Miscellaneous desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

online game

there's an online game featuring elves, dwarves, humans and orcs. you had to choose one race and then play. it's a sort of fantasy game. i can't remember its name. will someone help me??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.142.12 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably 50+ games like you describe. We'll need more info before we can offer anything useful Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, the online game isn't WoW (WoW is extremely famous, how could i forget that??) no, this game has got "king" in its name, and it's a free MMOG. there are only four races to choose, humans, elves, dwarves and orcs. that's all i can remember —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.142.12 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a List of free massively multiplayer online games, but the only one there with King in the name is Kingdom of Loathing...which isn't likely what you're thinking of. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't crosspost the same question to different Reference Desk boards. Could it have been a MUD? Tempshill (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift is a free MMORPG and has humans, elves, dwarves and a few other races, although it is a work in progress. Depending on how long ago you played it, it may have only had the races you mentioned (no orcs though, unless you confused one of the other races with orcs). --Mark PEA (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos is as you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instant coffee vs. ground coffee

The most noticable difference between these two types is the preparation, I understand that. But how about the quality, the taste?

the article Instant_coffee seems to criticize instant coffee a lot. Like "The lowest quality coffee beans are often used in the production of instant coffee (the best beans are usually kept to be sold whole) and sometimes other unwanted residues from the harvest are used in the production process" or call instant coffee "a drink similar (though not identical) to conventional coffee."

I don't find the reference for this in the article or elsewhere. Can you help? Is it true that instant coffee is generally considered lower-quality than ground coffee? Is it not true coffee? Is this so common a piece of knowledge that I find it hard to see credible writings confirming it on the internet? :( 117.0.30.180 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have problems, and I've tried to resolve them in the past with little success (things creep back).

Instant coffee doesn't taste the same as coffee made from scratch. The manufacturers work to make instant coffee that tastes more like 'real' coffee, and these are the premium versions (often advertised as being indistinguishable from the real thing). Oddly, in the UK most consumers actually prefer the taste of Nescafe to the taste of actual coffee. This is frustrating for coffee manufacturers who work to make authentic tasting coffee for the rest of Europe, only to find Britons picking the instant coffee and saying "Oh yes, that's the proper one. It has that coffee smell."

Instant coffee has a more limited range of aromas than freshly brewed coffee, which contribute to the taste. Also, without considerable effort and care, the basic flavour can be affected. So instant coffee doesn't have much of the subtle flavour of brewed coffee. There are ways to add some of these back, but they are expensive. Hence, only the premium instant coffees have them.

On top of that, there is a general perception (usually fairly accurate) that someone buying generic instant coffee doesn't actually care that much about what it tastes like, as long as it's drinkable and vaguely coffee-like. So, why waste the more expensive beans on them, when they'll still buy the product if you use cheaper beans? So you save the more expensive beans for premium instant coffee brands, or for people who are brewing the coffee from grounds. It also matters more in these situations because more of the flavours/aromas from the beans will actually make it into the finished product. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robusta beans, the less-preferred variety based on flavor, command much lower prices than the arabica bean, are generally considered to be lower quality and are used to make instant coffee. Coffee#Cultivation states "Arabica coffee (from C. arabica) is considered more suitable for drinking than robusta coffee (from C. canephora); robusta tends to be bitter and have less flavor than arabica." This short pdf article uses some of the same wording as the Instant coffee article, and may be the source used for the article. This source would make a good reference for the article (the table in section 3 mentions the use of robusta beans for instant coffee). 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to avoid referring to arabica and robusta just because it isn't quite as straightforward as that. Robusta are cheaper, and arabica are generally considered to have a more pleasant/subtle flavour, but... robusta has a higher caffeine content, robusta is preferred for espresso coffee (at least in Italy, where it is considered a requirement for good espresso), instant coffee is generally made from a blend of beans which will usually include robusta for bulk and caffeine with some arabica for flavour, instant coffee can be bought which only uses arabica, etc. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is annoyingly odd that people refer to real coffee and instant coffee. Pure instant coffee is coffee. Granted that the texture and taste will vary, but so will ground coffees. All that happens with instant coffee is that it is made and then freeze dried. Many people, unfortunately, make it incorrectly - using boiling water (instead of very hot water), or even hot milk! Of course some coffees are made from less good beans. But the best instant uses the best beans. And, OK, I used to work for Nestle, but that does not invalidate the argument.86.197.22.198 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)BB[reply]

