Miscellaneous desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

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.

June 9

Marinol vs canabis

Can natural canabis be detected from marinol in a urine analisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.92.203 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the widest (by most lanes) road in the world?

I went on a roadtrip and became curious regarding this subject since the widest road I've been on had 6 lanes but I know of many roads 8 lanes wide. However, after googling and wikipedying the subject, I didn't find the answer. So, what is the road that has the most lanes? And how many lanes are there on this road! Thanks in advance!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronikaS (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to answers.com, there are 23 lanes at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza. (X! · talk) · @112 · 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Toll Plaza may be what VeronikaS wants, but I would have thought that it represents a blip in the roadway, rather than the roadway itself. Across the city of Toronto, Hwy 401 is 18 lanes wide for much of this length: 5 "express" lanes in each direction, plus 4 "feeder" ("collector" or "access") lanes in each direction. // BL \\ (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't use highway 401 very often, but the last time I looked it was 16 lanes in Toronto, 4 on each roadway. The section in Mississauga past Toronto Pearson International Airport is 18 lanes, though, 5 express and 4 collector one way, 4 express and 5 collector the other way. You can look at aerial photos using the "satellite" button in Google Maps.

The FAQ list under www.roadfan.com says 401 is the widest at 18 or 20 lanes depending on how you count, and lists some other roads with many lanes. --Anonymous, 07:43 UTC, June 9, 2009.

Yeah, the Toll Plaza is not really a road, it's just where a number of roads combine and suddenly, briefly (in terms of space, not time—it takes for-ever to go through) widen, and then almost immediately contract again. --98.217.14.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't communist countries (and formerly communist countries, and other places ruled by meglomaniac despots) love their very wide streets for parading hundreds of thousands of troops in front of el-presidente? Astronaut (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 de Julio Avenue in Buenos Aires, Argentina is often claimed to be the widest street in the world. It also connects, via the Arturo Illia expressway, to the Pan-American highway, often claimed to be the world's longest highway. According to Highway#Canada, Highway 401 is North America's busiest highway and the widest highway in the world at points at 9 lanes in each direction. Interestingly, at some point, it meets Yonge Street, which many Torontonians claim to be the longest street in the world. --132.206.33.12 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the Yonge St. article linked above for a debunking of this claim. --Anonymous, 05:16 UTC, June 12, 2009.

A car question

My car (2007 Honda Civic) has a nice speaker system, so I often like to sit in it just to listen to music. My question is twofold:

How long can I safely listen to music with just the car's battery power?
How many gallons of gas per hour does a car use when it's running while idle?

--Remurmur (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, we would obviously need to know the condition of your battery. Is it new? If not, how long as it been used for? With that said, if you feel that your battery is getting low, you can just recharge it by revving the engine or driving the car around. Acceptable (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the way you asked your questions, I'd just like to point out that if your car is running, idling or moving, then the battery is not supplying power to the radio or any other component. At that point it would be your alternator that is powering the radio. Also, if you're just sitting there listening to the radio without the car's engine running, you're likely powering more than just the radio. Various lights are lighted on the dashboard and the car's computer systems may be getting power as well. Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may have been trying to determine which of the two options (battery or engine) is the better one, so needs the details of both. --Tango (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wisdom of random-stuff-found-on-Google suggests cars use between 0.2 and 1 gal per hour idling, with a central tendancy around 0.5. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2007 Honda CRV's battery gave up after an hour's radio listening without the engine running. The repair agent said that was about usual!--88.109.68.129 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! You must have had an amazingly crappy battery (Hmmm - a Honda CRV...well, maybe)...and this "repair agent" guy is a complete moron. A typical car battery in reasonable condition provides around 40 Amp-hours at 12 volts. For it to run down in an hour - your radio would have to be drawing 40 Amps! That's 480 Watts! That's a seriously powerful car radio! Don't read the "peak" numbers that the radio manufacturers quote. Most car radios have four 25 watt (peak) speakers and consume around 10 watts (continuous) - and would therefore run continuously at full volume for a couple of days before running down the battery. By comparison - a set of typical halogen headlamps pull 55 watts each - with the tail-lights on too - they'll flatten your battery in 3 hours.

