Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 25

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 25

Fundraising

Obviously the fundraising bar started at a high number already, but now it seems to tip-toe along. Has anyone kept track of about how much money is being raised each day - and therefore how much longer that massive ad will stay atop every single page? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It will stay there until it reaches the $6,000,000 mark (I assume). You can turn off the banner however, by going to My Preferences and click Suppress fundraiser banner I guess you already know how to do that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The fundraiser is scheduled to go on until 15 Jan, if memory serves (it's somewhere around then). You can see daily statistics here. If we reach the target early I expect the bar will be extended to show how much over we are. --Tango (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do feet/legs/hands/arms fall asleep

So... my foot just fell asleep, and it sucks. Why does that happen? and how can I stop it? Thanks! :) Chris M. (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevent article is Paresthesia. Generally, it's because you've been sitting in a way that's squashed the nerves. FiggyBee (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Two articles of interest might be Paresthesia, which is the type of "pins and needles" sensation you feel when a limb falls asleep, and Radiculopathy which is the general term for nerves not working properly (i.e. the temporary mild paralysis that occurs when your limb "falls asleep" falls under this category). The basic problem is a "pinched nerve"; your weight is resting on the nerve, and so the nerve's signals are not reaching your central nervous system. When this happens, the body compensates by "turning up the volume" i.e. your CNS expects the nerve to be sending it signals, and when it isn't receiving the signals to and from that nerve, it begins compensating in expecting weaker and weaker signals. Then, when the nerve is no longer compressed (you stand up) it starts signalling you CNS at the normal "volume", and your CNS, whose sensitivity has been turned WAY UP because the signal was so low from being pinched off, now gets overwhelmed by the now normal signal, and you interpret this as "pins and needles". As the body begins to readjust to the new signal levels, it fades away. See also this entry at How Stuff Works for more info. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above)This link explains it more in depth. How can you stop it? Well, it's like the old joke about the guy going into the doctor. The guy says "Doc, it hurts when I do this." To which the doctor responds, "Then don't do that." Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guns at Home in US

Living in Canada, keeping guns at home for self-defense purposes is virtually unheard of. Is it true that civilians in the USA keep guns at home for self-defense purposes? Obviously, in high-crime areas, a necessity may exist. But what about in medium-low crime cities in the US? Acceptable (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's often the case that guns are kept for self-defense. I grew up in a relatively safe and upscale suburb of Chicago. We had a shotgun in my parents closet for just such a purpose. I know quite a few people who are not on a police force in various locations throughout the States that even carry concealed on a daily basis. Dismas|^(talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in Canada you're definitely allowed to keep guns at home for self-defense purposes (that Michael Moore movie suggested we have a much higher gun per capita rate!), but they just need to be stored safely (and, I'm pretty sure, by Canadian precedent, using a gun to defend your home would have to be done a lot more conservatively to avoid criminal charges). It's just required that we keep a trigger lock on the gun with a key kept elsewhere. This is federally standard in Canada, I think. Are there similar storage rules in the US? Is it different by state? NByz (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, how sure are you, really, that your neighbo(u)rs aren't packing, Acceptable? Most Americans who don't keep guns themselves probably don't suppose their neighbors do, either. Also Ontario is one thing, Alberta is something else. While I generally think Michael Moore is an idiot, I give him credit for taking note of the fact that there are about as many guns per capita north of the border as south of it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of people in the US keep guns at home. But I wonder about the "for self defense" argument. Some people are probably afraid enough to think it is worth the risks. But I wonder how many people keep guns mainly because they enjoy having guns and say it is for self defense because it sounds better than saying "I just like having guns!" Pfly (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a misimpression that keeping a gun for self-defense is a matter of being afraid. I would characterize it as being about self-reliance, not fear. It's saying, when the chips are down, if the State can defend me, my loved ones, my guests, fine, but if not, I'll take care of it myself.