Yeah, but instant coffee isn't quite the same as brewed coffee. It's true that all coffees vary, but you can't get all the aromatic compounds in instant coffee that you'll find in freshly brewed. You can capture some of them before they're lost in the drying process (and only more expensive instant coffee is freeze-dried), but you can't really add them back so that it's the same. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the high-end freeze dried stuff is going to lose lots of those aromatic compounds. Coffee begins to change its flavor profile noticibly within minutes of grinding. There is no comparison to fresh ground coffee because anything except brewing the coffee immediately after grinding is going to result in a different tasting beverage. It may not be bad, and some people may prefer it that way (everyones preferences are unique) so I won't say its better fresh ground than by other methods, but it is undoubtedly different... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the cheaper instant coffees are spray dried, and thus sold as powder or conglomerated grains that break up easily into powder, compared with the faceted "grains" of freeze dried. I notice the difference in flavour. Is it the same in the USA? Dbfirs 12:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86, your comment about the temperature of the water interests me. I'm not a fan of instant coffee but I do have some in my pantry for people who prefer it. If it's true that the best results come from hot but not boiling water, I'd expect the manufacturers to promote that method, in their own interests if for nothing else. But I've never seen instructions on a jar of instant coffee that say to do it that way. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap saffron substitute?

A friend of mine bought a large amount (maybe 25-50 grams) of Saffron for 1 dollar in Jerusalem. After looking at the Saffron article, we can't understand why it would so cheap. However it tastes and looks exactly like saffron - very good. Is it possible that this is saffron, or could it be something else? Would a low grade saffron still pass the taste/look test? Could it be because Palestinian people in Jerusalem are so poor that they will sell saffron for this cheap?

Was the product still in whole threads or was it already ground up? Turmeric is often used as a saffron substitute, but it obviously isn't in threads and won't taste much like saffron if you know the tastes well (some folks may think it tastes like saffron because that's all they're ever tasted as "saffron". This thread (heh heh) implies that there is a "Mexican" type of saffron that is notably cheaper; it could be that it's available in other areas as well. Matt Deres (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably safflower. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital camera for photojournalism

What is the less expensive digital camera for photojournalism? I mean for that kind of impressive images that Magnum Photo Agency is worldwide known. --Mr.K. (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer skill is far more important than camera brand, and lenses are generally more important than the camera body. That said, I imagine most pros are still using DSLRs rather than high-end point-and-shoots. Any four or five year old (if not older) Canon/Nikon/etc should be more than sufficient if paired with good glass. I imagine such a camera body could be found for $200 or so. — Lomn 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to second the "it's the photographer, not the camera" bit. Note that Magnum Photos' portfolio submission page specifies a maximum of 1000 pixels on each side—that's 0.75 megapixels at 4:3. They're clearly not interested in the technical specs of your camera. Check out their Robert Capa spotlight. I think he took those with a cameraphone (one of the early black-and-white models). The cheapest camera (not digital) that I know is used for professional photojournalism is the Holga, which costs around $20 new. Holga photos have appeared in prestigious news magazines. This image of Al Gore was taken with a Holga. If you want to be a photographer and you're wondering what camera to buy, the recent advice about guitars applies to cameras too. -- BenRG (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great NASA page out there someplace (I can't seem to find it - but the same advice appears all over the place) - which says that image resolution is relatively unimportant compared to lens quality. Many of their spacecraft systems have less than a megapixel of resolution - but really good lenses. The argument for lower resolution is that with the sensor pixels being larger, each one can capture more light - so you get a less 'noisy' image and you can use shorter shutter times. So for professional use, I'd have to recommend a classic SLR-type camera-back with separate lenses. That way you can gradually acquire a wide range of lenses - and you can upgrade lenses and camera back as needed in the future without throwing out all of your prior investment. However, I agree with BenRG - you certainly can take a great picture with a mediocre camera. The one thing I think is critically important in a digital camera is speed. You don't want to be pressing the shutter button and finding that the camera waits a half second before snapping the photo. My old Olympus Camedia was a terrible camera in that regard. The resolution and lens are both OK - I have no problems with image capacity or battery life - but when I try to take some kind of action photo and the shutter doesn't snap on the very instant I push the button - it's useless. SteveBaker (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you do not need the latest equipment to get the kind of impressive images you want, I suspect you will need more than the bare minimum to have any success. Magnum may specify no more than 0.75 megapixels, but if you use a 1 megapixel camera your composition will need to be perfect every time. It is much easier to have too many pixels then throw some away when you rotate and crop, then resize your picture. However, the really important things are to have a good eye for composition, and to be in the right place at the right time. Astronaut (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the skill of the photographer is certainly a crucial component of photography, the lack of proper tools can be frustrating and is often a hindrance. With that said, almost all the pictures on Magnum, if taken with a digital camera, is taken with a higher-end digital SLR and high-end glass. With a little Googling, you can check the specific EXIF (camera detail) data on the photos. A professional set-up like this can easily cost in excess of $3000-4000. A higher quality camera body does not necessarily equate to a higher image quality; most professional bodies are branded as such due to their increased reliability, sturdier frame and weather sealing. Most do, however, have better high-ISO (sensitivity) performance. With that said, you can nearly replicate the same photos as the ones you see on Magnum with a cheaper set-up: an entry-level DSLR such as a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40/D60 and $500-$1000 piece of glass combined with a decent set of post-processing skill. Acceptable (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction question