To our OP: Unless you have some kind of crazy after-market high powered stereo system in your car, you can listen to the radio for a LONG time without having to start the engine - all day and all night at least. The car can recharge the battery in a very short period of time (5 to 10 minutes maybe) and the extra gasoline to do that is negligable compared to what it takes to move the car or even to just idle the engine. So if you're really worried, start the engine for 10 minutes every few hours and you'll be fine. Make sure your headlights and the heater fan are turned off though. SteveBaker (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, Steve. I was getting paranoid about listening to music for even an hour with the engine off. It's a great comfort to know that I should be able to listen to music for as long as I could reasonably want without worries.--Remurmur (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad's Audi has a factory-fit Blaupunkt radio/cd. It's supposed to shut down when you remove the ignition key, and if you want to keep listening you need to manually turn it back on. But several times its firmware has crashed, leaving it stuck on (playing no music, but with the amp audibly energised). My Dad, who isn't very technical, doesn't really notice, and so leaves it (the only fix is to remove the relevant fuse briefly). The battery certainly lasts two days; by about three there's barely enough juice to start the engine. Hopper Mine (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cars used to have (1950's-early 1960's) vacuum tube radios, and you could run the battery down in an hour or two. Since then cars have used transistor radios. I have a transistor radio which will run for days on a 9 volt battery, which has way less than 1/2 ampere hour capability. Only if you have a big amplifier blasting away and annoying the neighbors should the battery run down in less than many days of continuous listening. But when the car in is "accessory" mode, there could be other phantom power drain other than the radio. Edison (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not leave your car running when stationary - the noise is very unpleasant and irritating for those nearby, including those in houses that you might not notice. It also adds to polution. 89.243.39.218 (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, it may be illegal depending on your jurisdiction. Angus Lepper^{(T, C)} 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I have taken my kids to the drive-in theater we listen to the movie through the in-car stereo. The theater suggestion is to start the engine every half hour and let it idle for 5 minutes to keep the battery charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.69 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual amperage could be fairly high if you have say 4 channels amplified at 20 or 40 watts. But as I said above, that power level would annoy the neighbors.See [1] and [2]. Still, if blasting away, a car radio could probably draw over 10 amps, which would drain the battery in a few hours at most. Crank down the volume and the battery should last way longer. For some tech talk about the power draww of high wattage amps, see [3]. Edison (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On defacing currency

Supposing I were to decorate Her Majesty's face on a banknote with an amusing beard and moustache or give her a funky pair of glasses,would the note still be legal tender and would I be liable to any punishment for it?-I've checked on currency and banknotes,but they say nothing.Should I prepare for a trip to the Tower now? Lemon martini (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it would still be legal tender, the whole point of legal tender is that it must be accepted as currency, so it's pretty hard to stop that. If you cut a note in half and stick it back together again, that's legal tender. As for punishment, according to our article on the crime, England and Wales does still have a minor offence of this type, though it is rarely enforced. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Under the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (Section 46), defacement of a bank note in any way makes one liable on conviction to a penalty not exceeding £200 for each offense, while under the Coinage Act 1936 the penalty for defacing a coin is imprisonment not exceeding 1 year. The involvement or not of Her Majesty's image in the defacement is immaterial.

In practice, prosecution would be unlikely unless it were performed on a large scale and/or with some intent to defraud, counterfeit or commit some other crime: banks and businesses regularly write check marks on bank notes to aid in counting.

Presumably this only applies to Bank of England notes, which are the only notes that are Legal tender in the UK. Scottish bank notes, for example, are not legal tender even in Scotland, but are of course acceptable as promissory notes similar to personal cheques or debit cards: I'm sure one can write what one likes (within reason) on one's own cheques. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you put instructions giving the bank a discretion not to pay the amount indicated... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An amusing case of defacement was in Nigeria where they used to have a tenth of a penny coins with a hole in the centre. An engineer used them wholescale instead of washers in some construction because they were cheaper and better quality than needed for the job. He got away with a ticking rather than being stuck in jail, if the penalty had been for each coin he'd never have got out. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a few years ago I showed someone a funny effect you get when currency is folded with a sharp vertical crease through each eye of the Queen's portrait, and then a concave crease is created in between the two eyes, such that when you tilt it up she has a silly grin and when you tilt it down she frowns. This is a common trick with U.S. currency. Does this folding constitute "defacement of a bank note" or would it fall under some general heading of Lèse majesté leading to imprisonment in a dungeon of the Tower of London, if not Beheading? Edison (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have heard someone grumble that since 1982, when it was changed from mostly copper to mostly zinc, the cent (United States coin) is less suitable to patch a pinhole leak in a radiator. —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Australia brought in polymer banknotes, the $5 notes had poorly fixed ink. You could spit on the Queen's face, and rub it off with a finger. And looking up the wikilinks for the above an "in pop culture" type section reminded me that our Prime Minister of the time, Paul Keating, was filmed signing a $5 note for an autograph collector, and drew some criticism for defacing currency. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. Look, I'm an anti-royalist myself, as a political matter. But Elizabeth seems like a sweet old lady — do you have to make it so personal? --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strange sea rectangles

