judaism and primarily applied to other Jews: see Pulsa diNura; the Herem is a form of excommunication or shunning. The strongest curse against a non-Jew would be Yimakh shemo, "May his name and memory be obliterated." Within Jewish folklore, notably in the Yiddish language, the verbal act of cursing is expressive rather than magically or spiritually effectual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By "expressive rather than magically effectual", do you mean it's the rough equivalent of "God damn it!" or "go fuck yourself", in contexts where the speaker doesn't literally mean either? --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be said as an imprecation expressing ill-wishes towards the person who incurred disfavor. No supernatural powers are invoked. It did not commonly include profanity. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: nothing in mainstream Christianity allows one to curse another person and have the curse be effective. No major Christian denomination, as far as I know, holds such a belief. In fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that only a select people (Jesus, apostles, prophets, some priests) have supernatural powers, and even those powers are granted to them by God. In most Western countries the second largest religious affiliation is "non-religious", and the non-religious are unlikely to believe in the magical power of cursing. I think most Americans and Canadians would associate cursing with voodoo dolls and voodoo practices, but very few actually believe in their efficacy.

So, it's highly unlikely that those "folk explanations" were common amongst the American public at any time. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic. Are there any publications related to these ideas on Kennedy tragedies (or some other theories, though I would better ask in another question) at least? The first one is obviously a common fantasy so I was quite doubtful; I've just find a title of book related to the second one. The third one---I guess there should be documents about whether Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr did anything related to Jews(e.g. the visa event)? And also did any Jew commented on that?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, Joe Kennedy's relationship with Jewish people was complex. See Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.#Evidence of anti-Semitism. Broadly speaking, it seems that while he had friends and political allies who were Jewish, but on the other side there were accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies, especially during his time as Ambassador to the U.K. I don't see any specific evidence that he obstructed immigration of any Jewish people directly, however. And any talk of a "curse" cast on his family is, of course, bullshit. But it does not appear, from what is written in the article, that he had the healthiest attitude towards Judaism. --Jayron32 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever outsiders to the religion think about allegations of "Jewish" curses, conspiracies, plots and the like, what they forget is that even two similarly religious Jews from the same place and with similar levels of education will disagree on even the most trivial of matters. Never mind the evil undertones, any idea of global coordination and uniform agreement on anything at all is frankly laughable.

There are plenty of jokes along these lines, but here's an apparently true story about Alexander Altmann:

"Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. “Herr Altmann,” said his secretary, “I notice you’re reading Der Stürmer! I can’t understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?” “On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we’re on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!”"[(http://www.mywesternwall.net/2013/04/07/the-jew-reading-der-sturmer.html)] --Dweller (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the Weekly World News magazine source related to the 500 Jews theory and Rabbi Gutnick[18]. Significant or not? Whatever.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't wipe my ass with Weekly World News for fear of losing IQ points; reading it would be far to hazardous to one's health. The first line in the Wikipedia article "The Weekly World News was a largely fictional news tabloid published in the United States from 1979 to 2007, renowned for its outlandish cover stories often based on supernatural or paranormal themes and an approach to news that verged on the satirical." (bold mine). It was basically The Onion meets Poe's Law, as in it was clearly all made up, but it was impossible to tell if they were being serious. I wouldn't use it as a source for anything at all. Pay anything it says no mind at all. --Jayron32 02:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And also those who quoted from these news? Seem a nice way to conclude on the hearsay in Chinese articles. Thanks.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend

In Chinese article it is said that the claim "Booth ran from a theatre to a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse to a theatre." is not true, but English article has not mentioned whether it was true or not. So is this supported by any records?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a footnote in the Chinese article citing the source of this information? It's appropriate to post your query on the Talk page of that article. You can also look at the edit history of the article and post the query on the Talk page of the editor who added that information - and possibly a private email (if the editor is accessible that way) to alert the editor to your query. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From my memory of a History Channel special on JWB he actually "ran" several places for 50~100 miles and crossed a very wide part of the Potomac southeast of D.C. close to the Chesapeake into Virginia and kept "running" (including to poor Dr. Mudd's place). I found this interesting website here that demystifies some of this, it seems that the original scribe was not JWB and LHO "ran" but were "caught" in a theater/warehouse, given that every school child in the U.S. knows JWB was caught in a Virginia barn and as the story goes was burned down with it it seems that the urban legend has twisted the 19th century semantics some. Basically referring to the School Book Depository and Tobacco Shed as "places that store things" equaling what one might refer to as a "warehouse" in some sense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Snopes has a page mentioning it here. It calls the coincidence "inaccurate and superficial". Hut 8.5 07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In some cases it is just kind of vague definition.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these "coincidences" (which have been talked about ever since 11/11/63) require some vagueness to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com critiques the entire list of these coincidences, showing some to be true, some not. Textorus (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, maybe J Edgar and his cronies were discussing the matter from 11 November, but the rest of the world only became aware of the assassination of JFK when it happened on 22 November. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. That would be 11/22/63. Or, in some circles, 22/11/63. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As an aside, Snopes.com is normally a great source. This particle article, however, is the most glaring exception that I've encountered. It labels the list "false" (not "mixed", "partially true" or "mostly true") then goes on to confirm that the first 7 items on the list are correct before finding the 8th item only partially correct. It then goes on to confirm that the next 7 items are correct, before finding the next item to be partially correct. The final item on the list (not counting the joke about Marilyn Monroe) is confirmed to be correct. Granted my math and counting skills are probably off, but roughly 15/17 items are confirmed to be correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the key to Snopes' viewpoint is in the heading, of these being "amazing" coincidences. Snopes argues that they are trivial and random, not "amazing" - a product of cherry-picking a few facts while leaving out other stuff. More amusing than amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two assassinations between Lincoln's and Kennedy's, and another factoid that started to gain popularity was the "year 0" coincidence of presidents dying in office, a streak snapped by Reagan when he survived an assassination attempt. I wonder if Lincoln was kind of on people's minds because JFK's murder came 3 day after the 100th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which was being discussed to some degree, as part of the Civil War centennial period. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

obscure term

When I was a kid, KPIX-TV sometimes included the word "nightcast" after "eyewitness news". This was during the late local news. Has "nightcast" become an obscure term for several late local news programs?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it used to refer to the late news broadcast as opposed to the early evening broadcast. Many stations broadcast the news at around 6pm and then again at 10 or 11pm. The former is often called the "evening news" and the latter is then the nightly news or "nightcast". Dismas|^(talk) 10:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The English language is very flexible in creating words like this, called portmanteaus, and it is very easy to understand, from context and from the definitions of the separate bits put together, exactly what they mean. Native English speakers, hearing the word "nightcast" for the first time in their lives, but hearing it while watching the late night news, would recognize instantly the portmanteau between "night" and "broadcast". This sort of construction happens all the time, and with little confusion for native English speakers. It annoys the pedants who believe that the language should not have changed since Anglo-Saxon times, but most people understand that language is fluid and evolves. --Jayron32 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the suffix "-cast" has a lot of these: broadcast, telecast, webcast, podcast, etc. I wonder if those pedants you refer to are essentially "language creationists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Like ever since the Watergate scandal, many scandals have been tagged as something-gate, despite making no etymological sense, nor any sense to anyone who never heard of the Watergate scandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The word broadcast itself has an odd story; it basically means "To throw seed around" and comes from the practice of farmers seeding a field by carrying seed in a big bag and throwing it in all directions (i.e. casting broadly), as opposed to planting in well-planned furrows. It seems a rather poetic way to describe the use of radio waves to transmit information... --Jayron32 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, ironically enough, "disseminate" information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Significantly, there are a lot of wankers in the media. Like Onan O'Brien, for example.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hit-man services on the dark web - real?

When I visit The Hidden Wiki, I see links to supposed "hit-man" services. In many western countries, the conviction rate for murder is (I believe) pretty high. (The police in my jurisdiction, Australia, claim a 94% conviction rate). Given that, have any cases actually surfaced of murderers killing someone after advertising on the net, and having an anonymous "client" pay them to kill a total stranger? I assume if such "services" were real, surely some of the killers would (given the law of averages and high conviction rates) have been caught, and the motive ("online hiring") publicly revealed? (I've never read of such a case coming to light). I'm asking specifically about anonymous online hiring - I know guns-for-hire ("rent-a-kill" contracts) have long been available in the criminal underworld for the murder of criminal rivals. Also, my question is specifically in regards to jurisdictions where murder conviction rates are high - not those such as Mexico, El Salvador, or South Africa, where unsolved murder by strangers is an everyday occurrence.

(To state the bleeding obvious, I have absolutely no plans to hire a contract killer, online or otherwise. And even if I was, I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe in honour-amongst-espoused-murderers, and would insist on an escrow service. I'm simply curious if such services, are, in fact, real). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that most of these "hit men" services are bogus... and some of them may actually be law enforcement sting operations, looking to stop murder conspiracies before they start. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While I would mostly agree with Blueboar, I would note you've provided no sources for you claims. [19] suggests about 12% of homicides remain unsolved in Australia and suggests the clearance rate is going down in the US. This [20] more recent article suggest 46 out of 510 or about 9% of homicides in 2008-2010 were unsolved at the time of publication, this year. The first source uses the definition were the alleged offender has been charged or when it is believed to be a murder suicide, the second also includes all other cases where it's cleared such as the alleged offender having died although I wonder if the first also included these it was just not clear enough. Of course a homicide is not necessarily a murder although it will often be difficult to be sure it is manslaughter or otherwise not a murder if it is unsolved (of course sometimes it is highly likely it is a murder). The police are sometimes accused of massaging statistics but even so, presuming your memory is correct the more likely explanation is the police do accurately claim a 94% conviction rate but by this they mean 94% of cases where an offender is charged (which is what the claim would mean to me anyway) which highlights an important point namely that the figures would be lower then the 9-12% since it is unlikely all people charged are convicted. In other words while the success rate in Australia may be high, it's most probably not that high. Of course if someone is charged in a case of a contract killer and the case actually goes to court, it's likely there will be some evidence surrounding the contract otherwise the case is probably going to be fairly weak. But anyway, the other point is the second source supports the widely held view that most homicides are committed by people who know the offender, and the first source seems to confirm what seems rather likely, that homicides committed by strangers are more difficult to solved. In the case of a contract killing, the person who took out the contract must know the offender and will likely also be guilty of the homicide in most jurisdictions. While I didn't read the either source that carefully but I think the first, and probably the second confirm that most killers are fairly incompetent and have little or planning which helps ensure they are caught. And one of the reasons why a decent contract killer is going to be reluctant to use such services is they themselves run the risk of either being set up or having a foolish client who may get them caught (beyond the other problems like how they actually establish a reputation for what's likely to be a very low volume business). The hirer also often has the problem of how they hide the payment without it being obvious that they at least have a bunch of money unaccounted for if the police get their financial records. Anyway back to the main point namely that all this highlights an important point namely that the solution rate whatever it is only tells us a little about the likelihood a contract killing is going to be solved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(OP here - different computer). Sorry for not providing sources. Victoria Police (my jurisdiction) reported that in 2010 they achieved a 95% "solution rate". (See page 10). Admittedly, this may not be identical to the conviction rate. The 9-12% non-solution rate you mention sounds entirely plausible to me. Police often only solve "professional" killings where they can get someone to "sing".

On your other point, though - Why do you assume that the person who took out the contract must know the offender? The scenario I'm describing is where the "contract" takes place over the internet (via an anonymizing / I.P. address-hiding service such as Tor), with neither side knowing the other's true identity. Thus, there is no risk of the hirer divulging the identity of the killer, as they don't know it. (The risk of the killer being "set up" by police in a sting operation does remain. However, running a contract-killing sting operation of this sort would seem VERY risky, as the killer may just succeed). As to payment, I assume, like most such dark-web transactions, one would pay in bitcoin. (Admittedly, IF the police had a suspect hirer, they may possibly spot a large sum of money leaving his bank account into the ether). My question as such remains: Are such "services", to the best of our knowledge, likely to be real? Has such a case (an "internet hit-contract") ever been uncovered? 58.111.185.207 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the person who took out the contract/hirer must know the intended victim, as otherwise it is unlikely they will hire someone to kill them. (This means there's a fair chance the hirer will be a suspect.) My mistake here may have contributed to the confusionb but you seem to be missing the point that at some stage the killer does have to kill the victim. If at any stage before the killing, the hirer divulges (perhaps unintentionally) what they have done, there is a high risk to the killer. I do agree on the bitcoin, it was what I was thinking but I don't get the relevance. It doesn't negate the fact that unless you happen to have large reserves of bitcoin lying around which no one knows about, which is unlikely for most people, you will need to somehow get those bitcoin and anyone investigating who suspects the hirer and is able to get access to their financial records will likely uncover that the person who hirer has a large sum of money unaccounted for. This will cause strong suspicion to fall on the hirer who may then reveal what they did. While tracking down the killer via the contacts they left online may be difficult or impossible, there is a fair risk the killer even if highly competent may have screwed up somehow and knowing about the contract (like when it was made, what the killer told the hirer etc), makes any screw ups (like being caught on CCTV) easier do detect. (It gets even worse if the killer develops an identity which they likely will if they do this multiple times.) For all these reasons and more, it is unlikely someone competent involved in a high risk job as a contract killer is going to want to accept random job from people they don't know if they can trust. They are only likely to accept a job from someone who they know is not that likely to be caught themselves since the hirer being caught significantly increases the risk to them, even more so if the hirer cannot be trust to squeal the moment they're bought in for questioning. Unless perhaps they are a fairly incompetent one themselves. (Presuming that the hirer is even real.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll point out that the sting operation by police described above is not to catch possible assassins, but to catch the purchaser of said services. In this scenario, the police would pretend to be the assassin, not the client. Sort of like a honeypot. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Entailment law England in first half of 19th century

If a landholder died leaving a pregnant widow, would the estate pass to the next in the entail, or would there have been a waiting period to see if the expected child was male? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.183.185 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In the succession of noble titles (not exactly the same, but related), a posthumous child who is eligible to inherit definitely does inherit the title... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See posthumous birth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal term for this (I think) was en ventre sa mere, and yes, there would have been a waiting period. If the child was female, the property would be deemed to have belonged to the entailed heir all along. This was an instance of a 'wait and see' approach being taken at a time when in other contexts (eg the Rule against perpetuities it was not. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Dam Busters, The Great Escape and suchlike

Full disclosure: I'm German, so do by all means mention the war. That said, I haven't seen many if any of these peculiarly British WW2-Movies like "The Great Escape", but even so I picked up the notion somewhere that the genre conventions demand that there be exactly one "Jock", one "Taffy" and one "Paddy" amongst the valiant Tommies in every squad, POW camp, warship etc.; so that any such unit comes to allegorically represent the United Kingdom. I intended to include this into my (German) articles on Jock, Paddy and Taffy, but when I started googling I could not locate any actual movie where this is in fact the case, only this parody by Geoff Dyer. Suggestions welcome... --Janneman (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the German Wikipedia has the same rules, but adding this to English-language Wikipedia articles would be considered original research unless you can cite a source that has made the same observation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that it is a movie convention, but there is definitely a school of joke that starts "There was an Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman...". Are you including that? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this anything like the placeholder names Tom, Dick and Harry, but with more nationalistic overtones? In movies, it is common in an "ensemble cast" film to include people of different backgrounds, or which fit certain character "tropes". This is not just restricted to WWII films, but rather applies to any film with a large, ensemble cast. --Jayron32 15:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Token. --Onorem♠Dil 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

um, I don't mean just any stock characters or placeholder names, I mean specifically Jock, Paddy, Taffy & Tommy as the Scottish, Irish, Welsh & English soldier, whether in the flesh or as a type, a very British thing, and not just a movie cliche, but a very real thing in the British Army since WWI (says the BBC: The origins of Jock go back hundreds of years...but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff. or this memoir by a WW2 veteran: I cannot remember the names of the other two lads; only Paddy the Irishman sticks out, not that Paddy was his real name, but all Irishmen were called Paddy. Just as anyone Welsh was Taffy, Scotsmen were Jock... I'm just looking for some prominent/iconic cultural representations of the thing, WW2 movies seemed a good place to start searching, I just wouldn't want to sit through all of them... --Janneman (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Janneman -- in old Hollywood movies about U.S. units fighting in WW2, it seemed quasi-obligatory to include one man from Brooklyn, one from the southern U.S., etc. Don't know about British movies, but in Shakespeare's play "Henry V" there's a comic Welshman, Scotsman, and Irishman... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, there seems to be some standardized Hollywood formula for composing a "representative" U.S. Army unit, but I'm not sure if the "Guy from Brooklyn" is a type in quite the same way; but then for non-Americans it's not that evident how he'd differ from a "Guy from Boston", say, though Bubba from "Forrest Gump" comes to mind, that stereotype is recognizable enough. --Janneman (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Great Escape is an american movie based on a book by an australian author; I'm not sure it can be reasonably described as 'peculiarly British'. It does have an international cast including some fairly stereotypical representations of Scots and English characters (not to mention an equally stereotypical American) character, but there doesn't seem to be anybody obviously Welsh or Irish.78.245.228.100 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly and curiously, Janneman happened to choose 2 movies that were both based on novels by that Australian author. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "Tommy" became a placeholder name for an Englishman, more especially an English soldier, after the Government issued instructions for completing the forms for enlisting in the British Army with the name "Thomas Atkins" as the example. I'll see if I can find anything more. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Aha! While perusing the "Tommy Atkins" article, I see that we have Alternative names for English, Alternative names for Scottish, Alternative names for Welsh under the Alternative names for the British article. Why aren't these links going to the articles? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the final link for you, Tammmy. That article covers all the names, if you scroll down. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an exact match, but the British comic Jet in the early 1970s included a strip called "Sergeants Four", a WWII strip in which the four sergeants in question were Alf Higgs (English), Taffy Jones (Welsh), Jock McGill (Scottish) and Paddy O'Boyle (Irish). This page includes a scanned issue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only explicit example I know is in the 1944 film of Henry V (Henry V (1944 film)). The scene (Act Three, Scene Three) is of course already in the play. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The name of the strop is probably a lift from Kipling's "Soldiers Three". Those three (Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris) were themselves a deliberately stereotyped Yorkshireman, Irishman and Cockney. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

At least Kipling put a bit more effort into the names. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It was common practice in 1950s and 60s war films to include a "Canadian" who was usually a minor US star, so as to give the film some appeal on the other side of Atlantic. I'll have to look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Civil unions and equal marriage

What is the full list of countries and jurisdictions that:

1. Have both equal mariage for same-sex couples and civil partnerships/unions?
2. Used to have civil partnerships/unions but replaced them outright with equal marriage? (Give or take provisions for couples already in a civil union.)

Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By one are you including jurisdictions which lack civil unions for opposite sex couples or only ones that have it? Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage equality#Current status, Status of same-sex marriage, and Same-sex union legislation, LGBT rights by country or territory are good places to start. There's a map in all of these, and a chart in the last one, but the map and chart don't get more granular than the national level, but remember that many, if not most, nations in the world are unitary states where laws like this only exist on the national level. Federations like Canada, Russia, the U.S. and Australia, where subnational units make these sort of laws instead of the national government, are less common. However, Wikipedia's articles are fairly detailed, many of the federal states that leave these laws to lower geographic units have separate articles which cover those, such as LGBT rights in the United States and you should be able to construct whatever you're looking for out of those three articles. --Jayron32 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Breaking news! Since 1961, marriage has been controlled by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It was a state matter prior to that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I was using Australia as an example of a Federation with split sovereignty, in the sense that the subnational units do pass their own distinct laws. Most countries in the world don't work that way. I frankly didn't know one way or the other if marriage specifically was a Federal or a State matter in Australia, but as most countries are NOT federations, most countries wouldn't make a distinction at all. Thanks, though, for providing the specific Australian perspective. Much obliged! --Jayron32 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My very great pleasure. Stay tuned for an amendment to the act that will allow same-sex marriages in Australia and recognise same-sex marriages contracted overseas. Momentum for the change is inexorably building; it's just a question of time now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage in Canada has also been under the exclusive authority of the federal Parliament since Confederation in 1867, according to our article on that subject. Textorus (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron, thanks for the links but I don't find them easy to navigate. Part of the problem is that there's been very little attention to the status of pre-existing civil union laws once equal marriage has been introduced and the articles tend not to cover this detail, and so it's hard to tell if the table means that some form of relationship recognition has existed since a particular date or a particular form of non-marriage has stayed in existence since then. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

US-USSR Parliamentarian Conference, 1978

Has anyone heard of this event, and if so, where it was located? I'm running into several different versions of the name in a printed document, such as "Parliamentarian", "Parliamentary", "Interparliamentary", etc., plus the variances in "USA", "Soviet Union", "United States", "USSR", etc. I've tried several combinations on Google, but I didn't find anything. It looks like it was a bilateral summit, not some kind of Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting with lots of other countries. 2001:18E8:2:1020:D0F5:2B06:C8A5:CCDB (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aspen Conference on the World Economy, 1989

Same question as above: do you know where the Aspen Conference on the World Economy was held? Aspen, Colorado perhaps? I probably have the wrong name, since Google finds exactly one hit, and it's someone's resume mentioning a conference ten years later. 2001:18E8:2:1020:B9F4:C1DD:38B4:E9B3 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I presume this institute [21] found with a simple search for 'aspen conference world economy' does know. BTW, our article on the place mentions the institute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies

India is world's largest democracy and Pakistan is world's fifth largest democracy. Who is 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest democracies in order?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I'm guessing from this list List_of_countries_by_population it is the U.S., Indonesia and Brazil. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Elections take place in Pakistan, but it's oversimplifying things quite a bit to call it a "democracy" plain and simple. That would be like the late 19th-century international politics textbook which dealt with Austria-Hungary and Sweden-Norway together because they were both "dual monarchies"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How can Pakistan be possibly a democracy? The first democratically elected government of Pakistan to complete its five year term is only the PPP government which completed it a few days ago!!! Added it is a Islamic Government with no freedom of Religion. Surely such a country is not democracy!!! Solomon7968 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Freedom of Religion is a requirement for a democracy. If the people decide that specific practices or belief systems are illegal and their elected representatives enact that law then that's democracy in action to me. If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy. The fact that it hasn't successfully had real transitions of power in the past is a legitimate reason to take it to be not a democracy, but how long must a country have democratic elections for it to stick? The US didn't really have a democratic election just before the Civil War (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many states), does that mean it stopped being a democracy then, or once you are a democracy you can't go back? Chris M. (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why you have chosen to defend that Pakistan is a democracy and chosen to compare USA with Pakistan. And why it is only a particular feature of Islamic countries to have Islamic democracy. There is nothing like Buddhist democracy or Hindu democracy. So the overall conclusion is Pakistan is not a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Mason -- Don't really understand why you single out the 1860 election, when most historians consider the Jacksonian democracy of the 1830s to be the turning point, when a very close approximation to "universal white manhood suffrage" was achieved (except in Rhode Island, which had to wait for the aftermath of the Dorr Rebellion). The U.S. had some problems by modern standards, but was still the most democratic non-geographically-tiny nation in the world for the great majority of the 19th century (possibly until 1893, when New Zealand gave women the right to vote). AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are guys arguing about Pakistan? Please, answer the question. Thank you. --Donmust90 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Why are you claiming that Pakistan is a democracy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because our (inadequately sourced) article Government of Pakistan claims it is a "parliamentary democratic republic". --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- Donmust90 (and in his anonymous IP incarnations before he got an account) seems to be exceedingly fond of arranging things in abstract tables with neatly-labelled rows and columns, regardless of whether such a symmetrical structure of intersecting rows and columns corresponds to much of anything in the real world... AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil and Japan as of 2012. References can be found at Democracy#Countries. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is good to point here that Indonesia is a muslim majority country but it is a democracy (not Islamic Democracy). So Chris M. is wrong to claim that "If the population is mostly islamic, one might expect a democratically elected government to be Islamic, still a democracy". And a country where the son of Ex-Prime Minister is kidnapped is bound not to be a democracy. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly the only thing wrong with Pakistan. Before 2013, Pakistan had not seen a single democratic transition of power following parliamentary elections. Not even one. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Democracy" is one of those words, common in the political sphere, which has more than one definition; and the different definitions will give different answers. Arguing about which countries are democracies and which are not is a complete waste of effort unless you first define what you mean by a democracy for the purpose of the argument. And I cannot see any logical connection between any of the meanings and what was done to the son of an ex-Prime Minister. As well say that the US and Sweden can't be democracies because they have had premiers assassinated. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Elections take place in Pakistan (interspersed with military coups), but elections don't seem to have any affect on many of the prominent long-entrenched structural problems or persistent festering sores, such as the "feudal" oligarchy, the inability of the state to provide many basic services (such as education) to its citizens, out-of-control ISI, Baluchi autonomy, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam. Many people who would have no difficulty with describing Pakistan as a democracy with an accompanying qualifying word ("limited democracy" or "flawed democracy" or whatever) would have problems in accepting a description of Pakistan as a "democracy" plain and simple (without any adjective). AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The easiest definition of a democracy I can come up with is "a country which maximizes the ability of its citizens to participate in the machinery of the state". Of course, democracy is not a binary condition, but one of a continuum. No nation on earth is an ideal democracy; as in every nation there are real barriers to many people fully participating in the machinery of the state. The question one must ask is how countries do on the balance, and do countries hold democracy as an ideal, and do they actively work to promote that ideal. Holding elections is of secondary importance to matters such as access to education, a free and independent press, active enforcement of universal human rights, equal treatment before the law, access to voting and to holding public office, etc. Democracies should be adjudged not on the fact that they hold elections, but rather on whether or not the society as a whole enforces democratic values or not. In a perfect democracy, all citizens have equal ability to participate in the machinery of the state, in a perfect totalitarian state, the machinery of the state is tightly controlled by a ruling class whose membership is closed to all outsiders and which takes no input from any group outside of itself. Where a country fits on that scale should be how it is judged; again it isn't a binary "either or" proposition, but rather a continuum of conditions. So, is Pakistan a democracy under that definition? --Jayron32 05:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is not the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of libertarianism. A totalitarian democracy is quite possible in principle. It's unlikely in practice, because the majority of people have some regard for their individual liberty, even if most of them don't have anywhere near enough. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi's Bangladesh visit as part of Satyagraha district

Is Noakhali the only district that has been visited by Mahatma Gandhi when he did his Satyagraha?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Gandhi did many Satyagrahas. If you're referring to his peace mission in response to the Noakhali genocide, I don't think that is usually called a Satyagraha. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by Bangladesh visit. It was Bengal of then Undivided India. Bangladesh is a creation of 40 years only since 1971. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. now please someone please answer the question. Thank you. Besides Noakhali, which other districts of East Bengal did Mahatma Gandhi went?--Donmust90 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

You're getting a bit too pushy for your own good. No one gets paid here. No one reports to the OP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no East Bengal in 1946. The second partition of Bengal (glomming on to the eastern side the Sylhet district of Assam) did not occur until 1947.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

From Noakhali genocide "Gandhi started for Noakhali on 6 November and reached Chaumuhani the next day. After spending two nights at the residence of Jogendra Majumdar, he embarked on his tour of Noakhali, barefoot on 9 November. For the next seven weeks he covered 116 miles and visited 47 villages. He set up his base in a half burnt house in the village of Srirampur where he stayed put till 1 January." He left from Kolkata. I don't know if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Baby Jesus

Where in the English KJV of the New Testament Gospels does it speak specifically of "baby Jesus"?LordGorval (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean explicitly using the phrase "Baby Jesus?" Nowhere, but narratives involving Jesus as a young child can be found in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. You may also be interested in reading Infancy Gospels. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A keyword search of the KJV here returns 942 instances of "Jesus", 6 of "babe" and zero of both "baby" and "baby Jesus", so the answer would appear to be "nowhere". Did you have any particular reason to believe that the phrase would appear? - Karenjc 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to speak for the OP, but it would seem to be one of those "people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't" kind of things. Sort of like "three wise men" or "money is the root of all evil." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You can speak for me, as I do believe you hit the point that people refer to it like it's in the Bible but it actually isn't. I couldn't find it anyway! If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV. Where specifically (which verses)???--LordGorval (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, like Karenjc said, it definitely isn't in the KJV. A quick search here doesn't show results in any other major version either. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a slight difference, though: Jesus did start His life on earth as a baby. That's made totally clear from the Bible. So while the exact phrase "Baby Jesus" might not be in the Bible, it is totally correct to refer to Him as "Baby Jesus". But there's nothing in the Bible indicating there were exactly three wise men, or that what Adam ate was an apple, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be fair, however, we're mincing words here. The bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy. See Nativity of Jesus. The fact that the word "baby" doesn't appear next to the word "Jesus" doesn't mean there is no mention of the concept of Jesus as a baby. It seems like a rather odd thing to focus on, as though it means anything that in one particular English translation that specific phrase doesn't exist. --Jayron32 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not. One of the points raised by the folks who doubt the historicity of Jesus is that the story presented in the Bible is simply the Jewish version of the dying-and-rising god. IIRC, in The Jesus Mysteries, it's asserted that the bits and pieces we've come to know as the story of Jesus were actually created more or less in reverse: first the reborn god adapted from many of the neighbouring cultures, then the miracles and so forth, back to the story of the birth. So, nailing down the terminology used might be of interest to someone exploring those issues. Matt Deres (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That kind of theory is rather beside the point. The Bible says what it says. Whether it's historical fact or not is not the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is to someone doing textual criticism to get a better understanding of where different passages came from. Probably the best known piece for that is the understanding that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Or two sources of one thing, depending on your POV. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the two contradictory creation stories. Your complaint is on the order of if someone asks you whether Bogart's character in Casablanca really said "Play it again, Sam", you would answer, "No, he never said it, because he's fictional." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What complaint are you referring to? Jayron wanted to know why someone would ask this question. I'm not the OP, but I provided some suggestions based on linked references and a book I read. Matt Deres (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The question was about the wording used in the Bible, not about the historical authenticity of the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that qualifies as me "complaining" but the point was that folks investigating the historicity of Jesus might be interested in the exact wording regarding his infancy because it might point to it being a late addition (or not), which would in turn support some theory or other (or not). Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron said, "The Bibles clearly speak directly of the birth of Jesus as well as his infancy." Then you said, "Maybe not." Jayron is correct, in terms of what we commonly understand to be the Bible(s). The subject you bring up is interesting in itself, but it's not what the OP asked. I concur that maybe "complaint" is overstating it. Substitute "comment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But the KJV is just a translation based on a known vorlage. It wouldn't help you with textual criticism, nor any other aspect of the history of early Christianity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if you assume the OP knows such, which is hardly assumable. :) Alternately, textual criticism can also be used in the other direction: if the KJV says "x" and my book says "y" then it may be interesting to find out the reason behind it. But first I'd need to know if the KJV says "x" or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)"If people speak so much of the "baby Jesus", shouldn't it be in one of the 4 Gospels of the KJV.": Why? Why should the KJV be the standard? And why should the specific term be used, when the text is clearly referring to a baby called Jesus? The closest I could find is in Luke 2:27, which most translations render "the child Jesus", but the Geneva Bible reads "the babe Jesus". - Lindert (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that the OP is looking for the origin of the phrase "Baby Jesus". Given the influence of the KJV on the English language in general and particularly on our concepts of what the Bible says, it's reasonable to ask if the term appears in the KJV. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but its a natural linguistic construct. "The baby Jesus" just means "Jesus as an infant", and as noted, the Bible clearly discusses that concept. It doesn't take any advanced leaps cognition to go from the concept of an infant Jesus to the phrase "baby Jesus". --Jayron32 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do have an article on Baby Jesus. It also led me to Baby Jesus theft, which has nothing to do with the question at hand, but momentarily gave me the visual of someone stealing all the references to baby Jesus from the bible... Matt Deres (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. We have an article titled Child Jesus, for which the above is a redirect. It deals with the use of the child Jesus in art and iconography. --Jayron32 03:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the term (in the UK at any rate) comes from the Nativity play tradition, which just about every Briton that attended a state primary school in the last century has been subjected to. In school plays, the part of the Baby Jesus is usually taken by a doll; however in Sunday school productions, it's common for a member of the congregation to volunteer their real baby for the part. It adds some dramatic tension to the piece, as the audience waits to see if the seven year-old Virgin Mary is going to drop the Baby Jesus.

The phrase has become more popular in the last decade, since a sketch in an episode of Little Britain (Episode 4 of Series 2) in which Lou decides that he wants to go to church dressed as the Baby Jesus. I understand that it has since become the ultimate in bad taste fancy dress. Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ask Mauer. The 'baby' in 'baby Jesus' shouldn't be capitalized unless there's reason to suggest that the title includes Baby. Describing what happened to the baby Jesus, or the young adult Jesus, or the Jesus and Mary Chain...whatever. If the issue is over capitalization of Baby, I think it should not be capitalized. Describing a baby as a baby shouldn't require special sources. What is the 'specific' issue here? --Onorem (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The OED has one citation of the phrase "Baby Jesus", from before the KJV: "Ane el crammessy satyne to be [the] bawby Jhesus of the Senyis [= Sciennes] ane coit." from the Accounts of the Treasurer of Scotland (1526). I take this to mean "One ell of [some kind of] satin to be the baby Jesus of the Sciennes one [don't know]", which seems to suggest that the baby Jesus was a doll or puppet. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Jews in Israel: Practice and values

Is there an article or a website that shows a typical Traditional Jew family doing their daily lives according to Judaism. I am interested about their practice of Jewish life and daily lives. Note: when I mean Traditional Jew, I mean Likudniks. Thanks. --Donmust90 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

There are several links here that look promising. --Jayron32 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish" family, not "Jew family". Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats up Doc? You seem to be a distressed Wikier/Wikidan/Wikidor/Wikinaut today! Just waiting for someone to call my family "Ortho" :P. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Jew" is a noun, "Jewish" is an adjective. When "Jew" is used as an adjective, it's a putdown. (As if you didn't already know that.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, not rationalizing it just observing it, just couldn't let your use of "Oy!" go unappreciated! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about "Likudniks" makes no sense. See Likud - a political party, which includes members who are "Traditional ... doing their daily lives according to Judaism" and members who do not. In my considered opinion, the latter massively outnumber the former. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's intentionally anti-semitic, see the entirety of that "user's" posts here. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have no fear. Donmust90 (talk · contribs) will push too far someday, and then he'll resemble an abandoned car in the inner city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If only we all had the means to divine the intentions of other users! As someone who reads these pages often, though seldom contributes, I'm aware of Donmust90's posting history. S/he seems to have a particular (some might say a morbid) interest in issues of ethnicity, but I don't recall any obviously antisemitic comments, and skimming back through a random selection of his/her contributions, I find nothing either. I do note that s/he appears to read Hebrew - at least s/he has quoted information from Hebrew-langauge websites - and that his/her use of English would incline me to believe that English is not his/her first language. I'd suggest that his/her failure at the Jew/Jewish shibboleth - one that doesn't exist or doesn't have the same import in other languages - is more likely to be due to second-language English issues than anything else. But then I prefer to assume good faith rather than call a poster a bigot on the flimsiest of evidence. Valiantis (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In what way could an interest in ethnicity be "morbid"[22]? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Donmust, you are aware that there are millions upon millions of Jews who do not live in Israel, and do not regard Likud (or Shas or any other Israeli political psrty) as emblematic of traditional anything, right? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Start now by reading everything you can about Srugim. Any terms that are unfamiliar, look them up in this Wikipedia and read all the External links for the page. If something on a page is inconsistent with what you've read elsewhere, write your query as a New section on the article's Talk page. You can also do Compare versions for the page's edit history and discover the User name and link for an editor toward whom you'd like to direct a particular question. That way you can study and learn at your own pace, choose what's relevant to your interests and concerns, and get specific answers in context. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not doing any propaganda or doing anti-antisemitism. I just want to learn about the Mizrahi community and which sects of Judaism do they mostly belong to. According to Secularism in Israel, I read about Traditional Jews being the second largest group after Secular Jews. In that, it says they support Likud. That's why I mentioned Likudniks. I assume that Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are Traditional Jews and not Conservative Jews like the ones in America and Europe. At least one person give me an answer by referring to a PDF article but I don't have time for that. Now, please someone answer the question. Thank you.--Donmust90 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

We are under no obligation to do your work for you. If someone gave you a source and you don't want to bother taking time to read it, why should anyone else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

Earliest genocide or massacre in human history with solid archaeological evidences?

Is it Battle of Changping?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are the skulls found in Walbrook, but they're later than what you mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Fall of Assur utterly destroyed the city in 614 BC, but I don't know if there were significant massacre of civilians, or if the deaths were primarily military. --Jayron32 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) resulted in large scale deportation of people from the city, though they were not massacred. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Opis seems to be the earliest, thou several of these weren't purely genocides or massacres in a defenseless non-combative victim sense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just realized Jayron32 pointed out that the seige was in fact earlier. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cemetery 117 beats the Battle of Changping by 11,000 years. "59 bodies were recovered at Cemetery 117, as well as numerous other fragmented remains. There were twenty-four females and nineteen males over nineteen years of age, as well as thirteen children ranging in age from infancy to fifteen years old [...] Pointed stone projectiles were found in their bodies at places that suggest the bodies had been attacked by spears or arrows." --Bowlhover (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is old! Also, technically pre-historic. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Genocide, a concept developed in a political context late in WWII, has no stable sociological or legal meaning, and historians engaged in genocide have retreated from large scale incidents to the single incident massacre as the unit of inquiry. I'd expect to wait at least three or four decades for their to be anything like scholarly consensus on the terms. Therefore this question is currently unanswerable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Then restrict any answer you might give to the 'massacre' part of the question. That's a well-defined term. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I think you meant historians engaged in genocide studies, who are worthy people, rather than historins engaged in genocide, who aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Historians engaged in genocide ... well, as long as they keep their genocide to "cleansing" those idiots over in the Education Dept. it should be OK  :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsmejudith. Blueboar, while I can't think of one off the top of my head, and the Einsatzgruppen commanders with Doctorates seem to have Jurisprudence and Political Economy, and the doctorally qualified Cambodian leadership I'm finding hold sociology degrees, to paraphrase Billy Idol I'm sure there's nothing pure in this world. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Human massacres predate history, and given evidence from chimpanzees engaged in intergroup hostility, the massacre probably came into being with humanity. If you want to remove the word 'history' from this, you'll probably get better results; just like if you choose to remove 'genocide' from it. And then you're left with, "What's the earliest archaeological record of a lot of humans killing a lot of humans." Sure, there might be a debate as to whether "displacement" in human societies has been primarily by massacre of by economic-out-competition resulting in disease and starvation on dislocation, but that's an entirely different question and one under debate like the meaning of genocide. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

UK Gay Marriage Bill

So the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill survived the Third Reading last night (yay!). I was just hoping you lovely people could help me out with a quick question about it, as I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

So at what point after this becomes law does same-sex marriage actually become possible in England and Wales? Is it immediately on Royal Assent, some standard period of time after that, or a specific date written down somewhere? Also incidentally, I know it still has to pass the House of Lords, which could derail things, but is it possible yet to come up with a vague ballpark date for when it will actually become law?