That was the aspect of Bowling for Columbine that I found most irritating, the way Moore cast gun owners as being afraid, with the strong implication that their fear was racially motivated. Now no doubt that describes some people. But as an explanation for American gun ownership in general? I don't buy it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally it's a pretty foolish notion to believe a gun will protect a person/their family. My understanding is that, stastitically speaking, you are much more likely to be harmed by the object/item you expect to confront would be burglars with than they are to be harmed by it. Finally, it's one thing owning a weapon - it's an entirely different thing to have the mental state of mind to use that weapon. Whilst I support legal gun ownership theoretically, I do believe that 'for self defence' is an incredible dubious justification for owning a weapon. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Statistically speaking", of course, averages over everyone. You have to make sure you're not average. That means, in particular, a considerable time investment in training and practice. Whether it's worth that investment is a question only you can answer. --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, many of my fellow Americans are full of foolish notions such as this. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "your gun is more likely to hurt you than protect you" is based on some dodgy use of the numbers. They say (and it's not implausible) that the gun in your nightstand is N times more likely to be used for suicide than to kill a burglar. So what? If you wound a burglar, or scare him off without firing a shot, has your gun failed in its purpose? —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says that defensive guns are home are almost unheard of in Canada? I'm not from there, but what I've gathered from talking to Canadians is that is depends heavily on where in Canada you're talking about. In the big cities, guns are uncommon, while in rural areas they're everywhere. I don't have a proper source, but I've heard it from a couple of Canadians who (presumably) would know about such things. Friday (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And that's basically my impression as well (I live in Canada). Our population distributions are a little different than in the US, I think, which brings up the side issue of what the guns are for. This is just a WAG, but I'd bet that a higher percentage of guns in Canada are kept strictly for sport (as compared to the States). Without passing judgement on it, the notion of buying firearms for defence strikes me a very American mindset. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

why is a stock price fall so deadly for a company?

[1] It seems Citibank is having new troubles because its stock price tumbled. Why does this have the potential to end a company? Is it because assets will flee when people see the stock price tank, losing confidence? Are there other reasons?

Hotcheetos (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the rating agencies took a lot of heat because they downgraded Lehman and Bear Stearns credit ratings as their stock prices dove citing that it reflected an increase in their total costs of raising capital. Many people felt that the credit rating agencies just missed the boat on correctly rating the companies' exposure to all of the quickly-freezing-up credit products that are floating around, and used the stock price dive as an excuse to make the downgrades.

The main reason that Citigroups stock price is vital right now is entirely around "cost of capital". Cost of capital is the price that a company has to pay (usually expressed as a percentage) to raise an additional dollar of assets for business use. It's easy to calculate for debt; it's literally the interest rate paid (adjustments have to be made for some specific things, like that you can deduct debt interest payments against income, but the nominal yield on the company's outstanding debt is where it starts). Cost of equity is a little tougher to calculate, but it's usually based around the ideas of how much of a dividend yield and expected equity appreciation (sign of future dividends) you have to offer in order to raise equity capital.

A lower stock price implies a higher cost of equity. The company would raise fewer dollars per share meaning it has to offer more shares per dollar, all else (like expected dividends and expected increases to equity from retained earnings) being equal.

Cost of capital is particularly important to Citigroup right now because, being a regulated bank, it faces capital requirements, specifically capital adequacy ratio requirements, setting a minimum level of tier one capital (equity) to risk-adjusted-assets. As the value of it's assets drop, it makes it more and more likely that the company will need to go out into the market to raise capital in order to maintain these capital adequacy requirements. The higher the cost of equity is, the higher the implied cost of debt is, and the higher the total cost of capital is. A company is only producing value to society (profits) if it's weighted average cost of capital is less than the investments it makes and projects it starts. If the cost of capital gets too high, a bankruptcy reorganization starts to look like a better and better way of maximizing stakeholder value.

I hope that meandering explanation was helpful... it's late.NByz (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and it's actually it's liabilities that would flee when confidence is lost in a bank. Customer deposits are money that the bank owes to people, so they're actually liabilities to the bank. All of the loans and investments are the assets, and they'll be rooting for the firm to survive so it doesn't have to prematurely call in those assets. Deposit Insurance and other government intervention helps reduce the likelihood that depositors will flee when they lose faith in a bank.NByz (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

what does this saying mean

"How thin can I spread myself before I'm no longer 'there'?".........Please do answer this as soon as possible.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Sharath1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In what context? Spreading yourself thin usually refers to trying to do too much at one time so that you aren't really doing anything effectively. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post questions on multiple reference desks. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This expression make a comparison between dividing your energy or attention, and spreading some substance thinly over a surface (like spreading paint on a wall or butter on a slice of bread). You can make do for a while -- the way you can use one tablespoon of butter to thinly coat three slices instead of one -- but at some point you're not giving enough attention or energy; your efforts accomplish nothing, like using one tablespoon to try and cover a hundred slices of bread. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a variation of the problem that to avoid getting shot simply run away ? The bullet can never catch you because in every instant you have moved from where you were to further away.86.197.170.174 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)DT

That's a variation of Zenos paradoxes. That might have worked in precalculus days, but if the bullet has learned any of the Proposed solutions to Zeno's paradoxes I wouldn't rely on it. Phil Burnstein (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Owning a Telescope

How fascinating are the images of the celestial bodies from a home telescope ? are they really lucid and understandable as to be able to see the rings around Venus and the depresion in the surface of the moon , as i am planning to own one but not sure if thats really captivating and the cost as well:)Vikram79 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have 20/800 vision (coloboma of the choroid layer) but looking through one in a college Astronomy course, I could still see well enough to really be amazed. I could see little "handles," I guess you could say, on Saturn that I knew were rings (I don't think Venus has them, but I could be wrong - could ou mean Uranus?), and 1-2 things that looked like moons, as well as some of the features on Earth's moon. Keep in mind that this was atop our chapel roof, with a small one like you're likely talking about owning.

