Miscellaneous desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 1

colored hall windows

I have recently been noticing that a number of houses in my neighborhood have hall windows with the central pane being clear surrounded on the perimeter of it by smaller square or rectangular colored panes of glass. These windows are either at the bottom or top or both of apparent stairways. The homes probably are all around 100 years old in a small Maine town. What is this style and what is the history of its origins?Janerwwme (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sound like simple art deco designs. Have a look at these windows, particularly the last. Also [1]. Is the sort of thing you have seen? Gwinva (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CD release concert

Hi. How long usually is a CD release concert? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a special concert that is given by the artist to mark the release of a CD? In any case, I would say that such concerts could be as long or as short as any other. But if it's a specifically promotional or industry showcase type of concert, it might be shorter than the average concert – maximum of one hour, I should think. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the OP means a CD of a live concert? There are technical limitations to the CD format which only allows up to 80 minutes of audio recording. If a live concert went on for longer (that's usually the case in my experience), the band/label/publisher will have to decide whether to split the concert over two or more CDs, or to edit the recording to make it fit. There might also be other considerations, such as recording several concerts on a tour and picking the best sounding recording for each song you want on the live album. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think what is being asked can be answered such, live albums are usually recorded over numerous concerts and are digitally recorded, the crowd noise is faded in at the end and start of the next song, this way they can have a vocalist saying, 'we love you cleveland and the next song is', and the next song is acctually recorded in paris, or hong kong.

If you are asking about promotional concerts in support of new CDs, my experience from shows at Amoeba Records is that they are 30-45 min or so. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of EXACT date

Hi. Let's say you made a video recording of some sort, for example a confession from someone, and you needed to prove that the recording was in fact made the exact date it was made. What could you do to prove that it was in fact made that day? Showing a newspaper from that day is a good idea, for example, but it would only prove that the recording wasn't done before that date, and the tape could in fact have been done any day after that one. What would you do to prove the exact date? 190.157.120.42 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky - in the era of video manipulation there's no real way to do this. I would say take a shot of some huge public display that show's the time/date (big digital clock or something) but it would be easy to edit the video then re-record it back onto a tape. Exxolon (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Digitize the whole thing, get a md5 hash of it, register it with an authority you have no control over that will datestamp it? Mail a copy to a lawyer? If you're limited to just things you can display, you could add elements that would make it unlikely to have been fabricated (walk from multiple newstands to the next, showing the stacks and stacks of newspapers from that day, which makes it more implausible that you have faked it; film a date/time ticker of some major company or government agency that wouldn't likely change it just for your silly video). Another is to actually do something on tape that would be verified externally as having happened that exact day—if you filmed yourself getting arrested, it'd be pretty easy to confirm what day that happened, as an extreme example. ---98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tape it on a holiday of some kind that would have verifiable events going on in the background, such as the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, Fourth of July fireworks, or the New Year's Eve Times Square ball dropping. Useight (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MD5 thing is only going to show you shot recording before a date. It's nots going to show you didn't shoot the thing 2 days or 2 years ago beyond additional clues in the video. Using newspapers etc of course is the reverse (it shows you didn't shoot the thing 2 years ago, but you may have shot it two years from now with todays paper). News stands is a better better then one newspaper but it isn't that hard to fake if you really want to Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of some "medium" that had predictions taped in a bank, showing the calendar time and date on their clock in the background. This was to prove that the predictions were real. Unfortunatley from what I remember the spirits were off that day so none of the predictions came to pass. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are pretty much all the credible ways anyone could come up with to prove the date on a video. Thanks everyone for your great ideas. Kreachure (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Showing a newspaper in the video and then mailing a copy to yourself as a registered letter WHICH YOU DO NOT OPEN would be pretty conclusive proof. You couldn't know what the front page of the newspaper would show before you video'ed it - and you couldn't have faked it after the date on which the (unopened) packaged is registered because the post office stamped it with the date. SteveBaker (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Mission Impossible episode plausibility

One of my favorite episodes was when they had to convince some ne'er do well for some reason or other that he went back in time. They went to elaborate lengths such as realistic face masks, fake radio stations, and a busy signal when he went to call his dead mother. If you thought you went back in time, wouldnt you do whatever it takes to visit a dead parent if the line was busy? No matter what your plans were for that day? He sure seemed nonchalant about it.

But really,- could this ever be done on any practical level? Are there any declassified documents of the CIA doing such an elaborate psychological ruse?--Sam Science (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best you could do would be something like The Truman Show, but that's really only plausible if you can trick the subject from birth, and even then it's a stretch. --Sean 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Ipcress File have a plot something like that? The article doesn't say but I vaguely remember a late-night repeat of the film. If it were LeCarre it might be based on something but Len Deighton? Don't think so... Julia Rossi (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deception like that in the movie (I haven't read the book), but it involves the location, not the date. The character is not free to move about and discover where he is. --Anonymous, 02:43 UTC, December 3, 2008.

