Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 31

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.

October 31

Sour Jelly

I have an old receipe that requires 2 cups of sour jelly. I haven't found any information on how to make or come up with sour jelly. Just what is sour jelly. Thank you.

What kind of recipe do you have? Googling sour jelly[1] comes up with sour jelly beans, but mostly a "whiskey and sour" jelly, especially a green whiskey and sour jelly for St Patrick's Day. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it means jelly beans. It's probably jelly in the sense of the stuff you spread on toast (distinguished from jam by the absence of fruit pulp, seeds, skins, etc). --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it the "sour jelly beans" is just a novelty flavoured sweet, but the stuff on toast sounds sweet rather than sour. Is it tart as well as fibre free? (It really would help to know what the recipe is for.) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily sweet, but you could certainly make it sour if you wanted to. Just leave out the sugar. (By the way, it's not really fiber-free -- the jelling effect comes from pectin, which is a so-called soluble fiber.)

Sour Jelly could be something like lemon curd. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Google books leads me to think it might be Aspic. Other google books lead me to think it might be jelly made from sour grapes. White grape juice seems to be a substitute in some cases. (And we'll just ignore the man who somehow contrives to make sour jelly out of milk.) It might be useful to know something more about the recipe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sour" is a kinda multi-purpose word - so it's hard to know exactly what it meant. I wonder whether it's intended to mean "vinegary" - in the way that Chinese-style "Hot and Sour Soup" is sour. SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it dangerous to drive around without a gas cap?

My friend says it will splash out when I hit bumps and possibly start a big ol fire. But 1.Its only temporary til I buy a new one, and 2.I dont fill the tank up all the way, so I say it's safe. Am I right?Sunburned Baby (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are probably fine. The real reason for the gas cap is that gas is volatile, and so evaporates really quickly. The gas cap seals the system, and prevents excess evaporation from your gas tank. You have at least 3 safeguards beyond the gas cap, however, that will prevent much evaporation or splashing. 1) Most cars, at least those I have seen for the past 20 years or so, have a little spring-loaded flap that covers the opening under the gas cap. This spring-loaded flap will keep the opening closed adequately enough until you have a chance to run to Pep Boys. 2) Most cars have a door over the gas cap, so this door will also stop problems. 3) The tube connecting this opening to the actual case tank is fairly narrow, which will reduce evaporation and splashing problems. It should be noted that none of these three items is airtight, which the gas cap is, so you SHOULD run out to Pep Boys (or Autozone, or whatever your local Autopartsmegastore is) and pick up a new one soon, but you can safely drive the car without a gas cap, at least to get you to the Pep Boys from home. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You increase the risk of a number of hazards, from spillage through to combustion, and so you are very definitely less safe. There is more than ample energy in a half tank of petrol being propelled along the road, to eject petrol from the filler. (And the car is probably not road-legal.) Whether the extent to which the risk is increased is of material concern to you is a subjective judgment. But I've always understood risk assessment to be composed of two factors: probability of risk; and consequences should the risk transpire. Since a remote consequence of splashed petrol is a potentially fatal fire, I'm uncertain what's stopping you from getting a replacement cap the next time you drive the car. (My cars have tended not to have spring loaded traps. They might be somewhat country specific.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that in the UK this is illegal!--89.168.224.110 (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I once managed to get an airtight gas cap, (I do not believe they are meant to be air tight - just a small controlled vent), and the power of the fuel pump was sufficient to reduce the pressure in the tank such that the tank collapsed on itself. This was only discovered when I tried to fill up and no fuel would go in. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I did that once too. At the car parts store where I bought it, they had two kinds of gas caps - one vented, the other not - one in black plastic, the other in red. I didn't realise this and I asked the guy at the checkout whether it mattered which one I bought. He said "If it fit's - it's OK" (which turns out to be VERY UNTRUE!) - so I picked the red one because it matched the color of the car. Then I started running out of fuel when the gas gauge showed "Full" and just 50 miles after I'd filled up! When I finally figured out what the problem was, I was able to sue the company that sold the gas cap to me and got the repairs and the cost of a rental car plus some remuneration for lost time at work and inconvenience. SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You may get a check engine light, as the tank is part of the EGR system. If there is a door, you are probably OK, but if it is visible, you my be subject to vandalism as idiots stuff trash in the filler tube. Go spend >$10 on a new cap. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You certainly should get a check-engine light if your car is less than 10 years old in the USA because the laws in California and Texas (and elsewhere, presumably) REQUIRE that there is an indication of loss of negative pressurization in the gas tank. Probably that means the same is true in the UK...but I don't know for sure.

