Miscellaneous desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17

gargoyles

what is the history of gargoyles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.244.174 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out gargoyle and let us know if there are any other questions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lens specs

I've tried searching on Google, but wasn't able to find a clear answer or tutorial. When looking a a lens like the "Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.6" how does one read that orally?

I'll answer this point by point. I'd pronounce it "Sigma seventeen to seventy millimeters, eff two point eight to four point six." Sigma is the brand name.

As well, what does that focal range mean? Does the lower measurement indicate the closest point that it can focus on and the latter refer to the farthest point it can focus to?

No, the numbers refer to the focal length. When a range is given, that means it's a zoom lens. When you zoom in all the way, it's a 70 mm lens (which is a medium-telephoto, as a "normal" lens is about 50 mm); when you zoom out all the way, it's a 17 mm (wide-angle).

What does it mean when the aperture is in a range like "2.8-4.6"? Does that mean the user can manually adjust the aperture opening? Or does it mean that at the 17mm point, it will be f2.8, and at 70mm f.4.6?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All normal camera lenses allow you to adjust the aperture. The numbers given refer to the widest (lowest-numbered) aperture, which for zoom lenses can vary with the focal length. Your second interpretation is correct, but refers to the widest aperture possible. At 17 mm you might be able to adjust it from f/2.8 to f/22; at 70 mm, only from f/4.6 to f/22.

--Anonymous, 04:35 UTC, December 17, 2007.

See Focal length for your first question. Basically it's the "zoom" of normal point-and-shoots, changes the size of the subject. Are you using this on a Nikon? On DX sensors the focal length is 1.5 times that, as the sensor is smaller (see crop factor). The kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 / 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6) that come with the camera is more than enough for normal use, and since the lens worth much more than the camera in 10 years time, I would suggest you to get original Nikkor/Canon lenses. They cost more now, but will sell for far more in the future than 3rd party brands. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On DX sensors the focal length is 1.5 times that, as the sensor is smaller. Not so. The focal length remains the same, and thus the depth of field is unaffected. (The angle of field is reduced.) ¶ I would suggest you to get original Nikkor/Canon lenses. They cost more now, but will sell for far more in the future than 3rd party brands. It's likely that they will sell for more, yes. Let's call this price difference "Y". And let's call the price difference now (and in the other direction) "X". If Y>X, then (putting aside a number of other matters) you'd be wise to get the expensive brand. However, I see no strong reason to believe that Y>X. Maybe it will be, maybe it won't; I expect the notion is one that toy buyers tell themselves, their friends and their significant others in order to justify their expenses. Actually I doubt that many of today's lenses will sell for much ten years from now, because they seem so flimsy. (Of course, some seem flimsy but aren't, and some don't even seem flimsy.) Remember that if you can forgo autofocus you actually have a lot of options for most digicam bodies or anyway longer focal lengths -- some very surprising, e.g. Hexanon AR mount lenses on "Four Thirds" bodies. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should've put "effective focal length" in there yes, but the selling older lenses is OR (which is allowed on RD), off-brand lenses sell for much much less than original lenses on auction sites. Also, I see no reason in getting that lens instead of the 18-55mm VR: it's only 1 stop faster, and offers marginally better macro (but still not exactly macro), but at ~US$400 it's almost double the price of the 18-55mm VR. Sure you lose 15mm in the tele side but you will hardly eve use it anyway, and VR will beat the Sigma in low light (don't tell me you're gonna use the Sigma for sports). The $200 you save can get you a Nikon 70-300mm G, while not a spectacular tele it's well worth its money, or a flash, which will improve indoor pictures drastically by using bounced flash. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I planned to begin shooting with a Canon Rebel XTi. Acceptable (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive species sighting

To whom do I report an invasive species sighting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you live in North America: Invasive Species Information Node "provides access to tools for reporting invasive species sightings in the United States and Canada." ---Sluzzelin talk 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do Saab/Dessault stay in business?

They have limited home markets and not as much export business as other programs but comparable research costs--I assume???

66.91.225.183 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What products are you referring to? Both Saab and Dassault Group have a huge number of products and many markets. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAAB Automobiles are exported everywhere. What's the problem? SteveBaker (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But SAAB automobiles no longer factor into this at all; that brand is now (sadly) owned by General Motors.

