Miscellaneous desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

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.

January 1

mexican communitites

I am doing a cultural diversity project in class and I was just wondering if someone could help me. My part of the project is to state where Mexican Americans live in Columbus, Ohio. I guess that means if there is a large population on east, west, north, etc. Thanks for your time.

One quick way is to look in the phone book for Mexican restaurants. Chances are, where you find most of the restaurants you will also find a concentration of Mexicans. Please note: Taco Bell neither qualifies as Mexican nor as a restaurant. StuRat 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking what would be meant by: "state where Mexican Americans live in Columbus, Ohio"? Indeed, one would expect them to live almost everywhere, but not everywhere in the same concentrations. If you knew the concentrations in various areas, you could make a color-coded map. Next to the culinary approach you can retrieve the data of the 2000 census from the U.S. Census Bureau's "American FactFinder". Unfortunately, it only has a category "Hispanic or Latino", which is not the same as "Mexican American". --Lambiam ^Talk 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the simplest method be to ask a Mexican in Columbus, Ohio? -THB 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure just head down to Mexican town and ask the first one you meet. (Hmmm, there's a logic error in there somewhere, isn't there ?) StuRat 15:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of 9/11 Attack

I would like to know the approximate monatary cost to the US caused by the attacks of 9/11. This should include the direct cost to NEW YORK CITY as well as the loss of thousands of jobs and their income, the loss to airlines, ports, added security measures and I could go on and on. Thanks.75.108.158.9 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Fred Adkins[reply]

Total cost is very complicated. For example, if fewer people took airline flights after 9-11 that probably also means more people took trains, buses, etc., so shouldn't the increased sales there be taken into account ? Also, do you include the cost of the Afghan War, which was a direct consequence of 9-11 ? StuRat 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You often read in the newspapers that something cost so-and-so much to the economy, but if you think about it it does not mean much. In this case, even people who just staid home did not spend the money on transportation, so unless it is still in their pockets, they spent it on something else, like food or clothes. In all cases the US did not lose it. In the end it is really only the direct cost to the community that counts: time and money spent on (for example) rebuilding the WTC that could have been spent on other things. --Lambiam ^Talk 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and it wasn't only the US economy that was affected. Speaking as a regular overseas traveller, I experience the consequential delays and increased security procedures in every worldwide airport I pass through, so the additional costs must have been, and continue to be, enormous. Though as Lambiam correctly points out, those costs have merely been diverted from other resources, always met in every case of course, by the end-users - you and I.

I think even indirect things can be considered costs — lost wages, for example, are not physically lost, but that does not mean that they have no meaning. --24.147.86.187 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one claims they have no meaning, only that it is difficult or impossible to integrate them in a coherent and meaningful notion of total cost. Suppose Mr. Jones of Stillwater, Oklahoma, wanted the world-famous Quark quartet from Seattle to play at a function on September 2, 2001. Because no air traffic was possible, he had to hire the Quirk quintet from Tulsa instead. He paid them $1000 dollars. Can you say now that Mr. Jones had a cost of $1000 dollars, because he had to pay the Quirk quintet (which he would otherwise not have done), while the Quark quartet also had a cost of $1000 dollars because they lost the fee (which they would have received otherwise): a total cost of $2000? But Mr. Jones also saved $1000 dollars, because he did not have to pay the Quark quartet (which he would otherwise have done), while the Quirk quintet also had an extra income of $1000 dollars for performing (which they would not have got otherwise). --Lambiam ^Talk 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nude vampire

Can you do a movie about a girl who becomes a vampire and she is naked with only cape?

Sure. Knock yourself out. Battle Ape 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I don't do movies and neither does Wikipedia. --Nelson Ricardo 08:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking a filming class to make your own. --Proficient 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But try not to plagiarise Lifeforce.