Can I suggest that even if a little gas did splash (which I, like Jayron, find improbable), it's not going to just "start fires". Gasoline is flammable but it's not, in small amounts, explosive or anything like that. There are plenty more flammable things lying around in the world generally not catching fire at any given time. The movies overemphasize the flammability of gasoline—it can't be ignited by a smoldering cigarette, for example. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've never directly tried to light gasoline with a cigarette, but it surprises me. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Gasoline is very flammable and is quite capable of catching fire from a smoldering cigarette. Our anon friend may be thinking of diesel fuel, which is much more resistant to catching fire. I'm frankly tempted to strike out that comment as dangerously incorrect. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference. My understanding, based on a number of such articles, is that the idea of gasoline bursting into flames around cigarettes is an urban myth. I'm pretty sure they did a mythbusters episode on this as well. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that liquid petrol doesn't do much, it's the gas you need to worry about. In an enclosed space (say a half-full petrol tank), that gas can be quite explosive. In the open, it's pretty harmless in small quantities. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. Yes, liquid petrol can burn if exposed to an open flame (not necessarily something just smoldering). But if you have open flames around you've already got a fire hazard regardless of whether there is a small splash of petrol. (There are plenty of things around that can catch from an open flame—dried grass/leaves, oil runoff, etc.) Gasoline gets really dangerous if you have it in a contained area where it can quickly evaporate—like a basement full of poorly sealed containers. Again, I don't see the "splash factor" as a serious hazard—even if it did splash a little here and there, it wouldn't seriously be increasing the flammability of the road area. It would be a million-to-one sort of event where your splash of petrol landed on an open flame which then caught onto something larger etc. etc. And again, like Jayron says, it's not like it's going to be necessarily just splashing around assuming it is a modern tank. Personally I would be more dubious about ad hoc temporary caps than capless—one can imagine making a temporary cap that causes damage, induces sparks, gets crap in the tank, whatever, that would be a lot more dangerous than just not having one for a short period of time. This is not to imply you shouldn't go get a new one fairly soon. But I don't think driving around with one off has any realistic chance of starting fires. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can probably make a temporary cap from cling film and an elastic band. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be better than nothing while you're driving to wherever you intend to buy a new one. (As someone said above, you probably don't want it completely airtight, but I doubt that's an issue with cling film - the film will break before the tank will.) --Tango (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but the tank is under negative pressure - you might just suck the cling film into the tank and that would be "A Very Bad Thing". Really - our OP should not drive the car until a new gas cap can be obtained. They aren't expensive and every car part store and most garages have them in stock. There really is no excuse for the danger, the pollution and the risk of damage to the car. Gasoline can easily damage the paintwork if it splashes - it's obviously dangerous and all of those vapours going into the atmosphere is an ecological nightmare. You absolutely shouldn't do this. SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking if it's securely attached with an elastic band the cling film would probably break before it got sucked in - you would be better off making a small hole it in to start with (that also makes a weak point so it will break cleanly if the hole isn't big enough). There is one good excuse for driving without a fuel cap - you're on your way to somewhere that sells them. It make not be practical to get one without driving to such a place. Actually, on second thoughts, a piece of cloth (an old sock, maybe) would probably be better than cling film - it allows air in, but should stop large amounts of fuel or fuel vapour getting out. --Tango (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You have considered that clingfilm & rubberbands are more than likely to be soluble in petrol? You're in chocolate fireguard territory, my friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The rubber band won't be in contact with petrol and the cling film would generally only be in contact with petrol vapour and the occasional splash of petrol. Nevertheless, cloth would be better for that reason, too. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it amusing that we so carefully avoid giving medical advice, yet we have exchanges like this one without apparent concern about liability. --Scray (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because there are no laws (in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of) where it is illegal to practice car mechanics without a license. However, practicing medicine or law without a license is illegal nearly everwhere. SteveBaker (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that no matter how many times it is pointed out that these guidelines are not based on legal requirements, regular contributors to these desks who have been a part of these discussions continue to assert that they are? 79.66.37.142 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for poem or story

