Miscellaneous desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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.

April 14

A phantom in the Ala Napoleonica

Re: Wikimedia Wikipedia Commons Photo 3/3c Piazza San Marco

In this black and white photo we are facing the Ala Napoleonica at the end of the Piazza. Now look on the right side of the upper, top level within the second archway from the right end – a semi-vanishing man seems to appear and disappear on the balcony.

best to you all and many thanks, Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.91.168 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a stitched-together panorama or a high-dynamic-range photo. Either way, the photographer took several photos of the Piazza and merged them together in a computer. If the man walked across the balcony between the first and the last picture - then he'll appear separately in each of the original photos which were then blended together...the blending is the cause of the 'vanishing'. SteveBaker (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP per capita (nominal) from 1999

[1]

I'm amazed that the world has changed so much in 10 years. If I compared that list the latest data, it would seem decades have passed.

I'm particularly impressed by the performance of Spain and Greece. Greece in particular seems to be a miracle, growing 3x+ in 10 years. How did it manage to pull that off? I mean it was already at a high middle income level so rapid growth at that level seems impossible.

Is anyone else shocked how fast gdp can change?

Clashbash (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably in the way the data are gathered. Spain and Greece have both adopted the Euro since 1999, and it's probably revalued their GDP upward in dollar terms. I don't, however, have either the data in the local currency, or the comparable exchange rates. Failing this, it may be including something new - both countries have sizable banking systems, so it's possible that the way they take into account foreign assets has changed, for example. We had a question with a similar answer a couple of weeks ago - try searching the archives. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

having looked into it slightly, the Euro option seems less likely as a primary factor, possibly helping; they use the term 'GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy' so I'm guessing it has a lot down to resident businesses - for example Banco Santander in Spain. Less sure now though. I'd also point out that while GDP has risen a lot, the rank of the country has only increased slightly over the same period - so presumably time series graphs do not account for local inflation; that is why there is a rank system. 92.8.9.95 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually me again. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clashbash, on the right of the data source you cite is a link to a time series. From that, I note that in 2001-06, Greece's GDP per capita rose over 15% a year in nominal US dollar terms. Considering that the dollar was weakening, it isn't difficult to estimate 10% nominal GDP growth -- which might well be 2% real growth and 8% inflation. Just a hypothesis. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The league table using purchasing power parity is going to be different from merely exchange rates, which fluctuate. See List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. 89.240.60.225 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salary of US Soldiers

What is the yearly salary for a US soldier?--Amore Mio (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here (http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money.jsp) would be a good place to look. http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money_basic_pay.jsp - it states entry at around $17,000 going up to $32,500 for an experienced Staff Sergeant. Officers get much more - from around $32,000 up to $60,000 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include benefits such as housing and food allowances? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

~~Just curious though, have you got any information about their bonus payments?~~--Amore Mio (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike, I found it [2], my bad :P.--Amore Mio (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Zara and Peter Phillips

James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise will probably not have a coat of arms by their parents' wishes, but they are not yet at an age at which they'd usually recieve them anyway. But what about Zara and Peter Phillips? Princess Anne always wanted them to be outside Royal life (they are untitled) but do they have coats of arms - their pages make no mention of them, but that doesn't actually mean they don't have any. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these royal grandchildren are entitled to appropriately differenced versions of the royal arms. Existing practice for the children of the Prince of Wales and Duke of York would suggest that they would be likely to choose the arms to be differenced by means of labels with additional charges on the points. I can't remember off-hand whether Peter and Zara's father was an armiger; if so, they would both carry his arms impaled or quartered with those of the Princess Royal, differenced either with normal cadency marks (A label and a crescent respectively, I think), or with 'tagged' labels as above. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2009 (UT

Lady Wessex's coat of arms. (She has a brother, so her children will not quarter her arms.)