You'd have to restrict the victim quite a lot. You couldn't let him/her see modern cars, the internet, or any modern gadgets like iPhones... AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that the CIA is quite capable of making anyone change thier beliefs, because they realize beliefs are just that- beliefs! No one truly understands how the world is, the world is a stage that we react to, etc. Supposedly Mission Impossible was based on what they were capable of. Anyone else hear of this?Sam Science (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of but more by accident, see Japanese holdout. Can't believe I found that on the first try. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most educated person

Who by popular caonsensus is normally regarded as the most educated person of our times/of all time?(RNaidu (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There won't be a popular consensus on something like that. It's far too difficult to define precisely, so everyone will get different answers. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all relative, as in President John Kennedy's subtle compliment to a predecessor and to the guests at a dinner for Nobel laureates (April 29, 1962): "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." --- OtherDave (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have partaken of a great many years of college education. Or did you wish to include autodidacts and life experience? The "most educated" person may not be the wisest, most admired, or most successful. Edison (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Or the most notable. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"X has 2 PhDs" is a cinema cliché similar to "X speaks 7 languages" for "X is very brainy". In that spirit, one candidate for RNaidu's question is the person with most doctorates, excluding honorary degrees. Yoshiro Nakamatsu apparently has five (engineering, law, medicine, science, and humanities). I thought Albert Schweitzer had four, but though he had Philosophy, Theology, and Medicine he didn't have Music. Of course one should distinguish higher doctorates, research doctorates, and professional doctorates. Deon van Zyl has four doctorates (Dr Jur (Leyden 1970); PhD and LLD (Cape Town 1983 and 1988 respectively); and a D Litt in Latin (Orange Free State 1989)) but in only two fields, as far as I can make out. jnestorius^(talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree with you Tango, there are several popular consensuses. (People are likely incorrect and their conclusions based on misinformation however.) I’m referring to the human the forms of various deities which are generally considered to be the most educated (or at least most learned) people of all time. This is because in many religions gods, even the human manifestations of gods, are omnipotent. It is impossible to know more than everything, therefore the millions of followers of these religions must consider these people to be the most knowledgeable people of all time. --S.dedalus (talk)

But most knowledgeable is in no way the same thing as most educated. I can't immediately think of an omniscient god that recieved any kind of formal education at all. Algebraist 08:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But by its very definition an omnipotent being knows everything. Therefore an omnipotent being knows what it’s like to receive education. Also, the human manifestations of a god could certainly be “educated” although such education might be slightly redundant. Finally, your definition of educated seems a bit narrow. An educated person need not receive education, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread already. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be interested in Polymath. A polymath is someone who is skilled/knowledgable in many subjects, and the article has a list of "recognised polymaths" which goes up to the 1990s. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened after them? And ~~@ 143.44,~~ oops, Algebraist, didn't someone call John Nash a god? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the google and look at what I found: [2] [3] [4] [5] I think the gentleman Ashoka Prasad with 6 earned doctorates should qualify as the most educated person. (Deva 840 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Having lots of doctorates doesn't mean you're really clever, it just means you've worked in lots of different fields. If you specialise in one field you'll stop collecting certificates on your wall after one doctorate even though you are continuing to publish papers which could easily be turned into several doctoral theses if there was any point in doing so (which there isn't). --Tango (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, Sarah Palin went to five different colleges! That's way more than I went to, with my measly specialist (elitist) education. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Deva 840 didn't say "clever". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my point stands even if you replace "clever" with "well educated". --Tango (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they said "most educated". Would it really be a terrible stretch of the definition to say that "having the most PhDs" implies "most educated"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason stated, yes, it would. Having lots of PhD's means you have a very broad education, that's all. Someone with a narrower, but far deeper, education could be considered just as well educated. --Tango (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person whio asked the question,I am somewaht confused.I think holding earned doctorates is a reliable enough an objective parameter of education and 6 earned doctorates it appears would be truly remarkable."Clever" is an incredibly subjective term!

I feel University validation of the highest qualifications like doctorates is valid enough.

