Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 30

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.

March 30

Lilian Jackson Braun

Is my favorite author, Lilian Jackson Braun, still writing the "Cat Who...." books? What can you tell me about her life? Is she still living? 24.119.167.82 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See Lilian Jackson Braun --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the guidelines at the top, please give questions a subject heading. I've added on now. You may also be interested in Cat Who series. It seems the latest book has been delayed and it's currently unclear on when or if it will be published. Lilian Jackson Braun evidentally lives a fairly private and it's not clear if there's any specific reason why it has been delayed. She is rather old, so health problems would be unsurprising. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with TV

I have a 10 years old tv.when i switch on the tv ..exactly after 8 minuted it gets automatically off. then when i switch it off and on again it doesn't get on . Then after 1 minute when i switch it on it will get on...can anybody have any the idea for this problem.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.244.247 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is with some component overheating? Have a technician or repairman take a look at it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds very much like an automatic shutdown when it detects overheating. This could either be due to actual overheating or a faulty temperature sensor. Make sure that nothing is sitting on the TV, and that the vents of the TV are clear, and that it has an airspace on all sides. It may help to put it up on "blocks" if the underside is overheating. Does any part of the case feel hot ? Opening up the case and clearing away any dust and hair accumulation may help, but you should be warned that CRT TVs often contain powerful capacitors, which could be dangerous. You could also leave the case off and aim a fan at the components to see if that helps. However, don't do this is you have children or pets, as this is too dangerous.

If none of this helps, then you can take the TV to a repair shop that gives free estimates. However, the cost to repair a 10 year old TV is likely to exceed it's value. This is especially true if you are in a country which is in the process of switching to digital TV. Analog TVs may continue to be used, with the purchase of a converter box, but the picture won't be as good as a real digital TV. So, if you're in this situation, anything more than a quick cleaning would likely be a bad idea, just buy a new digital TV instead. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Leone Lattes

Where can I find a picture of Leone Lattes,a pioneer in forensic medicine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennymehdi (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried google? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sewer

I know that to keep track of water consumption, water companies have a guy come by and read the meter. How do they keep track of sewer usage? Black Carrot (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are bringing into your water-waste vast amounts of liquids from 'off site' your waste-produced volume should be easy to calculate based on your water-use volume. Obviously there'll be some additions from everyday use such as bottled-drinks, cleaning fluids etc. but realistically they shouldn't (normally) account for much (percentage wise) of waste water. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why your water company needs to keep accurate track of waste water volume? My understanding is that most waste processing fees are apportioned based on an estimated volume per household. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about elsewhere in the world - but here in Texas they take your average winter-time water consumption and use that as the basis of your sewerage charges for the following year. They pick the winter number on the grounds that the summer number is likely to include lawn-watering - which clearly doesn't affect the sewerage charges. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The two systems I've seen used are a fixed sewage fee per household or making it proportional to water usage. Both would allow someone with massive amount of liquid sewage to take advantage, but this just doesn't tend to happen in residential areas. Commercial areas seem more likely to have this issue, so I wonder if they actually meter sewage in such cases. If they routinely check sewage for chemical composition, metering it might be practical, too. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat unfortunate that they don't meter the sewage, as it removes an economic incentive for people to install greywater reclamation systems. --Sean 15:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

...and then there's Germany where they first encouraged people to install rainwater collection systems and greywater reclamation and then installed secondary meters to calculate their sewage fees more precisely. The second meter costs rental whether they get any water except tap water or not. In many cases this more than offset any incentive payments and tax breaks previously issued. (Your government giveth and then it taketh away. :-)76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

sea animal

it belongs to a group of gentle ones yet it posses the characteristics of a violent one what is it? Clue it's a sea animal. assistance please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.78.199 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reference desk is able to answer riddles - especially not poorly-phrased ones like this. Sorry. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A pissed off dolphin? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Killer whale? Dismas|^(talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Man o' War? 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Whale shark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously the sea cucumber, which takes on the guise of the gentle cucumber, but violently ravages innocent plankton with its horrid tentacles. --Sean 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Best sentence all week. Kingpomba (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a well-known aquatic prey animal that resembles a predator (as some harmless things wear the colors of something poisonous)? —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DIMEBAG'S DEATH