What are the dark blue rectangles off the coast here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.7742945&lon=121.2665749&z=14&l=0&m=h? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandiaozi (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link not working for me.Popcorn II (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using IE right now, and it works fine for me. Clearly man-made. My guess is it's fishing-related - some kind of nets? Very interesting. I'd love to see an answer. If there's a relevant fishing/marine (etc) WikiProject or two, you could drop them a line (sorry about the pun) and see if they know. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there seems to be construction for a seaport going on my best guess would be traces left by them deepening the sea near the wall. (Embarrassing, I used to work for a company that operated the barges they do such things with and now can't recall what those things were called =:-o) o.k. Dredging is what you'd be looking for. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishfarms? Astronaut (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it certainly looks like some kind of a dredging operation - either to deepen the water or to collect sand or rock to deposit someplace else. It's noticable that whatever they did, they carefully didn't do it at the entrance to the harbor. If you scroll over to the east a bit - you can see a strip of photography that doesn't match up - which was probably photos taken before the dredging operation started. SteveBaker (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was once above water? Maybe it is the result of farming in some low-lying area that has become inundated with seawater. Is there any way to know the depth of the water in the areas containing the rectangles? If that explanation holds water (ha ha ha) it would necessarily be pretty shallow. I hope this explanation is not too shallow. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a kelp farm? Leftover construction seems like a more plausable explanation. Livewireo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mussel farming. The mussels are hung on ropes which are slung on poles. Look at this map [4]and you'll see that the largest mussel production comes from China and it corresponds to the latitude where most mussels are produced in Europe.Here is a reference to Dalian, the nearby port, having well developed aquaculture. [5] Here is another picture [[6]]Richard Avery (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice that this is a submarine base? I doubt you'd be farming mussels there. Probably the result of some kind of military installation or construction work.

This area has been a naval base since the Qing Dynasty. These marks could stretch back quite some time... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do respondants EVER read what previous people have pointed out? If you scroll the image to the east as I suggested - you'll see that what you just said is impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? That it's not a mussel farm? Have you seen a mussle farm at a naval base? The two images seem to be taken in different conditions and different times of the day. That the marks show up in one and not the other don't necessarily prove a great deal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to mention that it's been pointed out many times on these pages that "respondants" is a misspelling of "respondents", but for some it's in one ear and out the other. But that seems a little churlish, so I won't mention it. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Steve ... the marks still show up to the East. They show up as dotted white rectangles instead of dark blue rectangles, probably because of a change in lighting. Subtle, but definitely there. APL (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let’s nail this answer. If you look at the second paragraph of the article on Coromandel in New Zealand you will see that one of its two main industries is mussel farming. If you then look at this [7] you can clearly see dark rectangles in the estuary very similar to those at Dalian. With regard to the presence of a submarine base in Dalian: I can’t see why there shouldn’t be mussel farming near the submarine base, which incidentally is not that close to the original area, the submarines only want a clear lane to enter and exit – which they clearly have. And anyway if you take the trouble to explore further around the coast in both directions you will discover large numbers of these rectangles, they can’t all be old ruins or dredging areas. It must be dredgers with a very tidy approach to life that dig out such precise shapes. Richard Avery (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what they may look like up close, oyster beds in Brittany - File:Oyster culture in Belon, France 03.jpg and from the air [8]. Mikenorton (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A google search about seafood farming in Lushunkou (the district around the naval base) shows up references to abalone farming -- could be that, too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. It really looks like it is shellfish or abalone farming. Bandiaozi (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please help