I suppose this information is probably out there, but not in a place I can find it. I figure as it might be a precedent or convention thing that law people know but Muggles don't, the easiest thing would just be to ask here. Thanks much! Dan Hartas (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Clause 18 of the Bill deals with commencement and states "this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." [23]. Clause 14 also allows for transitional measures to be put in place. So, the answer is at some currently indefinite point after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Valiantis (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I did hear the UK just got their own Supreme Court, so perhaps 10-15 years after it passes then works its way up through the judiciary until the Supremes take the case--that or duck it on a technicality and leave it for some future court to decide . . . yes I am suffering from D.C. orbital pull, sorry. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you already know this, but others might not: Because of parliamentary sovereignty the Supreme Court won't annul an Act of Parliament. Gabbe (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Gabbe! Makes me wish there was a way we can rejoin as a colony lol PM Boehner lol

Decolonisation has been the order of the day for the past century or so. But if you like, you could always apply to join the Commonwealth of Nations. You could even apply to become a Commonwealth realm. This would of course entail a couple of trifling constitutional changes (the Queen would become your head of state, and your president would be replaced by a non-partisan governor-general), but I'm sure you'd all cope. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Decolonization? Ask the Argentines that about "their" Falklands ;-) . . . then again there has been jokes of reversing it and getting a 51st state ;-) . . . but yeah I have always admired some of the Parliamentary system, "forming" a government out of coalitions, and instead of Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton etc. we'd have had O'Neil-Foley-Gingrich-Hastert-Pelosi etc., and now I learn the Supreme Court would be subordinate, then the White House could sell out as a Ritz Carlton! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gingrich essentially did try to make himself prime minister in about 1995 or so. It didn't work, but there was no real constitutional bar to it. We effectively had parliamentary rule when Andrew Johnson was president. --Trovatore (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been over a decade since I studied the UK parliamentary system but I remember that the House of Lords was the de facto highest court so I had assumed those powers along with the theory of blocking something the commons passed was simply transferred to the new S.C., a bit off topic from OP's original focus but still important in understanding the nature of the law that is being discussed. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Our 'highest court' has only ever been a court of appeal, I think, and the House of Lords, when acting in this role, was just the last place in which you could appeal a judicial decision. It could never overturn a law, as we don't have a constitution for the law to break. Our constitution is literally just "whatever Parliament says, goes". The ECHR changes this a little, but even with that the UK has basically just agreed in a treaty to change its laws whenever we are found to breach the Convention: it isn't automatic and we are not, strictly speaking, compelled to do so. (Btw thanks for the answer, didn't know the commencement thing) Dan Hartas (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The legislation allowing trials in the House of Lords was replaced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in its place. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To try to answer the OP's question and make a realistic estimate, it's a relatively short Bill (19 clauses, 7 schedules) but controversial, and the Lords does not have any arrangements to cut short debate. Likely full day debate on second reading, could be up to five days in Committee (a Committee of the Whole House), and then three days on Report, followed by another full day of Third Reading. Possibly followed by a ping-pong session with the Lords and Commons agreeing amendments. I think that length of debate could be fitted in before the summer recess, which is due to start on 18 July in the Commons. If not, then definitely during the September session. Assuming that all happens, then the government will have to arrange for the Act to come into force. By comparison, the Civil Partnerships Act received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004, and was brought into force on 5 December 2005. This was a more complicated Act, so it's more likely that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act will be brought into force some time in summer 2014. Or thereabouts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

19th century Awards with a significant History

Can anyone give me examples of Awards dating back to 19th century, which have a significant impact given in "Academic fields". I am partly inspired to ask this question by the wikipedia article Adams Prize and Guy Medal though the Guy does not stretch to 19th century. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not looking for answers such as Nobel Prize

I thought the Prix Goncourt dated back to the 19th century, but not quite! How about the Prix de Rome, which actually dates back to the 17th century? Following links from the Adams Prize article, you could search through Category:Awards by year of establishment to find more from the 19th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The awards, lectures and medals of the Royal Society include a few old trinkets, e.g. the Copley Medal (1731), Darwin Medal (1890), Davy Medal (1877), Royal Medal (1826) and Rumford Medal (1800). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Gold Medal for architecture is often given for practical work, but also for academic work. Warofdreams talk 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

War as a cause of death

Hi,

I often see news articles/ wiki artcles (such as Causes of death), which list the most "dangerous" occupations by death rate, with fishermen often topping the list. However soldiers seem strangely abscent from the lists. Is this because the rates of death are offset by a the large number of non frontline soldiers who are rarely killed? Or because the rate of death of soldiers isn't actually that high, comparitively speaking? For clarification; I am asking about people who would list the army/navy etc as an employer, not people who take up arms in a war in their country, or civilians who are killed as a result of war. Sorry about the morbid question. Thanks! 80.254.147.164 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize for morbidity, this Forbes article on the matter here cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics as their source, this would exclude American citizens outside U.S. borders. Another issue with finding military members in any of these lists is that although they are doing this as their "job" by many economic measures it is excluded on the grounds of national service or duty, i.e. there is no "at will" employment (you can't decide to quit) and no ability to form a union, and with the UCMJ you have no OSHA, EEOC, DOL etc. protections. Also depending on the mission it is at times unclear to public information if the death was combat or exercise or accident related, which although all the same profession would be desirable when producing lists of "jobs" since a dry dock crew in the Navy in San Diego is much different than a SEAL in Afghanistan and a air wing in Alaska. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for derailing the thread, but those words "you can't decide to quit" made me think of another question. What are the rules regarding voluntary departure from the US Army? Is resignation allowed, and if so under what circumstances? United States Army doesn't seem to say anything. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

First link I found to help answer. (US specific, but you said US Army). http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/getout.htm --Onorem (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This page has a list of military separation codes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has a great deal of information on the U.S. military death rates. Overall death rate was 75 per 100,000 person-years. But being a young male combat-specialty Marine in 2004 was far more dangerous than a thirty-year-old female Air Force nurse (all lowest categories). Highest categories were over 200 per 100,000 p/y (combat, Marines in 2004 and Army in 2007) while the lowest was under 40. Rmhermen (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Buyers remorse

How long does a person have, under the law, to return a car they just bought without consequences? Johanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.139.102 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

inb4 "which country?", it's the USA. Do you mean a new or a used car? --Viennese Waltz 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot "Which state?" Dismas|^(talk) 14:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

the IP address geolocates to Chicago. Looie496 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing we say here constitutes legal advice, and you would do better contacting a legal clinic if your question is more than casual interest in the subject. According to a website, http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/12/05/illinois-buyers-remorse-laws/ , in Illinois there is no "buyer's remorse" period for returning a new car and getting your money back. There is, according to the site, a 3 day buyer's remorse period for certain other consumer purchases. If you buy a new car and drive it off the lot, it becomes a used car, with a retail value far less. The dealer has little interest in giving up his profit, and he can get a new car from the dealer for way less than the price you paid. There is also the possibility that a car which comes back might be in less than original condition for various reasons. It might be a legal or ethical problem for the dealer to try and sell a previously sold and titled car as a new car, and a subsequent purchaser might be able to track down that it had been sold once, from the VIN.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227200917AA2GyM4 brings up the issue of fraud or misrepresentation by the seller (a car with thousands of miles on the odometer was sold as a new car, the VIN on the paperwork doesn't match that on the car, the car has a smaller engine than the paperwork says, for example), and again you would have to discuss your rights with a lawyer. Edison (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some U.S. states have lemon laws that allow cars to be returned for their full purchase price if the car is faulty in some way, perhaps in ways that do not show up for a short while. Many of these laws are based on the concept of the Implied warranty, which is to say that if someone sells you an item, it is supposed to work as expected. If it does not, it may (under some jurisdictions) invalidate the terms of the sale and you may be able to legally get your money back. IANAL, caveat emptor, WP:LD, and all that jazz. If you have concerns, contact someone who can legally advise you on how to proceed. --Jayron32 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Very basic question, but what are some complex answers, please?

The simple question is: Why are people interested in unusual things? LevianitA (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the usual things are boring. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "complex answer[s]"[24]? Complex in what way? Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You may read a 14-page discussion of the phenomenon in this article. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"It depends." Is that complex enough for ya? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Was just trying to ask a fucking question. Sorry. I'll go away now.114.75.53.69 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When you phrase a question vaguely, don't complain when you get vague answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm asking a vague question because I don't want to limit the sorts of answers I get to it. I'm looking for various sorts of ideas here. Thanks? :) 114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The reference desk is not for random discussion. It's not a forum for opinions. --Onorem (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean opinions, either. I'm very sorry! I'm phrasing this very badly! I just want to know why humans (or all animals, really) pay special attention to the things they are unfamiliar with. Obviously there's survival instinct, but what other factors go into it? Why does it make an impression on our minds beyond that? What happens in our brain at that moment? All these things go into my question. Hope I'm making sense!114.75.61.81 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Starting to. :) There's a recent TV series, maybe on the History Channel, called "Brain Games", which talks a lot (and somewhat repetitively) about how our brains interpret what our senses pick up. Survival has a lot to do with it, i.e. noticing something that's out of the ordinary, like for example something running toward you. If you can find any of those shows on the internet, they could provide some insight. However, I think Blueboar's initial answer explains a lot of it. We pay attention to various crises, whether they affect us or not, because they are "exciting" in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because unusual things can be dangerous. That's the main one. We know the risks attached to usual things. On the flip side, they could be useful in new ways, and are therefore worth our attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Candace Amanirenas

Hello,

are there pictures of Candace Amanirenas?

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A Google Image search for "Amanirenas" finds some pictures, and also a statue of her. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Casteism in Bible

I always thought that castism is a purely Hindu, or almost purely Hindu phenomenon. But I heard a Guru referring to an incident in life of Lord Jesus where he wanted to drink water from a well but the lady drawing the pulley refused on the grounds that she is of caste lest Jesus be "polluted". Is there really such chapter in Bible ? 124.253.173.16 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The incident is Samaritan woman at the well, from gospel of John. I do not know about the caste interpretation, but that article may lead you to more info. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is some more context about how Samaritans were seen in Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan#Samaritans_and_Jesus. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely not an incidence of caste in the Hindu sense. Read Samaritan. Samaritans follow the same ancient religion as the Hebrews (and even to this day celebrate Passover in their own way), except that they never accepted the post-Babylonian exile notion that the Temple of Jerusalem was the only true temple. The Jews of Jesus's time basically regarded them as not "true believers". μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it. :) The problem with both stories is having to explain the context. Nowadays it might make more sense to substitute "Palestinian" in place of "Samaritan". It's not really "caste-ism", just bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Discrimination according to social class has occurred in many societies -- the Hindu caste system is merely the most extensively developed example. Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  The Hindu caste system is not what is stereotyped in the west. Take the example of wikipedia, some like to create content themselves, some like to google translate from other wikis, some like to wikify, some like to correct grammatical mistakes. Every wikipedian has its own role. That is the real Hindu caste system where every person was assigned his unique role in society. Not subjugation as stereotyped in the west. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  The key difference is performing a role (such as a wikipedia role) voluntarily vs. being "assigned" (i.e. forced) into a role. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians arrive at the site with a clean slate, select their own roles, and can move between work areas without hindrance, at will. If they wish to gain admin or bureaucrat status (seen by some as a promotion) then their record of behaviour and contributions here is what matters, not their identity. I'm afraid I fail to understand the comparison. - Karenjc 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When a Wikipedian who likes to wikify tries to correct grammatical mistakes, he is not regarded as ritually impure, banned from the grammatical-mistake-community, or ostracized. His sons and daughters are not forced to wikify, should they (voluntarily) join Wikipedia. That is quite unlike the condition of the Dalit: "Dalits were commonly segregated, and banned from full participation in Hindu social life. For example, they could not enter a temple nor a school, and were required to stay outside the village. Elaborate precautions were sometimes observed to prevent incidental contact between Dalits and other castes." --Bowlhover (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Will you explain who are you quoting. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding of caste in India is that it is not voluntary, and that it applies to people of the same Hindu religion. Samaritans, however, consider themselves Hebrews, but not Judeans > hence not Jews. This is an old and complex religious schism, and has nothing to do with caste or class per se. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just Hindu religions, in India, see Caste system in India#Caste systems among non-Hindus. Also, the 1950 Indian Constitution prohibits any discrimination based on caste and made the practice of "untouchability" illegal. Which isn't to say it's all stuff of the past, of course. Pfly (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The US constition stated "Equal Rights" in 1776 then why it took another 100 (basically not even today) years to give the due rights of the blacks. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we're still working on that. Legal structures are one thing, changing how individual people treat other individual people, especially when some of those individual people are in positions of power, and as such, have the ability to act on their bigotry, is another. --Jayron32 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "equal rights" was not written into the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, and we are indeed still working on it. Bigotry dies hard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See James 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hard for a modern person to understand the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans in the time of Jesus, and our article doesn't do much to help. Josephus, in the Antiquities, relates an occasion that seems to have taken place in Jesus' childhood when the Samaritans apparently desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem. That would have been utterly shocking to Jews of the time. There's also a story he relates in The Jewish War about a murder of a Jewish pilgrim by a Samaritan and an unpleasant over-reaction by the Jews, who are only dissuaded from going to war against the Samaritans by their leaders warning them of the likely crushing of insurrection by the Roman rulers.

Having said that, I don't think this story is about antipathy at all. As this Christian Bible text explains, the Samaritan religion was sufficiently different that a Jew who, in Temple times, had to observe a madly complex section of halacha that dealt with ritual impurity would simply not have been religiously permitted to use their vessels and it's this that the Samaritan woman is referring to.

Finally, it's definitely not a "caste" matter - a Samaritan could become a Jew by converting. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The antipathy between Jews and Samaritans likely goes all the way back to the divided monarchy. The Israelite nation was divided into two kingdoms from about the 10th century BC - Judah in the south, Israel in the north. Judah was ruled by the descendants of David from Jerusalem, Israel by various dynasties from various capitals, one of which was Samaria, until it was conquered, and its people dispersed, by the Assyrians in the 8th century, leaving Judah as the last Israelite kingdom standing. The word Jew derives from Judah. The Bible was written in Judah with an ideology that said the only acceptable place to sacrifice to God was the temple in Jerusalem, and all the kings of Israel are condemned for having their own holy places, so Samaria as the capital of Israel, its people and their religious practices would have been seen as unacceptable by Jewish believers for a long time before Jesus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Prize vs Copley Medal academic domination politics

Copley Medal being awarded since 1731 was a far established award than Nobel Prize. Then why did Nobel Prize became the standard of Academic distinction outpacing Copley Medal starting only since 1900. Any light on the topic is appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, the cash value of a Nobel Prize is far higher -- currently about 1.2 million US dollars versus 5000 British pounds for the Copley Medal. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, you get more buck for his bang. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I wonder if the Nobel choice is more accurate about who is the best in the field. Obviously, any recipient would prefer a Nobel prize, but what about a person not related to a field who just want to know who is the best one? Would any of these national prizes do more justice than the Nobel prize? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mr. Berg" from Norway

I'm working with some 1980s photos of Lee H. Hamilton meeting foreign dignitaries. One of the envelopes is labeled "Mr. Berg, Norway". Unfortunately, I can't describe what he looks like in the picture, since Hamilton is shown shaking hands with several men whom I don't recognize. Can anyone suggest a Norwegian named Berg from this period who might be going to the USA for high-level meetings? Nobody named Berg was either the Minister of Foreign Affairs nor the Prime Minister during this period. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the ambassador to the US either. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone in Berg (surname) seem possible? Couple of sports stars...184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly no:Alf Roar Berg or no:Johan Berg? Both were heads of the Norwegian Intelligence Service, and Hamilton chaired the Intelligence Committee. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! A pity they don't have images; I've looked around for images of Johan but can't find any; this is Alf, but I can't find him in any pictures. I guess I'll just leave the description as "Mr Berg"; these photos are to be going online, so perhaps I'll come back some day and be able to point to a URL when I ask again for recognition help. 2001:18E8:2:1020:A4AB:9743:B2F9:993F (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23

Protestant Ranavalona

What denomination of Protestantism were Queen Ranavalona II and Queen Ranavalona III of Madagascar? Was it Congregationalism or Anglicanism or something else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism that arose during the Puritan movement; its basically the "Puritan" denomination. Ranavalona III's article says she was educated by the London Missionary Society which was "largely Congregationalist in outlook". Not really good enough to add any information to her article, but if you just want to know for your personal edification, it seems likely she worshiped in the Congregationalist tradition. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

... The Hawaiian missionaries in 1820 were called Calvinists and Congregationalists. Weren't those different denominations? I thought Calvinism was the religion preaching predestination that broke from Catholicism at the same time as Lutheranism and if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism (the Puritans purifying the Anglican Church), how can they be the same thing? Unless Congregationalism (from what I read) is an offshoot of Anglicanism which follows some beliefs of Calvinism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Calvinism is a theological position, not a denomination. Congregationalism is a denomination that I believe at the time tended to have Calvinist theology, though its defining feature had more to do with church organization than theology. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Calvinism is not itself a distinct denomination, but rather a broad classification of Protestant theology that is distinct and separate from the Lutheran tradition. The Puritans (i.e. Congregationalists) were basically English Calvinists, just as the Presbyterians were Scottish Calvinists, and the Huguenots were French Calvinists. Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. A Calvinist one. --Jayron32 04:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but that makes it sound as though the main difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is national origin. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the period, but I would have said the fundamental difference was church governance. That's even how they were named — Congregationalists uphold the freedom of each congregation, whereas Presbyterians are guided by presbyters ("elders", roughly bishops).

And if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, it's in roughly the sense the the United States is an offshoot of England — shares many of the same values, but began in open revolt against the form of leadership, specifically the English monarchy in both cases.

