Miscellaneous desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

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 19

Creation of New Article Approval

Would it be in best interest of the community for me (Evershiner) to write an article on the existence and non-existence of the time spectrum? Thank you all for your time and good luck to the future of Wikipedia.

Evershiner (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would, so long as it is verifiable. If it is not, it would get the chop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold :) If it isn't exactly verifiable, it doesn't mean it's not interesting. If it gets the chop, post your original version somewhere else. It certainly sounds interesting. Steewi (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rules are that the subject of an article should be:

Verifiable - that is to say, you must be able to list some books, scientific papers, or web pages produced by reputable people to show that what you say is true.
Notable - it can't be a really obscure thing.

While the guideline itself is fine, I'd argue your wording on this summary. I personally consider it a shame that we don't have articles on "really obscure" topics like Hydroxynaphthol Blue, the Piper of Peebles, or Gay bowel syndrome (I was going to put Roland the Farter here, but it seem's someone's actually written an article since I last checked). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxynaphthol blue exists - you just had the wrong capitalisation. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch it for the Camel Mobile Library then :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable - it must be a subject suitable for an encyclopedia
It can't be spam or Copyright infringement or a Hoax, Patent nonsense or gibberish.
It must not be Original research.
It must not be about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms).

Note especially that you can't write about ideas you've come up with by yourself - you MUST be able to point to reputable external resources to back up everything you say in the article. A quick google search for "Time Spectrum" doesn't turn up any web pages that look relevent - so I suspect this subject is going to fail the notability test - and possibly the verifiable and no-original-research rules too.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the geneology of the "Modern" faucet?

Arne Jacobsen designed the Vola series in close collaboration with Teit Weylandt in 1969. Did someone from maybe the Bauhaus or elsewhere design a self-consciously "Modern" faucet (stylistically speaking)prior to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.191.146 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you defining as a modern faucet? The ones in my house, for example, look not too different from ones that might have been there 100 years ago, from a strictly design point of view. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Richard Manoogian allegedly perfected the single-lever hot and cold faucet in the 1950s ... our article doesn't record whether he thought he was being self-consciously "Modern" or merely creative. As 24.147.86.187 noted, we need a better definition of "modern" as applied to faucets ... I'm going to presume that definition is "primarily the simplification of form and the elimination of ornament" and suspect that it is most unlikely, but not out of the question, that Vola could be considered the first "modern" faucet. You know, there isn't enough faucet history on the web :( -Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto's pacific mall.

This question is for people that know toronto!! You know pacific mall, the chinese mall with all the pirated movies that are like 5 dollars eash? I wanted to get the first season of robot chicken and the new futurama movie on dvd. BUT I couldnt find it any of the stores. Is their a store that sells "robot chicken" or "futurama". If so where is the store? (Superawesomgoat (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Wikipedia: I'm planning to do something illegal - could you help me to plan it? Nevermind that your and my words will be recorded on a public web server for posterity with no means to ever erase them. Yeah...right...smart. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am going to do it in a shopping mall that gets raided about twice a year for selling pirated DVDs, and where the police maintain cameras of who is selling what, and to whom, on a regular basis. The last raid was late August, of this year, I think. Bielle (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to believe that the original poster's time here at Wikipedia is limited, seeing as how the only edits they've made were to post wind-up questions on the various reference desks.

Atlant (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big holes near recently built homes

Sorry for the horrible title but anyway. When i see like planed homes in the suburbs they always have like a huge ditch thing next to them fenced off. What are these things for.