Dimebag Darrell (Darrell Lance Abott) of Pantera was said to be shot at a live concert. I just dont know the whole story why such a great guitarist was shot and where was the concert held I a m not even too sure about the date If anybody knows these details, could you please help me out 'coz i worship the man !! thegame (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Dimebag would appear to have the info you're looking for. See Dimebag Darrell#Death. --Onorem♠Dil 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

HELPED ME A LOT

PEACE OUT TO GUYS !thegame (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarinet music sheets

To Wikipedia Reference Desk

my name is Darren, I am 14 years old and I am from Australia. I am writing because I would like to ask about sheet music for the Clarinet which is a woodwind instrament. I have been playing the Clarinet for 10 months now and I need a new book with music in it I can play because I finished my first one. It is for beginners and I am better than that now, I would like to play harder music. Do you have webpage on your website with free music I can have or do you have any books I can borrow. The book I really want is to expensive for me until I save up. I play the Clarinet everyday and oneday I want to tralvel to different countrys playing it for people. I like the Clarinet because of it sound and range of notes.

Thankyou for reading Darren Ron <<REMOVED EMAIL ADDRESS>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.226.240 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your email address as people won't respond to it, and also you are liable to get spammed having it on here. Google is your friend in this regard search terms such as "Free clarinet sheet music" would be a good start. Beyond this ebay is a great place to pick up second-hand stuff quite cheapily so old music books etc. Or try second-hand book stores in your local area. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Google spat out this ghit for example. [1] You should go through it with your teacher/instructor, because he/she will know which ones are right for your level and which ones will give you a good base to continue from. Your local library may also have a music section or may be able to order things for you from their library network. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Making the most with the least

What IT jobs pay the most for the least amount of effort? (with a 4 year degree) 70.171.29.89 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)yumyum

Pointy-haired boss. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, see also our article at Pointy-Haired Boss. jeffjon (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are maintaining a computer system for a smallish company - such that you are the only IT guy - then the better you are at your job - the less work you have to do - and the better appreciated you'll be. If the computer system just hums along without crashing and dying - and the office workers are spam-free and malware-free - and if new updates come along and "just work" because you've tested them...then you'll have very little work to do. This means that the IT guy who has his feet up on the desk, reading the newspaper is the best IT guy you can have. The one who is rushed off his feet trying to keep things together isn't doing so well. Sadly, this means that you have to be very good at what you do in order to be that lazy...and typically, the lazy IT guys are the ones who end up working the hardest! This doesn't work out so well in a large organization. When there is an entire department of IT guys who are doing their jobs very well - then the management can just downsize the IT department until they are all working hard DESPITE getting everything right. SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you are the IT guy at the small company that has everything running smoothly, you would be advised to make yourself look busy, even when you are not, if you expect to get raises. I've found management to be much more impressed with appearances than actually doing a good job. If no viruses attack, for example, they are likely to attribute it to "good luck" instead of the firewall and other preventative measures the IT guy installed. StuRat (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the things you should keep yourself busy with is informing management of how your system works and what upgrades/updates you'd recommend next. It's important that you learn to do that with words and phrases you could cut our from the Sunday paper. That will prevent them from asking for a "mauve database" [2]. Failing to do so is likely to make your work very hard to impossible at regular intervals. BTW: Most good to excellent IT guys love working on difficult problems and get bored with "least amount of effort" routine stuff. Are you sure you chose the right career path?? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This will also prevent management from making appointments with the nurse for you so you can become a "eunuch programmer" (which presumably will remove an entire category of "distractions" from your work). :-) StuRat (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's later than you think...

