Miscellaneous desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 25

Opposite of a Smile

Is there a real term for: "a sad face" (ie: smile, frown, scowl etc)? the closest I can think of is a frown, but that always strikes me as a slightly angry face, I'm want a term for a sad face please. Thankyou everyone 92.236.88.188 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought of a frown as angry. Only sad. Although, the second definition at dictionary.com disagrees with me. Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to "our" article on it can either be sad or angry (intresting that we both think of it so diffrently though), but is there a term that can only refer to a sad face? 92.236.88.188 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frown is often used as the opposite of smile, and I can't think of anything else that is. I, too, would normally consider a frown to be an angry expression (or a confused one), rather than sad, though. Sadness is usually expressed with the eyes, rather than the mouth (although a quivering lip is quite distinctive). The mouth being curved downwards like in a stylised "sad face" doesn't seem to actually happen in reality. I think the key part of a frown is the furrowed brow. --Tango (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tango, thats a nice answer. ;) 92.236.88.188 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messy part is that while I think we all agree that a 'frown' refers to a depression of the eyebrows - everyone sees the :-( emoticon as a sad face. So that's clearly just a mouth thing. But if you push eyebrows UP and turn mouth DOWN - you get puzzlement - so a mere downturned mouth doesn't make 'sadness' by itself. Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying <:-( means puzzlement to you? (The font may not accurately show the face I mean). To me, it looks worried in an upset way, while <:-) (this would all be so much clearer if the eyebrows were separate). These emoticons really aren't showing what I mean, hang on. This image shows a bit more what I mean. Are you saying the far-right top image looks puzzled to you? 79.66.105.133 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah - so I'm the guy with Aspergers...so I should probably quit while I'm ahead! But my interpersonal interaction trainer told me that one way to figure out what someone's expression means is to make the same face yourself - you actually feel a diluted version of the emotion yourself...which is really quite a useful trick if you're a hopeless Aspie. So - force the corners of your mouth down and raise your eyebrows - how do you feel? Kinda surprised, kinda quizzical...puzzled. Yeah - puzzled. SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{They both look like smileys with party hats to me... --124.254.77.148 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Hence the second half of the post. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down in the mouth.--GreenSpigot (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeaaaaaa! Given GreenSpigot the prize! Excellent answer! SteveBaker (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be old-fashioned but I'd say "looking blue". 76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A frown is usually made by creasing the eyebrows. Without the eyebrow action, I would call the face a pout. If the mouth is turned downward and the eyebrows upward, I might percieve that as a "hmm, that's interesting/surprising!" or a "*shrug*, I don't know". ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - that's what I thought...interesting/surprised which is "puzzled". SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think we are describing two different eyebrow movements. Eyebrows fairly straight up - surprised/interested. Eyebrows raised only in the middle, sort of pushed to form an acute angle between the outer end of the eyebrow and a horizontal line below it - worried/sad. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henohenomoheji? --Milkbreath (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend -finding/-matching site?

Everyday I am very lonely at my university. On weekdays I see people during classes, but I don't know any of them, so I can't hang out or do homework with them. At night and on weekends there is no place I can go to be around people, and my life kind of just falls apart without company. Does anyone know of a website where I can find individual people, who are students from my university, to hang out with? Failing that, a dating site specifically for students at my university would also be acceptable, as long as it can find people for me to hang out with. Something like Facebook won't work because it would require me to contact random strangers who are probably not specifically looking to hang out and it would be awkward.