P.S Ill try to get a picture if you have no idea what im talking about BonesBrigade 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the big hole is not for the foundation of the house then it may be for conduits of various sorts: telephone, electricity, gas, sewer, water, all of which tend to be placed underground, in my part of North America, at any rate. The fencing will be to keep people and animals from falling in and to keep thieves out once there is something in the hole. Bielle (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about a whole development of a bunch of new homes it could be a swale purposefully made for several possible reasons. In many places new development is required to mitigate any wetlands filled by creating new places for water to drain into and serve somewhat the same purpose as the former wetland. It could also be the result of digging up soil from one place in order to level out and raise the surface of the land for the houses, especially in areas prone to flooding. Relatedly, it could have something to do with drainage -- a new housing development typically alters the natural drainage pattern. Drainage ditches are one result. Such swales might be fenced off because they are subject to flooding, or because new housing developments seem to love fences. I'm not exactly sure if I'm thinking of the same kind of thing you are describing, so this could all be missing the point. Pfly (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Washington, DC. In my area, a new development usually replaces either grassland or woodland. The problem is that the development paves over and/or disrupts a pre-existing viable ecosystem that is capable of absorbing almost all of the rainfall and then releasing it slowly. The new development cannot absorb the rainfall, so it runs off into the Potomic river, taking excess fertilizer and dirt with it. Therefore, developers are required to create catchment basins. These are dry "ponds" with embankments that are engineered to be able to hold all of the runoff from a major storm. These catchments will fill to about a foot deep several times a year, and will fill much deeper once every few years. In an extreme "once a century" storm, a catchment will overflow, and it is designed to overflow without failing. The catchment is fenced to prevent children from drowning on the rare occasions when water is present. After a development has aged for a few years, the lawns and trees begin to take on the job of sequestering some of the runoff, and the catchment becomes less important. However, I know of no system for acknowledging this and "decomissioning" a catchment, and after all, the "hundred-year storm" becomes ore likely with global warming. -Arch dude (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Switch-Off Date

Why does the Australian government want to switch-off analogue television by 2012? I have a digital set top box and definitely agree that digital television is the much better than analogue television (better picture, EPG, aspect ratio, extra channels), but does it really matter if both forms of television co-exist? Why does it matter if channels want to broadcast in both digital and in analogue? The original channels (ABC, SBS, Seven, Nine, Ten in most metro areas) are simulcast on digital and analogue anyway - why should it stop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short...MONEY! If the situation in Australia is anything like here in the USA, the radio/TV part of the electromagnetic spectrum (from 50MHz to around 1000MHz) is pretty full - and the rapidly growing cellular telephone and WiFi Internet sector is pushing the limits of what's available. By moving television from analog to digital, the signal can be compressed so it fits into a smaller 'slot' in the radio spectrum. Then, after a reasonable change-over period the section of the spectrum containing the old analog TV signal can be sold off (probably to cellular providers). Here in the USA, the rights to broadcast in just one section of the 700MHz region of the radio spectrum is about to sell by auction for at least 4.6 billion dollars. That's plenty of reason not to keep the old analog TV system running for very long once the change-over happens! SteveBaker (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is the "if not now, when?" argument. It costs money to broadcast a signal in both digital and analog. So why put the money into it for another five or ten years for the holdout viewers who still haven't upgraded their sets/boxes to digital? The technology is here, it's stable and working, so why wait unnecessarily? Switching now just gets it done with and the then unused spectrum can be used for other things as SteveBaker points out. Dismas|^(talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's mainly so there is more room in the broadcasting spectrum. I knew it cost money to broadcast in both, but why is the government concerned? If the commercial channels wish to broadcast in both, why should they be stopped? The two government channels - ABC and SBS - would affect the government (and tax payer) to broadcast in both, but otherwise, why should the government stop the commercial channels? 203.208.109.169 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government is probably only concerned because they have been lobbied by the industry to change the standards, and because governments are often/usually in charge of things like broadcast regulations and allotting bandwidth (to avoid incompatibilities/interference). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum is an issue but digital actually uses wider spectrum then analog to broadcast more content. So there is an issue with spectrum but not the one presented here. FCC actually decided on going to digital way before the public even heard of DTV much less seen a HDTV on the shelves. If you look at it from the broadcaster's prespective, why waste money broadcasting both standard when one will do. Looking at consumers, why swich when there's no content available in the new format. It's a catch-22. FCC had to step in to mandate a date for the switch to get everyone moving forward. Broadcasters have actually pushed this date back because they couldn't meet the requirement on time. NYCDA (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's emphatically not true. Digital is way more compact than analog because signal compression is easily employed. (See Digital_television#Advantages_to_conversion: Citing the bandwidth efficiency of digital TV, after the analog switch-off, the FCC will auction off channels 52-69 (the lower half of the 700 MHz band) for other communications traffic,). The USA is taking the analog channels 2 through 69 and squishing them down into 6 though 51 - selling off 52 through 69 for cellular traffic. More than that, each of the new digital channels can carry one super-high-quality HDTV channel - or it can be chopped up to make lower quality channels with as little performance as a current analog TV channel - or it can be dropped right down to still single-frame images for things like weather channels, TV guides and such like. SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VCE Exam Results 2007

Can someone please find a list of all the schools in Victoria ranked according to this years VCE results? Thanks in advance. --Candy-Panda (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is what you're looking for. There's a link on that website to another website containing the VCE Top Scores of 2007 which may be more concise, but which I found more confusing.--十八 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, but what I was looking for more was a list of all the schools results, not just the top scoring ones. --Candy-Panda (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a site