That begins with "It was a dark and stormy night" grandfather used to say this to his young grandson - who cannot remember any more than the opening lines, hopefully someone knows the answer thank you

We've got an article It was a dark and stormy night that says it was "originally penned by Victorian novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton as the beginning of his 1830 novel Paul Clifford. And it grew legs from there... Julia Rossi (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What country?

has the most llamas do you think? llamas like warm climate or cold also? thanks. btw this is not a joke question i really want to find out. --WarmVelvet (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried our Llama article? There are llamas in Australia and we seem to be closish in latitude with parts of South America like the Andes. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia as a place for my new website

Hello,

My name is Kevin Armstrong. I have recently created a free online search engine with a focus on "Restaurant Menus"

My search engine is a free service to restaurants and has a vision of transcribing "all" restaurant menus into data stores.

Question: Can you please help me determine if my Rmenuz "idea" has a place in Wikipdeia?

I would appreciate any help/information that you can offer.

Regards,

Kevin Armstrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmenuz (talk • contribs) 06:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this really isn't what we do. Your website link doesn't open in my browser, but this information is not encyclopedic in my opinion, and I imagine a consensus of other Wikipedia contributors will agree with me. The internet's a big place; good luck with your commercial site. Darkspots (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• See List of wikis or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for places that might accept your entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I agree. This kind of thing is too ephemeral to be of interest here...and it borders on commercial advertising - which we strongly disparage. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the repeated URL plugs for the website from the OPs posting, since they were setting off my SPAM detector. The description of the service is quite enough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a site such as Rmenuz does not warrant a Wikipedia article at the moment. In theory, however, if it ever becomes a mainstream repository for restaurant menus, it could become noteworthy. I emphasize "in theory." You would have to compile, in my opinion, menus for thousands of restaurants — including most of the ones already with Wikipedia articles — from cities all over the world. (It could become the restaurant equivalent of IMDb, for example.) It is possible, but you aren't there yet. Good luck, though ... I hope you do reach that stage. — Michael J 22:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (web) explains the criteria for creating an article about a web site. It's not a matter of opinion. SteveBaker (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But notability is not always cut-and-dried. There is always some subjectivity involved. — Michael J 02:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Race and public schools in Charleston

[2]

"The public schools here are 98 percent African-American"

Considering it's a majority white school. How is this possible? Are vouchers given? Aren't some families unable to afford private schools? (so how can it be less than 2% white?)

Lotsofissues (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article also says "North Carolina school..." and the article itself is discussing a school in Charleston, South Carolina. I would say that the fact checking and editorial process is already in poor repute based on that solely. Accodirng to this report on a certain series end-of-grade tests given to high school students in the Charleston County School District, there were 1,399 African-American students out of a total of 2,513 that took this particular set of tests; that's only slightly more than 50% African American for the entire county school district. Even given that inner-city schools in the district are likely to have more African American students than this number, it won't be 98%. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over that schools systems cannot maintain a state of racial segregation, and must actively redistribute school populations so as to assure that no one school is that out of whack with the district average. Either the Charleston County school district is out-of compliance with this, or as I suspect (given that the first glaring error in the article is in THE TITLE of the article) that our journalist's fact checking is slightly out of whack... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The story is based on a New York Times Article, and according to my friend from Charleston, they are talking about a district that is 100% black.--droptone (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(The following is very much "IMHO".)

Firstly - I'd bet good money that this is NOTHING to do with race. In almost every case where racism is suspected by virtue of some skewed statistic, you should apply the following algorithm:

1. Replace every occurrence of the phrase "African-American" or "Black" with the word "poor" throughout the article in question.
2. Re-examine the facts and see if they are still true (99% of the time, they will be).
3. If so, then stop worrying about racism in this context. Worry instead about why there is a bias against poor people. This is generally VERY easy to understand.
4. Find out why disporportionately many poor people are black and vice-versa.