(By the way, I grew up in the Congregational Church, which could either inform my views or bias them, I suppose. It is not (today) noticeably Calvinist.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of common ground between the various Non-Conformist churches in England. As I understand it, a lot of evangelical missionary organisations were staffed by like-minded Christians of various Protestant (and non-Anglican) churches. In England today, the Congregationalists and English Presbyterians have joined together to form the United Reform Church. It is also common to have a "Free Church", which is shared by URC and Baptist congregations, who worship together with a single minister.[25] Alansplodge (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The other difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is on Church governance (hence the name difference). Congregationalists believe in the autonomy of the individual Congregation, while Presbyterians are governed by regional assemblies of elected "elders" or "presbyters". See Presbyterian polity and Congregationalist polity. However, on matters of theology, rather than church governance, they historically have very similar beliefs, broadly in agreement with other forms of "Reformed Christianity". And the parallels between (traditional, Episcopalian) Anglicanism and Congregationalism and the UK and US is particularly apt; many of the early settlers in the U.S. were Congregationalists, and the movement is closely tied to early American history; see Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, and Congregational church for background on the connections between early America and the Congregationalist church. Congregational governance is still today likely the most common model of Protestant church governance in the U.S., if you take into account that 25% or so of Christians in the United States are Baptists (who follow that model of Church governance), as well as non-trivial membership in other similarly organized groups like United Church of Christ (modern descendant of the original Puritan Congregationalist churches), Churches of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), various Nondenominational churches, etc. --Jayron32 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced deathbed conversions

Are there any famous cases of forced deathbed conversions? So not forced conversions or Mormon conversion/baptism of the dead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's forced, was it a conversion? --Jayron32 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I meant baptism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So, like drowning? Waterboarding? --Jayron32 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it means forced by the circumstances. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, no. I'm done screwing with you for my own amusement. There were apostates that "converted" under torture, often shortly before execution. See Auto-da-fé. --Jayron32 04:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism has conditional baptisms which may be done for an unconscious dying person in case that person sincerely wished to baptised but was unable due to circumstances (and is also done for other reasons, for other reasons). In fact, sacramental baptism is not necessary if the dying truly wanted it, given the concept of baptism by desire. But it's considered highly improper if there was an expressed wish against it, and invalid if it was not truly the supposed convert's wish. Conversion against the will is invalid in all cases. See Baptism and Conversion at The Catholic Encyclopedi. Of course historically these strictures have not always been followed in practice, as with the mass 'conversion' of pagan tribes during the Christianization of Europe. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Very prominent case in the middle east in the last century was Michel Aflaq... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fried chicken and watermelon

Why is it considered racist to say that black people like fried chicken and watermelon? Isn't it like saying that Italians like pizza or Russian drink vodka? In all cases, it's a stereotype that might be accurate or not, but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This similar thread might be of use to you... Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Essay on Jeffrey Dahmer - would it be biased?

Hi, please I'm working on an essay on Jeffrey Dahmer for the Criminology class at the University and I would write this as follow "...while his biological mother Joyce left him behind alone in their Ohio home where Dahmer committed his first murder; Lionel (his father)'s second wife, Shari Jordan, took care of Jeffrey like a true son". Is that biased?. The essay MUST be unbiased. Thank you! Monteithh (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What do your sources have to say about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My source is Lionel Dahmer's book "A Father's Story"... but he didn't like Joyce very much after the divorce that's why I'm asking for help. I'm confused if that would be or not unbiased. Thank you. Monteithh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting an "insider's" viewpoint on something of this nature is risky. Maybe you should start by finding some reviews of that book, and see what they have to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I get it, thank you Baseball Bugs very much!!! Monteithh (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Side note

Given the M.O. of Monteithh (talk · contribs), it's a good bet that the above is yet another sock of Timothyhere (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Language

Look up Wiktionary:Information desk in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Look up Wiktionary:Translation requests in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

May 16

Black lingerie word

I once found a word beginning with mel- in one of those dictionaries or websites that specialize in obscire and curious words. It meant a fetish for black lingerie. Googling "black lingerie" along with "obscure word", or even along with "Phrontistery", pulls up nothing. What was the word? 75.36.237.8 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Melcryptovestimentaphilia. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia is wonderful! Now I've just got to see if I can randomly throw that word into conversation somewhere today. (If I can remember it.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A strict classicist would find it problematic that the Greek stem for "black" is in a strangely-shortened form that would more probably suggest "honey" than "black" to an ancient Greek speaker... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But then phobia and philia names are often coined with a view to being somehow eyecatching or memorable, rather than strictly classical, or for that matter of any use in serious clinical diagnosis (which has shied away from narrowly-defined phobias and philias for a while). But I agree that it should be "Melanocrypto..." - and ideally use a Greek, rather than Latin, word for raiment. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern Greek for "underwear" is εσώρουχα ("within clothes"), so perhaps something like melanesoruchophilia? Lesgles (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

speaking of -phobia and -philia

I've been wondering: is there any generic affix that indicates intense hatred, without implying fear like -phobia does? (That is, a more proper opposite to -philia?) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the prefix mis- or miso- from Greek µῖσος (misos) means 'hatred of'. Examples are misogyny, misanthropy, misoneism, misogamy etc. - Lindert (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See the etymology given in the lede section of misanthropy. Textorus (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What's this girls says?

Hi

I am not a native English speaker. I want to know what the girls in the video says when they screams. I've heard only the word F(u)ck but the girl said something else. link to video at 2:45

Can you translate to French or explain me what's this lines means : I feel nothing Fuck like sick despair In this place only the willing survive

Thanks

"I feel nothing" means that the person feels nothing. "Fuck" means sexual intercourse or may be used as an interjection. "Like sick despair" is comparing the person's emotions to sick despair. In other words, the person feels very sad. "In this place only the willing survive" means that the person thinks that in this place, where she is, only the willing will survive or live. Sneazy (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but the willing means and what say the grils in the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.172.23 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what part of lyrics is the part you are looking for? If it's part of the lyrics, then you may do a simple search on the Internet. If it's part of the background vocal music, then I don't think it's feasible to understand what the girl is trying to sing. How badly do you want this? Sneazy (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"The willing" means "people who are willing (to do something unspecified)". --ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't actually check the video , but in French it would be something like "Je ne sens rien, merde, dans cet endroit seuls les (forts|volontaires) survivent" - in this context I'm not sure if willing would be "people who have willpower" or "people who volunteer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For the last phrase I would say "seulement les forts survivent ici." I agree fort (strong) is closer to the intended sense. There's also puissant. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mis padres"

I know that the term means "my parents". But do Spanish speakers make an exception when the parents are both female (Dolly the sheep)? Sneazy (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought experiment: how do you think hispanohablantes would say "My parents are mothers"? μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you asked "how do you think...?", I am going to give my best guess: "Mis padres son madres." However, I am not entirely sure if it is used this way. Sneazy (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Spanish, but I have a lot of experience dealing with same-sex coupledom and its ramifications. I think that it would depend on the context and whether the speaker wants to communicate an interesting or surprising detail about his or her parentage. The generic Spanish expression for "my parents" is mis padres, and I expect that a person would use that expression when referring to two female parents when their gender is not relevant or important or when the speaker doesn't wish to emphasize it. On the other hand, if the speaker wanted to make clear that he or she had two mothers, then he or she would say mis madres. Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you say you have "a lot of experience dealing with same-sex coupledom and its ramifications", what do you mean by that? Do you work with them professionally or something? Sneazy (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say, "Mis padres son mujeres" or "lesbianas". But "mis madres" would mean "my mothers", not "my parents". To say my lesbian parents it would be padres lesbianas.μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, but who feels a need to give such a detailed description of their parents in most situations? To answer Sneazy's question, my partner and I are a same-sex couple. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which question haven't I answered? To the original question, I said that, in effect, "my parents" means "my parents" regardless of the parents' gender. (The fact that mis padres usually refers to people of different genders proves that the gender of mis padres is grammatical rather than biological.) To the later question, asking the basis for my experience of same-sex coupledom, I said that I'm in such a couple. So which question did I not answer? Marco polo (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Leave it, Marco. I have come to the conclusion that Medeis is sometimes just trolling. --Lgriot (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP when prompted suggested he though the Spanish might say "Mis padres son madres." Marco responded he just wouldn't mention it--which is indeed not addressing the OP's question, when he specifically wants to know how they would say it if they did go into all the detail Marco doesn't think necessary. So, no, Marco didn't answer the question. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A good approach could be to go to the Spanish Wikipedia and ask this question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Väiski in English & Swedish

In Finnish Scouting, väiski refers to a cap worn as part of the uniform. It's a brimless, peakless cap, rather like the cap hippies wear with a kaftan, or like a large skullcap that covers the whole of your head. It's also very similar to a Swedish style of cap - one that is now sold in tourist-tat shops, but presumably harking back to a traditional style of clothing - a little like a Viking helmet made of cloth and without the horns.

My Finnish is rather limited non-existent. But even so a search on the term only reveals that it's the Finnish for Bugs Bunny. Can anyone help me with the English term for a cap of this style, or (even better since I'd like to buy one) tell me what the Swedish cap is called? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like what would be called a skullcap in English, which seems to translate to kalott in Swedish. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal names might include beanie hat or tea-cosy hat in English. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I think you're right that it's a skullcap in English, and that kalott is the Swedish translation thereof, but kalott seems to be used for the skullcap as worn by Jewish men and Catholic priests (see here) - I can't see that it's used for the traditional Swedish cap, which is what I'm ultimately after. Any ideas? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tammy, it's not a beanie since it's made of a thickish fabric, not wool. Kinda like a flowerpot hat but without the brim. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm digressing here, but "beanies" in the sense that Tammy linked to are not made of wool, but as you say of fabric (or sometimes leather or faux leather). They have four seams, in the same location as the four brown straight lines in the picture. But I can't tell whether those lines are seams, or just a different color. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Tammy. Beanie in the UK sense is always a woolen hat - I should have read the article. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actualy, I don't mean flowerpot hat, I mean a bucket hat. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mössa? Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, that seems to be a woolen hat. I want something made of canvas (I think that's what it is - I'm very poor on types of fabric!) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Native Swedish speaker here. I'm pretty certain that kind of hat doesn't have a commonly known specific name in Swedish. I'd call it a mössa or a hätta, though the latter would better fit one of these [26]. Mössa, by the way, is not limited to woolen hats. It is the generic word for any soft hat, including nightcaps, as is evident by the English name of Caps (party). So, I believe the chance of finding a Swedish word for these hats, that people without a specific interest in the medieval or viking ages would know, looks rather small./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Do you know the type of cap I am thinking of? It is made of thicker fabric than a väiski, and the hätta you linked. To be honest, the name of it actually isn't so important - I just want to buy one! Can you help me find a suitable search term? Nothing I've tried so far in English or Swedish (I speak Swedish well enough to use Google) has turned up the right type of hat. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The man in the first picture on this page is wearing the sort of thing I'm thinking of - although the examples I remember were not so brightly coloured. The caption says I Morastugan visas en vardaglig variant av den lokalt särpräglade dräkten från Mora socken i Dalarna. - 'In the Mora cottage you can see an everyday version of the iconic local costume of Mora in Dalarna.' - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Finnish Scout cap in action

I'm familiar with the Finnish Scout cap (I found a picture) and I'm certain that there isn't an English name for it - "skull cap" is the closest, but that usually means a yarmulka or zucchetto - the Scout cap is bigger and has the distinctive seams. I'd go with "traditional Scandinivian cap". Alansplodge (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

OK, I think I've found it now! It appears to be called a sotarmössa - a 'chimney-sweep's cap'. Apologies to all those who suggested beanie for the English word, since that does indeed seem to be what it would be called in English, and it is very often made of wool. But the one I want is made of thick cotton or felt or something. This gives me the lead I needed! Thanks to all for your help. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

Is an allegedly terrible historical figure known mainly from later writing a "villain"?

Take Sergius III. Apparently, most or all contemporary records were destroyed when he was banished, and the Game of Thrones-like character we have today may be an invention, and almost certainly embellished by his enemies and their descendants (and uninvolved people who just like a good whoring and murder story, centuries later).

Would it be fair to classify him as a villain, in the literary sense, notwithstanding how his reign actually went down? Judging from the last millenium, we probably won't be clearer on the truth of it anytime soon. But we certainly know the general consensus of historical writers is that he was not a good man or pope, perhaps even the worst.

Thanks for considering. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a request for random personal opinions rather than a request for information, and therefore not suitable for the Reference desk to deal with. (Note: I have edited your post to disambiguate the link.) Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a request for opinions from language experts (or afficionados, anyway) on whether a word applies to a certain type of person, preferably with something to vouch for those opinions. Seems the place to me. I appreciate you fixing the disambig, but I've piped it. I only call the current pope "Pope". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Louie is correct. This is not a request for the meaning or connotation or etymology of the word villain. It is a request for our opinion as to whether Sergius was a villain. We can't say. The OP could ask at the humanities desk whether any notable scholars have called him a villain, in which case he might as well just search for the words at google books or scholar. We do not need to and should not give our opinions here. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He was an example. If I wanted to ask if Sergius III is a villain, I'd have used his name in the title. The question is about people like him, who exist mainly in stories written many years later. There are no villains in real life, but can the word apply to his persona in literature, like it would for a fictional character, or is it strictly for storybooks? If you don't want to answer, ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found the answer. Delete this if you should. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

You know, despite the general unhelpfulness above, this is actually a pretty good question. There are lots of issues with historical sources being written more like literature. And certainly we can talk about different schools of historiography and how they treat the history of the Papacy. Personally I would say no, it is not fair to classify him as a villain, because he was a real person and not a literary character. But you could definitely trace how real people are treated as if they are fictional in historical writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying there are no real villains in real life only follows if you define that word as referring only to literary characters; but that's definitely not the original usage, it's only been around since the 19th century, see the etymology. On the other hand, yes, historical writing does often have a literary style, and descriptions can come across as vividly as literature. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Problem solved then, Sergius III was not a villain. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What does Maryann chant?

Can anybody tell me the Greek-sounding words Maryann chants during the Bacchan revel in episode six of season two of True Blood? If so, please answer here, where I originally placed this question on the Entertainment Desk. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the answer myself at You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEklHkugp4. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

critter words with a certain stress pattern

Hi language lovers, I'm hoping you can help me brainstorm a list of animals/birds/insects/fish whose names meet the following criteria:

• three syllables
• stress on the middle syllable

So far I have mosquito, hyena and flamingo but would appreciate as many other suggestions as possible. Thanks, 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gorilla; Bonobo. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Opossum, coati, impala, beluga, gourami. Deor (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Koala. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A nubile, but flighty, impala

Wants to marry a handsome koala.

Since gum trees are lacking

In Kenya, she's packing

To seek one in far-off Bodalla. —Deor (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Far worse fared a grizzly gorilla

Who married a cuddly chinchilla,

For now he requests

Paternity tests

When out came a fluffy godzilla. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Piranha, Alsatian, St Bernard, Retriever, Iguana Bluap (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Okapi, Cicada - Lindert (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a long list downloadable as a zip-file here, click on "amphibrach 010" (see also the article on amphibrach). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(Okay, it's quite long, and the animals are scattered sparsley. Of the ones not mentioned so far, I saw arachnid and chinchilla, but didn't go beyond yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, these are great! I will definitely review Sluzzelin's list, that's fantastically useful and I thank you, but if any more do occur to anyone do please keep them coming. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Alpaca, vicuña, guanaco. - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Constrictor? Some people say chim-PAN-zee. Dalmatian. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"St Bernard" might work if pronounced as the name of a British church, but it doesn't fit in American English. The rest do. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosella, Trevalla, Trevally, canary. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agouti. I think. I read that much more than I hear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Crustacean. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Panda165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Red Panda doesn't work, it has two primary stresses, ans doe St Bernard in American. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I stress it the same way I do all the other words listed above (eg chinchilla)?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks all. Red Panda actually would work in the context I need (not a limerick, though those were quite amusing!), so I've added a bunch similar to my list, such as king penguin, grey owl. But the true amphibrachs are perfect. Thanks everyone. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Query: Does "owl" have 2 syllabubs in your idiolect? I've never encountered that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely two syllables, not sure about the puddings :) For me it's a perfect rhyme with towel. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's the thing. For me, "towel" is one syllable. Same for "bowel", "foul", "fowl", "howl", "jowl", "Powell" and "vowel". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

JIM CROW What is the origin of this term, meaning discriminatory laws against African Americans

Please tell me who was the original Jim Crow. Was it a character from Dumbo, the Walt Disney Movie and if so, how did come by its current meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.171.238 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Jim Crow laws. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The name goes back a century or more before the Disney movie, according to the generally accepted story... AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, that term "Jim Crow" was highly offensive, but presumably it's still used because of its historical significance, along with being obsolete now. But in pop culture, crows were used to symbolize black people, long before Disney came along. Moran and Mack,[27] for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the earliest use of the term was the song "Jump Jim Crow", dating from 1828. The song was performed in blackface so the association with crude black sterotypes was already well established. --Jayron32 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Fuck

Hi, What is an idiomatic expression involving the word 'fuck' which means 'to be very difficult', as said of an exam? I considered "It [the exam] was fucked up" but that didn't seem specific enough and had the wrong connotation. "It fucked me over" seems odd. Obviously "It was fucking difficult" does not meet the idiomatic requirement. Thanks in advance. 72.128.82.131 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe such an idiomatic expression exists? Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could say it was a mindfuck. Especially if it seemed intentionally tricky. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

• That test was a motherfucker. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Or the test was a real fucker. That would do, and is perfectly acceptable in my dialect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The exam was difficult as fuck :D 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ClusterF#(%; SNAFU165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names in book pages - What are the characters?

Hi! I would like to know what the Chinese characters are from these book pages?

• p. 92 - Poplar Island Press/Pappelinsel-Werkstatt/Yangshudao, Vincenz Hundhausen/Hong Taosheng, Sonderausgaben/Tekan
• page 93: Herbert Mueller/Mi Songlin, Forschungen and Fortschritte/Yanjiu yu jinbu, Wolfgang Franke/Fu Wukang

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yangshudao = 楊樹島 - a person name, Hong Taosheng = 洪濤生 - a person name, Tekan = 特刊 - special publication

Mi Songlin = 米松林 - a person name, Yanjiu yu jinbu = 研究與進步 - research and advancement，Fu Wukang = 傅吾康 - a person name -- Justin545 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) (in the case of Yangshudao it seems like it was used as the name of a publishing company but it could easily be the name of a person too) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Because 楊 is one of Chinese last names, but I could be wrong... -- Justin545 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

楊 is a Chinese last name. It also means "poplar" and that is part of "Poplar Island Press" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Homologate and prolepsis

I'm wondering what's a clear definition of these words in the context of epic simile, or just simile in general. I'm attempting to rewrite that article, and I've come across these words several times in my research. Context tells me that homologate essentially means that there are precise parallels between what is being compared and what it is being compared to. Prolepsis essentially seems to mean foreshadowing. Neither our article homology nor prolepsis seems to give a reasonable definition for this context, and I feel like my contextual inferences lack. Here is one of the articles that uses these terms. If anyone could shed some light on these terms generally (in the context of epic simile) or, especially, explain more specifically how they are used in this article, I would be forever grateful. ÷seresin 09:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the term "homology" comes from the Greek originally meaning "to name alike", and can mean several different things depending on the context, sometimes times it just means "agreement", (see, for example, homologation), but it can be used to indicate certain types of comparisons or analogies; for example in chemistry a homologous series is a group of molecules which differ by a single, repeating unit (c.f. acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, butyraldehyde) that is the group has a common thread (in this case, the "straight chain aldehydes"). Homology (sociology) seems to be broadly similar, indicating common threads in sociological constructs. However, other uses of the term seem widely different in definition. Perhaps Autological word is the best link, since it deals with a linguistic concept like a simile. --Jayron32 17:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So in the Whaler (1931) you see he calls the details of the metaphor which correspond to details of the object homologues. So the comet is the metaphor for Satan, because they are both radiant and ominous, etc. Satan appears as a serpent. The comet is in the sky among the constellation Ophiuchus, whose name means "serpent bearer". So the treatment of the comet in relation to this constellation corresponds to the treatment of Satan as a serpent. So that's the homologue there. Homologation is just the creation of such homologues by the author.

Prolepsis is exactly as you say: foreshadowing or anticipation. See p. 1073: The brushing of the honeysuckle against the man is the metaphor for the brushing of Hoder against Hermod. The man thinks a ghost went by him. Later Hoder kills himself. So the fact that the man thinks the honeysuckle is a ghost is anticipation or prolepsis of Hoder's suicide. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

Wash the car? Not my remit.