So, yes, it is quite enthralling, if you're into that, like I can be; I mean, when that Mar lander first sent back live pictures, I literally had tears of joy in my eyes as I praised God for His creation, and letting me see that on TV. If you don't look up at the night sky with a sense of wonder now, though, I doubt a telescope will creat that.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You need a rather big telescope to see Saturn's rings, so one of those small ones you can get at toy stores probably won't do it. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see that the planet is on odd shape with a good pair of binoculars, I think, a small telescope certainly could. To see any real detail requires something a bit bigger (I've seen them through a 10" reflector and they were clearly rings with a gap between them and the planet itself and you could just about see some of the gaps). And I can confirm, Venus does *not* have rings. The moon is very dramatic through even a small telescope - just don't try and observe when it's near full, it's too bright to see anything. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Venus does have phases, like the moon, which you can see with a telescope, but I'm not sure how big it would need to be. You can also see the Galilean moons of Jupiter with a telescope - that's how Galileo found them, of course, and his telescope wasn't very fancy. He also observed the sun with it and unsurprisingly went blind, so...don't do that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Galileo's blindness had nothing to do with his solar observations.[2] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I love telescopes but fear we have gotten so spoilt by those crisp, perfect Hubble images that the blurry little things you can see even with the monstrous telescopes of formerly-famous observatories are not that impressive. The most impressive thing you can gaze at with the massive old telescopes at the Lick Observatory is the moon itself—to see it in such terms that it feels right beyond your hands. I was not impressed by Saturn or nebulae or anything else I was shown. But the moon—the moon is amazing through an optical telescope. There is something so tangible about it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I got a telescope many years ago in order to see a comet that was coming close by. Looking at the moon is very cool - it looks somehow more "real" than looking at it with the naked eye...Saturn is pretty neat...everything else is basically a dot. I got bored with dots fairly quickly - looked at Saturn - pointed it at the moon...moon, saturn, moon, saturn...telescope in attic...telescope still in attic...20 years later...telescope in attic. I confess that just after we moved house and had to get the thing out of one attic so I could put it in my new attic - I pointed it at the International Space Station in the hope of seeing something truly spectacular...but it moves FAR too fast to track with a high power 'scope. A friend of mine has a super-sexxy computer-controlled telescope. You can type in the name of ANY star and its little motorized gizmo points at it...and you see a dot..."Alpha Centari"...dot..."Mars"...pinkish dot..."Pluto"...black space with a few dots in it..."Beetlejuice" (star not found) "Betelgeuse"...(pink dot). Unless you type in "Saturn" or "Luna" that's pretty much all you see! Nah - unless you can get a really huge scope so you can resolve nebulae and a few of the other planets as decent sized disks, it's a waste of money. Get a decent pair of binoculars instead...then at least you can do some ornithology between looking at Saturn and the Moon. SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Andromeda? Is its shape discernible with a home telescope? APL (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Like this? Nah, it will look more like a big smudge. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I own a 114-mm (4.5-inch) reflecting telescope, and as for planets, I've observed the cresent of Venus, extremely fine detail on the moon, a feature on Mars which I believe is Syrtis Major (although it's too far away right now), the cloud bands and moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and I've also observed Uranus. M31 looks like a fuzzy ovular blob in my telescope, but that's what deep-sky objects usually look like. I can find Andromeda with my telescope in about five minutes nowadays. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: if the sky is clear at your location on the evening of December 1 about an hour after sunset, look toward the southwest, and low in the sky you should find the cresent moon. Beside the moon, forming a neat triangle, will be two bright "stars". The brighter and lower one is Venus, the higher and dimmer one in Jupiter. It will make a pleasent sight visually, but this will help you identify the objects with a telescope if you own one. Try to stay away from department stores if you're looking to buy a telescope, they usually have the really cheap ones that don't work too well. I took a picture of Jupiter and Venus yesterday with my camera, but on Monday night we might still have too much cloud from the winter storm that's about to hit us. My favourite deep-sky objects in the telescope on the Messier Catalogue include M2, M3, M8, M11, M13, M15, M16, M17, M22, M24, M26, M27, M31, M32, M35, M36, M37, M41, M42, M44, M45, M57, M67, M71, and M92. There are also other delights such as Albireo, Castor, Beta Monocerotis, Epsilon Lyrae, Delta Cephei, the Double Cluster, and many others. I've also seen Comet Holmes in a smaller telescope. Remember that in cities and suburban regions, light pollution is often quite severe. My location has a limiting magnitude of about 3.5-4.0 . If you have binoculars, you can often see the milky way. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Larger charge for credit card purchases

I had a debt collection agency call me on the phone. They directly stated that there was a $10 charge for per payment via credit card, and a $5 charge via ACH (i.e., direct withdrawal). I also remember buying alcohol recently, and them adding a $.50 charge for a credit card purchase.