The last step should probably be the first since the results of the previous steps are always the same - and all of the mystery in the original question vanishes in the face of this analysis. Sadly, I suspect the answer is largely historical. Poor people had poor parents and that means that the statistical warp that happened when racism WAS very prevalent is still having an effect even though it's largely not prevalent anymore.

In this case - the public schools are mostly inhabited by poor people and richer kids go to private schools (well, DUH!). Since there is a correlation between wealth and educational success (eg because the wealthy families have better nutrition and have lots of books and educational toys available) - the consequences are inevitable and in no way surprising.

So fixing the schools isn't going to eliminate the racial bias - because it's NOT a racial bias.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In this that that is quite true: "Serving a student population of 99.6 percent poverty in 2007, Sanders-Clyde Elementary" [3]. Rmhermen (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Haunted

I have seen some whows on TV about ghosthunting, now I dont watch this kind of trash as it is very obviously faked, or nothing happens atall. My question is then firstly, if they really want to find ghosts why not go to a place that is more likely than any other to be haunted, such as Auschwitz. Secondly, is Auschwitz haunted? Happy Helloween —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is no evidence that ghosts exist...nowhere is haunted. They go to places that have 'history' (old homes, castles, settings of famous battles etc. If you were to believe in ghosts they appear to be going to the 'correct' places, plus I doubt it is cheap to get to Auschtwitz and film, and these shows definitely don't look like they have a big budget. The main stumbling block they have isn't location - it's content. 100% pure gibberish. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Plus, whoever owns Auschwitz probably wouldn't be too happy to have the place taken over by screaming idiots and camera crews. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason they don’t go to Auschwitz is that if they did the families of people who died there would sue them out of business. Using that kind of a place for cheap entertainment would be disrespectful to say the least. The places these shows frequent is usually some kind of bland semi-anonymous historical place. As mentioned above, old houses (the owners of which are interested in making some quick money), old battlegrounds (where innumerable people died long ago), castles (where the “ghosts” are presumably hundreds of years old with no living relatives), that sort of thing. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In the late 1970s I think, a nearby Catholic church wanted to put a large cross on the grounds of Auschwitz as a memorial to the Catholic Poles who died there. It generated so much controversy that the cross was removed and taken to the outskirts of the property; even that generated a lot of controversy. The Jewish survivors and their descendants protested the larger presence of Christianity at a place that was overwhelmingly oppressive to Jews. One of the definitions of "haunt" is to recur persistently to the consciousness of; remain with. As long as there remains a human memory and a record of what happened at Auschwitz it will remain haunted. That is so blatantly obvious that television shows and psychics would be cheap gags. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

and part two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment "nowhere is haunted" should cover part two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.82.226 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not haunted, because there is no place that is truly haunted. But if you search Google, you'll find that it's widely 'considered' to be haunted, which I'm assuming is what the OP was asking. Sarcasticninja (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason why there's no evidence is because most paranormal subjects are currently unproveable by the scientific method. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is no evidence - how could you possibly know that? What possible phenomena could there be that proponents of the "ghost hypothesis" could detect that science could not detect? Occam's razor says that in the absence of evidence - we should go with the simplest explanation. Ghosts (as commonly described and "explained") would require almost every single law of science to be overturned. Matter, mass, energy, life-processes, DNA, transmission of electromagnetic waves, computation, thought, human vision, acoustics, thermal properties of matter, thermodynamics...not one of those things can be "correct" if ghosts exist.

It's possible we got one or two SMALL things wrong in our scientific laws. If sciences like physics and chemistry were like "economics" or "sociology" and didn't work well on a routine basis - then a total breakdown of all of our theories could reasonable be held to be remotely possible. But we routinely apply science as if we were 100% certain about it - day in and day out - we put our lives in the hands of Galilleo, Newton, Hooke, Einstein, Feynman and Hawkins. Somehow life works exactly as expected. So our scientific laws COULD be wrong - but not in any horribly serious way. If there is an error in (say) the propagation of light to allow spontaneously glowing "spirits" - then it's not a small mistake! If the idea that "thought" is carried by chemical propagation between neurons is wrong - and disembodied "thought" is possible without all that 'stuff' - then chemistry and biology is WAY off the mark! But they clearly aren't 100% wrong because they allow us to design drugs to combat depression or to help you give up smoking. So the idea that this much science is completely wrong is really a non-starter.