Is the word "remit" in the sense of "scope of responsibilities" widely used in the English-speaking world? The dictionaries that I have (from 1980's) and the online dictionaries that I have access to (from the New Age, perhaps) do not convincingly tell me that this word is utterly understood everywhere. --Pxos (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tended to encounter this usage from (quasi-)military types of people, if that's any help. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, there is nothing unusual about this usage. However, I notice that http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remit?view=uk calls it "chiefly British" (I am British), which may be why people from other parts of the world aren't as familiar with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A peculiar usage. To "remit" is to "send back". How did that evolve into "job" or "responsibility"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's chiefly UK (confirmed by Wiktionary) doesn't make it "peculiar". I don't find anything unusual about it either. --Viennese Waltz 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So how do you get from "send back" (verb) to "responsibility" (noun)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OED says only that the noun is derived from the verb, but doesn't provide an answer to your question. One sense of the noun is "the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." Perhaps there was a transformation of meaning from "an instance of a case being sent from one court to another" to "the jurisdiction or scope of the authority of a court to which cases are sent". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And in British English, it's usually "Not in my remit". Bazza (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way, "remit" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is "remittance". And either way, to remit something or to send a remittance is the fulfillment of a responsibility, but is not the responsibility itself. But maybe Brits evolved the word as some kind of short cut. Or maybe it's an abbreviation of some other word? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh, no, I don't think so. When we talk about something being within an individual or organization's remit, we are using the word as a noun. OED confirms this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Except they don't explain why or how it got to be that way. So apparently they don't know. It's just one of those English-language peculiarities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In British English it most certainly is a noun - confirmed again by Wiktionary. It has a different meaning to "remittance". Bazza (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary, as with Wikipedia itself, is user-entered, and is not a reliable source. It's obviously used in British English. I'd just like to know how the verb "remit" got to be a noun with a different meaning than the verb or its noun form. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the same way "permit" became a noun? (Though etymonline doesn't explain "how" that happened). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that the verb and noun forms are connected: I permit you to do this, or give you permission to do this, by giving you this piece of paper called a permit. That works. It doesn't work for "remit". But it appears that usage's evolution has been lost (or at least not found yet). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See [28](16). Bazza (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the usage "responsibility", but it might have evolved from that legalistic definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From the OED: - Sense 2a) "The referring or consignment of a matter to some other person or authority for settlement; (Law) the transfer of a case from one court or judge to another, or to a judicial nominee. Also: an instance of this." - earliest example 1650. Sense 2b) "A set of instructions, a brief; an area of authority or responsibility. Freq. in within (also beyond, etc.) one's remit." - earliest example 1870. So we have: - (verb) to send back > (verb) (for an authority) to send (back) (to a responsible person) (a specific matter) to decide > (noun) the act of sending a specific matter from one authority to a responsible person to decide > the terms of reference under which a specific matter sent from another authority must be decided > the terms of reference under which a matter not specifically sent from another authority must be decided. Seem like a logical progression to me from the particular to the non-particular. Valiantis (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Now it makes more sense. Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that, just as with permit, the verb form of the word in Br.E takes the stress on the second syllable [/rɪˈmɪt/], whereas the noun form meaning "purview" stresses the first and elongates the vowel sound: [ˈriːmɪt]. I haven't heard the alternative meaning for the noun form - a different take on remittance - before, but a look in my Oxford dictionary suggests it's pronounced the same way as the verb rather than the other noun form. And yes, as a Br.Eng speaker I'm entirely familiar with the usage, and an example landed on my desk in a memo only today. - Karenjc 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What about "remission" which is listed as a noun and does mean to lessen work-load?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Remission" doesn't mean to lessen a workload, it means "a sending back" or "a slackening", like what happens when a disease goes into remission. Remission may lighten your burden, but that's not its meaning, it's just a possible outcome. It's the etymological opposite of "mission" which is a sending forward, or sending abroad. All of these words (and also including "message") derive from the Latin mittere "to send". The "responsibility" meaning which the Brits have assigned to it does not make sense by itself. I wonder whether the idea of sending a "remit" within a court of law suggests a play on words like "the ball is in your court", i.e. it's your responsibility to do something. That's the closest I can come to seeing any sense behind that usage of "remit". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So I suppose you will be changing the wiktionary article then?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

More kanji variants

Hi, please see:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/183/kanjivariants3.png

On the left-hand side is what I understand to be the usual kanji form. On the right-hand side is a variant, with the feature of interest highlighted. What I would like to know, for each pair, is the status of the right-hand variant in Japanese (e.g. commonly used / occasionally used / never used). 86.160.222.57 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They are never used except #5. #1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 look like simplified zh. #2 is simplified zh and #3 is traditional. The difference of #5 is the design of font and the one on the right is more like handwriting. I'll check the kanji later as I may be wrong. BTW, did you see my reply on 葛? And please consider creating an account. Oda Mari (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I did see your reply about 葛. Is there a specific connection between that kanji and the ones I'm asking about here? 86.160.87.28 (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As for #1, 穴+犬 is traditional ja and zh, and it's acceptable and occasionally used in ja. I didn't know, but the origin of the character was, as the combination tells, the way "A dog suddenly runs out of a hole". I couldn't find whether the right side 雨 is simplified or not. But we do not write that way in ja. #8 is an acceptable and occasionally used variant in ja. As for the reply of 葛, did you understand it? I wasn't sure if I could explain about it well as I don't know much about computer fonts and the history. Oda Mari (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I understood about 葛 quite well -- certainly well enough for my needs. 86.160.82.229 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

... oh, by the way, is the variant in #8 "acceptable and occasionally used" in all characters that contain that element (e.g. 要, 煙, 票, etc.)? 86.160.82.229 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to correct this. The variant in #8 is "acceptable but rarely used". See ja:襾部. As a radical, the middle one is the standard today, especially joyokanji like 要, 煙, 票, etc. Oda Mari (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

neuter sanskrit gender in asana names

What is meant by User:Khamgatam's edit summaries:

[29]

[30]?Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be changing each word from an abstract stem to a specific neuter nominative/accusative singular form. In all the "classical" Indo-European languages, the nominative and accusative case forms of words with neuter grammatical gender are always identical to each other, and in the Sanskrit a-declension neuter singular, the nominative-accusative ending is "m"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So in the context of asana nomenclature, should the asana's be suffixed "asam"?Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Odd message received by me

Sakide dec fanol

Sadren moj aero de f'astren la nomadic vase nik gas bunto zar ozea. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd ignore it. That user seems to be inserting gibberish on several people's talk pages. Rojomoke (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandal, sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the verb “to deface” implies a bad faith?

Is expression “don’t deface” really an insult so serious that a proportional response to it could be a two-days-long flamewar?

Several apparently native English speakers try to convince me that it is, but I suppose that they say so because defend their friends in conflict with me, and/or because of antipathy towards me. Suggestions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly a language question (more behavioral) but depending on context, it may seem insulting. Flame wars are frowned upon, however, and may lead to other consequences. The trick is to be the one that decreases the conflict. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is a flamewar called for? Of course not, a flamewar is never called for. Does "deface" assume bad faith? Yes, it definitely does. Look at [Merriam-Webster's definition: "to mar the appearance of : injure by effacing significant details". Look at the examples it gives: "The building was defaced with graffiti. He was fined for defacing public property." The synonyms: "vandalize (!), trash". Certainly a negative word that implies bad faith. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the implications still depend on context: "Don't do that bad act" may imply nothing about the good or bad faith of the actor -- it may just be, "don't do that bad act," regardless of motive or faith, which is a message similar to many of our policy pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, though I'm not sure I totally agree. The context relevant to the OP's question was that the word "deface" was used in a warning to another editor, so it was used in a context of "that was defacing" and/or "don't deface again", which I would say does imply bad faith, as it's calling a previous action that the editor did defacement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. But if I say to you "you have rendered that infobox unreadable by adding that code, please don't deface it." It does not matter to my statement that you thought it a good faith idea (ie., that you were acting with the best of intentions), or bad faith idea (that is you were trying to render it unreadable out of malice). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't think I agree; if you don't mean to imply that the person messed up the infobox in bad faith, then I think "deface" is the wrong word, because it implies that I did (as evidenced by the "vandalize" synonym; one cannot vandalize with good intent). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not if I am using it in its descriptive sense (eg. "to render disfigured"). That is just the consequence of your act, whatever your good or bad intention, or even if you had no intentions at all, in that regard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your use would be widely misunderstood. If you told me to not the deface such- and- such infobox because of some bad code I'd entered, I would see that as a clear imprecation against my intentions. If the positions were reversed, I would say something like "Hey, I noticed you made an error in coding the infobox; putting that extra = in there makes it display incorrectly." Matt Deres (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You can say it all kinds of ways but what you cannot do is assume an implication, I did not intend, not only because it is not required by the language, but also because you are assuming bad faith. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And you can rationalize it however you wish, but your usage is widely understood in a way different than what you're saying. The complement to AGF is to communicate in the clearest manner possible. Like "retarded" and "faggot" and many other words, "defaced" has disparaging associations that you can't just ignore because you happen to want to use it another way. Retarded just means delayed (first def), but I strongly urge you not to call your boss that when he's late for a meeting. Matt Deres (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Those analogies are absurd. Most people do not mistake a descriptor of an act for an epithet of a person. Moreover, it is poor advice to take umbrage so easily, and in such and extreme manner, because it is nonsensical, and would be the barrier to actual communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the difficulty now; you think we're giving advice to the listener. That is not so; we are giving advice to the speaker. You tell the audience to be patient, but advise the speaker to be succinct; you tell the audience to assume good faith, but you tell the speaker to be careful of what they say. My advice to the speaker is: don't use words like "deface" unless you specifically mean to imply that there were poor intentions; my advice to the listener is: maybe the speaker doesn't know what the word "deface" means. Matt Deres (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As you say, we are giving advice to both, which is why it is more of a behavioral and context issue than an issue of the word. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Puts me in mind of a Franglish phrase I saw somewhere: I'm desolated to be retarded. I hope you're not deranged. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To "deface" is equivalent to "vandalism", a term that gets abused in Wikipedia from time to time. So, yes, it does imply "bad faith". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In this context, I'd say deface does have a negative connotation. However, note that the term is also used in a technical sense in relation to coats of arms and flags to mean altering an existing coat of arms or flag by adding an additional element to it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If English is a second language for the person using the term "deface" then we should be interpreting that term's meaning with greater latitude than we would if that person were a native speaker. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but they should know that it does imply bad faith, and that they shouldn't use it unless they mean to imply bad faith in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deface" has a thoroughly negative connotation.[31] The "technical" sense would more likely be called a "reface", or a "face lift". If someone's using "deface" that way, they're using it incorrectly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The technical term is as SMUconlaw stated; it's not "reface" or "face lift". Bazza (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A bizarre but thankfully obscure usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been speaking and listening to English exclusively every day for the past 36+ years (give or take), I have never heard the word "deface" used where it didn't have a pejorative or negative connotation. YMMV, and like any word, I'm sure there are arcane or specialized definitions which don't have the same usage as the most common one, but if someone said something was being defaced, nearly every native English speaker would assume that meant it was being ruined. --Jayron32 15:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Flags are said to be defaced when an additional symbol is added to them, but this vexillogical usage has no negative connotation. Textorus (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would qualify as "arcane or specialized" usage of the term. Even vexillogists would get pissed if you told them you defaced their car with a can of spray paint. --Jayron32 03:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the Chinese on the sign?

What is the Chinese on the sign in this picture? File:Buford Highway.jpg

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It means "Warehouse Farmers' Market". Marco polo (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the hanzi characters? I want to annotate the file with them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

倉庫農夫市場 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.87.28 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese names

José Luís do Amaral Nunes was a member of the Portuguese parliament in the 1970s and 1980s. He gets almost no Google hits (even when I don't exclude Portuguese), so I wonder if I formatted the name wrongly. I know that Spanish people often have two last names and use only one of them; is this also commonly done in Portugal? Or are there any other names that people in Portugal have but don't commonly use? Basically I'd like to know if there's another combination of names more commonly would apply to this guy. 2001:18E8:2:1020:2974:F1B5:B231:24B3 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article named Portuguese name. Perhaps that could help. --Jayron32 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"do Amaral" is part of his full name but in practise it wouldn't be used (sort of like an English middle name). Jose Luis Nunes seems to have been leader of the socialist party in Parliament under the Mário Soares government(s). It's hard to find him on Google since this is a pretty stereotypical combination of Portuguese names, heh...He's listed on pt:Partido Socialista (Portugal), but he doesn't seem to have a Portuguese article either. He's also listed with his full name at pt:Assembleia_Constituinte_(Portugal), and seems to have been a deputy from Porto, where he has a street named after him, which may be useful info. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot device terminology

I'm curious which term (if any) is used for the plot device in which one character says or does something seemingly benign or irrelevent but in turn provides a clue or solution to a problem being worked on by another character.

A classic example would be in Independence Day when the father mentions David catching a cold, which in turn provides David—in a moment of clarity—with the idea for a computer virus. The closest I've come in my searches is MacGuffin. However, using the previous example, I think that would describe the virus itself, not the plot device which provided the idea to the character.

I'm assuming the term will be something in Latin, à la Deus ex machina. Thanks for any help. DKqwerty (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I don't know about an official literary term, but I've seen it referred to as a Eureka moment, which on wikipedia, redirects to the Eureka effect. Is that closer? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Chekhov's Gun. ÷seresin 05:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, see this. Woe to any man who clicks that link without hours to spend.÷seresin 05:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"believe" or "believe in"?

When is it ok to add the preposition, and what difference does it make? Is this one of those verbs where the transitive and intransitive forms have no or little distinction?

• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher disbelieved in the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe the story.
• When Susan told her teacher that her dog ate her homework, her teacher did not believe in the story. Sneazy (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One believes or disbelieves a statement or a testimony or a proposition. So in your examples the teacher disbelieved the story, and did not believe the story. The word "in" is out of place in those cases.

"Believing in" is used in much broader contexts, like believing in God, believing in the afterlife, beliving in reincarnation, believing in democracy, believing in capitalism, or believing in one's partner in the sense of trusting they will always tell the truth and never be unfaithful. The expression "disbelieve in" does not exist, as far as I'm aware.

It can get confusing, though. In a conversation, Person A might say "I believe in reincarnation", and Person B might reply "I don't believe that there's any such thing". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Items 1 and 3 are good, and 3 is better than 1, which sounds kind of formal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To state it simpler than above: You believe someone, you believe in a concept. So, you can say "I believe my Rabbi," but "I believe in Jewish theology". "I believe the President when he speaks" but "I believe in American democracy". There are uses of "Believe in" with people, but that usage means, roughly, "I have trust or confidence in this person". That is, if I say "I believe Bill" it means I think he's telling the truth in regards to a specific statement he's made. If I say "I believe in Bill", it means I think that Bill is generally worthy of respect or faith that he'll get the job done. When your mom says "I believe in you" she's saying "I think you'll be successful because I have faith in you", in the exact same way that if she says "I believe in Communism", she thinks Communism is going to be successful because it is a sound concept. If your mom says "I believe you" it just means she thinks you're telling the truth. --Jayron32 23:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Believe--truth, Believe in--existence. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Key comment in an old Andy Griffith Show. Opie meets a telephone lineman named Mr. McBeevee. Opie doesn't fully comprehend, and his story sounds made-up. But in spite of a threat of punishment, Opie won't recant his story. Barney to Andy: "Do you believe in Mr. McBeevee?" Andy: "No. But I believe in Opie."[32] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To believe means to accept something as true in a specific case. To believe in means to have faith in the existence or reliability of a person, thing, or concept in general and absolutely. Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Trucker lingo

Two questions here: (1) What are "swindle sheets"? Is this some improvised device for dodging scales? (2) What does it mean when they say that the rig is "low"? Is it the same as being "bingo-fuel" (in aviation lingo), or does it mean something else entirely? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You could have answered the first question by typing "swindle sheet" into Google, with a lot less effort than it took to put the question here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see looking at your contribs that you've been turning into a serial ref-desk-abuser -- "deballockers" and whatnot. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A random look at this user's contributions hints that we have an obvious sock, but the questions themselves seem quite reasonable (falconiformes/psittaciformes/passeriformes and red vs white darwf capture) although some seem obvious. But none seem abusive or debate inciting. I have a feeling we have quite a few regulars with socks. Enough that I think a general check user of all contributors is warrented. But again, these questions seem benignant. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

One or two questions about random trivia are not a problem. When they multiply into the dozens, it's an abuse. Take a look at wikt:benignant, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought "benignant" was a humorous made-up word. Interesting to see that it actually exists. 86.160.82.229 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We can do without the mini-rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I try to answer other people's questions about why it takes so long to fly from Atlanta to New York, or how to clean up a THF spill, and THIS is the thanks that I get?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

Five more times => five times more?

As an English additional language speaker, I have a bit difficulty in understanding the following sentences in Cheetah:

Twenty-two such skins were found between 1926 and 1974. Since 1927, the king cheetah was reported five more times in the wild.

Should it rather be written as five times more (x5) or should it be interpreted as +5?

Thanking you, Suidpunt (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In this sentence it means "was seen another five times" or "on five additional occasions" so "+5" is the correct sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "five more times" cannot be a quantifier, so it must mean "on five more occasions". "Five times more" is formally ambiguous, and could in context have either interpretation; but in most cases it will not be ambiguous: here it would have the same meaning as "five more times", because there isn't a number which it could be modifying. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the word "times" which has two numerical related definitions: "times" can mean "repetitions" or "iterations", as in "I only did it one time, but he did it two times". Times also means "multiplication", thus "Three times two equals six". So, the statement "five times more" is very ambiguous. Even in a full sentence, it would be hard to parse. If I said "I ran the Boston Marathon twice, but he ran it five times more than that", do you mean seven times (two times and five additional times) or ten times (five times two?) It's really hard to say. --Jayron32 03:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the term "Multichannel video programming distributor" used outside the United States?

It's a term used in U.S. law, and the Wikipedia article has no content referring to other countries.

Now I'm sure there IS a general term used outside the U.S.. I thought it was Pay television but a hatnote indicates that the Wikipedia article about that concerns premium networks and the like, not cable, satellite and other delivery systems in general.

If the specific term is not used outside the U.S. that might be a way to get that annoying tag removed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Offenbach synagogue

What does the text here on the beam in the Offenbach synagogue mean? We read it as

בניז תקפד עקיבא

--Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your transcription.

As for translation, the wording is awkward, and the writer seems not to have known Hebrew well, but the translation is apparently: "Building [i.e. built] (in) 584 [5584 on the Hebrew calendar = 1823/1824] (by) Akiva". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. So there is no reference to Bnei Akiva in the text? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, as the second word is almost definitely the Hebrew year (5)584, that is 1823/1824, long before the foundation of Bnei Akiva. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

בנין rather than בניז, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The definition of the Greek word Metaphon that is no longer in use.