I know this is common place in foreign countries, but I was under the impression that this was disallowed in the merchant's contract with VISA. If so, I am interested in contacting VISA, because that I think it stinks I have to give out my bank and routing number. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For a merchant, yes, I'm pretty sure it's against the contract, but perhaps debt collection agencies come under a different system? --Tango (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per-transaction charges from merchants are explicitly forbidden by merchant contracts. However, none of the major CC companies does much to enforce those contract provisions. More of a nudge/wink thing, it seems. //roux   08:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood, but if anyone calls you on the phone to ask for your credit card number, it's probably a scam.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shantavira, if you've given out your credit card number and routing number over the phone, I'd suggest reporting this to both your credit card company and your bank (if they are issued by different entities). This seems like a scam.--droptone (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably should double check: they had a good deal of info on me, knew who this debt was with (it wasn't on my credit report). I did research on caller, appears it was a debt collection agency. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Feeding wild birds during winter in Scotland.

We live on the edge of a middling size town in Central Scotland bordering on open countryside where temperatures regularly go below zero during December through to February and the ground is extremely frosty, if not instead covered with snow and ice (we use salt on our Tarmacadam Drive but NOT on our garden where we feed wild birds from different types of bird-feeders). This year for the first time ever, we are migrating to southern Spain for December and January and there will be no one at home to continue supplying the vast array of wild birds that we feed with a variety of seeds, bread and cheese, on a daily basis. And what will poor Robin do then, poor thing? Any life-saving suggestions going cheep will be most gratefully received. 92.23.145.62 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoppers. We don't have an article on them. Very large container (barrel / large platsic storage box?) with some sort of dispenser at the bottom (e.g. wire mesh). This sort of things is used on grouse moors by gamekeepers to feed their stock - needs loading only every other month or so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

this sort of thing - I advise you to improvise, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gravity-fed hopper of some sort. That being said, there's been a lot published (no, i have no cites) about not feeding animals in the winter, as it disrupts natural population pressures & limits. My stepdad is involved with wildlife conservation, and that's what he's always said. In summer when other food is plentiful, it's not much of an issue. In winter, artificially sustaining the local wildlife population introduces issues into their natural population cycles. //roux   08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coastline length measurements

Given the fractal behaviour of coastline length, why doesn't the article List of countries by length of coastline include the scale at which each coastline measurement was taken, and some empirically-derived parameters for extrapolating this figure to other scales, to make a fair comparison possible? NeonMerlin 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the list you linked is mostly based on the CIA FactBook, which doesn't list the scale. This is explained in the text of the article you just linked. APL (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of the article if there is no way to know how to interpret the data? I'll PROD it... --Tango (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the CIA factbook is generally reliable, and I would expect that they rely on a consistant method for deteriming the length of the coastline even if they don't publish their criteria, I think we can generally assume they use the same criteria. Indeed, that this list clearly indicates its source; and that its a single source, probably makes this a perfectly fine list, even if it DOESN'T list the methodology used to calculate the numbers. A prod would probably be a bad idea for this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Of course it would be nice to know the methodology used, but you can't demand to know everything about how a fact was determined before you'll read the fact itself. That way lies an infinite regress —— turtles all the way down. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unprodded it since it's already survived AFD on the same grounds. Nevertheless, it's a collection of meaningless numbers. We don't know it's consistent, they might well have got the data from each country and each country may have measured differently. It doesn't matter how reliable your source is, if you don't know how to interpret the data it is meaningless. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's a bit dull-witted of the CIA to fail to explain their methodology, say, here. As it is, their explanation is puerile: "Coastline: This entry gives the total length of the boundary between the land area (including islands) and the sea.". No shit, Sherlock. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point out that even given the fractual nature, it is possible to determine the length of something with limits, with a greater scale giving a more accurate reading (I am 95% sure of this). Given the page, I would suggest reading up on significant digits to determine the scale: there is a standard notation for this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the coastline were really a fractal, then the limit would be infinite, so that doesn't help much. It isn't, of course, or at least it's hard to make sense of the claim that it's a fractal once you get down to atomic sizes, or even down to scales where the "coastline" is constantly changing with the breaking of the waves. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's effectively fractal until you get down to the quantum scale and then it's pretty much undefined. There is no meaningful limit. Significant digits describe precision, that's not what we're talking about. It's not just that with a smaller scale you get more precise values, you get strictly greater values (even greater than the margin of error would suggest). --Tango (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected; the area within a fractal is finite; the length is infinite. However, a coast is not actually fractal on a smaller level; someone can actually drive along the coast and calculate the distance. Additionally, I find the criticism of the CIA (puerile?) to be a little silly and exaggerated; they have quite likely compiled the data from different sources. Many times countries will compile their own data. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Driving along it doesn't help. As Tango has noted, it's fractal until the point at which it stops making sense entirely. Taking the driving distance just corresponds to using a scale of size comparable to a car. It really is meaningless to give a length to a coastline without a scale of measurement; for this reason different sources often give wildly different lengths for the same coastline (or border, many of which are similarly fractal). I hope we can find a source that provides this vital information. Algebraist 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And it is puerile (of or pertaining to a child or to childhood, childishly foolish) to explain coastline measurement to be a measurement of, you know, that bit where the land meets the sea. That's the sort of explanation you give to a child. You give adults some insight into the scale at which you measured since adults tend to know that the scale and the distance measured have a relationship such that without knowing the scale one is unable to make much sense of the distance measurement - which brings us back to Tango's first point. You'll find that (some) refdeskers choose their words advisedly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