The alternative explanation (ghosts don't exist and some people are either mistaken or downright lying to us) is VASTLY simpler - pretty darned plausible actually because people pull that kind of shit all the time.

Hence Occam's razor says "No ghosts" (and "UFO's don't exist" and "religion is untrue" and "NASA really did go to the moon" and "creationism is not possible" and "homeopathy is a scam" and "you can't power a car on water") - and as usual, it's probably right.

Ghost hunters and proponents of this crazy theory go to a lot of trouble to make sure that the existence of ghosts is an 'unfalsifiable' hypothesis - which is definitely a "red flag" for any theory.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, sometimes you go just a teensy bit too far in your denunciations of these sorts of things. Take "religion is untrue" - your immoderate and extremely imprecise language could be seen to be approving murder or theft, or advocating hatred or indifference rather than love. Whether "religion is true" or not is such a fuzzy and ill-defined concept that Occam's Razor could certainly not provide any enlightenment, nor could anything else. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea that morality requires religion is one commonly used by religious people to denounce atheism, but it's complete nonsense. Logic doesn't give absolute answers on how to live your life, you need to start with a value system and then you can use logic to deduce the best way to maximise value. If you value life, then logic dictates that murder is bad. You don't need to be religious to value life. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But since there is nothing particularly logical about valuing life, it is just a belief. It forms part of a value system. It is religion. If you personally have problems with anything called 'religion', you could choose not to call this value system, and the assumptions you hold obvious and true as its basis, 'religion', but that doesn't make you superior. I would go so far as to say most mainstream religions are practised, at least at the studious end, by people starting from basic beliefs and values and building on them with logic. Indeed, there are some theists who use the idea that morality requires theism to denounce atheism; theism and religion are not interchangeable, nor are atheism and logic.

Steve can go a bit far. I assume he has personal reasons for his personal feelings, but ranting on the desks about entire categories can get a bit wearing. 79.66.37.142 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There are differing definitions of "religion", but I don't think many people would consider any arbitrary value system to be a religion. I don't claim that valuing life is logical or obvious or "True", it's just part of my value system that I use to make decisions. It also happens to be part of most other people's value systems which means we are able to work together to maximise our value (by outlawing murder and paying taxes in order to support a police force, for example). Most mainstream religions aren't based on a system of values and logic, they are based on prescribed truth (in the form of religious texts, primarily). You could argue that Christians value going to Heaven and their actions are a logical way of maximising that value, but they don't value life (at least, not as a result of their religion, they may have addition values in addition to their religious ones). Their reasons for a law against murder are because that's what it says in the Bible, it's not a decision they've come to on their own based on their own values. --Tango (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Older issues of the Guinness Book of Records had an "oldest ghost" category, which asserted that ghosts are not immortal and fade away eventually; the record for Britain was apparently a Roman legion still marching along some former Roman Road. On a related note, the guide when I visited the Colosseum said there were no ghosts there in spite of about one million having been killed in its arena. jnestorius^(talk) 02:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-American online brokerage service

Are there any online trading services (à la E-Trade and Ameritrade) that are not explicitly based in America? I have a social security number from back in my college days, but I don't have a US address nor would I want to pay American capital gains tax. Are there any online brokerage services that do not specifically tie themselves to one jurisdiction? Is that even possible? Plasticup ^T/C 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are such services in pretty much allow major jurisdictions. If there are any that work across different jurisdictions, they probably do so by having subsidiaries in each which all use the same name. I don't think there is any problem with using a broker in a foreign country, but there may be tax concerns when you repatriate the money. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Financial services companies by country. —D. Monack ^talk 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear from your question: are you interested in investing in the US markets from outside the US? If so, you'll need to be largely self-directed, as all US-based financial advisors are pretty much prohibited from doing business with non-citizens since the passage of the Patriot Act.

