Miscellaneous desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

Electronic Medical Records (EMR)

Is there any governing agency that is mandating that hospitals convert to EMR? If so, what is the date in which this is to happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvzgrl (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say which country... so here's the UK situation. The UK's National Health Service has the National Programme for IT which includes an "electronic care record for patients" and should link General practitioners and hospitals. After at least 5 years and the departure of several IT partners, the project is still unfinished and the estimated costs have risen 5-fold. The article however does not state the estimated completion date. Astronaut 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading Electronic medical record and Electronic health record. From the list of problems and the slow rate at which hospitals are moving toward EMR, it seems unlikely that there is any agency that would mandate a change in the near future, regardless of country. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such government mandate I know of in the US. The hospital I work for has implemented an EMR system in a policy to (slowly) go paperless, but this was purely a choice by the administration. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest unsupported marble dome

What is the the largest unsupported/self supported marble dome in the world? Emporis says the Minnesota State Capitol [1] but also says that the Rhode Island State House is 2nd behind St. Peter's Basilica. [2] For some more contradiction, most Rhode Island sources give a list as St. Peters Basilica, Minnesota State Capitol, Taj Mahal and then the Rhode Island State House, while most Minnesota sources list their State Capitol as the largest. Lets add this source to the mix. [3] Any ideas? Eóin 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk diameters;

St Peters - 42m (138.8ft) interior
Minnesota - 18.38m (60ft) interior (27.12m (89ft) exterior) [4]
Taj Mahal - 17.7m (58ft) interior
Rhode Island - 15.24m (50ft) interior [5]

So, in summary, ~~the Rhode Island State House article,~~ Brown and Emporis are completely wrong. A couple more thoughts; St Peters was never the largest unsupported dome of any kind - It's slightly smaller than the concrete dome of the Pantheon, which is 1400 years older. Also, none of the four domes mentioned are made entirely of marble. They are all mostly brick and/or steel, with marble facings. FiggyBee 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I saw after I edited it that you've been working on the Minnesota State Capitol article. I didn't mean to tread on your toes. :) FiggyBee 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This clears things up nicely, thanks. -- Eóin (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology question

Halloween is over, so the local stores are putting up their Christmas decorations and music. I've recently read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Mmy question is: Is it normal that I break out into uncontrollable laughter every time I hear the line "holy infant so tender and mild" from Silent Night? --67.185.172.158 06:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. I suggest you visit a qualified physician :-)) Astronaut 07:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you don't think it's "hold the infant, so tender and mild." like everyone else around where I live. Kind of funny to listen to them carolers. Dureo 12:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good example for our mondegreen article. -- -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context, I'd suggest that thinking it's funny is normal. Laughing out loud in public places is a violation of social norms, however, and the lack of ability to control this deviant behavior suggests a medicalization of these symptoms might be appropriate. Though IANAP (where P = psychiatrist), you might consider asking one about this issue. Jfarber 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anyone going to remind the original questioner that we can't give medical or dietary advice here on the reference desk? Otherwise, someone's liable to soon recommend some fava beans and a nice chianti...

Atlant 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have an mp3 of Soylent Night. I can't remember who did the song but I want to say it was negativland. I'll try to find it. -- Diletante (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you were a kid something really funny happened while that line was playing in the background, except you dont remember it, and thats why you find that particular line funny. --Candy-Panda (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, "tender and mild" does suggest that the "holy infant" was marinated in a slightly spicy sauce prior to cooking. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article on infantophagia (or infantophagy?) maybe someone with reliable medical sources could create an article in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary about this behaviour associated with the pica disease. I think eating babies and feotuses is practiced by some people who believe it contains rejuvenating substances, I don't know the name of this practice and couldn't find a reference here on Wikipedia. I have some stomach churning pictures of people eating cooked babies in my 'unusual images' folder. I try to keep a scientific interested eye on human practices but sometimes it does get a bit too graphic. Apologies for bringing this joyous thread to a too down to earth level. Keria (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet groups legality