Do they still teach elementary/primary school students how to tell time on a clock with rotary hands, or is this considered an obsolete skill in the modern world of digital clocks ? StuRat (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I could imagine that they still do it. Reading clocks can be an interesting way of teaching other abilities. --Mr.K. (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they still do it. Ask my five-year-old son. And it would never be obsolete anyway, (a) because analogue clocks are not obsolete and never will be; and (b) because understanding the movement of the hands around the dial is fundamental to an understanding of time itself. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree that rotary dial clocks will be in use forever. I picture a downward spiral of fewer people having such clocks, therefore less emphasis placed on teaching kids to read such clocks, therefore fewer people getting these clocks when these kids grow up, etc., until they become completely obsolete. Since this is one of the primary uses of Roman numerals, their use may also decline. I've noticed that new movies are less likely to give the date in Roman numerals, too. The other big use is for outlines, but that seems optional, too.

Also, digital display clocks seem better in just about every measurable way. For example, for a given sized face, a digital display clock can be viewed from much farther, as it only needs room to display one number (3-4 digits) for the current time, while a rotary dial clock must have room for 12 numbers (unless we're talking about clocks with no numbers, which present their own problems). This situation becomes even worse for 24-hour clocks. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect analog clocks tend to use less power (i.e. batteries last longer) although this may be changing. In any case, they are also IMHO more easily visible in the dark baring backlighting. Also digital clocks and watches have been around for a long time with no evidence of analogs disappearing any time soon plus self-winding high quality mechanical Swiss watches are a major status symbol (Rolex in particular) I don't see that ending any time soon Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My nieces are still taught on analogue clocks in the UK and they've carried this on in their schools as an easy form of teaching them other base numbering schemes when they're older (My 9 year old niece is learning Octal and Hexadecimal in this way, which frankly astonishes me after what I've previously experienced in British state schooling). Nanonic (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) They also have charts/worksheets/cards that compare the digital clock time to the time shown on a clock face with hands. BTW this is usually done at K or even pre-K level these days. I'm waiting for when they start to expect kids to know their letters before they start to crawl. Sadly, I don't find that moving things like letter recognition and basic writing skills to pre-elementary school levels is being reflected positively in scholastic aptitude of the general schoolkid population. :-( 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My 8-year-old child struggled with this concept this year in school. Although she now understands how to tell time on an analog clock, she prefers going into a room that has a digital one because "it's faster". I asked her if she could tell me the time on our faux Grandmother clock the other day, which has Roman numerals on its face. She stated that she couldn't read the numbers, even after I explained that they corresponded to the same digits as a clock with Arabic numerals. Funny how we older folks take some things for granted. --Thomprod (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you then show her how to count the Roman numerals to figure out what each one represents ? More important than learning Roman numerals is learning basic problem solving skills like this. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat bad, since the position of the hands is important rather than the actual numbering. A fair few clocks in my house don't have numbers, and the ones which are digital are only on radios/other electronic equipment. Digital clocks are just ugly.

Back at school, the maths staff room had a clock where the face was reversed, and thus the hands went backwards. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My brother gave me a clock that runs backward. Being a math nerd, I'd like to make a new face for it so that zero is at the right. —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about binary number labels from 0000 to 1100 ? StuRat (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean 0000 to 1011, of course. I was thinking 0 to B. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right, unless you want double labels on 12 o'clock. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking no numerals of any kind, just a zero-mark. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I hold a newly published grade 4 math textbook and it instructs students on reading time from an analog clock but oddly enough, only has them find the time to the nearest 5 minutes. I guess they'll need to resort to digital methods to get down to minute precision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.46.70 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On clocks which only have 12 divisions, figuring out the time to the nearest minute can be a bit tricky. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The point being, of course, that you don't need to know the time to the nearest minute. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as an excellent excuse to be late for class. APL (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You can usually tell time within say ~2 minutes precision which is good enough to avoid being late for clase and no one schedules a class at 12:03 it will either be 12:00 or 12:05 or 12:10 or whatever so it's a pretty lame excuse. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My kid's daily schedule:

 Block 1: 8:10-9:43     
   Skinny A     8:10-8:56
   Skinny B     8:59-9:43
 Block 2: 9:49-11:18
 Block 3:
   A:  Lunch 11:18-11:48   Class 11:48-1:24    
   B:  Class 11:24-11:53   Lunch 11:53-12:23   Class 12:23-1:24
   C:  Class 11:24-12:25   Lunch 12:25-12:55   Class 12:55-1:24
   D:  Class 11:24- 1:00   Lunch 1:00-1:30
 Block 4:   1:30-3:00

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My hi-skool had 50-minute periods with 4-minute breaks. My bus home was at (say) 3:38. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In 1981 a friend remarked that estimating the time until his next appointment was slower with his new digital watch: "now I have to do arithmetic" rather than visually measuring the angle. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a RefDesk death pool on analog clocks, roman numerals, and COBOL. --Sean 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a personal anecdote, I remember that my grade eight French teacher asked my class if everyone could tell time on an analog clock when we began using one to learn how to say times in French. She said that she'd had one or two students who could only read digital in the past. I also remember that students expressed doubt and she reconfirmed that it was true. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Although they may teach how to read analog clocks now, I fear that in the future they will not. Just as handwriting is becoming an "obselete" skill, kowtowing to typing, reading these clocks is much harder than reading a digital one. I am a high school senior, and I find it to be an irritability to read an analog clock, it takes more time. Digital clocks are easier, it is as simple as that. The Reader who Writes (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a wind-up digital clock or one that doesn't require power (battery or main)? I don't think I have ever seen one. Until one is made, travellers to and those who live in areas where the supply of electricity (and/or batteries) is inconsistent will still need an analogue clock. I need my wind-up almost every time there is a storm at night. // BL \\ (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No batteries available in your part of the world, then ? :-) But seriously, any place with no source of electricity is unlikely to be able to afford clocks or watches, either. Fortunately, in such places knowing the exact time of the day isn't all that important. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, people in such rural areas with no mains electricity can just tell time by looking at their cel phone. (No joke.) APL (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't carried a watch since first acquiring such a device. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, check out Digital sundial. Also I think there exist digital Automatic watches. Of course, in an age where a $9 watch will last two or three years before its first battery change, It doesn't seem like a huge issue. APL (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Since classrooms are one of the most common places to find an analog clock, I doubt that the skill, and the teaching thereof, will go away very soon. I can't think of a single classroom that I've been in where there was a digital clock instead of the stereotypical analog one. Dismas|^(talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be ironic if they stopped teaching how to use rotary dial clocks yet still had them in the classrooms. Still, I imagine that whenever the old clocks need to be replaced they will likely switch to newer digital display clocks. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

They're a good intro into the teaching of Roman numerals, a necessary skill given that the dates of film and TV productions are still usually given in Roman numerals for some odd reason. They also need to be aware that the number 4 is shown as "IIII" on clock faces, not the more usual "IV". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhmmm, not always . . . [3]. // BL \\ :-)(talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The "IIII" value for 4 is far more obvious than "IV" (which looks like a backwards 6), so I'd expect anyone to be able to figure that out. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, they aren't that hard to learn. My son just turned 3 years old, and he almost has it down. I would say that in a month or two he should have no trouble telling time using a dial clock. I haven't even tried to teach him a digital clock yet... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Argument against digital watches: analogue watches look better. I used to have a digital one, but then I grew up, and now I wear a very heavy, almost thirty-year-old authentic soviet-made Wostok watch. No battery, you have to wind it up by hand at least once daily. And I wanna get an analogue watch if this one ever gets damaged beyond repair. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Another argument: Were it not for analogue watches, we wouldn't have the frequently recurring question about why the hands are stereotypically set at 10:10 in ads and shop windows and "I've been told that this was because Lincoln died at that time and is that really true?" -- JackofOz (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

and by extension, we wouldn't be asked why there isn't an article about this phenomenom. Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

and then have to go on to explain that there used to be one, but it got taken away by raving deletionists. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were set at 8:20 because that's when Lincoln died. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital clocks may be a commonplace in the home, but in public spaces they most certainly are not. I'm pretty sure there are no plans to replace the dials of Big Ben with a digital readout any time soon! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Digital clocks are everywhere. I can't remember the last time I went past a bank that didn't have a big one outside. Most drug stores have them too. The only places that have big outdoors analog clocks are either very old buildings (Big Ben, churches, old train stations, etc) or buildings that are trying to look old. (New train stations.)