P.S. if it helps my university is Ucla. --71.106.183.17 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA offers services that might help you build confidence and learn skills to help your socialize better. [1] A great way to meet new people us to join a student group. Find one that you have some interest in, and you should find that the people there will likely be very welcoming. There are also campus specific personal ad sites [2] and Match.com has a UCLA specific section. [3] Rockpocket 06:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why there are activities to join at universities so people with common interests can hang out. Maybe contact the Student Union. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend joining one of the many clubs and societies that ALL universities have. Finding a bunch of people with common interests will help. As for facebook requiring you to contact 'random strangers' - that is utterly inevitable. Whoever you end up being good friends with must right now be a random stranger! So to get yourself out of this malaise you WILL have to kick things off by talking to one or more random strangers. The best you can do is to narrow your search to random strangers who you at least have something in common with to spark that first conversation...hence clubs and such. You really only have to make one friend - because one friend leads to more friends. SteveBaker (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, UCLA has a remarkably diverse range of student groups. The full list is here. If there isn't a religious/interest/ethnic based group that you feel you would fit in to, then there are plenty of chartable and voluntary groups. I notice a few that aim to mentor young people from the LA area, that would be a good way to meet people and give back to the community. Rockpocket 07:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A stranger's just a friend you haven't met." (Oh! Streetcar) —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always buy some brand new friends by joining a frat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.233.59 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in student housing? Do you have a roommate? If so, ask your roommate to go with you to the cafeteria for dinner or drop by one of your neighbors to see if they're heading down for some food. Chances are, they'll see someone they know and introduce you to them. Or just drop by your neighbor's dorm room and ask them to go toss a frisbee around with you. It's probably warm enough in LA to do this. If they say no, you've at least broken the ice for later attempts. Also, you take classes, right? Do you walk from those classes to your next class/home/etc? Well, strike up a conversation with someone who is walking the same direction. Something like "What did you think of that test?" or "Did you get the homework assignment? I forgot to write it down." Dismas|^(talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of you are recommending that the OP join real-life clubs and basically get off the Internet. However, I believe the anon is a person after my own heart and finds it much more comfortable/non-threatening to break the ice online and start a correspondence before befriending someone in person. Here are the websites I recommend to lonely souls....

I've met people who turned out to be very close friends on Meetup.com, where you can find others who share your interests (you're very lucky, in some ways, you're in a big city!). You could also find a large assortment of cool people your age on meetme.hotornot.com, which is one of the cheapest/funnest (albeit largely braindead) dating sites in existence (unless you count utterly filthy free-for-all venues such as craigslist, which I would not recommend in good conscience). I would not discount Facebook either--I understand your reservations/shyness about approaching random strangers, but the few times I've tried it, I've had surprising success and have made at least one good friend that way; just search for someone who likes the same movies/music as you--that usually works well. The real-life Fat Man is one of the shyest, most misanthropic characters you will ever meet and understands your loneliness; that being said, he believes it's not particularly difficult to make friends online. Just try to find a few flattering pictures of yourself and write to others in a way that sounds genuine/kind. Let me know how it goes.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these sites cost money? Or are they free? --71.106.183.17 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your life sounds a lot like mine. I'm going to university a long way from home, and I have acquaintances that I see in class but nobody I really hang out with, so I generally end up going to meals alone and spending my evenings and weekends alone in my room doing homework. So, speaking as someone who knows exactly where you're coming from... Don't shun Facebook. You don't have to add "random strangers," you can start by adding the people you mentioned you see in class, and if you're shy like me, it's a lot easier to say, as Dismas suggested above, something like, "What did you think of that test?" over the internet than in person. One time, I asked someone over Facebook if she wanted to trade notes to help study for an upcoming test, and I ended up getting invited to a real-life study group with her.

As some people have suggested, joining clubs can be a way to meet people, but again, if you're shy like me, that can be kind of intimidating, especially if everyone in the club already knows each other and you're the "new kid." So join a club that's likely to have people you already kind of know. For instance, I'm a political science student and I know a lot of other political science students, so I joined the Model UN club. Way less intimidating than joining, say, the Frisbee team, where I wouldn't know anyone at all. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a very similar situation - I'm in the 4th year of my degree and most of my friends were doing 3 year degrees, so they've all graduated leaving me behind. I certainly second the suggestion of joining societies - I'm a member of the poker society, which is great for new people because you don't need to know anyone, just turn up and join in the game, you're automatically included and you can gradually get to know people. If you don't like poker, any society built around a game will work just as well. --Tango (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Ballroom Dance Club, if it's still around. Tell James and Cynthia I said hi. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the taste of unadulterated, unsalted umami?