I'm not sure if this should be in the entertainment section, computing or where but here goes... With the large record companies having the clout to shut down music sharing internet sites, busting pirate companies all over the world and even taking individual people to court, is there any reason why the usenet groups have remained relatively untouched and generally out of the debate? For a resource that lets people easily download just about everything it seems low on the 'get rid of it' priority list. Kirk UK 88.144.64.61 09:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly the distributed and decentralised nature of usenet which presents the problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more down to the fact that Usenet is simply off most large media companies' radar. They don't understand it, largely because it predates the Web. Also I suspect the amount of file sharing that goes on via Usenet is not huge. These days, newsgroups are increasingly accessed via Google Groups, which I think does not allow for sharing of multimedia files. So in order to download you have to use a news client, which are not always particularly easy to set up. Furthermore, many ISPs don't provide news servers any more.

The same goes for IRC. It's possible to download all sorts of stuff on IRC channels, but most people don't know anything about IRC, and for those who do, it's not really worth the bother. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; I'm sure it is on the agenda. I think their defence tends to be in adding useless file data, and in getting one out of the n posts which make up a RAR or a ZIP taken down, such that the whole file is useless. YMMV --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on Richardrj's reply: there is tons of stuff available on usenet. I'm trying to find a cite somewhere, but I have a figure of "several terabytes per month getting uploaded" stuck in my head. Certainly several dozen (if not hundreds) of DVDs and CDs are posted daily. The mp3 groups are particularly active; I imagine it's a logistics problem and/or lack of knowledge problem that keeps usenet under the radar, not a lack of posts. Matt Deres (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this practice is done by media companies or by virus/trojan creators, but if you browse the listings for say (it was quite common in one of the Erotica video groups_) you'll find listings for scene releases but the content of the releases does not match the ground name. So they will have an XviD release done by RNS, which is an mp3 group or an XXX DVD release by LOL, which traditionally releases XviD TV rips.--152.2.62.27 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL and re-use of article

My questions: ++What else would I have to do? Is there something about linking to the GFDL? ++Where do I have to do this. It seems crazy to list the contributors and the GFDL Text with an article thats of one page only.++Can I just give the URL address of the site from where the article is taken. In such a case is the copyright law violated? If yes, what is the way out?

I'm sure this has been answered before, but I can't track down any answers and I'm having a heck of a time understanding exactly how to comply with the GNU FDL. I've read the license several times but could not get an answer to my question. If I see an Article, which is part of a compilation that is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and I make it into a derivitive work such as a newsletter or a journal that I then distribute to clients, what must I do?

Thank you all so very much in advance for your help. Nurture 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the web, licence your instance of the text under the GFDL, and linking to the GFDL, are all you need to do. That could be done by a single line at the foot of the page. In print ... maybe a bit more difficult. You'd satisfy the spirit by saying "This article licenced under the GFDL, details at http:// some web address. I think technically you need to include the whole of the GFDL licence, which is why Creative Commons seems to be more popular - see the cartoon at Commons:Licensing, for instance. A link back to the original article, I think, will satisfy any conditions on the listing of the authors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance indicates what wikipedia expects, citing four levels of compliance:

Undetermined or disputed: Either more research is needed, or it is disputed.
Low/None: Fails in a very significant way, usually by lacking mention of Wikipedia, the GFDL, or both.
Medium: Makes an effort to comply, usually including mention of Wikipedia and the GFDL. May link to offsite GFDL, and/or lack link to original article.
High: Approximates our licence; should link to original article[1]; should link to local GFDL[2]; should list original authors and dates[3].