Indoors, cheap analog clocks are relatively common, but so are digital ones. Especially in situations where the customers needs to precisely know the time. (Airports, train stations, and the like.) Add to that the fact that many digital displays on cash registers, ATMs, and the like will default to showing the time when they're idle, I'll bet you'd find that digital clocks outnumbered analog ones in indoors public places as well. APL (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking America, APL? Because I certainly wouldn't consider digital clocks to be everywhere. For that matter, why on earth does each bank need a large digital clock outside? Gwinva (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am amused by the idea that Big Ben (1859) counts as "very old". I would have thought a "very old" building would have a sundial or an entire analogue astronomical computer. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I could pedantically point out that bells don't usually have clocks on them except maybe in some kitschmaster's Dalíesque fantasy-nightmare, but that would be ... er, pedantic, so I won't make that point. However, clocks do sometimes have bells in them, and the French word for bell is "cloche", so this post hasn't been a total waste of time. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am speaking as an American. I've never been to UK or Europe, so maybe analog clocks are more common there. Also, I had in my mind that Big Ben was from the early 1700s, I'm not sure why I thought that, Doesn't matter though, many of the "Very old" buildings I'm thinking of around here of are probably not much older than that anyway. They're "old" compared to digital clocks, anyway. APL (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And it appears that the BBC reported that Big Ben was going digital. Coincidentally, that report allegedly occured twenty-nine years ago today. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It'll be a long time (ever?) before analogue clocks are rendered obsolete. Aside from aesthetics (they look so much nicer, and therefore make better home art (on wall) or jewellery (on wrist)), they also show the passage of time in a way digital clocks do not, and are easily read at a distance or a quick glance. (You don't need to see the numbers: the position of the hands is enough.) For this reason, public spaces (schools, stations, swimming pools, court houses etc) all use them. They are reliable and work even when there's a power cut (ok, so digital clocks could have batteries, but most public ones don't). While digital stop watches are almost essential for timing a start-stop event (such as a race), analogue are easier for measuring an event over a time: eg. taking a pulse, or lapping a pool: when you are waiting for the hand to be a position (able to be observed from the corner of your eye), rather than waiting for a number to come up, which requires more concentration. Children shouldn't need to be taught to read analogue clocks at school: if they had one up at home they'd have worked it out already. With moving hands, young children recognise the passing of time before they know numbers, and begin to understand how minutes and hours work before they know maths. Gwinva (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of curiosity here: In American English there is a very clear distinction between the words analogue and analog, and it's the latter that's used in contrast with digital. Is that not so in Commonwealth English? --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we would have to resign our citizenship if we ever dared use a word as ugly as analog. (I had to brace myself to type it, and now need a little lie down to recover.) Gwinva (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So then do you just not make the distinction? I thought the Brits were supposed to be big on making fine linguistic distinctions (and this one isn't even all that fine). --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How are the words different? To me, analog is just the American way of spelling analogue... I wasn't aware they had different meanings. TastyCakes (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

They're quite different. Analog is an adjective; analogue is a noun. An analogue of x is something that takes x's role in an analogy. Analog measuring instruments don't really have that much to do with analogies, except (as it were) by analogy. --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm then I would say yes, analogue will refer to either of those in British (and Canadian) English. Analogue measuring instruments have to do with the word in that they are a direct representation of what they are measuring. A sundial is an analogue of the time of day, for example, and is hence an analogue device. While the term may now be used to just mean something is not digital, the roots come from such a device being a representation of what is being measured (being directly analogous to it) rather than just a sampling, as a digital device would give. TastyCakes (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Will analog clocks go the way of the slide rule? (I had to learn to use one of those in high school, but that is no longer taught?) — Michael J 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