The greek word Metaphon is no longer in use and I've tried to find the definition for reference use in biblical classes in place of the word forehead, which use to not exist in the language and now only does as a body part I think. I haven't been able to find that either. The definition of the Greek word Metaphon is: the forefront of the minds eye, or memory. it's the way I learned it in a Theosopy( The Study of the Wisdom of God)class I was in in the early 1990,s. I was able to find it on the internet then, but don't remember where. Please see if you can find a reference point for me and for the benefit of my students as well as future students.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Lawrence Burney

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.103.237 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no such (or similar) word in classical Greek, but I'll suggest that, given that the meaning you recall has to do with thought, the second element of the word is more likely to be -phron (-φρων) than -phon, which would presumably mean "sound". Deor (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the word in question is μέτωπον (métōpon), "space between the eyes, forehead", which is found in the Book of Revelation. See also metoposcopy. Lesgles (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Lesgles. That hadn't occurred to me. Deor (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There's Metatron the angel (but not meaning "forehead"). In ancient Greek, the verb μεταφωνεω means "to speak among", while μεταφρενον means the lower back... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23

Trying to make an acronym/initialism sentence for SHANGRI

I'm doing this to make a poster for a friend... So far I have got 'sweet harmonious ambiances nourishing genial roaming incomers'... Meaning an environment that happy traveling guests can be inspired... Now, I was wondering if that sentence would be technically correct or not? Or if it's just too farfetched to make much sense... Thank you for your help

178.166.30.203 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

PLease state in simple English what you want to communicate with this acronym. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, a friendly environment to inspire nice arriving travelers 178.166.30.203 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Serene HANGout for Recent Incomers? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It still might help a little more to understand exactly what you intend. Is this for a hostel, or a bed and breakfast, or some other sort of business? Is there a reason you announce you want nice clients? Are you trying to assure possible customers that they won't discover that the people who are already there are not nice? Without understanding exactly what this is to be used for you will essentially be getting random comments, like "stay here all night & get really intoxicated." μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm so stealing that. That's awesome. --Jayron32 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

sleep harmoniously always, never get rudely interrupted 68.36.148.100 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

serene homelike atmosphere needs gregariously refined inhabitants. If you would like to donate to my children's college fund please inquire on my talk page 68.36.148.100 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Serene Haven And Neighbo[u]rly Guest Resort Inn, or
        Safe Harbo[u]r And Noiseless Guest Refuge In Lovely Area, or
        Superior Hotel Accepts No Grimy Rambling Intruders[' Loud Appeals]? —— Shakescene (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

English title of a Kant's work

May someone please translate this title: uber eine entdeckung, nach der alle kritik der reinen vernunft entbehrlich gemacht werden soll. I could use Google Translate, but I don't trust it. Thanks for help. --Omidinist (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This page has the title as "Concerning a Discovery by which any Fresh Critique of Pure Reason May be Rendered Superfluous by the Use of an Older One."

Note that the original title in German appears to be Über eine Entdeckung, nach der alle neue Kritik der reinen Vernunft durch eine ältere entbehrlich gemacht werden soll. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --Omidinist (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This work occurs in the Theoretical Philosophy after 1981 (2002) of the Cambridge Editions of the Works of Immanuel Kant (these are the standard English editions). There it's called On a discovery whereby any new critique of pure reason is to be made superfluous by an older one. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are actually the same. Thank you too, my friend. --Omidinist (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Word describing style of speech

I want to know the word that describes style of speech. It starts with "v" and sounds alike to veneer. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The only word that's coming to mind is vernacular. It might help if you could clarify what you mean by "style of speech". Deor (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And all these V's let me think of V for Vendetta ...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26h-H6CFO-A Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In particularly thick varieties of the non-rhotic New England English, especially around the Boston area, initial "R" sounds have been noted to take on a "V" quality. See This explanation, which notes that the substitution of "R" sounds with "V" sounds in working-class North Shore communities. --Jayron32 12:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17

Can you identify which simpsons episode features this janitor/language gag ?

Question: There is a gag in a simpson's episode and I would like to know which episode.

Here is the gag.

A bunch of students are standing in an auditorium or gym, and a man asks "Everyone who has spring break plans, please take one step back (or forward?) ... everyone steps back except Lisa and the janitor ... then the man asks the same question in spanish, then even the *janitor* steps, leaving lisa all alone in shame.

What episode does this gag appear in ?

Try looking for episodes that prominently feature Spring Break as a plot device, like Bart on the Road or Kill the Alligator and Run 157.203.254.1 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not an episode of the Simpsons, it's Family Guy. Sorry, I can't recall the title, but it ends with Lois taking Meg to Spring Break to show her how to have a good time. Matt Deres (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're correct, it seems the episode is "A Fish out of Water". Dismas|^(talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Triple minor penalty in hockey

I have cited a source in the article for penalty (ice hockey) and penalty box that a triple minor penalty exists and has been called in games before. Does the NHL book of rules mention this kind of penalty anywhere? If it does, I would like to cite it. I have not been able to find it in any article of the NHL's official book of rules. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the rulebook, but this book claims the first NHL player to get assessed that many was the Habs' John Ferguson, Sr. against Detroit's Gary Bergman on December 7, 1967. Each was penalized for charging and slashing, but Ferguson also got nailed for high sticking - five penalties for the same incident! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fergie was not the kind of player you wanted to get on the wrong side of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Players who have won the Stanley Cup

How can I find the name of every player that has won the Stanley Cup? I am referring to every single player, which includes everyone who was on the roster when their team won the cup; also including players who did not have their name engraved because they did not qualify; as the article Stanley Cup winning players does not list everyone. For example, Jake Muzzin was on the Kings roster when they won their first Stanley Cup; Mark Hartigan won two Stanley Cups; and Doug Lidster won two Stanley Cups, even though his name was not engraved when he won the cup with Dallas. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading that wikipedia article it says it lists players not engraved, so I find that to be a very complete list. Jake Muzzin was on a team called the Manchester Monarchs for the entire 2011-12 season and not a member of the LA Kings, so he would neither be engraved or even listed on a wikipedia article making allowances for those not engraved. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Muzzin was called up during the playoffs and was a member of the Kings when they won the Stanley Cup, and he is in the team picture. He just did not appear in any games, unlike Trent Hunter, who was not on the roster when they won their first Stanley Cup. I cited a source in the article about Jake Muzzin that says he was called up, as well as Marc-Andre Cliche and Martin Jones. And the article Stanley Cup winning players only lists player who were engraved, or were not engraved but qualify under today's rules, not players who are not engraved and did not appear in at least half of the regular season games or one finals game. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing that now reading the entire article, but alas no stat sheet (since he didn't play one game that probably explains it). I guess you could be WP:BOLD and add him under the category of other like players on that wiki article, but I would feel its pretty flimsy since he just road a bench for a little more than a week (or two) after playing an entire season with another team. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I already said that he did not appear in a game that season, which is the reason there is no stat sheet. But he was officially on the roster and the Kings organization says he was a member of the Stanley Cup winning team. Just because he was briefly on the roster during the playoffs does not mean he was not a member of the cup winning team. The Kings organization says he was a member of that team. And he got to hold the cup and was included in the team picture. I just think that is important to include complete rosters. It isn't about appearing in games, it's about being on the roster. How can I find every player in NHL history who have won a Stanley Cup? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the NHL's list up to 2008. I've looked at hockeydb.com and hockey-reference.com both don't have cup winner lists as far as I can see, however both exclude Muzzin from the 2011-12 LA Kings rosters. As far as your broader question you may try asking it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey they may know of a more detailed resource but I'm thinking the reason wikipedia, hockeydb, hockey-reference and NHL.com exclude some players is because there is a consensus that only actives on rosters or with ice time should be the ones counted. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Those sites only list statistics of players with ice time, they do not list players who are on the roster who do not appear in any games. The NHL teams think this consensus is wrong, and they count everyone on the roster, whether they appear in games or not. The citations I made clearly state that these three players were on the roster at the time. Currently NHL.com says Tanner Pearson is on the Kings current roster, and he has not even played in a game yet. Does hockeydb or hockey-reference list Pearson on the Kings current roster? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The rules are pretty clear on who is considered a cup winner and who is not. The NHL and the Cup trustees have set those rules as it their right as custodians of the cup, so if they say a roster player is not a winner, who are we (or the winning teams, even) to say otherwise? Mingmingla (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because occasionally, very rarely, a player may get the privilege of wearing a sweater and sitting on the bench while the team wins the Stanley Cup, or maybe gets to appear in the team photo wearing said sweater. The OP is under the mistaken impression that those players should be counted as winning the Stanley Cup. I am with you, though; the league and trustees rulings on who is officially on the team when the cup is won should be seen as authoritative, and any other players who had some technical connection to the team, but were not deemed to have officially "won the cup" are not relevant. Our opinions as to whether or not such players should have been said to "win the cup" are irrelevant; if the officials in charge have said they didn't, they didn't. It should be that simple. --Jayron32 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the way Jayron32 and Mingmingla is better, after so many replies I do wonder if OP titled it somewhat strangely. The true inquiry seems to be players not qualified to be listed but still with some random temporary connection to the team that may personally or even have team management claim as "cup winners". Since the cup goes back to 1890s & has gone through several incarnations (minor, pro, etc.) if any online resource did compile such a list it would seem to me that its more of a research project or book form since caveats would be needed for all possible claims over 120 some years. The editors that may know of any resource such as that would most likely be found on that Hockey discussion page I listed earlier. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oceans 12 was one "entertaining" source: Let me break it down like a fraction for you about my man Fred "Bud" Kelly. Fred "Bud" Kelly made skates out of whiskey bottles at his uncle's farm in the early 1900s. That was over there in Nova Scotia. I'm gonna tell you something else. You never seen his name on the Stanley Cup. You know why that is? Because that son of a b Jim Crow, took his name off the history books. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Very often these players get the privilege to wear a sweater, hold the cup, and appear in the team picture because they are officially on the team's roster at the time, meaning that they are eligible to play, although they are likely to be healthy scratches. Bruce Racine, Jakub Kindl, the three players for the Kings that I mentioned, Jason Elliott, and Brad Thiessen were on the roster at the time their team won the cup. They often also get to spend a day with the cup. What's so strange about the fact that teams often inlcude the complete roster in the team picture and give them a day with the cup? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing at all. Except that the rules by the authorities that decide who actually gets to claim they "won " the cup doesn't necessarily include those players. --Jayron32 21:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose there is a difference between official cup winners and players on a stanley cup winning roster. What I meant was a list of players to be on the roster when their team won the cup, not necessarily ones who officially qualify to win the cup. You don't think that these players should be left out of the team picture, and not get to spend a day with the cup, do you? NHL teams generally believe that players who do not qualify deserve to be in the team picture just like everyone else and still treat them like Stanley Cup champions. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What we think is irrelevant to what we do at this reference desk. You asked questions about what the rules were, we've given you those rules. What we do or don't think isn't what we're here to do. --Jayron32 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To concur with Jayron32 and repeat one of my original replies I think OP may best discuss possible resources that have investigated such borderline cup involved players at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, if anyone knows of hockey data sources it would be those editors. Its an interesting question but the NHL has drawn a Bright-Line so any discussion of the merits of those rules is a sisyphean task. The players who were part of the team but not included in the list might be a good book to write after years of research if one hasn't been written already. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me get an idea to list these players. I may write a book or create a web site to list all of them. How often are these players who do not qualify to have their name engraved actually included in the team picture? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There's only been 98 years when the Cup has been contested by the NHL or related leagues. You just need to compare the list of names engraved on the cup to each year's champion's team picture. --Jayron32 04:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I will look at the team pictures. Sometimes I cannot tell whether a player is in the picture or not because a team generally has about 30 players on the roster and some might be covered up by other players. I don't believe Garrett Stafford was in the Red Wings 2008 Stanley cup championship picture, but it is possible that he is covered up. Kim Johnsson was not in the Blackhawks team picture because he had a severe concussion and could not go anywhere because he needed to rest. Does anyone know for sure if Garrett Stafford isn't in the picture or is covered up; or if Kyle Beach, Hannu Toivonen, Shawn Lalonde, Jassen Cullimore, Jake Dowell, Corey Crawford, or Danny Richmond were in the Blackhawks team picture? I have seen the pictures and could not identify everyone. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I am regularly amazed at the level of knowledge and skill at finding sources on these reference desks I think your quest of a list of those type players during the last five seasons or even the last century is beyond our capability, perhaps any editors capability. The question is a good one but is the type answered by a doctoral thesis or book after potentially years of research (and lots of footnote explanations), now such a resource could already exist albeit a year or two old but if any editors would know of it the ones at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey would. The question as I understand it is best answered with explanations on each individual player since each team would have different reasons for including or excluding them from the photo so I think you're looking for a very long essay or book, possibly a TV documentary or dozens of team yearbooks/media guides, thats why the wikiproject may be your only chance at tips for that. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

Checking from behind penalty in the NHL

I don't believe a there is an automatic misconduct or game misconduct under NHL rules if the penalty is a minor, double minor, or triple minor. Am I correct? I could not find anything in the NHL's book of rules that says a misconduct or game misconduct is automatic if the penalty is a minor double minor, or triple minor. What are the requirements to impose a double minor, triple minor, or major penalty for checking from behind? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the NHL rulebook for 2013. Penalties are section 4 (starting page 25), and the fouls that incur the penalties in section 6 (starting page 64). The level of penalty is generally based on the specific infraction, they come in 6 levels: minor (2 minutes or until goal is scored by opponents), double minor (4 minutes or until goal is scored by opponents), major (5 minutes, served in full), match penalty (player removed from game, substitution allowed after 5 minutes), misconduct penalty (10 minutes, substitution allowed immediately unless coincident with another penalty type), game misconduct penalty (player suspended for duration of the game, substitution immediately allowed unless coincident with another penalty type). Some penalties accumulate: Any player who incurs 3 major penalties has an automatic game misconduct penalty applied, for example. Checking from behind is covered by rule #43, and mentioned in other rules (such as rule #23.5) as part of a suite of penalties known as "stick related infractions". Such infractions accumulate throughout the season, such that a player assessed two stick related infractions in a 41 game stretch is automatically suspended 2 games and fined. Rule #43 states that all checking from behind penalties are at least a major penalty (there is no minor or double minor checking from behind option), and that at the referee's discretion, a player may also be assessed a match penalty for deliberately attempting to injure the other player. In addition to the major/match penalty the rules ALSO state that "A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is applied for checking from behind." That is, checking from behind is guaranteed to get a player thrown out of a game; in addition his team must also play shorthanded for 5 minutes (to serve out the major). In practical terms, there's not much difference to the game whether it's a "major + game misconduct" or "match + game misconduct" because both scenarios involve losing the player for the balance of the game, and playing shorthanded for 5 minutes. The difference is likely in how the penalties accumulate throughout the season for fines and suspensions, match penalties probably cause greater sanctions than major penalties. I hope that clarifies things. The NHL rulebook, linked above, is both comprehensive and fairly readable, so if you have any other questions about the rules, I'd check there first. --Jayron32 15:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't the manufacturer of NHL 13 change this to be correct? I find it odd that when I play the game I often receive a double minor and no game misconduct for checking from behind. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it could be that that rule was new for the 2012-2013 season. I have not checked the 2012 rules, but remember that like new car models, the "years" of EA Sports Games are a year early, i.e. expect Madden 14 to come out before the 2013 NFL season. The game may have been using rules that were accurate when the game was written. Also remember that the EA sports games aren't really new every season. What you basically get each year is a roster update and a GUI change and not much else new; usually some meaningless feature designed to make the game sound "new", but which doesn't alter game play that much. So, the rules used by the game may be several years old, and just that the programmers never got around to updating them. This happens a lot. --Jayron32 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian rap? song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iiQDZZGh1o

Can anybody tell me the name of the song and author that is in this video? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.127.68 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You might do better on the Language Ref Desk as it requires a Russian speaker. Bielle (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of the video says "DTP or the "hooliganka" (i.e., little gansta) representatives of the youth of the Caucasus in Moscow" which seems to be a description, not the title of a song or group. Kiril or Jack or someone else may have a better explanation. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod, but rapid-fire Russian speech is virtually double Dutch to me. It's way too fast for my current (and deteriorating by the day) level. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Jack, you don't spend at least a few hours a day smoking weed and listening to embarrassingly white rap-polka fusion? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course I do; doesn't everyone? But I still have no idea what I'm listening to most of the time. Anyway, I don't really focus on the words; I'm too busy talking to the blue man who comes out of my TV. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Movies, Clocks, Shirts, and Olympiads

Why do these things use Roman Numerals mostly? Sam L. Hilliard (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in the same way law and medicine tends to use Latin, because it is timeless and not interpreted differently depending on what generation you are in, for instance Google and Gay didn't mean 50 years ago what we consider them to mean today. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider the meanings to very different ends of the political spectrum of numbers such as 420 and 1984. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but... shirts? XXXL isn't a Roman numeral, y'know. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. It works in the Alternative Universe where shirt sizes decrease as body size increases. M = size 1000; L = size 50; XL = size 40 .... XXXXL = size 10. But wait, there's more! XXXXXL = size 0. XXXXXXL = size -10 ..... It's fun. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help myself. One largish gentleman was discussing another largish gentleman, and pointed out that they both wore the same shirt size, SM - Small Marquee. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Roman numerals#Modern usage gives some other examples of their usage. It also give what seems to be the most popular reason for their use in films and TV. On the other hand I do like this reason. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Casey Jones

Is it possible that the country-western song "Casey Jones" evolved from the Irish dance tune "Bo Mhin na Toitean"? (I don't mean the lyrics, only the tune itself.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just listened to both pieces an YouTube and the resemblance seems rather slight to me. In any event, proving a link between two similar melodies can only be speculation, without written evidence along the lines of "I heard Bo Mhin na Toitean and it inspired me to write Casey Jones". So it is possible I suppose, but nobody is going to be able to say for sure. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Appalachian music presents an important bridge between to Country Music, and shows a strong influence from Irish, Scottish, and Scots-Irish music. So, it would not be unusual to find Celtic themes and snippets in country music, if only because you can draw straight lines from Scots-Irish settlers in Appalachia to Country Music itself. --Jayron32 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A wonderful resource for all thing folk music is Mudcat.org. A cursory search does not turn up an answer to this specific question, but you may wish to poke around in their archives or simply repost the question there. Those enthnomusicologists really know their stuff! Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What does Maryann chant?