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks notes, regarding authors, that the copy: must acknowledge the main authors (which some claim can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia). I'd tend to agree with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you are supposed to include the entire GFDL with your copy of the article. Sound crazy? It is! The GFDL is not an ideal license for re-using material at all. Imagine trying to use photograph with a GFDL license in a magazine! ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport amongst non-humans

Are there any other animals that could be said to play any kind of sport? Not just cats play fighting, but something with some sort of rules/structure based play. I'm thinking like perhaps monkeys might play 'defend the tree' or animals may play something akin to British Bulldogs (or whatever other places call the game). ny156uk 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this[6] meets your criteria, but it seems interesting and relevant. Doubt you're gonna see "sport" in the way most people think of it, but definitely appears that certain animals do exhibit play behavior with some kind of consistent rules/structure. Also, I've seen video of chimps playing soccer, doing karate, playing pac-man, etc., though I doubt that's what you were looking for; monkey see, monkey do after all. I also vaguely remember one of the Steves pointing out in response to some question that his dog follows a set of rules in playing the "tug o' war" game with a rope. -- Azi Like a Fox (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on otters says they play at tobogganing, though other sources claim that they only slide as a means of locomotion. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens are said to enjoy a little sliding on their backs in the snow. This mentions it. I think there was a National Geographic article about it years ago, with photos. -- Corvus cornix (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent responses - thanks everyone. I particularly like the idea of ravens doing a form of sledging down hills in the snow! Sounds great. ny156uk (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see some interesting competitive behavior in leks. Not sure whether you'd call it "play" though. -- Diletante (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really obvious that animals 'play' - play being practice for real activities, mostly (but not entirely) undertaken by the young - who most need the practice. The real question here is whether there are rules to that play.

I think you can see clear rules in the way dogs play. My dogs play at least three distinct games with us and (to a lesser extent) each other - which all seem to have "rules". One, for example, I call "Three inches away and growling". The dog has a toy in it's mouth and will come up to you like they want to play catch or some kind of pulling game - as you reach towards them, they'll stand absolutely still until your hand gets with in three inches of the toy and then quickly pull it away so you can't quite reach it. This behavior gets repeated over and over - usually with some play-growling going on at the same time. Your job is to try to distract the dog with one hand so you can sneak in and grab the toy with the other. This seems to be a game - and it has just one essential rule: The dog isn't allowed to simply move the toy out of reach immediately - (because that's too easy and this is a test of reaction speed). So only when your hand gets within three inches are they allowed to react. Yeah - it's simple, but dogs are simple.

Even rough-and-tumble fighting games have a "rule": You have to execute a 'play bow' before you start in order to indicate that this is "just for fun" and not a real fight. So each dog will lower their head to the ground with their tails up in the air prior to the start of the game. Unless both dogs do this, the game can't start (or, it'll end badly with some actual vicious yelping barks and real biting because someone didn't want to play).

SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seagulls enjoy fighting each other out of boredom and this has a complex set of 'rules' that they all observe, much like a sport has. My budgies like rolling balls around the carpet and their favourite sport of picking toys up off the top of their cage with their beak and seeing how far they can throw them onto the floor although I think their main enjoyment from that is seeing me pick the toys up and put them back so they can do it again! GaryReggae (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your budgies have successfully trained you to play "fetch" ? Would you ask them how they did that because I've never been able to get my dogs to do it properly and maybe they could give me some tips. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Installing adobe flash player

I can't seem to install flash plater. I downloaded the exe and ran it. After a couple seconds, it said done and hit close but it didn't do anything as far as I can tell and I definitely don't have flash player...

Did you close your browser and re-launch it? ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It just doesn't do anything.

Well, try it again. ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Several times. Nothing is happening.