Mark Phillips bears Per chevron azure and Or, in chief a horse courant argent and in base (some kind of plant with blue flowers) proper, according to Lines of Succession by Jiří Louda. Peter would bear this with a label. Zara would bear it undifferenced but not transmit it to her children. I guess they have the option to quarter it with Anne's arms (Mary of Teck and Philip of Greece both quartered the arms of British princesses who were not heraldic heiresses). —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured all the grandchildren of the queen would have the right to arms - interesting to know what they would be. Does anyone actually know if they [Zara and Peter] use them at all (I'm invisioning stationery, etc.)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Entitled" is too strong imho; in medieval times (when every person of rank needed to display a coat of arms), the royal arms were routinely differenced in the same ways as others, but now the royal arms are considered special and each member of the family is specially granted arms (typically at majority). A case could be made that Edward and his children are entitled to an appropriately differenced version of his father's arms (and perhaps of the ancestral Oldenburg arms!) —Tamfang (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction

Is a man attracted more to a woman's looks or is a woman attracted more to a man's looks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men are more attracted to a woman's looks than women are attracted to a man's looks, on average.--droptone (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'd like to see a source for that please. SN0WKITT3N 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Billy Bob Thornton's three year marriage to Angelina Jolie ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a dick. TastyCakes (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I'll remind you of wp:civil please don't call me a dick. The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No excuse me, for construing your sarcasm as the dickishness I still believe it was. TastyCakes (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I come here to answer questions, to try and be helpful. I have worked so hard over the last few months to become a better person than I was. I dislike being called a dick. I am not a dick I don't even have one. I'm sorry if you construed something from my post, it was a little sarcastic yes, because I honestly didn't find your joke funny. But I had no malicious intentions or trying to make you angry. I'm truly sorry that I've apparently caused anger from a simply off comment that I didn't even think about when posting. Please can we now stop this meta discussion and get back on topic of answering questions :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sorry I called you a dick and for being overly touchy today. TastyCakes (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Attraction and also there's an article somewhere about Symmetry in human faces being apparently linked to attractiveness. I don't really buy into the idea that men are more attracted to a woman's looks than women are to men. It would seem, from my admittedly original life research, that women have a wider-range of what they define as attractive than men. E.g. Just because the man isn't "traditionally" attractive isn't reason to believe the woman with him doesn't care about his looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will surely depend on the four individuals involved. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no straightforward reliable answer to this question; whilst hack reporters may claim otherwise, no reputable social scientist or behavioural psychologist would be likely to do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Alex is right, but the article on physical attractiveness starts out with "Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both heterosexual and homosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women do." and cites The Evolution of Desire by David Buss (2003), pp. 57, 58, 60–63, as its reference. I think Professor Buss considers himself a reputable evolutionary psychologist (but I didn't read what, exactly, he wrote in his book). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're playing semantics with "reputable social scientist" or you are unaware (or unimpressed) of the discipline of evolutionary psychology. If you dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology, then be explicit because otherwise your claim that no reputable social scientist endorses the claim that men care more about looks in their mates than women is outright false. Even ignoring the questionable findings of people like Satoshi Kanazawa, there are numerous, plausible findings that support the claim. David Buss' The evolution of desire deals with this topic explicitly, and here (pdf) is a brief paper by Buss that outlines his general findings. If 121.246.174.130 wants a more detailed explanation (like percentages or breakdowns based on short-term and long-term mating strategies) then they can ask follow-up questions.--droptone (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all interesting stuff, but obviously only applies to some people. Personally I think any research that attempts to strictly define and categorize psychological issues should be taken as a guide only. Got any links for same sex attractions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most generalizations "only apply to some people"; doesn't mean they're worthless. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was both being quite semantically picky and implying my lack of confidence in evolutionary psychology. I'm not sure how one would devise a research programme which would measure the relevant factors in an unbiased way. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over-winding a watch?

