Miscellaneous desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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.

September 25

New York Times

When i was young after reading the NY times i was left with black smudges all over my hands from the newsprint. However, now the NY times does not seem to do this. Does anyone know why? Bilodeauzx (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still get that from the free Chinese newspapers so I'm guessing it's a matter of better/more expensive ink? --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or greasier fingers when you were younger? Antilived will be right though, it'll be down to the inks used. Here's an interesting read (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7646scit2.html) on the matter of inks. About half-way through it gets onto asking about why ink on newspapers sometimes rubs off onto your fingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you just didn't have a butler to iron your newspaper? Gwinva (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two evening free newspapers given to commuters in London. One of them has, since it started, had a masthead reading "Printed with ink that won't come off on your fingers". The other one doesn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My NYTimes still gets smudges on my fingers if I manhandle it too much (e.g. when I spend a long time on the crossword). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, in the late 1980's and early 1990's, most newspapers switched over to soy ink, instead of the previous petroleum-based formulations. Although the article doesn't say, it could be that soy ink is less prone to rubbing off then petroleum inks. The article does say that papers need less soy ink than petroleum ink to achieve the same effect, which may limit rub-off. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fixation

Unfortunately I have a growing fixation with vandalising Wikipedia. I have tried to stop myself, but I feel it will only be a short time before I succumb to temptation and start adding penis pictures or "is gay" messages all over the articles. It's becomimng very hard to do anything productive online as I find myself drawn to the Wikipedia sandbox, and now even that is not enough. Can anyone give me any help or advice? 86.144.132.118 (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give medical advice here. Consult a psychiatrist if you need help. Algebraist 11:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into 'medical advice' I would suspect an amount of vandalisation is a result of boredom and/or desire for attention. To relief your boredom there are many wonderful online-game sites such as miniclip.com (my personal favourite), or there are sites such as digg.com that aggregate news and 'interesting' stories. To relieve a desire for attention perhaps try answer questions on the reference desks? Often I don't know the answers but with a little online-research you can help. It helps you feel 'good' because people listen to you and it also helps others whilst garnering attention. Rather than being destructive look for ways to satisfy the urges by being non-destructive. You could also speak with your doctor about urges and self-control as it may be they can help in other ways.

194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel the desire to vandalize, here would be a great place to do it. It is on my top 5 favorite websites of all time. Next to wikipedia, rottentomatoes, and youtube of course.

www.uncylopedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try channeling your urge to show off and attract attention (which is what vandalism often is) by doing something requiring two or three more neurons than "Fred is gay" does. Like, f'rinstance, contributing at the Reference Desk, joining a Wikipedia project, working as a wikignome. I'm a generalist with the occasional pocket of more extensive knowledge, but I can't endure the battle-of-the-bigots that I see so often in articles. So, I hang out here, and try to resist too much soapboxing. I also try and resists telling off the more tendentious soaxboxers, who will not recognize themselves in this comment.

And, you know, there's life outside of Wikipedia, hard as it is for some to imagine. Turn off the computer for a while. If you can't do that for 48 hours, it may be a good sign you need to. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self control —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps look into the opposite sex? --Sean 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answering questions on the Reference Desks has helped me keep away from vandalism, at least large scale vandalism anyway, and I've learned a lot from researching my answers and reading the other replies. If you really want to vandalize I suggest you don't do it on Wikipedia, because the wikilife of a inexperienced vandal is relatively low here and once you get blocked even if you want to help out you can't. Things you can do instead are: find something online other than vandalism that you enjoy, when you feel the urge to vandalize go to a different website, or as others have mentioned there is always that addictive MMRPG called "real life". JessicaThunderbolt 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMRPG called "real life"? I find my character class in that MMRPG (a hybrid of "Student" and "Network Technician") to be quite dull at times. Perhaps if I could level up to "Husband" it would make it more interesting. Useight (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a chaotic alignment? -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want attention, build an article on a subject you care about and get it up to good or featured article status. Not quite as quick as "Bob is gay" but infinitely more satisifying knowing that your work is appreciated. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you really can't resist the temptation to vandalise, you could at least start to redress the sexual orientation imbalance by writing "Bob is straight". That's what I'd do if I were a vandal. (Disclaimer: The foregoing flippant remarks are not to be construed as an invitation to vandalise, or support for vandalism.) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Someone who saw this was a joke. Saintrain (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

Is there a way to tell who actually opened up a Facebook account? If not, from where they opened it up? --Anilmanohar (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people that run the site almost certainly can, but I very much doubt anyone else can. Wikipedia restricts that information to a very small group, I would be surprised if Facebook doesn't do the same. --Tango (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sex differences in internet use