While we all (pretty much) agree that the concept of an absolute length of a coastline is quite utterly meaningless - we really should note what the article actually says. It does not say "These are the lengths of the coastlines" (which would be meaningless) - it actually says "This is a list of countries by length of coastline, in kilometers, based on data for the year 2008 by the CIA World Factbook." - and then goes on to explain the factal thing. So it's effectively saying - "Here is an article that tells you what kind of nonsense the CIA are putting out - and this is why you shouldn't believe it."...which is OK as far as it goes. There is a place for this kind of information though. If you did measure all of the coastlines with a consistent methodology (which may be what the CIA did - for all we know) then the resulting numbers might well be useless in absolute terms - but it would be useful to know that (say) the coastline of the USA is about the same length as Canada's and about half that of Russia. Such comparative numbers would probably stay fairly consistent over a range of metrics - unless the fractal dimension of some countries is radically different than others (the bits Slartibartfast did - for example). SteveBaker (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary. I'd make a couple of quibbles:

1. The "fractal dimension" (well, one of the standard measures of it, say Hausdorff dimension) is not well-defined unless you can make sense of arbitrarily small scales of linear measure, which as already noted, you can't. So what we're really talking about here is some sort of curve fitting to a power law, where the answer you'll get depends at least a little on some fairly arbitrary choices. It's not really a single well-defined number.
2. With that said, I think the fractal dimensions in question are generally not a lot bigger than unity — it's not going to make that much difference, usually, whether your scale is a mile or five miles.
3. So we can do a little guessing as to what the CIA is getting at here. Maybe the question is, suppose I know that it takes one soldier per x meters of beachhead to successfully invade (or successfully repel an invasion); how many do I need total? Or, if a gunship is to patrol the coast, how long are its circuits? That could give us a rough estimate of the scales involved, and as long as the "dimension" is small, get us close enough to derive some meaning from the numbers. --Trovatore (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The lines on maps used to indicate coastlines do have some kind of fractal thing going on, especially when comparing small and large scales. But it is also important, I think, to remember that on the Earth a "coastline" is more a coastal "zone" than a "line". Also that the fractal thing is about lines on maps, not physical coastlines. Actual coastlines are more complex than a line can capture. In order to make and map a line, people have to make some decisions that, even if done in a well-defined and strict way are fairly arbitrary. Different people may create different but equally valid definitions and measurements. Examples: Do we measure along high tide lines or low tide, or mean tide, or mean low tide, or what? Do seasonally dry lagoon-like areas count? How far up an estuary do you go before crossing over to the other side? What about coastal wetlands, mangroves, etc? And on and on. Southern Louisiana is a good example of some of these sorts of things. At small map scales (way zoomed out) these issues are minimal, and the fractal issue of map lines is more at play. At scales in which the above types of questions are important, the fairly arbitrary decisions made to define where the line is within the coastal zone become much more important than the oft-claimed "fractal nature of coastlines". At close-in scales the length of mapped coastlines will vary among cartographic methodologies, but more because coastlines are more a human abstraction than a strict physical reality, and less because coastlines are "fractal". The fractal thing is not the physical coastline but the maps, and then mainly of note at small, zoomed-out scales. The fractal thing comes up when comparing lines from one map to another, not to physical reality. Finally, the same issues apply to rivers and river lengths, yet one does not hear of the "fractal nature of rivers" as often, and people seem much more accepting of the river length statistics. My theory is that at some point in the past someone got carried away with the "coastlines are fractals" thing and the idea has become widely accepted as fact when it is not. In short, for coastlines, river lengths, and a whole host of other physical features, no truly objective measurement is possible. A fairly close and useful measurement, based in part on human assumptions and definitions, is the best we can hope for. Sorry to repeat what others have said, it's just a pet peeve. Pfly (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