I have a mechanical watch from the 1960s or so. I have read on a number of sites that winding your watch throughout the day, rather than just once in the morning or so, is not great because it will affect how well the watch keeps time throughout the day by some small amount. But for my purposes it's not usually a big problem if the watch gets to be a minute off or so every few days—I use it mostly ornamentally, and get my more accurate timekeeping from other sources around me throughout the day (e.g. my laptop, cell phone, etc.). Are there any other reasons not to wind the watch more than once a day or so? That is, will it break or anything like that? I'm not over-winding it in the sense of winding it past its resistance point. I just like winding it! But I don't want to damage it. This is not a request for horological advice. --18.51.6.232 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best ask a seasoned watchmaker who is familiar with older watches. I would expect it to run a bit faster when full wound all the time, despite the efforts of the balance wheel to tick at a constant speed. You said that is not a problem. If you are constantly winding it, like 12 times a day, then there might be greater wear to the stem and the case near the stem than if it were wound once a day, so that a 10 year old watch might have the wear in that area of a 120 year old watch, in addition to the increased likelihood of overwinding. Popular Science in 1924 said "Regularity in winding your watch is essential if it is to keep correct time. A watch should be wound every 24 hours, and at the same time each day." But they were talking about older watches than yours, and they only reference accurate timekeeping, on which you placed relatively low importance. Edison (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that having the mainspring under maximum tension pretty much all the time would impose more load on the components connected to it. Left to run normally, the watch would only have that much load for a relatively short time until it winds down a bit. Most (if not all) bearings and mechanically rubbing parts will wear out faster if there is more load on them. So, yeah - I think it's pretty certain that you are shortening the life of your watch by doing this. But without understanding the detailed mechanics and metallergy of the system, it's going to be almost impossible to predict whether this will cause it to fail prematurely by a day, a month or a decade. I would be surprised if winding it more often made a difference to time-keeping because any long-term error caused by this (compared to daily winding) will be a constant amount per day - and that can be adjusted-out (assuming you know how to adjust your watch). The thing that would almost certainly cause it to be inaccurate would be if you randomly wound it obsessively on weekdays then let it run down "normally" on the weekends (or whatever). SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your laptop is probably less accurate than your watch. I'm not sure about how cell phones keep their time, but I just checked mine and it's only 10 seconds slow, so maybe they are fairly relaible.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My laptop is extremely accurate, because it's constantly resynced with an atomic clock. This is the norm for Linux and Mac computers (not sure about Windows). 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and your cellphone gets it's clock from the cellular network - which should be pretty much spot-on too. Any device that only uses an internal mechanism to keep time is going to gradually drift. Devices like cellphones and (not-Windows) computers that have Internet connectivity and use the Network Time Protocol to keep time should be within a few seconds of perfect time-keeping because they are frequently being re-synchronized to some atomic clock someplace. The won't be 100% perfect because there is variable amounts of latency in the networks they use...but they should certainly be better than even the best watches over long periods. http://free.timeanddate.com is a web site that lets you put a high-precision clock onto your web page with a simple link...this is way to get near-perfect timing if you have Internet access - even on a Windows computer. SteveBaker (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my Windows computer, the time is resynced daily with Microsoft's servers... Actually, I can see your point. 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, most GSM mobile phones don't synchronise their clocks with the mobile networks. At least I've never had one that does. Also as 99 mentions, Windows computers since IIRC 2k have been capable and I believe usually have it enabled by default of using NTP or SNTP [3] to synchronise the time. The servers they use may be MS ones by default (but I always switch to a local NZ server, probably nz.pool.ntp.org), but these should still be highly accurate as they are no different from other NTP servers and get their time from higher level NTP servers, probably Stratum 1, (which is how all NTP servers are supposed to work, it's generally not recommended that you actually sync with a stratum 1 server, these are supposed to be for other servers to use not for end users). It's been a while since I've looked in to it but I believe accuracy of syncronisation of NTP (but not SNTP) is generally better then 1 second (our article says 10ms) since there are ways to try and counteract the effect of latency although according to our article MS doesn't guarantee accuracy to more then 1 or 2 seconds (which doesn't mean it is less accurate) although this appears to be talking about the server not the client anyway. Obviously your clock may drift out over time, the default on Windows is to resynchronise every week I believe. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cummins n 14 celect plus

can anyone tell me the engine specs of the "cummins n 14 celect plus",or some links that can help me.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.46.43 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]