@ StuRat: I have visited many places where batteries were in very short supply and electricity uuncertain: at home I have only the latter problem with which to contend. I can never hear the alarm on a watch, so, without my wind-up, analogue clock, I would miss planes and trains and buses, and perhaps the opening hours of the local pub. Some things are important. // BL \\ (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, nobody's mentioned these two arguments yet, maybe it's time for another old fart to step in :-)

Anecdote One: Many people looking at their analog watches don't really want/need to know exactly what time it is. If they're walking down the hall to their next meeting, which is to start at 10 sharp, a quick glance at the big hand gives them enough information. They don't need to know that it's 9:56:22, and that they have exactly 3 minutes and 38 seconds to get there; rather, the simple observation that the big hand is closer to the 11 than the 12 tells them that they don't need to run.

Anecdote Two: If it's 45 minutes past 9 o'clock, how do you report that? If you learned on an analog clock, you say "quarter to ten", and you learned that from one-quarter of a circle matching up to one quarter of an hour. Ask today's kids that, and you'll get "nine forty-five". ("Quarter to? What's that?")

Couple of minutes later, ask me what time it is again, and if I know that great precision is not required, I'll probably reply "about a quarter to", where today's kid will accurately report, "nine forty-seven", even when it's not needed.

The round clock face is a darn good introduction, and in many cases the /first/ introduction to fractions, even before kids know that they're learning fractions.

Ergo, there's still value in analog clocks.

And, if I've understood part of the previous dialog (dialogue?) correctly, I now know that the watch I once owned which showed the time with an LCD display of two hands, one longer than the other, was a digital analogue of an analog face. Right? --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"The digital analogue of an analog face". Well done, sir! --Trovatore (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've often wondered why digital watches ("digit" being a term for "finger") are the ones without hands. Regarding digital watches, though, are they not dying out, to an extent? I remember years ago, probably the 1970s, when a digital watch was the latest Space Age thing a kid, or a smartly-turned-out Young And Up And Coming Executive, could have. Digital watches are in my experience rather dated now - so people will need to read analogue if they want to read their watch. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say watches period are dying out, killed by the cell phone. (For our British friends, period means full stop). But look for them to make a nostalgia-based comeback in about five or ten years. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Never! I hate going anywhere without my watch, and a phone (cell/mobile, call it whatever you like) just won't do. It used to be said that a gentleman isn't fully dressed unless he's carrying a handkerchief. I'd add a watch to that. Re analog/analogue: It's true that -ue is a noun; it's also the case that it's the "British" version of the American adjective analog. We don't go around dropping the -ue from French-sourced words just because they get used as undreamt of parts of speech. Dialogue, monologue, catalogue etc all keep their -ue endings despite becoming used as verbs as well as nouns. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I had two watches. Both of the watchbands broke at around the same time. Both were cheap; I could have just bought another watch, but it seemed more responsible to have the band replaced. But that was more trouble, so I didn't get around to it for a while.