My company is in the restructuring phase and has ardently revised all the remuneration and incentive policy just to realize it has forfeited all the monetary benefits and reduced the take home salary as a result however the expectation from the people is twice as much as it used to be. What do we understand from this as per them it is a restructuring policy after the takeover by the larger company and the morale of the people is depleting to perform better, we will very soon have an opportunity to meet the board members in an open forum and can ask questions as we please, so, what do I ask them. I am baffled with this shit..unsigned 203.122.36.6 (talk)

Please remember to click "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~ ~ ~ ~"

You sound baffled alright. Be sure to write down key points of your question in a bullet list. Then write down a short sentence around each. Just read that from a card at the meeting and you'll have more success in getting a reply. (I have the same problem sometimes when my mind is full. I do these long run arguments and people get lost. When I edit it before I go I can break my ideas into manageable chunks...most of the time.)

The company got taken over and is restructuring
They cut all the benefits and reduced employees pay
They expect twice as much work to be accomplished than before
Employees are offered little incentive to work harder and morale is dropping - On the whole not unheard of. Quite usual actually. First the good news, you still got a job. They didn't just lay off everyone and close the place down. The meeting may not accomplish anything useful. IMHO these things are fig-leaf efforts to show share-holders, the media and unions that "they have open discussions with the staff" (big whoop). The best way to get something out of it is if you fight with numbers and have a clear plan. Get together with some colleagues if you can and dig up as much info as you can. Things that would be useful are: 1. What is the company's market share (%) before and after the merger? 2. How does it compare to the competition quality wise? (You might e.g. find consumer rating sites and compare number of complaints. There are magazines that do that, too.) 3. How many employees make how much product at your major competitors? - How does your company compare? 4. How long has the average employee been with this company. (Best done by job category.) What is their training level. 5. Look at an annual report your company filed. Compare the fixed assets they listed there to the price paid for the takeover. - Divide any excess by number of employees. (A bit bogus, but they aren't likely to fight fair with their numbers either.) >> So far we've looked at figures they are likely to have looked at while deciding what to do with you. Now we're looking at your side: 1. Put numbers to any lost benefits like free soda, low price company cafeteria etc. 2. Put numbers to average bonus payments and other incentives per job category. 3. Compare that to what your competitors are offering. (If that doesn't get you desirable numbers, compare to companies that might hire someone with the skills in question.) 4. Look online for sites that tell you how much it costs companies to hire people. (There should be a couple.) 5. Ditto for cost of training new hires. 6. Put some figure for every year employees have stayed at the company. Add it all up and use this as a price of "collected experience" of their workforce. (The cost of a year of vocational school could be a good base figure here e.g.) 7. Look at job adds and try to put a figure to the percentage of people who could find jobs elsewhere, particularly considering the new lower pay. 8. Try to find out their revenue per production item. Use that to come up with a figure for how may units they'd have to sell to replace each experienced worker lost. 9. Look at existing pension and health insurance benefits. If it sounds expensive divide the figure by production per employee per year for the period. >>>What you seem to be dealing with here is what I call management by spreadsheet. Have a look through Index of management articles to see what they think of. Such people think along the lines of "one engineer butt fits one engineer chair." What you can do with your question is to make them realize their workforce has an inherent value and there's a financial risk in real numbers involved in not trying to keep them. (Depending on the figures you find that may or may not work.) Next try ask how your remaining benefits are insured and what their plans are for the future. If you want to push them ask them whether they'd be willing to put down in writing that they'd bring back your incentives once the company's doing better. Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger side airbags in Renault Clio

Someone I know has a pretty old Renault Clio. What's the easiest way to find out if it has a passenger side airbag fitted? It's a J registration in the UK, if that's any help. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the easiest way to find out. ;) Franamax (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that means it's a 1991-92 model, based on some encyclopedia article I found. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look under the seat; if there is cabling for the pressure sensor, then there is a passenger airbag. I'm not sure, however, that absence of a sensor is necessarily evidence of absence of an airbag, at least on an older car. Hopper Mine (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an 18 year-old car would have even a driver-side airbag, unless it was a luxury, top of the range model (ie. not a Clio) That said, take a look at the dashboard in front of the passenger seat. If it has an airbag logo and/or definite signs of a blow-away panel then it has an airbag. Another thing to look for is the "Don't put your baby here" warning label near the passenger seat. Astronaut (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renault only started adding airbags to their cars as standard features in the mid-1990's - they were an option in some models for a few years before that. Mostly, they added driver-side airbags first and passenger-side came along years later. So I'd say there is a 50/50 chance that you have a driver side airbag and almost zero chance that there is a passenger one. But certainly look at the dashboard - they almost always label the area where the bag will pop out. I doubt they had either an under-seat pressure sensor or a "Don't put your baby here" sign in 1992 - at that time, passenger-side airbags were pretty rare and I doubt that the risk to babies in the front seat was known. SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital camera product lines