I love the taste of umami/glutamate but have noticed the most "savory" foods are also the most salty. In my mind, the purest, most umami-heavy foods are condiments like soy sauce and Marmite--both of which are some of the saltiest substances known to man. So my question, is there a way to experience "pure" umami taste without the salt? Or are the two tastes intrinsically linked such that you need the saltiness to bring out the perception of umami? This might even be a chemistry question. Please advise. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does a pinch of MSG taste like? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done that for many years, but I think it was very salty. Explanations?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be glib, but I really do think this is addressed in the article. Umami is the taste of meatiness; mushrooms and steak, for example, are quite capable of tasting meaty without tasting salty. However, the article does point out that umami is intensified by various aromas, such as garlic. This may have some relevance. Overall, I think you're just finding that people like the combination. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, but mushrooms and steak are complex foods with a number of other earthy/cow-y/fungal flavors in addition to their umami. Many foods taste savory, but I'm trying to understand what pure savoriness tastes like; the trouble is I can't seem to separate this sensation from salt itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find much/any sweet, sour, bitter or salty taste in boiled mushrooms, so the only flavour other than umami (as far as I can tell) is aromatic. Eat mushrooms while holding your nose :P 79.66.105.133 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umami receptors are keyed to detecting amino acids; which are present in proteins. That is why protein heavy foods, like meats, tend to activate your umami receptors. Other tastes are sweet, which is keyed to detecting simple carbohydrates, salty, which is keyed to detecting ionic substances, especially sodium and potassium, sour, which is keyed to detecting acids, and bitter, which is keyed to detecting bases. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting/probability over infinite trials proof

A game exists where you start with one coin and then a certain number of trials take place. A trial consists of a coin being flipped, and if heads, you get one additional coin, and if tails, you lose one coin. E.g. after the first trial you have either 0 or 2 coins. When you have 0 coins, you can no longer play. Prove that if the number of trials is infinite, the probability of you having 0 coins is equal to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a HW question? The blurb at the top of this page says that "if your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't homework.

Why on Earth are you asking an artificial probability question requiring the construction of a proof if this isn't homework? Seriously, if you don't know how to start or are stuck just explain your situation and we'll help, but nobody is going to write you out a proof to copy. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is interesting to me, that's why.

OP's comments refactored. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone actually going to answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe no. "It may take several days", according to the rubric at the top of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "game" is a variation of the Drunkard's Walk problem. (And watch the potty-mouth.) B00P (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to answer, except to say that abusing people is a poor way to secure their help. Algebraist 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted for newcomers that the 'refactoring' involved removing unpleasant and abusive language used by the OP - hence the above comments. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the refactoring should have left the majority of the OP's words, and simply (but unambiguously) hidden the objectionable ones. After reading the OP's (uncensored) responses, I have absolutely no interest in providing an answer. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer?

"No were mad lolz"

kthnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.241.6.195 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just work it out for n trials and take the limit as n tends to infinity. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in graphical form, plot the chance of having zero coins after 1-9 flips, then draw two curves, one through the even number of flips, and one through the odd numbers of flips. You can add more data points, if needed, to determine that the odd number curve is asymptotic to 1. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - but there is no way to avoid the conclusion that this is homework. I won't answer except to use our standard disclaimer:

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ stevebaker. lololol. it's not homework.

This question belongs on the Math Desk. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. . . only if it accompanies proof that it was attempted first. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ Zain Ebrahim111111. lololol. it's not homework.

But even if it is homework, I'd still like to see it on the proper desk. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be proven by the theory that, even though you may keep on getting heads and the number of coins repeatedly increasing, it must eventually start going down because it goes on forever. I don't know, though. My brain is tired. ^Tezkag₇₂ 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Drunkard's Walk article linked above explains it. If you keep flipping, you will almost surely reach every score an infinite number of times. But if you ever reach zero (a possible score therefore one you will reach.), then you lose. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drivers licencing and laws

Hi, I would like to know if there are any countries in the world that have passed a law that all drivers with existing drivers licences have to be re tested every 5 years, and is it the law in New Zealand that you must indicate before turning or is it just common curtesey ? and if it is the law when was this law passed in New Zealand ? Thank you so much for your help with this matter. Yours Sincerely Elizabeth Plowman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellacam (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Elizabeth, but we don't answer legal questions here. I don't know whether this policy is the law or whether it is common curtesey, and if it is the law, when this law was passed on the Wikipedia. Not being an international lawyer specializing in drivers license renewal, I'm afraid the answer to the first part of your query is also beyond me. However the range of knowledge here is incredible so I will leave this up. Phil_burnstein (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd classify this as a legal question. It's a question about laws, but not the sort you'd need a lawyer for - it's not "can I sue New Zealand for this" but "I heard about this thing in New Zealand - is it true?" -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can, however, direct you to resources where you may find the answers to factual questions. For example, the New Zealand Road Code says "You must signal for at least three seconds before you... turn left or right" [4] The current legislation that proscribes this is Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, Pursuant to the Land Transport Act 1998. See Section 3.10 Rockpocket 07:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]