Atlant 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia sue me for copyright infringement

lets say i was to copy material on wikipedia word for word.Could wikipedia sue me for copyright infringement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clancy60 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All articles on wikipedia can be copied and reused under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Cyraan 04:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also alluded to in your Wikipedia Bill of Rights:

you have the right to fork (plagiarise shamelessly)
you have the right to leave

Vranak 05:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still possible to plagiarize GNU licensed material by failing to credit the original source. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps -- but what exactly are the consequences of being caught plagiarising? Being expelled from your college or university association, I suppose. Whoop de doo. Vranak 08:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's always legal action by the Wikimedia Foundation, 'though I'm not suggesting it will, and to my knowledge never has, been taken. I guess if ethics don't get in your way there is nothing but the shame of being found out.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation could sue you for copyright violation, because neither is the copyright holder. Copyright is still retained by the author(s) of the material, or to whomever the author(s) assigned copyright to. It is important to note that by contributing to Wikipedia you are not assigning copyright! By releasing your contribution under the GFDL (or any free license, I believe) you are not assigning or surrendering copyright. While Wikipedia/Wikimedia may not be able to sue you for copyright infringement, the original author(s) could, since they retain their copyrights. Of course, the Wikimedia Foundation could assist in pursuing a significant copyright violation, and would probably be highly motivated to do so.–RHolton ≡– 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RHolton's answer is the only one which is really on topic here. The issue is that the copyrights are still owned by the contributors, so any infringement suits would have to come from them. The WMF does not hold the copyrights. And yes you can easily infringe upon the copyrights of Wikipedia contributors — the GDFL is a copyright license, and if you don't follow the terms of the license you are liable to be infringing. --24.147.86.187 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic and Supernatural

Sometimes, we hear, read, or talk about the term magic, usually in stories, novels, and films, to describe some kind of power and ability. But at other times, we hear, read, or talk about the term supernatural. For example, we hear and religious believers claim that the power and abilities of God (and/or the Gods, angels, demons, spirits, or ghosts, etc) are supernatural, but not magical.

I don't understand. What is the difference, I mean the real difference, between "magic" and "supernatural". Is there really any difference, at all, between the two things and terms? And does the claim by religious believers that the power and abilities of God (or those other things) are supernatural, but not magical, really make belief in God (or those other things) more scientific, more logical, more likely to be true, less superstitious, more realistic, and more credible, etc?The Anonymous One 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only difference is that "magical" holds a more hokey, childish sound to it, where "supernatural" just seems more technical. I would argue that anything that is supposedly above the natural should be considered "magic", but that's just my opinion. Simple case of euphemism-overload. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 06:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic is generally associated with the occult, spells etc. Supernatural (beyond-the-natural) is a broader term. BenC7 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that someone should say: "Hair-splitting semantics is best handled over at the Language reference desk" --Zeizmic 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since people don't agree about whether either of these exist, it is unlikely that there would be universal agreement about whether they were the same thing or not! For some people they are both contrafactual nonsense; for some 'magic' is real but natural, so not 'supernatural'; for some they are more or less synonymous; for some they are both real, but different; and so on. --ColinFine 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic" often refers to a trick, that is, nothing supernatural at all, it only appears to be so. The sawing a woman in half trick, for example, has the woman fold up into one half of the box with a pair of fake legs hanging out the other end. Once you know this, there is clearly nothing supernatural going on, but only the appearance of such. Religions may get quite upset if you call their "miracles" magic, as this implies that they are just tricks. One particularly amusing story in Judeo-Christian mythology is how Moses supposedly created a bigger snake by a "miracle" which ate the smaller snake produced by one of the Pharaoh’s priests, presumably by "magic". This pretty clearly shows how anything unexplained by other religions is called a magic trick, while the same thing produced by your own is called a supernatural miracle. StuRat 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural means you are postulating that the phenomena cannot be explained within the natural world. Magic is not necessarily supernatural, even if we don't mean conjuring. Paracelsus, for example, believed in magic, but he thought it was a natural property of the world and could be studied as any natural phenomena. Similarly Newton's original postulation of an invisible force called "Gravity" was originally accused of being "occult", supernatural, though it was not "magical". The boundaries between the definitions have shifted considerably over time, is all I am saying. If it was thought that ghosts were actually part of the natural world, they would by definition not be supernatural, in the same sense that these mysterious entities called "quarks" that scientists now believe in are considered part of the natural world, despite the fact that you can't see or experience them directly. ;-) --24.147.86.187 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible in no way means supernatural, or else we would have to accept that air is supernatural. StuRat 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air isn't invisible, it is blue as it contains oxygen.Hidden secret 7 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on oxygen says: "Appearance: colorless (gas)". Is that wrong? Do you have a source for the gas being blue, so that we can correct this error in our encyclopedia? --Lambiam ^Talk 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember exactly where I read that, and it might just be liquid oxygen that is blue. Try asking a chemist.Hidden secret 7 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The supernatural is just natural things that haven't been explained yet, whilst magic is anything that can't be explained. This means most of physics is magical, and the rest supernatural.172.200.70.64 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Programming help request