River lengths can be well-defined, finite, and constant at all sufficiently fine scales: measure the length of the thalweg. The physics of water movement mean that the thalweg isn't fractal once your scale reaches the point that you can distinguish the width of the river. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not fractal... but still over time not constant. And precise location of source and mouth not always obvious, especially with large estuaries. That's what I meant. I misspoke. But there is the issue of braiding; does the thalweg method account for braiding well? Pfly (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Determining if a work's copyright was renewed

I am interested in determining if a work had its copyright renewed. Specifically, Abbot and Costello have their famous Who's on First skit, shown on youtube here. This was done in 1945, and as such template:PD-US-not renewed or even template:PD-Pre1978 may apply.

Also, if this isn't in the public domain, are there any other pictures or works that are? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that particular version of the skit is from the film The Naughty Nineties. If you search for that in the US Copyright Office's database, there is an entry for the 1945 version, but it's not clear to me whether it is a renewal or not. If you search for "Who's on First" you find an entry for "The Abbot and Costello Show" which is a colorized work of an original which was "Text prev. reg. as radio script (1944, no. 88573) and as motion picture script accompanying visual performance (1984, PAu 617-698 and 1986, PAu 935-615)". The trick is that even though the copyright office database only has works after 1978 in it very unhelpfully, many renewals are after that date. But in this case I'm not sure it is clear whether it has been renewed or not — I don't see any explicit renewal, but I see a lot of confusing other things. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley and George W. Bush

Why has no effort been made to prove or disprove the conjecture that Aleister Crowley is George W. Bush's illegitimate grandfather? From what I've read about his rituals, there must be some artifact out there with enough of old Al's semen on it for a DNA test. NeonMerlin 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely any half-decent cover-up would have already bought all of Crowley's semen-encrusted stuff up already. Why bother? Recury (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

People make all kinds of rediculous conjectures. Ones like this are so patently stupid that its not even worth disproving... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More to the point.. who cares? Uncle Al was a brilliant occultist (and self-promoter), but there's nothing special in his genes. //roux   08:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, given Crowley's "satanist" associations and Bush's unpopularity, conspiracy theorists are likely envisioning some wild Rosemary's Baby sort of events in the Bush family's past. Hardly likely. Again, like I said above, this one is so rediculous it's not even worth going through the trouble to prove its wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, agreed. Some theories are so crazy, they simply don't warrant serious inquiry. Like 9/11 "truth" nuts, it's best to laugh at them and move on. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gas pricing question

Why do gas stations price their gas with the 9/10ths on the end of the amount? How did it start?72.172.22.185 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the same reason stuff costs £x.99 - it makes you think "ah, it costs £x" when really it costs £x+1. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

See price point. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological pricing is possibly more relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are good reasons for other products, but not for gasoline -- it's different. Back when our grandparents were kids, one penny was a useful amount of money (and on the other side of the pond, one pence was even larger). Hence, half-pennies and farthings were needed to purchase one or two pieces of very inexpensive goods -- "penny candy" comes to mind.

That logic also applied to tax rates. One whole cent (!) of tax on a gallon of gas was too high a tax rate, so rates were expressed in 10ths of cents. Early on, two of those common rates were 1.5c/gal and another at 4/10.

Only after those rates had been around for a while, did vendors start to notice the other factors now included in psychological pricing, which is why the 9/10 are still there today. Vestige of a bygone era, I guess. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are two questions here, why tenths, and why nine of them. I'm not sure I follow your explanation - I'd say the reason the prices are given accurate to tenths of a cent is because the unit of measurement (a gallon, in the US, I believe) is significantly smaller than the amount people are actually purchasing, so if you want to have a fine level of control over the price people pay for a tank of petrol you need to give the price per gallon to a higher level of precision. The reason it is usually 9/10 rather than some other value is because of psychological pricing. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gift idea for a 17 year old girl