Can anybody tell me the Greek-sounding words Maryann chants during the Bacchan revel in episode six of season two of True Blood? It sounds like she says "lolo..." folowed by words with Greek nominal endings, but I cannot make it out. A blog suggested she would be saying "lo lacchus" but she says more than that if that is part of it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the answer myself at You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEklHkugp4. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Female "The Doctor"

I remember a book where the Doctor regenerated into female. I think it's a BBC AU book (NOT Doctor_Who_and_the_Curse_of_Fatal_Death). Remember which? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! Got it! Exile_(audio_drama) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

TV logos

Should it be mentioned that some production logos on television have become iconic because many have been known to be startling? I know there have been several people scared by them. I have cited a source. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

An entry in Yahoo Talk isn't a reliable source, so I'd say no. I've reverted your edit. Rojomoke (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I wonder if there are any reliable sources? I have a difficult time figuring out if a source is reliable. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Rojomoke (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would being startling lead to their becoming iconic?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, what's "startling" about production logos? Does the OP have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not iconic, but more of a common fact that has become prominent in the community of fans of certain shows. What I have heard that is startling is the movement and loud music. These logos have been said to include the Viacom logo known by many as the "V of Doom" seen after the Mary Tyler Moore Show and the Paramount "Closet Killer" seen after Brady Bunch episodes during the first season and the first few episodes of the second season. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who was scared by the Viacom symbol would probably be scared of their own shadow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that children have been scared by their own shadow or a TV logo. Are you referring to the same Viacom logo that I am, with the blue V on a light blue background where the logo looks like it is coming closer with loud music; which is seen after The Mary Tyler Moore Show, after the logo with the cat Mimsie appears? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

These?[33] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I always liked the Revue logo, which was taken over by Universal TV.[34] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

These are the correct logos. some of the ones I mentioned are seen here[35], including the Viacom and Paramount logos, and also an MCA/Universal logo with the Revue music. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reliable evidence that anyone is "frightened" by these logos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this just an urban legend if there is currently no reliable evidence? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that it even has the status of an urban legend. I never heard of this until you brought it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this empirical or anything, but someone has made a documentary on the subject: http://io9.com/5797378/watch-the-s-from-hell-a-short-documentary-about-people-scared-of-the-screen-gems-logo Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"...built around interviews with survivors still traumatized from their childhood exposure to the logo" ... "which caused fear and unease in an entire generation of TV-watching children". So that's why I'm so screwed up! Thank you for enlightening me.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that entire television-watching generation hasn't been offered counselling. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Baby Boomers seem to need plenty of counseling, but I doubt it's because of the Viacom logo. Meanwhile, this supposed "urban legend" seems to be edging into "hoax" territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(Generation X in need of counselling speaking here) For an acoustic example designed to tingle and awe the audience and to set the stage for a roller-coaster movie experience, our article on Deep Note doesn't mention it having creeped out children (and adults) despite people reminiscing online about shared experiences of being scared by Deep Note. I couldn't find any reliable sources here either though, despite the fact that emotional effects, whether visual or acoustic, are amplified in a movie theater in comparison to TV. And despite the fact that it unsettled me as well, way back then, I don't think its potential creepiness should be mentioned in our article either. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

COD: UO

This question is for the Activision/Infinity Ward team that developed the Call of Duty: United Offensive expansion pack. As you probably remember (having designed the game in the first place), in the bridge mission (second mission in the British campaign) the squad's demo man (who gets shot just before reaching the bridge) is named Van Dyke. Did you choose the name at random, or was this choice inspired by some real or fictional person with that name? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not represent those people and cannot speak on their behalf. We can provide some information about them, but only from third party sources. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Proceed Nicholasprado (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson is the seventh child born to Joseph and Catherine Jackson. Younger siblings Steven Randall (Randy) Jackson was born October 31, 1961 and Janet Damita Jo Jackson was born May 16, 1966. I haven't been able to understand why there has been no correction to Michael Jackson's birth order among the siblings ? BVSpresident1 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the article on the Jackson family, there was a seventh child, Brandon, born March 12, 1967 (the year before Michael), who died the same day - though that statement is unsourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's his entry on Findagrave.com, for what it's worth.[36] Lacking a headstone or place of burial makes it kind of dubious. Ancestry.com, a pay site, is similarly vague. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Go to Amazon, pick a Michael Jackson biography (this one works) that allows the "search inside" feature, and do a search on "brandon jackson". It will give you a result in this case. This is the best method for finding snippet sources for facts that are in recent popular published books. Amazon allows snippet views of almost all pages of a book, very often those that are unavailable at google books. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, something I actually thought about before. MJ was actually the eighth child of the Jackson family BBC Music, since he had a little-known brother who died less than twenty four hours after he was born (poor fellow), although some sources (e.g. Glamour) report him as the seventh. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have cited the Jackson family article. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

Gekkou Kamen

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrLa1CpMK6w (00:02~00:04)
• Main article: Moonlight Mask

From 00:02 to 00:04, there's a biker's animation shown on some sort of a matrix display.

1. How did they do it?
2. How did they came up with the idea of matrix display in 1958?

The display seems to be made of light bulbs. I guess it was installed in a baseball field. However, without a computer, how did they make it display animation?

Certainly you can use a mechanical device, such as a punch card reader or something like the music box or player piano to control the matrix display. However, light bulbs do not last very long when you switch them on and off repeatedly.

Did people have this kind of primitive matrix display in 1958? -- Toytoy (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to have a computer to have digital technology, and engineers of that era were wizards at building sophisticated control systems with electro-mechanical components (relays, steppers, and related gadgets). The complexity of a short animation on a few hundred cells is less than the existing automatic telephone exchanges in use at the time (e.g. 5XB switch). The sweet-spot for feeding the system a series of animations might still be Hollerith cards, or perhaps punched tape. Either way, an electromagnetic system like this would be a big rack of noisy stuff, and would require an operator to feed it a different sequence for each animation. A matrix display is a pretty logical consequence of existing loom technology (dating back to Jacquard, and by the '50s capable of some very sophisticated patterns) once you add bulbs, and I don't think these animations are asking too much of bulbs - decorative bulbs for things like fairgrounds, indicator lights, and automotive turn flashers too, have to do tens or hundreds of thousands of cycles. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well first modern "computers" came out in the late 1940's, and by the 1950's dozens of UNIVAC systems had been installed throughout Europe & the US with languages such as FORTRAN not only being used but being improved in what today we might call "open-source" ways. As far as the actual graphics though about 8 years after this show was aired engineers were are the cusp of extremely complex algorithms for displays such as the Westinghouse Sign(s):

^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Graphic lighting displays for outdoor advertising date back as far as 1905, apparently. See exhibits 11 and 14 here. Textorus (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't mean to change the topic to exterior lighting displays, while my example of the Westinghouse Signs were indeed outdoor I was answering OP's questioning if the "matrix"/computer technology existed circa mid-century. The Wikipedia article on the Westinghouse Signs goes into how shortly after OPs film example was produced technology did exist to sequence or graphically matrix signs:

. . . one element at a time would be lit, the number of possible sequences is simply:

90! = (90•89•88•87...3•2•1) ≈ 1.486 x 10138, or 1.486 quintoquadrogintillion. (The exact value is 1 485 715 964 481 761 497 309 522 733 620 825 737 885 569 961 284 688 766 942 216 863 704 985 393 094 065 876 545 992 131 370 884 059 645 617 234 469 978 112 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.)

Such a number may be incomprehensibly huge. If the Big Bang is reckoned to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago,[11] there have been "only" about 4.35 x 1017 seconds since the birth of the universe. It is estimated that the Earth is made up of roughly 5.5 x 1050 atoms; the number of atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 5 x 1068, and the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be 3.5 x 1079.[12][13]

However, the sequences programmed into the sign's controller suggested to some that the possible total was guided by one or more patterns (e.g., the same element--perhaps the bar below the W--would be lit in each of the nine units, working either left to right or right to left, followed by all nine instances of a second element, and so on, until all ten elements in all nine units were lit). It became a sort of mathematical puzzle to determine what the total number of sequences would be, given these (imagined) patterns.

For the smaller three-unit signs, the number of possible combinations under the "one at a time" scenario would have been:

30! ≈ 2.653 x 1032, or 265.3 nonillion. (The exact number is 265 252 859 812 191 058 636 308 480 000 000.)

^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

cricket

Who is the best captain in world cricket_ Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Ricky Pointing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titunsam (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To quote the message at the top of the page, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it would be acceptable to discuss what reliable sources say about the subject in hopes of improving some article or articles here. Though I'm afraid I can't help as to me "cricket" is an insect.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In order to answer the original question (because it surely can be answered quantitatively), I have tried to find statistics on the captaincy records of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Ricky Ponting. Career records for batting/bowling/fielding do exist, but what I am struggling with is the win/loss record as captain for either man. I've tried Cricinfo and Statsguru to no avail. If someone can find the relevant site I'll try and answer the question. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Statsguru is THE place to get the stats, but you need to do an 'advanced search'. Ponting's results show he won 48, drew 13 and lost 16 of the 77 matches he played as captain of Australia. Dhoni won 24, drew 11 and lost 12 from his 47 as Indian captain. Therefore, Punter has a 62% win rate and 17% loss rate. MS won 51% and lost 26%. On this basis, Ricky seems the better captain. Out of interest, though, from the 18 matches played between the two captains, Australia won only 5, with 3 draws, and India taking the other 10. However, all of Australia's wins were on home turf, whilst India won only one match away from home, in Perth in June 2008. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You can filter as captain in Statsguru on the advanced search page...

• From Ponting's Statsguru (Test cricket only): captained 77, won 48, drew 13, lost 16.
• From MS Dhoni's Statsguru (Test cricket only): captained 47, won 24, drew 11, lost 12.
• So in pure %win terms, Ponting won 62% of Test matches he captained, MS Dhoni won 51%. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the term "Multichannel video programming distributor" used outside the United States?

I may have asked this in the wrong place.

It's a term used in U.S. law, and the Wikipedia article has no content referring to other countries.

Now I'm sure there IS a general term used outside the U.S.. I thought it was Pay television but a hatnote indicates that the Wikipedia article about that concerns premium networks and the like, not cable, satellite and other delivery systems in general.

If the specific term is not used outside the U.S. that might be a way to get that annoying tag removed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23

Identify pop song by played on LOGO network in ~2006

There is a disco-type song that was played on NewNowNext on the LOGO network around 2006 that I believe was sung by a male transvestite, even maybe RuPaul or with a cameo by RuPaul, most likely about dressing in drag, but I may be totally off. I can't remember the lyrics or transcribe music or rhythms. But the catch lines had a beat, two iambs, a beat, and then three strong beats. Here are some made up lyrics that mirror the rhythm:

Move to the rhythm And SHAKE YOUR HIPS

Turn to the cam'ra And PURSE YOUR LIPS

I don't even like this song, but it was played in the background (probably at Fangtasia) on an episode of the second season of True Blood and I am wondering if anyone is able to identify it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

The character "娬" in early Chinese computer character sets

I'm not sure whether this question should be categorized under Computing or Language, but here it is:

I have a friend from China whose name contains the character 娬 (wǔ). However, when she went to get her (computer-produced) ID card during the 1990s, she was told that this particular character could not be produced with the computer systems that existed back then, so they substituted the character 斌 in its place, which, although visually similar, has a completely different pronunciation (bīn). Could this be explained by the limitations of early Chinese character sets such as GB2312? In other words, is it true that GB2312 (and possibly other early character sets) did not contain the character 娬? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an ancient character. It is not in my small dictionary of 10000 characters, but is in a larger one. (the meaning is connected with beauty). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Plastic Bags

Resolved

Why do plastic shopping bags from UK supermarkets like ASDA have four little circular holes in the bottom? Surely it can't be for airflow, as the holes are in the bottom and are likely to be covered by what's in the bag. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To make it less likely that rug rats will suffocate? Dismas|^(talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This not quite reliable source appears to agree that it's for suffocation hazards. Dismas|^(talk) 11:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone finds a reliable source, perhaps this information should be included in our Plastic shopping bag article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Children do tend to like putting things over their heads, but I didn't think it was for that reason. So why is it that just the free bags have these holes, and not the ones you pay 5p for (the 'Bag For Life', as they call it in ASDA)? Is there a regulation on this, or is it just voluntary on the part of the organization making/distributing the bags? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The 5p bags tend to be slightly heavier plastic so although not impossible it is not so easy for the rug rats to suffocate as it is with the very thin free bags. [37] MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - you've answered my question perfectly. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Pigeons

Beginning hobby / is there any way to determine the sex of adult pigeons? Mine are gray with some colorful blue green plumage. This is my first experience with pigeons , so I am open to Advilce & help from experienced/knowledgable response.

15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.12.14 (talk)

Removed duplicate post, seems Jayron32 and I both did one former and one latter lol. Addressing the question since they are adults you could wait around for a few months and if all else is in working order that would prove it for sure. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sexing Pigeons. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rule 34? --Jayron32 21:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Not really, at least not the first few dozen hits. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the species/breed. Homing_pigeon#Sexual_dimorphism explains how the sexes can be differentiated by external morphology. Others may need to be flipped over and fiddled with, as shown in Medeis' link above. If you are starting to raise/breed pigeons, I highly recommend you find and join a local club [38], as this kind of info doesn't transmit very well online. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Been away from Wikipedia for 4 years.

Hello Everyone! I just created a new account and look forward to being a Wikipedian again. I last edited in July 2009 and haven't even been on Wikipedia at all since then. I have two questions about what may have changed. 1. What is the current consensus on paid editing? Did the issue of paid editing ever get resolved? (I remember it was pretty contentious back in 08-09). 2. What is the role of Jimbo Wales here these days?

Also, is there anything else that has changed remarkably that I need to know about? I look forward to reading all your answers. Thanks. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PAID and WP:JIMBO. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PAY regarding paid editing. RudolfRed (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years. (You seem to have misspelled "avocado". See wikt:avocado.)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See "History of Wikipedia".—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That seems like a lot of reading though and I'm getting into middle age. Would you mind summarizing the issues for me in your own words? Thanks. (As far as the Avacado thing, I did misspell it, but I copied it verbatim from the menu of the cafe I was at earlier.) Now, about those summaries...Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Schnitzel Syndrome is apparently alive and well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing is tolerated, provided it's neutral, but WP:conflict of interest promotion leads to death by WP:TROUTing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the WP:PAY section. Back four to six years ago paid editing sparked reams and reams of heated debate, hurt feelings, and banned editors. Now it's just a few paragraphs in the COI policy, huh? Wow. So what's the current "hot topics"? Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We had a bit of a row about not putting references on every post on the Reference Desk a few months ago...

Probably the most important development is a greatly increased focus on preventing abuses in biographies of living persons; see WP:BLP. Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that it's not like paid editing controversy has gone away. There have been several hot issues of the last year or two where it came in to play sometimes in addition to other stuff besides COI, e.g. Bell Pottinger which lead to [39] amongst other things, [40], [41]/[42], Gibraltarpedia. There are of course also various COI related ones where paid editing is not necessarily a major factor, including one involving User:Qworty which is active right now. See also List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Paid editing. Note that as Looie496 said, there is also a focus on protecting BLPs (I don't know if I'd say it's greatly increased since IMO we were already fairly focused on it 4 years ago, although it's definitely greatly increased since 6-8 years or so ago) and when it comes to editors, avoiding outing so I (and we) have to be careful what I said in reply. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Aren't porn/paedophilia, and scientology recent issues of great import as well? I haven't come across them here, but there were huge mentions in the press. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • How long ago was that Virgin Killer dustup where Wikipedia got blocked from the entire Island of Great Britain? (addendum) Wow. That was 5 years ago. Tempus fugit. --Jayron32 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Add the Signpost to your userpage, Bacon, and you'll get updated weekly on all the latest controversies. Textorus (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Guns in towels

I know nothing about guns. Why do I see that TV characters so often have their handguns (usually hidden) wrapped in a cloth or towel? I hide things, but not normally wrapped in towels. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it's soft and also will leave the gun in a shiny lustre. Plus a towel (especially an Italian waiter's towel) can also be used as an imprompteuax silencer if you need to shoot your local crime boss and take over his "action." (a la the flashback scenes in Godfather II) Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not specific about when you see them hidden. When the character is holding it (presumably intending to fire) or when it's hidden in storage or what? If it's while being carried (and intended to be shot) a towel is a benign object that is often carried over a person's arm. So, nobody notices. If shot, the bullet will exit but the gun won't be seen by bystanders if it's under a towel. Shot is fired. Everyone looks around. You're just some guy with a towel running away with everyone else. If it's hidden but in storage, it doesn't mar the finish of the gun. Dismas|^(talk) 01:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Leon Czolgosz shot William McKinley with a gun wrapped in a handkerchief.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant they are wrapped in towels when they are hidden during storage. I have recently seen this on Sons of Anarchy, when a hidden gun is pulled out of the back of a drawer, and True Blood, when a gun is pulled out of what looks like a chimney or a hole in a wall. I also saw it recently on a third show, probably Breaking Bad, because I commented to myself that was the second time I had seen it when I did on SoA. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is to keep it clean. Covering it with a towel can stop dust getting into the mechanism while in storage, as dust can cause the gun to malfunction. The towel itself is also used when stripping down a gun to clean its parts. Might as well keep them together. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answers make sense, although I would have expected guns come with cases. The towel thing struck me as about as odd as people keeping their cars under down comforters. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The contrast and the manual action of revealing contents may introduce a desired element of drama. If a gun is hidden in a "chimney or a hole in a wall" it needs to be presented to the viewer as not just junk, but rather a valuable and protected object. Guns may come with "cases" but cases may not fit into chimneys or holes in the wall. The towel may reduce the size of the secreted object relative to a comparable case. The towel-wrapped gun may conform better to available space. Generating fear in an audience is a high priority at a point at which a weapon is revealed in a story. For dramatic effect, the primitive brutality of the gun may be presaged better by the more simple associations brought to mind by a towel than by the more complex and nuanced associations brought to mind by a made-to-order gun case. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do get your point about the reveal, but in all three cases it seemed more to present the idea that "this is the way people wo have hidden guns store them" than "bet you didn't know what was in the towel". In all three cases it was obvious from the shape of the wrapped item what it was, and even before the item was seen that the character was in need of a gun. What would really have been surprising would have been if the towel-wrapped item had proven to be something other than a gun. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

They're just trying to get a clean shot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are contrasting qualities between textile and steel. The gun is a great equalizer, sometimes making the weak strong. At a point in a story that you may be describing, a turning point may be developing. There may be a foreshadowing of a change of events by the cloaking of the strong in the soft. The storytelling thus may be advanced not just by that which is explicit but also by qualities that are implicit and not consciously noted. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good speculative literary criticism! But it doesn't apply in the two scenes I am thinking of, with Jax Taylor in Sons of Anarchy or the Shapeshifter vs the Maenad (well, maybe that one) in True Blood. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So, apart from Wehwalt's links, is this simply a chat forum? What is the encyclopedic benefit of this thread? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It could be that it is not the gun that is important but the towel. Perhaps they strangle or smother their opponent with a towel in the next scene. OK now I've run out of ideas for why TV characters might have guns wrapped in towels. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say I am curious if there are texts on the care of guns by survivalists or according to folk methods. I understand guns can also be stored in grease or greasy rags? μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've heard lots of anecdotal stories of guns being stored for decades in cans of kerosine. I'm guessing is the idea is to not oxidize it. I doubt this is good if you're trying to preserve collector value though. Of course that's not really necessary seeing as how hundreds of years old guns can remain in great shape so long as they're only mildly protected. Modern guns with any kind of surface finish (parkerizing, nickel plating, not to mention modern nitrie finishing like what you'd see on a Glock 22) will last through an incredible amount of abuse. Shadowjams (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Powerball

What channel can I watch the Powerball drawings live? I live in California. Thanks in advance. 71.146.1.122 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You may not be able to. I didn't see anything on the CA lottery site [43] and the powerball site doesn't show any California TV stations [44]. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is their official youtube channel here. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Address

Can anyone find the mailing address of the God Bless America Fund for Redistribution? My Google-fu has failed me. (If you're curious, they own the rights to the song God Bless America and disperse profits to the Girl and Boy Scouts of America.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the capital 'R' in 'redistribution' in thart article is incorrect, which has led you to think that there is an organization called the God Bless America Fund for Redistribution. The 'r' should be in lower case, and the fund is just called the God Bless America Fund. See here [45] for a reference. I can't find the address of the Fund either, but I imagine it is administered by the trustees of Irving Berlin's estate. --Viennese Waltz 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I guess I was right the first time around; the article made me think that I had been searching incorrectly. In any case, I still need the address (of the trustees or otherwise) in order to request permission to arrange. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I can't supply a mailing address, the sheet music I have for the piece indicates at the bottom the following: Copyright 1939 by Irving Berlin, Inc. Copyright assigned to Herbert Swope, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and Gene Tunney, as Trustees. It may be that there are specific trustees for the piece of music separate from the trustees of the composer's estate. I hope this helps in your search.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that info is outdated, they seem to be the original trustees. This gives a 2001/2002 list [46]. (The LOC link above also has a different list which appears to be the trustees sometime in 2000/2001 and before.) BTW, the trust also collects royalties for a few other songs. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Identifying New York building

http://www.worldtradepress.com/wp-content/uploads/new-york-1876-antique-map.png

At the extreme bottom left of Manhattan is a round building. Does anyone know what that is (was)? 86.160.221.252 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's Fort Clinton -- what remains is now known as Castle Clinton. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thank you! 86.160.221.252 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

sonic drive-in located in cleveland ms

In what year was the Sonic Drive-in of Cleveland, MS relocated to its current location? In the early 1990's it was located across the street from where it is currently located. What year was the relocation?96.18.113.71 (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to try Google News and search only the 1990's, aside from that potentially the county courthouse or the appraisers office may have online access and will give the date of the property transfer or building permits, or you could always stop in the county courthouse for that information. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could just call the drive-in and ask for the owner. Chances are, they've owned it for quite some time and may even be the same owner that owned it in the previous location. Dismas|^(talk) 00:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the historic imaging tool on Google Earth, the current Sonic building is present in the image taken on September 29, 2010. There is a different building on the current Sonic site in the image of June 19, 2007. There are no images between those dates, and it is not possible to tell what the buildings are. However, that may help narrow your search.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sending stuff to space