Okay, I'm asking this question here, instead of at the math desk. I need to know where there is something online that can divide polynomials online, besides the thing linked to from the polynomial long division, at http://www.webgraphing.com/polydivision.jsp, because that one is not always functional. 75.170.41.88 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work? Simplifies any expression you put into it. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphocytes

Are there any other reasons why you would have a very low lymphocytes count in your body, Besides just HIV? If you are considered to be a fairly healthy person.71.205.179.63 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphopenia can be a symptom of many diseases, including (but not limited to): Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, Adenosine deaminase deficiency, Intestinal lymphangiectasia, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, lupus erythematosus, Schimke immunoosseous dysplasia, Ataxia telangiectasia, Legionella pneumophila, Reticular dysgenesis and many others. It can also be a side effect of taking various drugs, including but not limited to certain antimetabolites, alkylating agents, phenothiazine, sulfonamides (and their derivatives), antibiotics, and antiarrhythmic drugs. In other words, there are countless reasons one could have a low lymphocyte count other than HIV. If you do, then you should ask a doctor for advice. Rockpocket 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rockpocket for the info I have had a bad infection for at least a month now. They assume now it is spreading throughout my whole body, they did alot of bloodwork even some x-rays and all they came up with was I have a very low lymphocyte count so I had to go back and get more tests done but one was an HIV test which I am not going to lie, scared the crap out of me. So when I got home I hopped on the computer to find whatever I could about low lymphocyte counts, everything kept leading me back to HIV, so I appreciate you giving me other examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.179.63 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I hope you return to full health soon. Rockpocket 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sky in the North East of Scotland