I've wondered about this a lot lately. Why do digital camera companies seem to have very many product lines for compact cameras, but always only one single one for SLRs? JIP | Talk 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess : compact cameras probably sell a lot more and are more of a fashion statement. SLRs are only for the small percentage of people who are seriously about photography. APL (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true in regard of the number of actual cameras produced and sold. In the same regard, I've heard that the number of true high-end professional SLR cameras like the Hasselblad H3D II, sold per year, for all companies combined, is less than Canon alone sells cameras per day. But my question is not about the number of individual cameras within one product line, it's about the product lines themselves. For example, Canon has at least two compact camera lines: Digital Ixus and Powershot, but only one SLR line: EOS. Olympus has at least three compact camera lines: C, FE, and µ, but only one SLR line: E. Why is the compact camera market much more diverse than the SLR one? JIP | Talk 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Product differentiation has a lot to do with that. Basically you can cover the entire market segment of people willing to buy a SLR camera with one model at one price. (People who want to buy a "JipSRL camera" will do so because of the features you offer and are all willing to pay the price you charge for that.) To cover the maximum share you can of the compact camera market you have to offer something that makes your camera different from that of other manufacturers. You will probably also have to offer cameras that are cheaper and can offer some that are "high-end"=expensive. To differentiate the camera you buy your kids for $X.00 from the one you give your wife for her birthday at $Y.00 you have to make it look different. To offer the cheaper one you'll likely also have to skimp on something to keep your margin. So you get the kids model with big buttons in candy colors and you get the "sophisticated" model with a sleek look etc. An added advantage is that the more models you offer the more shelf-space the retailer has to sacrifice to your models rather than to your competitors. So consumers see a yard of "JIPclick" compacts for say each foot of "Snapclick" who offers fewer models. This Japanese study is a bit outdated, but might be interesting nevertheless. [9]71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EOS is the name of Canon's camera system and Olympus's is called the E-system. If there is a trend toward consistent naming of DSLRs, it's probably to advertise the fact that, while you may be locking yourself into one maker, at least you're not locking yourself into a subset of their product line. There's no need for standardization of the point-and-shoots. Incidentally, all of Canon's point-and-shoot digitals are branded PowerShot in the Americas (Digital IXUS 85 = PowerShot SD770), and the lower-end EOS models are called [EOS] Digital Rebel (EOS 400D = Digital Rebel XTi). -- BenRG (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that a compact camera and an SLR are not really comparable products. Most compact cameras are complete and unmodifiable, so you can't extend their capabilities beyond what you initially buy; thus to cover the diverse requirements of different users, a range of different compacts is necessary.

By contrast 'an' SLR is not a fixed item: to the basic body one can add many different lenses, filters, backs (i.e film or digital), flashes etc, and change them at will, offering a much greater range of capabilities and usually better picture quality than any one compact. 217.19.134.11 (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd put Nikon's D5000 and D700 in the same "line". At the very least, they differ in sensor size. Similarly, Canon has a consumer level and professional level DSLRs. --LarryMac | Talk 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joke Baseball Cap With Hammer On It