I am trying to think of a nice, personal gift for my 17 year old neice. I am very close to my other neices and nephews, however, she (my oldest neice) are not very close. We get along, but we don't have inside jokes and the same relationship I carry with the others. I regret this. She is going to college next Summer and is into theatre (like Broadway and stuff). Does anyone have any good gift suggestions? I'm tired of giving her gift certificates and money. I wanna give her something that will put us on the same path as I have forget with my neices and nephews. --209.183.190.77 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If she's into the theatre, and you live near a metro area that has a vibrant theatre life, perhaps tickets to the theatre? This could be a single show, or it could be like season tickets depending on your personal income level and the appropriateness. The best gifts are always the ones that take the recipient into account. Generally, I always appreciated the gifts that shows the person who gave it was thinking about me as a person. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If she's really into Broadway, look at Original Cast albums. I'd especially recommend the OC of Les Miserables, Evita, anything that Patti LuPone did. //roux   08:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to get a nice new laptop as a gift, and if she is going to college it would be helpful to her studies. Chemical Weathering (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that tickets are the best idea. Go together; that should give you some inside jokes. If you did go the CD route, however, I would look at some of the more recent shows aimed at a younger audience: Rent, Spring Awakening, In the Heights, Passing Strange. [Aunt of a 16-year-old here.] Catrionak (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)\\

American restaurants

Is it true that Americans say Coke to mean any kind of pop, and that they always say whole wheat and never brown bread? I know people who said that when they went to restaurants in the US, they ordered a Coke, and were asked, "What kind?" and ordered brown bread, and were asked, "Um... toast?" Is this common across America, is it a regional thing (these stories came back from a trip around the Montana/Idaho area), or what? The people I heard this from did say that many of the waiters and waitresses figured out pretty quickly they were Canadian, so this must happen fairly regularly around there. I've been to the US a few times, but I never drink Coke or eat brown bread, so I've never encountered this phenomenon. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this, the standard generic term for nonalcoholic carbonated beverages varies significantly across the States. That doesn't quite answer your question (as 'coke' may be understood as generic in areas where it is not the standard generic term), but it may be of interest. Algebraist 23:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here in New England (Connecticut, specifically) "brown bread" is pretty unknown. People might figure it out, but even so they might assume you were making some sort of disparaging remark about the taste/quality of whole wheat bread.

As Algebraist pointed out the "Coke" for generic soda thing varies widely, but around these parts if someone asks for a "Coke" they expect to get a Coca-Cola. They would be irritated at the substitution if the waiter gave them a Pepsi-Cola without asking first. And they would assume the order was completely wrong if any other sort of soda was delivered. APL (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I live in the Midwest, and here we use the word Coke generically, so if a restaurant doesn't have Coca-Cola they'll translate that to mean Pespi. Also, "Diet" means Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi whichever the the restaurant has. I've never heard anyone say "brown bread". 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in the West and the Northeast and never heard "brown bread" as a synonym for wheat bread. As noted, dialects regarding carbonate beverages varies regionally. In the pretty much everywhere except the South, "soda" or "pop" are more common as a generic name for carbonated beverages of all brands, with "Coke" as a specific variant (Coca-Cola). As APL notes, that means a specific brand—a Pepsi is a different thing altogether, and if they only have Pepsi they always ask if that is an acceptable substitute. In reference to the map, it's worth noting that county maps like that can be very misleading, because area does not translate into population. Generally speaking, the larger the county, the less populous it is, and the less you should consider its response as statistically meaningful. Ironically the harder it is to see the value the more important it is! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, the term "brown bread" evokes that sort of ersatz wheat bread that seems to be just white bread with brown food coloring, no real substance or taste to it. Is it obvious that I hate white bread, or at least sliced white bread?