I have recently obtained a TI 89 Titanium calculator and am wondering: is there is any logic to the numbering of the keys (for the getkey() command)? Please post your reply on my user page. Alphabetagamma 06:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC) By the way... In the 1985 Boise, Idaho, mayoral election, there were four write-in votes for Mr. Potato Head.[reply]

Nobody will want to post on your user page. We get wiki-points for witty answers! Once in a while I go over to the Computer ref. desk, and they deal with this sort of thing. --Zeizmic 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Alphabetagamma 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are, the reslut of getkey() has something to do with the (electrical) geometry of the keyboard. The keys are arranged in a scan matrix of rows and columns (which may not follow the exact physical arrangement of rows and columns) and getkey-like functions typically return a value (a scancode) based on the row-and-column.

Atlant 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the guide book for the TI-89 is here. the answer is on page 928. Jon513 18:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a good name for this?

Clucking when poured from

Image is of a bottle usually filled up with Aquavit or Danish Snaps. The Danish call it a Klukkeflaske, but haven`t got as far as to write about it yet. Article in Norw.Wiki is titled Klunkeflaske, both names referring to the sounds one gets out from pouring. But we are at a complete loss to what it may be named in English or other languages. I visit my homepage here at times, but prefer answers directly to my discussionpage in Norway. And all of you:Happy new Year!--Bjørn som tegner 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name I encounter most is cluck-cluck bottle (for example here), and most of the time Holmegaard is mentioned as the manufacturer. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt answer. I then take it that this is a Nordic invention - since all three of the old Norwegian Glass-producers have had them in their inventory. Wonder who made the first one?--Bjørn som tegner 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a book on the History of Transylvania, "clucking bottles" were made in the 17th century in the most famous of Transylvania's glassworks, at Porumbák.[1] There is no hint of the origin, although there is a general mention of the influence on glassware of Italian, Czech, and Silesian models. The name in Hungarian is kotyogós üveg, and using that as a search term I found a picture on an auction site (look for item 164) that confirms this is the same type of bottle. So it is somewhat doubtful that this is a Nordic invention unless it can be established that they were produced earlier there than in Transylvania. But even then one might suspect a third, common origin. --Lambiam ^Talk 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogate Court

My husband passed away not leaving a will. I was appointed temporary control of his small business two years ago pending the surrogate court decision on the business. The company is an "S" type and on the verge of bankrupcy. Am I responsible for any of the debt incurred by the business including taxes owing? The business is located in New York State. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We can give no answer here, as mentioned the first time you wrote this. --Zeizmic 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[The above reference is to an earlier posting bankrupcy]. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the various Wikipedia Reference Desk Contents Lists (in Blue) have different date ranges?

As per the above question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.161 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The more popular the desk, the faster it grows to an unmanagable size and so the faster it will be archived. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subatomic particles