While walking all the way from Katajanokka, Helsinki to Haukilahti, Espoo yesterday, I saw a wooden framework for a bridge under construction across the Helsinki-Turku highway in Laajalahti. Now, the thing I have always wondered is, once they put the actual concrete bridge in place, is it built around the wooden framework, so that the wooden framework becomes a permanent, internal part of the bridge, or once the concrete hardens and can support itself, do they disassemble the wooden framework and then either discard it or reuse it in another construction? JIP | Talk 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern highway bridges are made from reinforced concrete. From what I have seen in those construction documentaries on TV, the rebar lattice is constructed first. A wooden formwork is then erected around the rebar to form a mould into which the concrete is poured. When the concrete has cured the formwork is then removed, leaving a smooth concrete surface with the rebar buried within. Sometimes this is done offsite, with completed bridge components being delivered by flatbed truck; but more often the massive scale of bridge construction requires the work to be done onsite. Astronaut (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best material used for floating on water ??

What is the best material that can be used for floating on water ?

And by best I mean that it has to be strong to overcome breaking or tearing or environmental factors but at the same time has the best buoyancy or proportionality with the movements of water waves (as of the material of a swimming board but if there is something better that could be used to deal with the circumstances I described). This material is to be used for carrying relatively heavy and sensitive objects ( like an electric motor ) so there has to be a minimum possibility of breaking or the flipping of the structure itself. It should be able to overcome being left in the water with all the waves and always be with its same position (where the floating material is in contact with the water).

Hope I've made myself clear enough, and I hope you can help me...

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.121.105 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, boats have been made out of wood for millennia, would that work? It's really more about the shape than the material, though. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to "Float Your Boat." [1] Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, boats don't have to be solid - you can make any material float if you can make it enclose a large enough volume of air. Hence we can make boats out of thick steel plate - even though steel is denser than water. But the trouble with designs like that is that when you do get a hole - even quite a tiny one - your enclosed volume of air ain't enclosed anymore - so the boat can fill with water and sink. An alternative design is to make a bunch of smaller volumes - so that if one or even a few of them get punctured, you won't sink. Taken to the wildest extreme - we have boats made from large blocks of foam polystyrene. The tiny balls are hollow and filled with air - but you can smash huge chunks out of your boat and not cause it to sink. A foam polystrene boat isn't as "strong" as a steel one - but because of the extreme "compartmentalisation", it can take a LOT more damage and stay afloat. Somewhere between those extremes, you can make something light and strong by (for example) welding together a bunch of empty, sealed 50 gallon oil drums. If one or two of the drums takes a hit and starts to leak - the others will (hopefully) keep it afloat. So I guess the strongest kind of boat imaginable would be made of some super-strong metal - made into some kind of foam-like lattice. But that's going to be hideously expensive. I guess we really need more information about the kind of application - and the kind of potential damage you have in mind. SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a practical problem or a theoretical problem? Why is it necessary to know this? Is it in order to accomplish some task? Or, should we think far and wide into all possible solutions to the problem of the floating of objects upon water? Can the original questioner tell me more about any surrounding factors leading to the question? Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Whaler manufactures a line of unsinkable boats, see http://www.whaler.com/ . Basically, the boats consist of a plastic sandwich surrounding and bonded to a lighter-than-water foam. The end result is that you could literally blow the boat to little bits, and the individual bits of the boat would still float. You could literally fill the boat to the gunwales with water, and it would still float. The TV show Dirty Jobs took its host Mike Rowe to the plant where these boats are made, and they went through the whole manufacturing process. It was pretty neat stuff. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm - if you overloaded one with nice solid lead bricks - I'm pretty sure it would sink. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it would. I think the idea behind "unsinkable" is that there isn't anything you could do to it in the normal course of operating the boat at sea which would sink the boat, even really bad stuff like giant waves that fill the boat with water, or eggregious hull damage. I am not sure that a pile of lead bricks often washes into a boat, even during really bad storms. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Boats are described as "unsinkable" when they have sufficient buoyancy to stay afloat even when completely filled with water. The load will affect the required amount of buoyancy. --Tango (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course - but our OP is talking about a "heavy" electric motor - and it's possible that an unsinkable Boston Whaler would head straight to the bottom if used for that purpose...so in the context of this question, they are not necessarily unsinkable. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap, strong, rugged, buoyant, stable - you need a concrete canoe. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find Project Habbakuk of interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]