Further, if your timeframe is short, now is not a good time to be trying this even though the markets are "on sale", so to speak. All advisors I'm associated with have just today (they always wait until the last minute :-)) completed their annual compliance course work, so it will be freshly instilled in their minds that anything even remotely resembling money laundering (or under conditions that might allow money to be laundered) is strictly forbidden.

But, if none of those conditions apply to you, have fun! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DESIGN WINS

What "DESIGN WINS" means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.27.231 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly that there was a competition of some sort between different designs for something, and one of the designs was judged to be the best of them?!? Could you give more context please? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A "win" is generally just that. Some competition that you have won could be called a "win". The opposite would sometimes be called a "fail". Both of these are pretty colloquial terms but are gaining a wider acceptance as far as slang or jargon goes. So, a design win would be a well done job in some sort of design situation. Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give use some context? Where did you see this? SteveBaker (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a fail, if that helps.... [4] - 38.112.225.84 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Design win" is a term used in the electronics industry. My understanding is that when a company has a design win, some component it designed is chosen by some device or system manufacturer to be used in the latter's product(s). --98.114.146.32 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To 38.112.... Dude!!! I am mildly disturbed by that... Srsly... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth images

What are the streaks shown on Google Earth (or Google Maps) at these locations: 36°19'57.37", 43°05'16.16" and 36°20'22.91", 43°06'05.33" Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure those are the right locations? I put them into Google Maps (satelite view) and all I see is a bunch of buildings at each location? It just looks like two random buildings in the heavily-built up areas of the city of Mosul in Iraq. If I zoom out, I can see yellow lines superimposed over the map which indicate the local highway system; it looks like these are numbered "Route 1" and "Route 2" and things like that... Other than that, I don't see any "streaks"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the streaks but they look like light reflecting off something. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not seeing the streaks; but does it strike anyone else as odd that the "roads" labeled 1 and 2 in the map overlay do not correspond to any roads visible in the satellite image? (They pass right through buildings, for pete's sake.) Is the U.S. military trying to confuse the "insurgents"? Deor (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can see those incorrectly placed roads then you're probably not zoomed in enough to see the streaks. They're only a few (apparent) meters long. The longs stretches accross a single lane of traffic to the median (with room for curb-side parking.) To me they look like a reflection overloaded a CCD. You see that all the time in digital photographs taken outdoors. Generally that causes pixel-aligned streaks, but we have no idea of the orientation of the original photographs used to piece together this data. APL (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see some strange diagonal lines extending north-west to south-east from what appear to be cars on the road to the west of the first location and immediately to the north and south in the second location. Those lines appear to be aliased (they have 'stair-steps') which says that they are some sort of artifact of the imaging system.

If I had to guess (and it's really only a guess) then I'd suspect a situation as follows:

• Perhaps the photos were originally taken at an oblique angle rather than from vertically overhead. If you think about it, it's really impossible for the aircraft (or satellite) to be precisely over the top of every single building or tower - so a degree of slant is inevitable.
• It is likely that Google (or whoever supplied them with the photos) sought to remove that artifact.
• One way that they can do that is to use two photos of the same area taken as the aircraft passes overhead - just a second or two apart. By noting how the position of the roofs of buildings "move" compared to the roads - they can deduce the height of the building and they know the orientation of the aircraft and camera - so they can figure out how much to shift the pixels on the rooftops to fix the 'slanting' effect.
• OK - but suppose a car is driving along the road parallel to the path of the aircraft? Its position would move slightly from one photo to the next as time has elapsed between them.
• Put that together - and it's possible for a moving car to fool the 'straightening out the buildings' software into thinking that the pixels that make up the car are high up in the air...the 'roof' of a tall tower with the cross-sectional area of a car.
• But when they 'shift' the car pixels - instead of removing the slanted view of the walls of the building - they actually CREATE a streak in the opposite direction.

These kinds of artifacts are reasonably common in "corrected" photography - although I've never seen precisely this effect before.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly anyone think about the area, think it might be gunfire?? Just a guess.Nick910 (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No - definitely not. It's a daylight image - and even tracer rounds wouldn't leave a trail like that. SteveBaker (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)