What color are they? Яussiaп F 18:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An object has colour if it reflects visible light with different intensities for different wavelengths. The range of "visible" wavelengths is about from 400 to 700 nm. An object only reflects waves if its size is much larger than the wavelength. Therefore, objects less than 1 µm in diameter have no colour; the concept does not apply. The diameter of the larger subatomic particles, protons and neutrons, is less than 2×10^–15 m. Therefore they fall short of the required size for having a colour by a factor of more than 500000000. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse matters though, some particles such as quarks are said to have a special type of charge known as color charge this has nothing whatsoever to do with real colour. It's just a word they came up with :-( Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subatomic particles having no color is quite interesting indeed. --Proficient 20:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much. Thanks, Яussiaп F 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Subsidiary question: This suggests to me that atomic particles and molecules have no inherent colour either. They would still be too small?--Shantavira 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, except for macromolecules such as polystyrene. A red blood cell is just large enough to have a colour. Anything that can pass through a HEPA filter (including many bacteria) is not. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't shoot photons of a range of frequencies at a single atom (practical difficulties of holding the atom steady and aiming aside). Some of those photons will be absorbed by the atom. The human eye can't see it but with suitable detectors you can make a statistical plot of what frequencies are absorbed and deduce what color a visible pile of the atoms/molecules would be. Weregerbil 11:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this predict the colour that a macroscopic ensemble of these atoms has? For example, the Na atom has absorption at the twin sodium D spectral lines in the yellow range. Are sodium atoms then blue? I think not; they emit "yellow" photons in the same amounts as they absorb. In metallic unoxidized form sodium has a colourless metallic appearance. While I'm unclear about the mechanisms behind surface colour, I think it is an emergent property of the ensemble, and not a property of the constituent atoms made intense by sheer number. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question verges on the metaphysical. If you'll consider gamma rays a colo[u]r of light, then you may well consider subatomic particles to be coloured as a gamma ray of sufficiently-short wavelength could interact with the particles. But if, by colour, you mean just the visible spectrum, then, no, sub-atomic particles have no colour.

Atlant 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning back to Weregerbil's issue, an interesting case is offered by nitrosyl chloride: as a gas it is yellow; as a liquid (below −6.4 °C) it is red. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on nanotechnology provides insights about how different materials have different properties at micro scales. V-Man737 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a good question, Яussiaп F. I have to rethink the glib way in which I ascribe a color to an element or molecule. --Seejyb 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all good, but what do they taste or smell like?69.29.74.110 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globsl Warming quote

Is there a quote by Al Gore (either in his movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' or during his speeches) concerning the rate of the shrinking landmass of Antarctica? for example something like: "...Antartctica is shrinking at the rate of 10m per year..." -Al Gore. Thanks. Jamesino 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure: you do understand that most of Antarctica has land under it, and that can't "shrink", right ? Only the ice shelves can be lost, like the Ross ice shelf. StuRat 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something about the loss of ice of Antarctica. Jamesino 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

global warming is a legend, and it isn't really that bad.

How do you know Antarctica even exists, unless you have been there?

Psionics

Can a normal person do psionic activities even though he has no psi backgrounds or any psuedo-psi backgrounds?Im trying to say if anyone can do it with practice.Thanks

No, and there isn't even any good evidence that somebody with a "psi background" can do anything special. StuRat 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "psionic" you mean telekinesis and telepathy, actually nobody in the world can. On the other hand, if you think being a grandmaster of chess, being able to memorize huge lists without repetition or performing lightning-fast mental calculations fits your definition for "psionic", then practice and method definitely IS your friend. --Taraborn 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telekinesis is easy to learn, people just always assume they are going to find it even easier than it is. Try doing something that needs almost no effort to move, and work your way up from there.172.159.156.28 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the above method to work you should use some kind of hallucinogen drugs, which have extremelly negative effects on health. --Taraborn 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All drugs are a bad idea. They are fake.Hidden secret 7 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer more directly, the existence of 'psionic' abilities is strongly doubted by most scientists, and most studies attempting to provide proof of it have been seriously flawed. It has never been conclusively demostrated. It does, however, remain a perpetually popular field of study in some circles, and there are some hints that the methods of quantuum mechanics may give credence to the paranatural. Wintermut3 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noone can prove that it is impossible, therefore it must be possible. Just because you haven't seen something, it doesn't mean it can't exist. Lots of people haven't seen lions or elephants, but they are real.Hidden secret 7 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrants and Court orders

What is the difference between a court order and a warrant? Bill Silver

Our articles on court order and warrant (law) seems to answer your question. Rockpocket 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]