I'm trying to make a joke (pun) for a Japanese friend, and I've been looking for a picture of the cap that Chris Evans (I think) used to wear with the hand and the hammer coming out of it. This image is necessary for the joke to work in Japanese. However, I want a picture of the cap on its own, and not with him under it. If I GImage 'hammer+hat+joke', I get random pictures of hats, hammers, and jokes, as well as other pictures which are not even relevant. Can anyone help out here? Just the hat on a white background would be great, like something you'd use to sell one on eBay. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that combination in GImage myself, and while there are interesting results if you go far enough there doesn't seem to be anything remotely relavant. If we can get a picture with the guy wearing his hat, maybe someone could use Photoshop or similar to cut the hat out the image? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was more likely Timmy Mallett than Chris Evans, but I can't find an image either.Popcorn II (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Christopher Evans might help unless s.o. knows exactly what you are talking about. If no one comes up with it, you might be able to use some of these for some photoshoping [10], [11], [12],[13] [14] [15]. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopping the guy out of the picture is trivial - I could do it in minutes - but what bothers me is the copyright issues associated with doing that. If you can find a copyright-free or GFDL'ed photo, I'd be happy to attack it with GIMP to remove the extraneous crap...but I'm not going to violate copyright in order to do that - and neither should you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not violating copyright to modify an image unless you publish it. Showing the image to a friend is not publishing it. And even if it was you should anyway, but that's a matter of opinion of course. 213.122.19.7 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - it has nothing to do with whether you publish it or not - or whether it's for personal use or not. What you are not allowed to do is to COPY it...which includes copying it onto your computer. SteveBaker (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it called the "knock your block off hat", but google comes up blank. HTH, Robinh (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright issue with this. I'm not making a book and intending to sell it to make profit. I'm simply trying to make a joke pic that I can send to a Japanese friend. I just don't want Chris Evans or Timmy Mallet in the pic (for two reasons: 1 - I can't stand either of them; and 2 - my Japanese friend will have no idea who they are and will possibly be distracted from the primary purpose of the joke). I'm just looking for a picture of the hat, just the hat. And, while we are on the subject of copyright, shouldn't all public images be, well, public, after they have been made public? If there is no little 'c' with a circle around it, then they should be used freely. This is another topic, though, to be saved for another day. Back to the original question. Can anyone find the bloody hat?!?! :) --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misconception that you can copy copyrighted material so long as you don't make a profit - that's categorically not true. Merely copying it onto your computer is a violation of copyright...that's why it's called a "COPYright" - it is about the right to make a copy - and you don't have that right. There are exceptions under "fair use" - but I strongly suspect that what you're talking about doing does not constitute fair use. Copyright automatically belongs to the creator and you most certainly do not have to have the little 'c' in a circle - the fact that he put the picture up on his web site for you to look at doesn't make a difference either. Unless the place you get it from explicitly SAYS that you're allowed to copy it - and under what terms - you most certainly are not. You may well argue that you "should" be allowed to do this - and I'd probably agree with you - but that doesn't change the law. Of course you would almost certainly get away with it - but that's hardly the point. SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Steve, my internet cache (and that of every other living soul on the planet that has a computer and uses the internet) is breaching copyright, as it makes copies of every file and photo I view? Bloody hell, we're all in for it! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true: for example. Numerous copyright law experts have looked into this and technically, a browser cache is a copyright infringement. Some people claim that merely transferring the data into RAM on your computer (which is absolutely the only concievable way to display it) is sufficient to get you into trouble. Sadly, that would makes pretty much all internet use (even Wikipedia) illegal. I didn't say it was a good law...but it is the law. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own pictures of a hat and a hammer (and whatever else you need.) You own the copyrights to these. Photoshop the result. Arch dude (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what's being talked about here and have no idea what this hammer/hat thing would be but it sounds like the image could be a derivative work in which case while you may own the copyright to your work, it could still be a copyright violation Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that everyone here knows exactly what you're talking about, yet there seems to be zero images on the internet that you can show your friend - I'm pretty sure showing the image to your friend doesn't breach copyright (just like singing in the shower isn't stealing music ... but then again what will lawmakers think of next?) Astronaut (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, folks, thanks for the answers, but can we just forget about copyright for a moment and get on with the task in hand? Can anyone find a picture of this hat? It's been driving me mad for days! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams

Do people born deaf and dumb and blind dream and if they do what do they dream? BigDunc^Talk 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't as far as I know have an electric sense, you can't echolocate, your sense of smell is lousy, you can't detect magnetic fields, you can't see the polarization in light or the ultraviolet colours of flowers, and you don't have long sensitive whiskers with which to feel your way around. And yet you still manage to dream. How do you manage it with such restricted senses? Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question that has been well studied by psychologists and neurologists. The short answer is that they do dream but without "visual" images or "sounds". The longer answer is that we need to be careful in defining what we exactly mean by those quoted terms. See these links and their references for more details: [16], [17] and [18]. (All these studies are for blindness alone, but my guess is that the results can be extrapolated to your scenario.) Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is some discussion of Helen Keller's dreams. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet people who have never flown (except for falling or on board an airplane) can readily dream of unassisted flying. Vividly. Edison (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not really unexpected. For sighted people, dreaming of flying involves "plotting" a novel combination of sight, sound, and balance sense experience, but does not require the invention of any new "sensory mode". Abecedare (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but when I dream sometimes I have extra senses, such as the ability to read people's minds and see in infra-red and smell colours. Also the ability to speak to animals, specifically kitties. How do you explain that? TastyCakes (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me make a guess: when you dream of seeing in infra-red, you see images such as this one. Right ? Seeing (or dreaming of) such images does not constitute "seeing" infrared, i.e., (roughly speaking) no neurons are firing in your visual cortex in response to light stimulus at the infrared frequency. Equating such images to "seeing infrared" is just a cultural artifact; we have learned to associate such 'weirdly colored" pictures with infrared photography through TV, movies, and books and there is no actual infrared sensory process involved. (To be pedantic, our skin can "see" infrared through its thermoreceptors but its resolution and sensitivity is pretty weak compared to our ability to see electromagnetic radiation in the visible range through our eyes. So I am betting that that is not what you are referring to.)

As for smelling color: such mingling of sensory modes is seen in some people with synaesthesia, but my guess is that your brain is just fooling you with the idea of smelling color, just as you can imagine looking through walls. Speaking to animals involves no new sensory mode; only the ability to perceive sound. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedere is right, a couple times when I've done it, in fact, it bore a striking resemblence to how Peter Pan did it in movies, so even that may come down to images people have in their brains for some.

As for extra senses, never had the infra-red one but I always felt the rare ability to read others' minds, like with knowing what was going on, was like an actor knowing the "script" beforehand; how else would I know that I was a United States Secret Service agent protecting President Pierce on an Air Force One that looked like a B-17 Bomber once in a dream 15 or so years ago, especially since in real life President Pierce served 50 years before the invention of the airplane!

I believe dreams are often ways to let our minds explore. Randomizing (like the one I mentioned) happens sometimes, and that includes giving animals speech.

So, to answer the OP's question, I think that someone totally blidn from birth would dream as often as others, but without input from the senses they don't have. Each of the above examples involved senses the person did have, after all; they were just combined in a new and interesting way.Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us put it in this way. When you dream, different parts of your brain are activated, They dance around for whatever reason, conjuring up all sorts of weird and often not terribly coherent sensations. Someone blind from birth will have far less developed visual organs in their brain than someone who has not. Cognitive scientists have found that this does in fact seriously inhibit their idea to do lots of "visual" things—not just having visual-based dreams, but even using visual-derived metaphors as easily as a sighted person. This doesn't mean they lack imagination, but it does mean that when you brain reaches for a word, a sensation, a memory, it's going to reach in the parts of the brain that are better developed. This is not the case if someone could see for awhile and then lost the ability—in such instances, the visual cortex is relatively developed compared to someone who has never seen from birth. The "dream" aspect of this is just one reflection of this. Analogies with flying and other activities are not apt—we're talking about a basic sense here. It would be more relevant to ask if the deaf could hear in their dreams. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My OP concerned a person with no senses from birth be it sight, hearing or speech what benchmarks so to speak have they got for dreams. BigDunc^Talk 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such persons still have the sense of touch, balance pain etc and of course higher cognition and consciousness, which allows them to dream. Read this book extract (also linked above), which describes and contrasts dream experiences of Helen Keller and Laura Bridgman, both of whom were deaf-blind. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My husband, who works as a trainer in mental health awareness, recently became involved in a discussion with some of his trainees on a course where several of the delegates were deaf and had interpreters to assist them. Another trainee posed the question: "I have an internal monologue that provides a backdrop to my day; do deaf people have something similar?" The consensus from the deaf participants was that they do indeed have an internal narrative; those who once had hearing may "hear" their own voice speaking out loud in their internal monologue and also in their dreams; those deaf throughout their lives, who have sign language as their first language, tend to see a signing interpreter, or the impression of signing hands, who express their mental monologue as it occurs. It seems to depend on the person, their past experience, and their perception of the way they naturally organise their thoughts. Ka renjc 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]