Well, perhaps you could be a little more verbose in explaining what happens, what type of operating system you are using, what browsers you are using, etc. We aren't psychic here ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows vista with firefox

24, are you talking to yourself again? --- SandyJax (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. The question was originally asked by User:206.169.187.67, whose IP resolves to Time-Warner in Los Angeles. 24 appears to be Comcast Cable in Massachusetts. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again? I don't talk to myself. Not on here anyway. And I sign my posts! Also, it would be a little counter-productive to argue with myself over something like this. when I do ask questions they are usually over verbose, not terse! --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same trouble with Firefox and XP. You should really be asking this at the Computing desk though. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the way you install Firefox plugins. You should go to a page that has flash content, and Firefox will give you notification that additional plugins are needed. Click install additional plugins, and it'll install Flash by itself. No exe file needed. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Antilived; at least that's how it works with XP. Firefox just says it wants to update something, you click yes and away it goes in the background - there's no manual downloading and executing of a file by the user. I would ask the OP how he/she knows they don't have the player - are there websites that don't work? When you get to one, Firefox should be asking you if you'd like to update (again). It's not really a stand alone program you launch and use to make Flash animations (that one costs $$$). Matt Deres (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a reboot is needed. Also visit the flash site in your firefox browser.Rfwoolf (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pool Noodles

Does anyone know what the exact name for the material pool noodles are made of is?

What, pray, are pool noodles? -- DuncanHill (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, they are Pool noodles, of course! And they are made of polystyrene foam, according to the article. - Eron^Talk 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had bizarre visions of Olympic-sized pot-noodles! -- DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously wrong. That's Styrofoam. Googling seems to indicate that it's EVA foam. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ~~pot~~ plot thickens: this link suggests that it's polyethylene foam. I'm itching to improve the article, but now I don't know how! - Eron^Talk 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing it now. EVA is a kind of polyethylene foam, sort of. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I can't believe I'm actually discussing this) Here are some more links in support of the polyethylene foam theory: [7] [8] [9]. I read the description of EVA and its uses and it didn't seem quite right to me. - Eron^Talk 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Thermotec link looks legitimate, but they don't say what their "Supafoam" is, exactly. The other two are ads, which I don't think we can trust to get the science right. You might be right, but we're not there yet. And what do you mean you don't believe? These pool noodles are the greatest thing since the Hula hoop. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to find a patent application somewhere that will nail it down. And don't get me wrong; I love the noodle. I'll just never be able to sneer at seemingly pointless pages again. - Eron^Talk 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article to read "polyethylene foam", but I'd still like to nail it down. ---- Milkbreath (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most edifying thread, and pool noodles seem to have that effect! They were also used to build a fun and flexible model of the double helix, in celebration of "DNA Day". ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact name is "Funoodle"

Buying a digital camera - UK High Street.

Please don't bin this as I am NOT seeking legal advice - merely purchasing guidance. I bought a digital camera from a well-known Uk Photo Shop that turned out to be well below advertised standards - and returned it per the company's 30 day returns policy. But was told I had invalidated that policy because I had opened the software packet and loaded it onto my PC - but had NOT registered the software - or the camera. I was told that at the instant I opened the packet, I had breached the copyright license and had thus invalidated the whole returns policy. BUT, how could I have otherwise transferred the digipics I took as part of my sampling process when the camera was NOT recognised by my PC unless I loaded the camera-specific software. I eventually resolved the situation to my satisfaction - but only after threatening Trading Standards authority intervention etc., but seriously, when I was offered (and accepted) a replacement, on opening the box, the first words I saw were instructions that I should first load the enclosed software???????????????????????????

Well done for getting satisfaction. I would think this would fall under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 since, as you say, you can only establish the bona fides of the product by opening the package. File under "vendor trying it on". I don't know what case law there is in this area - IINAL - but I know concerns exactly as yours have been raised many times about so-called shrink wrap contracts - e.g. Cory Doctorow - "Shrinkwrap Licenses: An Epidemic of Lawsuits Waiting to Happen" --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the software was uninstalled when the camera and software disc were returned then there is no problem whatsoever with copyright. The software licence trumps their returns policy. ---- WebHamster 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, drivers and accompanying software are commonly publicly available through the manufacturer's website. Using copyrights as an excuse is simply invalid if you're allowed to acquire such software without actually buying the camera. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had to return camcorders to both Sony and Panasonic shops and they refunded instantly withou question. Great service.--88.110.2.66 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]