Then I noticed I never really missed having a watch. I mean, when do you not know what time it is? At work you've always got the clock at the lower right of the computer screen. Walking around the city you have your cell phone. Even in the backcountry you have your GPS. And of course there's your cerebral implant. Oops, maybe I'm not supposed to talk about that in public. CODE X42W%: forget what I just said. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I sure am glad I don't need a watch any more. The ones with metal springy bands always ripped all the hairs out of my wrist, while the leather wrist-bands (or, God-forbid, vinyl), left my skin white and puffy underneath as if I had been wearing a cast. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This trend always amuses me. Whenever I see someone fish their phone out of a pocket to check the time, I always imagine that they should have it on a small gold-colored chain. APL (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When digital watches became available (and cheap), my mother remarked that it had been hard for her to find a reliable mechanical watch, women's models being smaller and therefore more delicate than the other kind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, analog clocks will not become obsolete. Digital and analog clocks simply use a different method to reach the same conclusion. For one, not teaching children the basics of reading a clock with a face means they'll miss out on skills that help them with fractions and learning digital time later on. (sure they can recite what a digital clock face says, but do they know what it means?) As for watches becoming obsolete in favor of cellphones: codswallop. I have yet to find a reliable cellphone that doesn't die on my after a couple of months. (Also, since I'm not allowed to have a cellphone in the laboratory and since I don't want to use one on the bus on the way home, there's really no need to have one in favor of a simple landline.- 131.211.211.181 (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed at the volume of responses to this relatively straightforward Q. Thanks, all. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

common blackbird

common blackbird life expectancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.26.236 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Common Blackbird: "A Common Blackbird has an average life expectancy of 2.4 years, and, based on data from bird ringing, the oldest recorded age is 21 years and 10 months." --Tango (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

plumbing

Is there a standard water pressure that a house from the US gets from a city water line? I am trying to figure out how to store rainwater for later lawn watering and would like to know what kind of water pressure I would need to get in my system before it will work. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I doubt the water pressure is standard (although it may be supposed to meet some minimum requirement). This article says that normal water pressure is between 40 to 80 PSI. Less than 40, and running a shower and a dishwasher at the same time can be problematic, whereas pressure over 80 PSI can actually damage appliances. For lawn watering purposes, though, that might still not be enough, depending on the size of your lawn and the type of watering you intend to do. It's my understanding that large sprinkler systems really need a lot of pressure at the source to work properly, whereas a hose and a nozzle will work just fine at 40 PSI. Anyway, I would imagine that a big challenge here would be just gathering enough water from the rain... - Captain Disdain (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure, each 1" of rain translates into 500 gallons of water on a 800 sq ft roof, so as long as your collection method is efficient, you will get a lot of water. I wonder how long you can maintain 60 psi in a standard hose with 500 gallons though. I think I will ask the math guys this one. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This link says "Sprinkler head manufacturers publish specifications for sprinkler head optimal pressure, throw radius, and discharge flow rate", and gives these example figures:

PSI  Radius in feet
30   38
40   40
50   41
60   42

I don't know if those are typical, but they seem reasonable. Perhaps you could look up such figures for your equipment. --Sean 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that info Sean, 30 psi seems a lot more feasible then 60 psi. I will see if that is true with my lawn sprinkler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What you need to find is somebody with their own well, who therefore has had to deal with pressure cut-in/cut-out switches, and holding tanks and so forth. Me, in other words :-)

In my previous home, the well system was built with a 30/50 switch (on at 30 psi, off at 50), which worked "OK but no better" for normal household stuff. I replaced it with a 40/60 switch, and things worked much better -- the toilet could refill while the washer was running, for instance. However, in my current home, where there is also an in-ground sprinkler system, I have (1) a 50/75 pressure switch, and (2) an oversize holding tank, which I'm guessing is in the 80-90 gallon range.

I don't know what I'm actually throwing (in gallons per minute, say), but the pump can still refill the tank and shut off for a while while the sprinklers are running. And I can easily notice the drop in range (from one head) as the tank drains and refills.

SO, I would conclude that storage capacity is no less important than pressure. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of sprinklers, I suggest you use soaker hoses (hoses which are capped at the end and have tiny holes along their lengths). They require less pressure to work, but do need to be moved more often. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the math guys, I can only get about 7 psi from my tank. For 30psi I would need it to be 70' tall! So I am thinking I will have to try something else. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks with wells usually have a pressure tank, with a captive air mass held by a rubber bladder. This is cheaper than a high water tower. A 42 gallon one precharged to 40 pounds sells for $129 (US). Edison (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

outboard motor

What is the gas/oil mix for a 2001 8 hp Johnson outboard motor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleykem (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest calling a Johnson dealer? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)