I live in the north east of Scotland, and just now there is an incredibly bright light in the sky, not a star but like a constant almost gold coloured light that barely moves from morning until night, although its obviously only visible at night. Is this a satelite monitoring something, or something else? Thanks. JG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.239.127 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it barely moves yet is very bright, it can't be a satellite. Pfly (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out, you should be able to see Saturn - low in the sky - and Mars, somewhat higher. One of these might be the culprit. See if you can figure out this site, for instance. Aberdeen is 57.15N 2.11W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for a star or a planet to not move across the sky as the earth rotates. If we have the whole story here - then this has to be something 'geostationary' - but anything that's in a stable geostationary orbit would have to be a long way away (not like low-earth-orbit stuff like the ISS that are close enough to be naked-eye objects) - and that would make it too dim to see. I don't see how this can happen - can we get some more information please? Where is it relative to the horizon? High or low? Is it to your north, south, east or west? Are you in hilly or flat terrain? SteveBaker (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be this? -- Saukkomies 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! As I said before - the OP says that the object is almost stationary from dusk to dawn. For that to be true, it would absolutely have to be in a geostationary orbit. A comet travels in a very elongated ellipse around the sun - taking weeks to months to pass by the earth and around the Sun and then back out into deep space. So over the course of several days, the comet is more or less moving in a straight line more or less towards or away from the Sun. But our intrepid OP is standing somewhere up towards the top of the earth (maybe a third of the way down from the pole to the equator) - spinning around like a top once per day. The comet (and the sun, the moon and all of the stars, planets, moons, minor planets and asteroids) are pretty much crossing all the way across the sky over the course of 12 hours...their own motion is all too slow to make much of a difference compared to crossing the sky as the earth rotates. The only things that can stay still in the sky has to be things that are going around the earth exactly once per day - or a stationary object that's sitting where the pole-star (Polaris) is. I doubt that Polaris is bright enough to be notable - and all of the planets and comets are far too close to the plane of the ecliptic to appear that far north. If this object isn't using gigantic rocket motors to do maintain this freakishly strange motion - then it has to be in a geostationary orbit - and that means that the object must be exactly 35,786 km above the equator - and somewhere low in the Southern sky if you are watching it from Scotland. The problem with THAT is that we're pretty sure that we know all of the objects up there in geostationary orbit - and they're all pretty tiny. There is no way that any man-made object is going to be visible to the naked eye 36,000 kilometers away. So - I can't imagine ANYTHING that fits the description. Which means that I'm personally quite certain that the OP's description is wrong in some way. SteveBaker (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have your powers of imagination deserted you that much, Steve? What about objects that are not man-made? (I'm not saying it's a ginormous alien spacecraft ... well, not necessarily). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's some natural object in geosynchronous orbit - we'd know all about it we have an awful lot of satellites up there - and it's getting crowded. There are lots of people watching that special orbit to keep an eye on space debris - there is really no way for something unexpected (and large enough to be seen with the naked eye fro 36,000 km away)! If it's not in geosynchronous orbit, it has to be expending a phenomenal amount of energy in a carefully controlled manner in order to be geosynchronous without being in that special orbital band - that implies intelligence and very, very big engines! So pretty much it's got to be a ginormous alien spacecraft...or the OP made a mistake. SteveBaker (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an alien spaceship, and it's not geosynchronous. It's my spaceship, which I carelessly left parked over JG's house. Sorry, my bad, I'll move it, didn't mean to disturb. --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, even if visible from the ground, would not appear stationary over Scotland. Over Ecuador, maybe. Steve, you're slipping -- I would have expected you to catch that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind -- you did say "over the equator"; that's true, you could see that from Scotland, but from a lot of other places too. I was assuming it was localized to Scotland, which you can't do with an orbit. --Trovatore (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satellites in geosynch orbits still appear stationary from Scotland - they have to be in an equatorial orbit...true...but they are 36,000 km away - so they'd still be pretty visible in the Southern sky. (Which is why I asked where in the sky this thing appears). SteveBaker (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good - I thought it was Santa out doing a practice run. Steewi (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pu-lease! Rudolf's nose is RED - the OP said "almost gold coloured" - but perhaps Santa practices with the lesser-known "George the gold-nosed reindeer" - about whom very little is known. SteveBaker (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP didn't say where in the sky this light is. If it is near the horizon it could easily be something terrestrial. A new bright light on top of a radio tower or giant wind turbine tower, etc. Pfly (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked the follow-up question of whether he lives in a hilly area. My best guess is that it's a light on top of a radio tower or something (except those would be red) - so it needs to be something like a regular light in the window of a building high up the side of a mountain or something...but he sees the light at dawn and at dusk - you'd think the fact that it's terrestrial would be obvious). SteveBaker (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars made a close approach to Earth on 18 Dec and will come into opposition on Dec 24. Details: [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more time for those who missed reading the earlier explanations... The OP said: "...light that barely moves from morning until night..." - so it can't be a star or a planet or a comet, those move across the sky in a huge arc from dusk 'til dawn...so no! It's definitely not Mars! The only thing outside of geostationary orbit that stays stationary in the sky (more or less) is "Polaris" - the pole star. But planets can't be there because they lie in the plane of the ecliptic. SteveBaker (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a huge paper kite attached to the ground. That has the advantage of being not only (more or less) stationary but also stationery. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, just out of curiosity, what kinds of mushrooms grow in Scotland... heh. -- Saukkomies 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm'K: Chlorophyllum molybdites, Amanita muscaria. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competition driving prices up?

I know competition is supposed to make prices lower, and it does in most cases, but has anyone noticed that it also drives up prices?

Many years ago, GAP jeans were good quality and were $30-40. Then diesel jeans came out for like $80. Then Seven's came out, drove the price to $120+. Then diesel jeans raises the prices on the next batch (or next seasons jeans), and now I see jeans for over $250 (I'm not talking high end stuff like Armani or D&G). Its kinda crazy, and GAP jeans prices have gone way up too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.138.192 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sucker born every minute..hotclaws 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was competition doing that - it's "What the market will stand". You can still get <$20 jeans in WalMart - you simply have a clientel who don't want to spend less because there are social benefits to telling people how much you paid. SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See false premise. It's merely that demand for the intangible benefits of over-priced clothes is increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Veblen good. -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with your statement about "There's a sucker born every minute." I buy nice expensive jeans because I can, I like them, and most other people either cant or are not willing to spend the money. And yes walmart does have $20 jeans, but the prices of the same jeans from the same store have gone up way more then the rate of inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.78.106 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so how often would you say a sucker is born? One a minute is just about half a million a year, out of, let's see, maybe 100m or so total? Half a percent, that's less than one might guess, actually. --Trovatore (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rule out Price fixing too (not that I'm saying they are just in case any Lawyers are watching), but you'd be amazed at what products some companies will inflate the price of.[2] - 86.21.74.40 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competition does not affect prices. It's the law of supply and demand. When there is competition (to supply), supply is increased which lowers the price. If the increase in demand outpaces increase in supply, price will still rise. On the other hand, there could be competition (to demand) to purchase raw materials causing the finished product to cost more. NYCDA (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, read Veblen good. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]