Atlant (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw 15th anniversary

Hi,

Have i missed the wwe raw 15th anniversary special if so are their any repeats? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For WWE Raw events, I suggest checking the website of USA Network. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK can i still watch it or have i missed it completly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE Raw article shows it plays on Sky Sports 3, so check their schedule. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extraterestrial illness

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Peruvian_crater_caused_by_meteor

I was wondering if any one had more info on this. Now that the scientist have been given a bit of time, I was wondering if they knew what had caused the illness in so many and also any other interesting info. I am surprised that the wikinews article is so short. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With two extra clicks from the Wikinews article you could have found the Wikipedia article about the 2007 Peruvian meteorite event. - Dammit (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly possible for a meteorite to contain all sorts of heavy metals and other nasty things. Generally, the rock smacks into the ground and throws up a lot of dust and dirt - but the meteorite itself stays pretty much intact. The difference here is claimed to be that because of the high altitude, the rock was still very hot and hadn't slowed down or cooled down as much as would one hitting the ground at sea level - hence more of whatever nastiness was inside got vaporized and spewed out into the air. Arsenic poisoning is claimed to be the cause - and what I see of the reported illnesses seems to match our description in "Arsenic poisoning" for a relatively mild dose that's been inhaled. SteveBaker (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nastiness wasn't inside; the water there had high levels of arsenic which was presumably released by the application of one hot lump of rock. The meteorite just supplied the heat, not the poison. Matt Deres (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(for SteveBaker) For my education, not to start an argument. My understanding of orbital mechanics tells me that the meteorite was probably pretty cold until it ran into Earth. As it passed thru the atmosphere, it heated up. Wouldn't this process continue until it stopped moving thru the atmosphere (due to grazing/bouncing off the edge of our atmosphere, running into something solid like, say, Peru, or exploding a la Tunguska)? Unless, of course there was so much atmosphere (think Jupiter) that the meteorite can actually slow down to terminal velocity before hitting anything important. I don't think that's the case, either, for Earth. Thus, the shorter the trip thru the air, the _cooler_ the meteorite would be when it hit. Please check my logic. -SandyJax (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Steve will chip in with a more complete answer, but just to get this started... there seems to be a lack of consensus about the issue. While what you say makes sense, it seems that what happens is that the heated portion of the meteor gets peeled off as it enters the atmosphere (a process called 'ablation'). It's kind of like rolling a snowball down a sun-warmed piece of street; parts of the snowball certainly warm up and either melt or chip off as it tumbles along the asphalt, but what comes to a stop at the end is still a very frozen bit of snow. While it was busy lounging about in space, the meteor was kept extremely cold (about 3 K), so the relatively short trip through our smog would probably not be enough to normally warm it up. The question becomes complicated by a host of factors - the material the meteor is made of will affect the heating and ablation, the route and gradient of descent will affect the amount of friction, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God Still Loves Us

It appears to be some sort of campaign, but for what? I saw it plastered all over I am Legend, but I was aware of it before - it appears to be some sort of sticker/poster/graffiti thing. What is it about? Mr. Raptor (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie, all of humanity is basically wiped out by a man-made virus - it is perhaps unsurprising that people would have turned to religion and said that God still loves us (...despite the terrible mess we just made.) SteveBaker (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viral marketing? [1] [2] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is all about - which is it a new experience to M_e - but it may be the definite proof of intelligent design. If humanity is being wiped out, then God is even brighter than I never thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But remember that humanity is being wiped out due to human tinkering, it isn't an act of God. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless God built in the wipe-out feature as a fail-safe. —Tamfang (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard problem

Hey.

I have a wireless keyboard and mouse (Logitech)

and I seem to be having a problem, when i press three keys simulaneously the letters zkf appear.

for example if I was to press the keys ; A, S, D at the same time , they would appear but along with Z, K , F just like sadzkf, this can become extremely annoying whilst typing, can anybody help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.88.7 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you perhaps spilled anything on your keyboard? Did anything unusual happen to it? --Ouro (blah blah) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most keyboards nowadays do not support a combination of 3 or more alphabetical keys to be pressed at the same time, in order to save costs. Usually you won't be able to press 3 keys at precisely the same time and so it's still recognisable, but the keyboard controller might have gotten confused once you hold down the three keys, spewing out other letters in addition to what you've typed. --antilived^{T | C | G} 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Rollover (key) for more information.