It is a commonplace observation that women are able to multitask and men cannot. It is a commonplace observation that those individuals most immersed in computers and the internet are male. Obviously these are generalisations. One social change commented upon over the last ten years or so is the impact of prolonged and submersive internet use on our thinking and interaction patterns. (See for example the recent Financial Times anecdotal article and interviews here.) One theme is that our attention is being fractured; some observers see this as wholy negative, while others see more positive possibilities. So we have two conflicting ideas: that the so-called male brain can only cope with one information stream at a time, and that many men and boys thrive in an atmosphere of information bombardment (multiple screens on computers, phones, TVs simultaneously). My question is, is there any serious research on this? And how are these conflicting tendencies reconciled? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a legitimate scientific study that concluded that men can only cope with one information stream at a time or cannot multitask. I think those assumptions are sexist and not scientifically verified. This question may fit better on the science desk. - Lamba jan 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Confirmation bias. - Lamba jan 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. As a guy, I like to think I can multitask decently. I do use two monitors on my computer and one often is showing a movie. When I watch TV, I typically watch two shows at once, flipping back and forth between the two when my preferred of the two reaches a commercial break. This does result in sometimes missing important plot lines, so it's not the best idea. However, I do have trouble reading and listening to music at the same time. Useight (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count every interrupt no matter how short as taking up 15 minutes so I can get back into the flow if I have to think about something or do something complicated. So I'm definitely not a multitasker. I'm of the male persuasion and use the internet quite a bit. I'll be interested too in seeing what any study says, People can for instance talk or listen to the radio whilst doing something completely routine but I'd be surprised if anything else much could be multitasked effectively. I think people should switch off any popups for mail or anything like that if they want to do a good job Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, it's not inherently sexist to ask if one sex or gender does things differently than the other. The sexism can definitely creep in to how such questions are investigated and what meanings are drawn from them but the question itself is not inherently sexist. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is any amount of Human factors research conducted. The tabloid characterisations of male and female abilities you used as your examples are, with no disrespect meant to you, not worth the paper it would take to write them out on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human multitasking has a bit about this. Quoting from it 'In general, these studies have disclosed that people show severe interference when even very simple tasks are performed at the same time'. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed humans are incredibly poor multitaskers. Even worse then Windows 1.0... Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been lots of studies on gender differences in multitasking. Google it. I'm not sure it's decisive one way or the other. But the studies are out there. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have clarified that "multitasking" can involve more than paying attention to electronic information. A female (sympathetic) journalist was commenting on the recent resignation of Ruth Kelly from the British Cabinet, "to spend more time with her family". The journalist said that once she had interviewed Kelly by phone, and only after a few minutes had figured out -- and the politician had admitted -- that the splashing sounds were of the two year old being bathed. Good thing the phone didn't drop in the water. I'll try re-posting this on the Science Desk, as suggested. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iPod to cassette player accessories

Just bought a 2nd hand car and i dont want to spend money on a sound system as im off to uni in about a year so i want to get an iPod to cassette player accessory so i can listen to music. Know of any? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a Cassette tape adaptor is what you are looking for, try this [1] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easier to do iPod to FM. One of the most popular accessories that does this is the iTrip. It's made by Griffin if I remember right. That way, you can take the system to a friend's car (which may not have a cassette player). Also, you may want to check to see if the stock radio has an AUX input on the back of the head unit. That way there's no loss of sound quality as compared to FM or cassette adapters. A cord going from the AUX to the iPod would be <$10. Dismas|^(talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas has a good point. You can find an FM transmitter (personal device) with this link: [2] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my area, an iPod-to-FM solution really isn't useful because everybody and their brother is already radiating an FM signal on nearly every "empty" FM channel. Years ago, this was a viable strategy (and we own several iPod-to-FM gadgets because of this), but nowadays, you'll get to hear Howard Stern's filthy mouth break into your Beethoven every few cars. So we've reverted to the much-lower-tech but much more effective iPod-to-cassette adapters with one as a permanent feature of each car.

Atlant (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Most of the FM transmitters I have seen (like the iTrip) only have a range of a few feet or so, and overpower anything else that is on the station. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. One of the devices I've used is an iTrip (the one whose frequency is set by sending it a series of audio tones.) I found its performance (against the competion from XM/Sirius converters) to be pathetic. The previous device I used was called (IIRC) the "Sound Sender" and it was no great shakes either until I added an external antenna to the transmitter. Then, it was powerful enough not to be constantly over-ridden by my neighbors on the highway but it used an LC tank circuit (instead of digital frequency synthesis) to generate the carrier wave so it tended to drift in frequency as it warmed up, its battery discharged, and it was subject to road shock and vibration.