The analogy that comes to my mind is describing somebody as religious-easy enough!But to infer that every religious person is humane woudl be a mistake.However I would appreciate more opinions. (RNaidu (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Moses. After all, he spent 40 days and nights receiving personal 1:1 tuition from God. I doubt there's been a better teacher, although some of my teachers definitely thought they were God. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading the archives, bear in mind RNaidu and Deva are sockpuppets so it is apparent this question was asked so that Ashoka Prasad could be brought into the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take very strong exception to this comment by NilEinne.I have given him a ppiece of my mind for making this allegation-in fact the administrator who agve credence to this scurrilous allegation apologised to me in no uncertain terms within 2 days -and the rest can be seen when you view the talk pages of mine and NilsEinne!!!Trying ot drag his heels he was finally compelled to say he was sorry for calling me a sockpuppett!Still ungracious I feel but I do not commend his act of making an allegation perhaps in good faith as he protests but refusing to be gracious when he is proven wrong.Guess Wipipedia shoudl ahve a policy about this conduct.(Deva 840 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Three letter combination

Is there any combination of three letters that doesn't lead to an article in wikipedia when you type it in the search box? The three letters shouldn't all be the same. Thanks

~~My first try: fxx. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Okay scratch that. How about cxv? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many. See Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ and related pages. Algebraist 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Actually I was trying out various three letter combinations and all of them led to an article, so I got curious. Thanks! =) 124.30.235.62 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first (VZS) didn't, but I was trying to make it fail. Steewi (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was (mildly) surprised that there are some gaps among the two-letter combinations: 6 uppercase-uppercase combinations missing (XH, XQ, XZ, YF, YQ, and ZQ) and 42 red-linked uppercase-lowercase combinations (Hw, Hx, Ih, ...). See WP:2L. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do i make a machine???

Hello i want to build a machine that rolls alon either on wheels or on tracks like a tank and with a tall metal body shaped like a long circular or oval pillar, either with a shiny metal or dulled with hints that there was once a shine on it, and the arms move up and down from hinges on the shoulder but also with hinges ont he elbow and hands or pinchers that can grasp and for the face a big screaming mouth perhaps that opens and closes also eyes which would be for its vision and would also glow, possibly red and it would have many weapons

1. rotating spinning cutting hand pincer 2. spinning cutting saw 3. rattlegun 4. laser from the red eyes

how can i make this machine and how much will he cost and is it safe to make one Raptorkitchin (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best bet is to buy one, or if you've got 'good' taste buy a lot and you could make your money back, see Robonut Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email Davros and see if he has some extra Daleks hanging around. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want something like from Robot Wars. The contestants build their own mainly from scraps and washing machine motors, scouting scrapheaps for extras like chainsaws and angle grinders. There is a beginners guide to building robots here, but for best results you should probably join a robotics club; they'll have proper guides and be able to give you the best advice. SN0WKITT3N 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are kits sold with all the parts to make such a robot (perhaps without the dangerous parts). That might be a good place to start. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that its brain must obey the Three Laws of Robotics. Edison (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To try to actually answer the question - I would suggest that you start with things that already work...get a radio controlled toy car or tank to form your base - get some laser pointers for the eyes - get a battery-operated electric drill for your saw of death. Search eBay for used toys and such that would be closer to what you want. Then it's just a matter of making the body to fit your complicated specifications. For that, you could start off by building a nice solid frame to mount all of these parts on - then make up the body around that. That way, the artistic body making doesn't have to also be structurally rigid, etc. You could probably make the body out of cardboard and Papier-mâché and then make it look metallic by painting it with metallic paint. You could probably get SOMETHING like you're looking for less than $100. But this all depends on your artistic and construction abilities. If you've never built anything remotely like this before - then this is far too complicated to be your first project. You need to start simple and work up. It takes a lot of practice to be able to dive into a project like that with confidence. There are a lot of useful links in Robot combat that you should probably read. I guess something like this does have the potential to be dangerous - but you can take the cutting disk out of the drill - put electrical tape over the laser pointers...that kind of thing. That allows you do do all of your work in safety - and just turn on all of the 'weaponry' when the robot actually goes to work. SteveBaker (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumming

How do you stop from cumming to fast?

Think of England. 89.240.107.96 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "think of baseball". The apocryphal "lie back and think of England" relates to an almost diametrically opposite sexual problem. jnestorius^(talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article: Premature ejaculation. That may contain some advice or links to advice (I haven't read it). --Tango (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edging? = Mgm|^(talk) 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When suffering from fast cummings, I suggest stopping to think about which words really should be capitalized. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the trick is to stop thinking about your dick. to be quite honest, if you are truly concentrated on giving her pleasure rather than yourself, you will last for hours, this will allow you to both be completely satisfied every time and allow you to clear your mind and think of things other than sex. this is tantra. master it well and it will serve you well.

Alan Cumming? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual everybody is an expert when it comes(pardon that slip) to sexual dysfunction. The OP has a recognisable medical condition that requires expert attention, not the subjective advice of of random experiences. It is also contravening the RD guidelines to give medical advice. Richard Avery (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody be arrested for practicing medicine without a license for giving out prescriptions ? Yes, so that's medical advice. Would somebody be arrested for giving this type of advice ? No, so it's not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cummingtonite? DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]