Atlant (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't press down more than two keys at once and reliably have all of them register - except on very expensive keyboards. I wrote a FAQ about this for games writers many years ago - I strongly recommend your read it: http://www.sjbaker.org/wiki/index.php?title=Keyboards_Are_Evil SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this question fits better in the Computing desk. --Taraborn (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the answer will still be the same, and probably written by the same people. ;-)

Atlant (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a monophonic rather than a polyphonic keyboard :) (Bring back the Moog I say!) --WebHamster 13:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were joking, but unlike with music, for text (which always proceeds serially, a single character at a time), a "triphonic" keyboard (one with "three-key rollover) is pretty much "enough". While humans occasionally burst out type sequences very rapidly (perhaps when typing "teh", err, "the"), a well-trained typist learns to pace their typing with the capability of the typewriter or computer keyboard upon which they're working. And unskilled typists (like me) are only typing with a fey fingers anyway, so if the rollover meets or even approaches the number of fingers that we use, well, there can't be any problem.

Atlant (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East or not?

Since I am not sure which ref desk geography fits into, I have a question about reading longitude and latitude. Specifically, is a location A (54°42' N 25°16' E) east of B (54°05' N 25°18' E)? The location is in Europe, if it matters. Visual confirmation is impossible even on Google Maps, since the line is almost vertical and as such human eye cannot be a reliable judge. PS. If my understanding of this is correct it is east, but I'd like a confirmation - thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore the north portion of the co-ordinates in this instance. 25:18E is further east than 25:16E by definition -- and you could draw a true north-south line (at 25:17E) down in between them that would touch neither. (That said, of course, point A IS east of point B if you take the extreme long way around...) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B is east of A. Ignore the latitude and just look at the longitude, 25°16' vs. 25°18' E. These numbers are the number of degrees and minutes east of the Prime Meridian. There are 60 minutes in each degree. The numbers go up as one goes east (if the longitude was labeled "W" instead of "E" it would be reversed). So you can say that location B is east of A by two minutes of longitude. Note that the precise distance of a degree or minute of longitude changes depending on the latitude. Pfly (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is assuming that when you say "east of", you mean "farther east than". The context of your question suggests that you do, so that's fine, but I thought it should be made explicit. Without such a context I would ordinarily say that point A was north of B, or if it was necessary to be more precise, north and a little west. --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, December 18, 2007.

a tv show

i remember that there was this tv show about this guy that would go into this big tiger robot thing and fought other robots. He got these different upgrades, like one of them was these blue things that made him super fast, and another green upgrade thing that made him strong. He had a team of 3, and one of his partners rode a dinosaur robot. I think it was called zodiac, but i'm not completely sure. It used to be on toonami all the time. if anyone can hellp me i would appreciate it a lot, thanx.--Dlo2012 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltron? (YouTube vid...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZv5Z2Iz_s) ny156uk (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no i don't think that was it. They didn't morph together. It had nothing to do with power rangers--Dlo2012 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Toonami? There's a list of shows on Toonami UK, and a whole article on List of programs broadcast by Toonami. --Mdwyer (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanx i found it. Just in case you were curious, it was zoids--Dlo2012 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intestine or something

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

If you have concerns about your health, seek the advice of a doctor or other appropriate medical professional. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Momentary test pattern becasue of switch to DTV?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I thought I'd ask. I watch almost no TV. It had been about 2 weeks since tiehr TV in my house was on - one cable ready one 5 years old and cable ready, one 20-22 years old that is from when I was in college. But, yesterday I decided to wrap presents and watch the blizzard game in Cleveland. For about a minute, every screen except the public access channel showed a horizontal, colored line test pattern on the cable tready one, which had taken a moment to come on. I turned it off and went into my bedroom with the other one; same story, except in flipping around channels after a moment a few at the lower end (2-5 or so) were the only ones to come on, and, even those were really fuzzy. (Except for public access, which still came on.) Then, finally, the channel I wanted came on. The one in the living room then worked perfectly when I went back and turned it on. I'm thinking this was becasue of the switch, but am not sure. Could the TVs both have been "looking" for the signal, but just responded in different ways because of the age of the technology - cable ready coming back right away if I'd waited a moment longer, 20-year-old one taking longer? Or, could the bad storm have knocked out the receivers? I doubt it's the latter, becasue stations are in diverse parts of the area.63.3.19.129 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cable company receives signals from one or more antennas and retransmits them over the cable. The storm must have knocked out something in their system, so they were unable to do this. This is confirmed because only the public access channel, which originates at the cable company itself, was unaffected. Then they fixed the problem and you got your channels back. Maybe not all at once, depending on exactly what happened; but if you'd had both sets turned on at once, you would have seen the same thing on both sets. (One possible exception: if there are strong local stations on some channels, either TV might or might not be capable of receiving them, perhaps badly, without its own antenna or cable. This might account for variations in those specific channels.) --Anonymous, 05:58 UTC, December 18, 2007.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.130 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]