Atlant (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy. I guess I don't use my FM transmitter on the highway, just indoors (old stereo system). Anyway, didn't realize there was that much bleed—would have expected FCC regulations to be on top of something like that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just get a pair of iPod speakers and duct-tape them to your car doors! (Well, seriously - some speakers come on little stands that you could screw onto the dashboard somewhere.) SteveBaker (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use a cassette adaptor and couldn't be happier with it. For one thing, you never get the static or interference that comes with using an FM adaptor, and for another, most FM adaptors are stuck right up against the power source, while most cassette adaptors have a long cord, which means other people in the vehicle can control the iPod while the driver is busy driving, which is rather convenient. I got mine for only about $20 and well worth it. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Reservation

Where can I find information about the Roosevelt Reservation, sometimes referred to as the Roosevelt Easement? My understanding is that this is a 60-foot wide strip of land along the U.S. border with Mexico that was somehow designated for U.S. government ownership/control. I would like to learn more about how this was created, what rules exist for that area, etc. I can find nothing on this via an Internet search except some vague references to it.

Per this document, it was established by Presidential Proclamation (which appears to be distinct from an Executive Order, as it's not noted among Roosevelt's) to help counter smuggling between the US and Mexico. One source notes this with "(35 Stat., part II, p. 2136)" -- I'm not sure what that references, but perhaps it will be useful information. — Lomn 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn, thanks for the info. I'm still trying to track down the actual text of that Presidential Proclamation. Below is some general info on Presidential Proclamations versus Executive Orders that you might find interesting. By the way, this is my first time on a Wikepedia Reference Desk (that's where I am, right?) and so if I'm not following proper protocol somebody let me know (e.g., I noticed there is no user info for me on here but don't know if/how I am to add that).

[wish I could figure how to indent this]

"Presidential proclamations and executive orders are legal documents and have the same effect as laws. Executive orders are authorized by the President's statutory or constitutional powers. Proclamations are issued by virtue of the President's office, by law, or in response to congressional joint resolutions. Although there is no legal difference between the two documents, most proclamations address the general public while executive
orders are generally used to direct government agencies or officials."

I've indented it so you can see how, anonymous writer. Also, please sign your posts with --~~~~ so you won't be so anonymous! You can also press the

button to insert it for you. --Sean 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone should start the Roosevelt Reservation article... Dismas|^(talk) 02:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference that includes the text of the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907, to the Roosevelt Reservation article.

Dog Emergencies

I recently got a dog, and I was wondering if I am allowed to call 9-1-1 for an emrgency with him. Say that a tree branch fell on him or he somehow was bleeding profusely. Would I call 9-1-1 to get help for him? If not, what would I do? Thank You! Grango242 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - you should establish a relationship with a nearby vet - who will be able to give you the number for a pet emergency center, or perhaps a 'call out' number for his/her surgery. It's a good idea to get established with a local vet anyway - just like a family doctor, you pet will do better if he gets consistent care from a vet who keeps his records and knows his history. SteveBaker (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker is right. You need a main vet anyway, so get one of those set up ASAP anyway (esp. if you just got the dog -- they need shots regularly, pills to keep them from getting heart worms, etc., and you need someone who can remind you when to bring him in), and they can give you the info on after-hours places for emergencies. Fortunately vets are not nearly as expensive as human doctors (though they still ain't cheap). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 9-1-1 dispatcher will have an unpredictable concern depending on other things going on (you'll be LAST on the list). I agree with Steve and 98.217..., have a relationship with a nearby vet that you've used and trust. You'll need them anyway for routine exams and shots and you'll be surprised how accommodating they'll be in an emergency; a good vet operation prides themselves about that kind of service and a lousy one won't care. The differences even within a competitive neighborhood are amazing.

If and when something bad happens on a holiday weekend (that's when shit happens) is no time to start looking. hydnjo talk 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our vet has a 'call out' service for emergencies outside of office hours - the vets in our area get together and take it in turns to man a hotline number. So if we did have a dire emergency, there is always a vet office in the area that'll open their doors and deal with an emergency...but if the animal isn't in any immediate risk - they'll advise you on things you can do yourself and make you wait until the next morning for your regular vet. In addition, there is actually a full-scale pet hospital about 20 miles from us who do major emergencies and they are open 24/7. You can call out a "pet ambulance" too - but it's crazy-expensive and because they aren't allowed to use flashing lights and sirens, you're probably better off getting your dog to the vet yourself. Vet offices are also good places to get information about dog training courses, to buy bulk dogfood...you name it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! Grango242 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Subsidiary Question

Hi. I'm working on improving the article Chevys Fresh Mex, which was owned by Real Mex Restaurants. I just found a ref which says that Real Mex was bought out by Sun Capital Partners Inc. So my question is, in the infobox on the Chevys Fresh Mex article, do I put that the parent company is Real Mex or Sun Capital? Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about writing for Wikipedia are better directed at the Wikipedia:Help desk - but in this case, that infobox system is "owned" by Portal:Companies - so I'd head over to Portal_talk:Companies and ask your question there. I don't participate in Portal:Companies but we've had this problem over and over in Portal:Cars and generally, we've taken the view that the immediately parent company is the one to use - which in your case is "Real Mex" - but the folks over on Portal:Companies may well have established community standards...so you should definitely ask there. SteveBaker (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I thought too. I'll ask just in case, but I've never really gotten a response in the past from those company people. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]