I'm inquiring about the cost and feasibilty to send something to space (orbit the earth). What costs are involved and what are the practicalities of this? Do they just chuck it out of the capsule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.230.250 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked out wikipedia's article on Space debris? If you search the article for "cost" it will become apparent that "the practicalities" of this for any non-essential reason takes a huge toll on both manned and unmanned missions there. If you're asking about essential reasons Satellite may help but cost and if it is simply launched or carried into orbital space really varies greatly on what exactly it is. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And check out this too. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

For small satellites see Miniaturized satellite and search the web for nanosatellite and picosatellite. There are companies that offer soda can sized satellite kits and launches for some thousands of dollars - though AFAIK few if any of them have delivered to orbit yet. They launch a bunch of them together and release them upon reaching orbit. As to space debris, the orbits of picosatellites decay in a couple of weeks and they burn up on re-entry. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly it's fuel and space (no pun intended) considerations. NPR says it cost $10,000 to get 1 lbs into space on the space shuttle. ([47]). Shadowjams (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes small satellites can be launched fairly cheaply as balance weight or ballast in larger satellite launches. Schools and colleges often get their ride to orbit that way. SteveBaker (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends what your "something" is, I'd guess. If it's a functional satellite, there would likely be extra costs to deploy it in just the right way at just the right place. If it's something you just need to get way off your hands, better to rent a helicopter and drop it in a volcano (or ocean, if it's clean enough), for cost, privacy and space debris reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

May 21

microwave hard boiled eggs

how do you microwave hardboiled eggs ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.159.23 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Prepare the hard-cooked eggs conventionally, boiling them in water for the time specified in your recipe book, and store them in the fridge. Later, when you're ready to eat them, nuke them very gently, on medium power for repeated short intervals, until they seem ready. Oh, and you might want to peel the shells before you put them in the fridge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's like, a gajillion websites that describe how to hard boil an egg in a microwave. If the OP even comes back to see if anyone answers their question, just type the exact same sentence you typed above, but type it into the small box in the center of the page at http://www.google.com and click the button labelled "Google Search" and there's a thousand different sites that all say the same thing. If, perchance, you have a cold, already hard boiled egg, and you're trying to warm it up a bit, try typing the question "how do you reheat a hardboiled egg in the microwave", and you get answers for that as well. --Jayron32 02:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

lol w/ Jayron32 Perhaps wikipedia is becoming more trusted than Google! and sure enough theres an article mention at Microwave_oven#Hazards (though not completely answering OP's question). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What doesn't seem to have been said explicitly is, if you want to scrub egg off the insides of a microwave, the best thing to do is nuke an intact egg. Of course, if you crack the egg lightly (so no shell or innards falls out) and nuke it submerged in slightly salty water in a bowl in the mike while turning to avoid overcooking it will come out okay. But the same sort of cracking and boiling in briny water conventionally works better. Cracking prevents explosions and allowing the salty water in the shell while boiling makes pealing a snap. (The OR of a prep cook.) μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know you were supposed to scape it off afterwards. I thought that such evidence of long use, helped to add a protective and attractive Patina -to the otherwise bland stainless steel interior. Thus giving them a rustic, homely, pioneering look -like you get with old bread and pizza ovens. Who in their right mind would wish to scrubs the inside of an oven? Other than the purveyors of oven cleaning products; which is a given. Aspro (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Pizza and bread ovens stay at a very high temperature, high enough to prevent the buildup of material that tends to smolder and make lots of smoke, or catch fire and create hazards. Such ovens can run 500-600 degrees Fahrenheit (250-300 degrees Celsius) or more, and as such don't have a danger of building up deposits of flammable material. Home ovens tend to run at cooler temperatures, which can allow the buildup of partially cooked food, creosote-like materials, and other stuff which tends to slowly smolder, making lots of smoke, or which can build up and catch fire all at once, which presents a hazard. That's why home ovens need to be cleaned out periodically, not because of some vast conspiracy to sell you stuff to clean it out. Microwave ovens, which don't cook food hotter than the boiling point of water, are even more in danger of building up bits of food which is susceptible to rot and thus smelling terrible, also need to be periodically cleaned. Just because different items are named "ovens" doesn't mean they all need to be treated the same. Knowing the details of how each should be treated is important, because their differences matter. --Jayron32 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you grease the inside of a ramekin dish with butter and break the egg into the dish. Make sure to prick the yolk with the tip of a sharp knife. Cook for 1 minute on high. Leave to stand for 1 minute. That should do it. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good way to cook an egg in a microwave. It's not clear to me if the end product is closer to conventional hard boiled, or conventional fried, or if it's just it's own new type of cooked egg :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely closer to hard-boiled, unless you're using a lot of butter, in which case the edges will be more fried. You can get special containers but, truth be told, it's easier to just boil the egg - or it takes seconds to scramble the egg in a frying pan. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have such a container, and it works very well. It was sold to me as a poacher, so I presume the eggs are poached. However, I remember, as a child, having coddled eggs, which operated on a similar principle to the microwave poacher, but using a conventional hob. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You were a poacher? Very impressive. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nicest of four beers

consensus this is opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
side discussions inserted out of order
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Medeis can win this one. I have lost the energy to fight against the snide remarks. --Jayron32 01:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (UNHATTED: There have been some perfectly good, non-opinion answers - proving that such things are possible, even for questions that seem to be asking for opinion.) SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Since when do admins insert their editorials before OP's questions? μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If I buy four tins of beer on a sunny day and drink them, which will be the nicest? Is it the first which is the most refreshing, or the second which is enjoyable at leisure without the rush of the first, or the third which I can savour after enjoying the taste of two previously, or the last one, which I will treasure until the final sip, as after that there is no more? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We endeavour not to give subjective opinions. Yet if you want my personal opinion – why not a tumbler-full of nice iced tea (with a little lemon etc.)? The first glass remains as good as the last. Enough said?--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is not for asking opinions. If you have a factual question that can be substantiated with sources you're welcome to ask it, but asking random people on the interwebs their opinions is not allowed here. Sorry Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what I mean is, is there any scientific research that has gone into whether the first beer on a sunny afternoon is the most enjoyable to the person drinking it, or is it the second. Or the third. Etc. I'm not just asking you for your personal opinion. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are people who love hot beer, there are people that enjoy the first beer always better than the last, there are people that would see drinking 4 beers as horrible since they don't like beer, please re-read Dodger67's comment. Perhaps you are asking this wrong, why one person loves drinking 4 beers and another won't touch the stuff let alone which one is perceived to be better and why doesn't lend itself to logic. Your question is one of personal opinion. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your 2nd question I know of no scientific research, and doubt there would be anything unbiased or non-proprietary, and even then it is still one of personal opinions just on a larger "trend" scale. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that my statement is one of personal opinion is one of personal opinion. Are you saying there has never been any scientific research about the enjoyment of subsequent beverages? Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to but I get the feeling you're not reading my response closely now either. addendum: Also, "question is one of personal opinion" is a "personal opinion" question since I've never had 4 beers in a sitting thus a fact & not "one of personal opinion" in a statement reply to your question, not statement. Its cool just be available for the answers you are asking for ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We're allowed to give personal opinions but you're not allowed to ask for them. Funny that.  :)

A key that opens many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that opens for many keys is a useless lock . . . does that mean this question is valuable and we are useless or does this mean that we are valuable and . . . did I just begin asking for opinions? :-D ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you really wanted scientific research, we have a Science Reference Desk where such a question could have been asked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tests have been done on this concept, not perhaps with beer specifically, but with other pleasurable activities, and most of the research indicates that for any repeated pleasurable activity, the first is always the best. I'm looking now for actual references (because my last psych class was well over 15 years ago, so I forget the exact terms), but basically people become "tolerant" or "acclimated" to the pleasurable activity. This can happen in two ways: first, the brain becomes acclimated to elevated levels of pleasure-inducing neurotransmitters like Endorphins: When you first experience pleasure, you get a rush of endorphins (broadly speaking, the sensation of pleasure is endorphins), but elevated levels of endorphins cause your brain to "get used" to the elevated levels, so more endorphins are needed to experience the same level of pleasure. Secondly, repeated iterations of the pleasurable activity release successively less endorphins each time. That means that a) it takes more and more of the activity over time to produce the same level of pleasure and b) eventually, you stop getting pleasure from the activity. I'll do some poking for some outside-of-Wikipedia references, but basically this is psych-101 type stuff. --Jayron32 22:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  A bit more: Some searches online (no really good sources, so I won't bog it down with message board crap), suggest that Synaptic fatigue may have a lot to do with this: repeated exposure to endorphins causes the endorphin receptors to develop a short-term fatigue: that is, they just stop responding, so despite the endorphins, you stop feeling as much pleasure. That could be why the first beer is best. Still looking for better refs on the general concept, which I'm fairly sure is basic, sound psychology. --Jayron32 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Though the Wikipedia article is about an economic concept, psychology texts refer to this concept as the Diminishing returns. See this Dictionary of Psychology at Google Books. --Jayron32 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Somehow there's 247 billion U.S. reasons (imagine what the global figures are) that the law of diminishing returns & synaptic fatigue would be highly doubtful when applying to 4 beers or in some cases 6 beers in one sitting since we are speaking about an addictive substance, not to mention the seeming epidemic of Binge drinking which somehow rewards the synapses on the 5th, 6th or 7th can equivalent. The problem with the question is not that there aren't intelligent replies but 6+ billion intelligent replies & much like the tobacco industry decades ago, brewers are loathe to release their own proprietary studies on any opinion patterns/trends of a substance that has been designed to make you want more of it with every sip. So that leaves groups like MADD & government agencies that either need beer tax revenue or have holdovers from prohibition, best of luck navigating those, most of which make you seriously wonder why you'd even drink beer. No need to be disheartened just understand its a field where all those conducting research have billions of reasons/biases to hide research, beer opinions ruled in the 1910s and now a hundred years later. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  Diminishing returns applies in the very short term as well as over the long haul. That is, the concept is used to explain why the first bite of a good meal tastes better than the last, why the first kiss with a new person is so exciting, etc. etc. It really isn't about addiction, per se, which is why I said it was unrelated to beer. --Jayron32 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  This psychology textbook uses the term and directly correlates it to "the second piece of dessert satisfying you less than the first" Again, nothing to do with addiction or whatever the rant above was related to. --Jayron32 00:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Still more, after much digging, I found an actual Wikipedia article called Sensory-specific satiety, which states "the declining satisfaction generated by the consumption of a certain type of food", which seems to be another related concept that adds more evidence to the "first is the most pleasurable" concept. --Jayron32 00:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those resources, however beers & dessert ("apples & oranges"?) aren't classified under the same addictive categories & is the text comparing pieces as in bites since that would equate to sips not cans? What studies have been released publicly would probably be by groups that recognize such things as Binge drinking, HED etc. as fueled by beers' addictive properties. Same for the wiki S-SS article, given that "four meals that included sausages, bread and butter, chocolate desert, and bananas. They then fed the participants four courses of one of these foods" but somehow no beer or other addictive items, concluding: "The results revealed a 44% increase (so that would mean Mitt Romney is President?) in overall food consumption when exposed to the meals with a variety of foods". Which circles us back why Binge drinking, HED, and other habits exist if there is any sort of half strong scientific reason they should not. I was hoping the text would explain it further rather than seeming to use it as a "ranting" example to prove an economic theory, I realize you are having a parallel discussion with another editor but we are better than to dismiss the OP's requested answered as "rants", although I see this as Quixotic it is still mentally stimulating and enjoyable & may answer the question is the 4th reply more satisfactory than the 1st at the very least. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• We're still not talking about addiction here, but why the first taste of something is generally more pleasurable than later tastes, i.e. habituation rather than addiction. No one is arguing that addiction is a good thing. I did find This interesting article in Psychology Today, which itself cites a study in Science that notes that habituation (the decrease in positive response from repeated exposure) can occur merely by imagining one is consuming the item. That is, if you spend time imagining consuming something, and then consume it, you get less pleasure than when you consume it without previously thinking about it. That is, you can become habituated to it by just imagining it; or the act of imagining acts as the "first taste" which is why later tastes are less pleasurable. --Jayron32 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Addiction is the first thing that occurred to me, too. Then mental illness. Luckfully we don't give either legal or medical advice, just occasionally random uncited opinions, with links to make it look good. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No intent to imply you were taking a side on addiction Jayron32, just saying addiction (as μηδείς points out) would have an effect on the OP's quest for research. Just as I am hoping we don't get stuck on addiction, the whole food study thing is also not applying to the effects of beer on the human body. The O-0-1-3 experience was interesting on why despite Jayron32's excellent and interesting references on food and general psychology don't apply to the beer question. To quote the wikiarticle: "The three drink cap has contributed the most to its (anti-binging campaign) massive unpopularity among the brigade," Again thou the references have enlightened me on some matters beer has a very different impact on us all. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, beer has a very different impact on some people. For many people, beer is a food no different than any other. For some people, like any alcoholic beverage, it can lead to devastating addiction. For others, it simply doesn't do that. People also have devastating addictions to other foods, leading to problems with obesity and other health issues. It isn't that all people react to beer as a dangerous and addictive substance, it's that some people do. For everyone else, there's no reason that it shouldn't be treated as food. After all, overconsumption of any food is not healthy. --Jayron32 01:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Either this is about the OP's personal taste in beer, in which case no source exists, or it's bout his personal desire and tolerance for alcohol, in which case no source exists, and we shouldn't come near that advice with a ten foot pole. This has got to be the most obvious case of a hattable ref desk question I have seen besides a BLP violation, and regardless of the fun people who know better seem to be having,someone, anyone, should close it now. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32, you're right about "some people", just furthers my sentiments at the top that this question is one of personal opinion, its all very interesting & I've learned a few things but it hasn't changed the answer--or lack thereof. I see some value in the discussion but I don't pretend its open and shut or even resolvable in a traditional sense. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If one is in the frame of mind to fully appreciate beer, then the first beer will be best. But with a frame of mind unable to fully appreciate beer, the last beer will be best. It doesn't take great connoisseurship to appreciate beer if one is inclined to do so. But if one is initially not inclined to appreciate that first beer, one will likely develop appreciation for beer in the course of drinking the four beers. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop this ridiculous parade of opinions? There may be very situational studies to answer the question...but most of this discussion is simply opinions. --Onorem (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Going part of the way to actually answering the OP's question here. The soporific effect of hops is well known and has been for centuries, and so this would have an effect on the drinker's perception of the beer - presuming, of course, that there is enough hop volatiles in the beer being consumed.

• Closing per comments of Onorem, Aspro, Roger, Jack, et. al. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

drugs

MY TEACHER HAS GIVEN ME TO WRITE THE INFORMATION ON DRUGS . I HAVE SEARCHED IT ON WIKIPEDIA . BUT I COULD NOT GET THE CORRECT ANSWERS . I WANT TO KNOW WHAT POINTS SHOULD I WRITE ON THE TITLE . AND I NEED THE ANSWER FAST . AS I HAVE TO WRITE IT . AS I HAVE NO PRINTER . PLEASE GIVE ME THE POINTS TO WRITE ON DRUGS .. I'M WAITING FOR YOUR HELP . YOUR SINCERELY Cindy 04:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Mohor1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohor1 (talk • contribs)

Which drugs? What kind of information? There's thousands of articles on Wikipedia about drugs, are you looking for legal medications? Prescriptions? Illegal drugs? Drug abuse? How drugs work in the body? How drugs are made? We'd like to help, but your question is very vague. What specific wording did your teacher use in the assignment itself? --Jayron32 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one article about drugs. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

and the beat goes on . . . Both responses are correct, you might do well starting at the main drug article as μηδείς mentions but if you are looking for us to help you in any meaningful way you may wish to specify along the queries Jayron32 mentioned. Also please refrain from the requests that we give you "the points", there is a ban on homework questions thou many of us will be happy to point you in the right direction and answer some general queries for you, and just understand in the future that ALL CAPS can be taken as offensive by many editors, thou I am sure that was not your intent. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been awhile since my schooldays but can't you simply save it to a memory stick and print it out at school? or via email or disk? Just trying to be helpful. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the most popular (and in my opinion, interesting) stories (fiction and not) are about heroin. Without knowing anything about your assignment, that seems a good base for it, if you want to interest teachers in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

And yeah, don't write your paper in caps. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Naked Lunch is an interesting book by William S. Burroughs. I haven't read Junkie, by the same author, but the topic may be related. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The inediblehulk has some good advice; the OP might try heroin first, and if his teacher is not impressed there are other topics. But I am not sure how available any of the drugs in Naked Lunch (going by memories of the movie) actually are. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Our article on substance abuse is probably the most relevant one, but looking at it, I see that it is not written in as accessible a style as it ought to be, given the breadth of its likely readership. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I should add to the OP that since you mention "teacher", I imagine you are underage and regardless of your state or nation's laws or practices on drugs, they are illegal for you and suggesting that you have personal experience in the topic area would be very ill-advised in a school paper. If you do, though, you should talk with a counselor on a confidential basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Drugs should be taken only as directed, be it the printed instructions for over-the-counter drugs, or the doctor's orders for prescription drugs. If you're talking about illegal drugs, keep in mind that doing illegal things can result in your being slammed, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Film industry

For those who know about bollywood and hollywood industry, I and my friend went on with a discussion about different film industries of the world. My friend said that "Bollywood"(of India) is largest (in terms of money involved in the film making). I said its Hollywood... Who is right. I again say its only on the money that is spent on the film making and not on ticket sales/number of viewers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.167.214 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Using this page (blacklisted :Using this www*squidoo.com/hollywood-versus-bollywood), we have $2 billion for Bollywood production and marketing versus $55 billion for Hollywood. If those stats are reliable I can't say. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bollywood is an informal and ill-defined term, but see here for some more figures.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cats

When was the earliest photograph of a cat taken? Agrimwelshman (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but this credits Harry Pointer as the father of funny cat pictures. He did a series of them in the 1870s. Some are still funny today. Many good examples from several early photographers in that link. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not so funny when you realize those would of course be stuffed cats (and kittens). Mew!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the sepia ones were alive. Could be wrong, but life-like, at least. I know photo subjects had to stay still for a lot longer then, and kittens aren't the stillest things. But grown cats can zone out with the best of them. In any case, dead cats can also be guiltlessly funny. Killed cats, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

That would be the 102nd use for a dead cat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)