Anyway, there are lots of breads other than whole wheat that are not white bread. What about, say, multi-grain, or wheat berry? Would you order those as "brown bread"? --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, Brown bread is that stuff that comes in a can that you serve with baked beans, and has lots of molasses in it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do people still actually say "brown bread" in Canada? I mean, I knew exactly what you were talking about, and I can remember about 20 years ago when I (and as far as I knew everyone else) called it that, but I can't remember hearing anyone say that recently. Now that everyone is so health-conscious all bread is referred to as exactly whatever it is. (And now I want a peanut butter sandwich on brown bread, yum!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe most Americans call all soda's "Coke" - certainly I've never heard that idiom in Texas. When asked "What kind of Coke?" our OP's friends were probably being asked to choose between Regular Cocacola, Classic Coke, Coke with Vanilla, Cherry Coke, Black Cherry Coke, Lemon Coke, C2, Coke Zero...and most of the above with or without Caffeine and with or without sugar (eg 'Caffeine-free Diet Cherry Coke'). All of those are "Coke". Brown bread is not a term I've heard Americans use - but it's very common in the UK - it's the natural opposite of White bread (which...oddly...is a term Americans DO use)...it's also cockney rhyming slang for 'dead'. If you think that's bad - ordering eggs for breakfast in Denny's...that's a linguistic death-trap for the unsuspecting Brit! SteveBaker (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that America is becoming more homogenized with regard to the terms for "carbonated soft drink" than they used to be. I grew up in New England, and for my parents generation, the term was "tonic". For example, in most grocery stores growing up, the label on Aisle 8 said things like "Tonic - Diet Tonic - Chips - Snacks". My generation understands the word "tonic," however most of the people I grew up with preferred to use the term "soda" instead. I would daresay that, if I still lived in New England, my own kids would find the word "tonic" to be somewhat quaint and outdated. In general, however, to expand on the OP, the four most common terms are "soda", "pop", "coke" and "tonic". "Tonic" is reserved almost exclusively in New England, "pop" is most common west of the Appalachians, east of the Rockies, and north of the Ohio/Missouri rivers. The generic "coke" is mostly in the deep south; say Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi, but also some in Kentucky/Tennessee/Carolina area... Soda is probably the predominant term in the rest of the country, and is universally recognized even where local dialects use other words. this map is MOST enlightening... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That map has come up before (in fact I think someone referenced it in this very thread). One thing I find peculiar about it is that it doesn't mention the full name soda pop. It could be that in at least some of the areas marked as soda, that's really an abbreviation, and speakers would use soda pop when being more "formal" so to speak. --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember, folks, WHAAOE: Soft drink naming conventions#United_States. (And, for what it's worth, this is the only type of "brown bread" I've heard of, in Western Pennsylvania.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK, "brown bread" is very commonly used by consumers to refer to anything other than white bread although manufacturers of bread prefer to call it "wholemeal" or "wholegrain" to make it sound better. Asking for "coke" will get you any brand of cola although some places will ask if Pepsi or another brand is OK instead of Coca Cola. 62.25.96.244 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Another source for maps of this and other things was long at this Harvard Dialect Survey page, but the map links seem dead now. The Page supposedly moved to this this site, but it is not working at the moment. Too bad--this is a fun set of maps. I hope it is made accessible again soon. Pfly (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course we have an article on brown bread. I can confirm that it's widely used, in Ontario at least, as a synonym for whole wheat bread. Other non-white breads get a specific name (rye, pumpernickel, etc.). Matt Deres (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion makes it sound like you don't have rye bread in the USA or Canada. Surely this isn't so? JIP | Talk 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rye bread is very common in the US and I assume the same is true in Canada. Tomdobb (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll however find that US rye bread is a lot lighter than what you'll see in Europe. It (unfortunately) also has tons of caraway seeds in it. I think that the color might have something to do with the leavening agent/ process used. In GA I hear "soft-drink" most commonly used for unspecified carbonated beverages. If you order at a place that just hands you a cup and you fill it at the soda fountain (dispensers) yourself, some people just order a coke for convenience sake and then fill their cup with their choice of beverage. If you order coke at a restaurant that only has Pepsi they will usually ask if that's o.k. instead. Same if you order a Dr. Pepper (made by Pepsi) and they only have Mr. Pibb (made by Coca Cola, we haven't gotten used to the new name "Pibb extra" yet). In a private home the "what kind" question is most likely to come up because of the many varieties available. People like us buy whatever is on sale and then end up with a lot of different brands and combinations on hand. The most distinguishing feature is "ordinary, plain" (with sugar) or "diet" (with artificial sweeteners). Ice tea which is "the southern word for water" :-) is also available in "sweet" and "unsweet", with the latter often requiring clarification when ordering. Pop is more common as a short form for "popsicle" = ice-cream in some parts. If it is not clear that you are referring to food my first thought would be "grandpa" or "old geezer". Forget what part they were from, but I met s.o. at a party where this question came up and they said they used pop for "popcorn". If s.o. said they'd "come over for a pop" that would mean "a little while". They would not expect to be offered a soft-drink, but would probably not turn one down either. Back on the farm "soda" was something used for cleaning (as in baking soda). You'd order a "fountain drink" for coke etc. Had never heard of "brown bread" before. Would that include pumpernickel? BTW. I thought that was German, but they distinguish between 3 types "Schwarzbrot" (black bread), "Vollkornbrot" (whole grain bread) and "Pumpernickel" - at least in Northern Germany. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly available in Canada (as I implied above), but ordering toast in a family restaurant would probably net you two options: white or brown (i.e. white bread or whole wheat bread). Rye and related breads like pumpernickel are a distant third and not often offered in my experience. Matt Deres (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are four different types of rye bread available in my local grocery store, and if you asked for "brown bread", I'd ask if you were referring to what I know as "dark rye". --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just four? Are you in a rural area? --Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Coneslayer's brown bread is what I was thinking of. I wanted to add, in some parts of the US, a soda is called a "dope", especially in relation to RC - an "RC dope and a moon pie" is a common phrase - [3]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The soda–coke–pop thing is definitely regional: see The Pop Vs Soda Map on the Strange Maps blog. – b_jonas 20:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)