Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 May 5

Miscellaneous desk
< May 4	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 6 >

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 5

Remembering songs

This is a two part question. First, how many songs can the average human mind hold in memory? Next, how old must a human be to hear a song and remember it later in life when they hear it again? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that the human mind is not a perfect recorder of anything. As memories get older (especially if you aren't recalling them constantly) then they get generally fuzzier. You'll remember less and less precisely - but not necessarily ever completely forget a song...perhaps you'll forget all of the words - details of the instrumentation - you may remember the melody - but not the chords - perhaps recall the 'hook' of the song - but forget the choruses. There is never a point where your mind is "full" - and perhaps, never a point where a particular thing is utterly forgotten. But there isn't infinite storage capacity - so the quality of recall gets worse and worse. I like to think of it like saving a photo as a JPEG file - where you have a 'quality' slider that goes from 100% to 0%. When you first remember something - it's at 100% - and it uses a lot of storage space. As the memory gets old - and not much used, the slider moves gradually towards zero - the quality of recall gets worse and worse - but the memory takes less and less space.

When we think of storing music on a computer, we tend to think of MP3 files - but that's a bad model. We don't recall the precise details of the analog waveform of the song - we remember the notes - the timing and perhaps the instruments. That's more like a 'MIDI' file - and those can be very small indeed. A simple nursery-rhyme tune can easily be stored in a few hundred bytes. A million songs stored that way is less memory than a single photograph at reasonable resolution.

Hence, I think there is no practical limit to the number of songs you could hold - at some degree of recall. As for the earliest memories - that's a tough call. Some people claim they have memories going right back to the moment of their birth - but it's impossible to test whether that's true or not. "Recovered" memories are powerful things. So I don't know how we'd possibly figure out the earliest we could remember a song from. SteveBaker (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering people have memorized 100,000 digits of Pi (very difficult compared to music) and the entire Bible, I think there's really no limit, except perhaps how many hours there are in a month-ish to refresh your memory of everything you've memorized.. .froth. (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - but 100,000 digits is just about 50kbytes - the bible is 5Mbytes - but can be represented in much less space than that in terms of number of words. We have 100 billion neurons linked by a quadrillion connections (and the connections are where the data is "stored")...that's a lot more space than you have on the hard drive of your computer - and you'd not even notice 100,000 digits of PI on your computer disk. The actual storage space required in the brain for these seemingly impressive feats are peanuts compared to many other day-to-day activities. What makes them seem impressive is the perfect recall - that's largely a matter of storing very precise information as concepts that can become fuzzier without loss of information. It's not impressive to know all of the stories in the bible and be able to explain them all in your own words. It's only impressive if you're word-perfect. Doubly so for PI. So the trick is to translate this 'hard' data that we aren't good at recalling precisely - with something that can be stored fuzzily - with considerable loss of detail without significant loss of the information you need. Recalling PI is done with tricks like memorizing ten objects - one for each digit 0 through 9. Then memorizing a long walk around a real city that you're familiar with - perhaps even physically walking that route while you are memorizing PI. Then as you mentally walk the route - attach the objects corresponding to the digits of PI to the landmarks of your mental map of the city in crazy ways. If a fish is number 3 - then the first digit of PI in your imaginary walk around Paris is a gigantic fish impaled on the Eiffel tower - the next digit is a '1' - which is an elephant - which is dining at the cafe close to the foot of the tower...and so on for many miles of walking. To recall - you mentally walk the route - noting these crazily placed objects in your mind's eye. Weird - but it works. Interestingly, it takes a LOT more raw data to store the idea of a fish impaled on the Eiffel tower than to store the single digit '3' - but you'll forget '3' where you won't forget the fish on the gigantic iron landmark. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Bible verses are easier to memorize than pi digits; that's the point. Music is very easy to memorize, like the Bible and unlike Pi. So if someone can manage to memorize 100000 digits of Pi someone can memorize an extremely large number of songs. .froth. (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily follow. That seems to assume that the factors that led to someone successfully memorising 100000 digits of Pi can be translated into factors that improve song memorisation. Is music very easy to memorise for the same people who memorise Pi to ridiculous lengths? Can the same tactics be used to memorise music as are used to memorise Pi? 80.41.71.69 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, certainly remember the theme song of a favorite radio show from about age 3. Edison (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't reproduce it now but I remember a lullaby tape from about age 3. I would certainly recognize it but I don't know how.. I don't remember the melody at all, just how it sounded and that there was a female voice that I remember as smiling (?) and.. motherly. hm Childhood amnesia .froth. (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I had a dream while dozing to that lullaby and I still remember the dream specifically.. I also remember remembering remembering that it was a real memory which I remember remembering fascinated me how a dream could be like replaying real life. .froth. (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Professional musicians, such as bar-room pianists, routinely memorise hundreds of songs along with their orchestration.Rhinoracer (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And non-musicians can remember probably thousands of songs. They may not be able to play them on an instrument, but say a title and they can sing it, or hear a snippet of a song and they can identify it and tell you how the rest of it goes. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hazing

Is this real? Is that pool blood? .froth. (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that it's blood? I don't see anything in the image description saying that it's blood. There are other pools in the background which would indicate to me that it was nothing more than water. Dismas|^(talk) 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because he's bound and beaten and soaked in what looks like blood. But is it or mud or something? I couldn't find any background on the image .froth. (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like paint to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing in the photo to suggest that he's been beaten or has blood on him or has a pool of blood beneath him. He has his hands tied and has something smeared over him. Beyond that, you're letting your imagination get away from you.91.109.221.178 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hazing is pretty limited in the French Army - there are heavy laws against it. If the sign is to be believed, this is probably a helicopter pilot who just got 1000 hours of flight time under his belt - by that time, he's hardly a faceless newbie - his team are more likely celebrating his achivement than seriously 'testing' him. Given all of that - it's hard to believe they'd leave the guy beaten and bleeding in a 10' pool of blood! It's much more likely he's covered in mud or paint or something and the liquid just happens to be a puddle of water on the tarmac. SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If he was "hazed", it is possible that he was forced to crawl through chutes of rotting garbage, or locked in stocks and pillories and pelted with mushy fruit, as described in our article on line-crossing ceremony. A friend of mine who used to be a sailor once showed me pics of his own nasty rotten equatorial crossing, and he didn't look that different from the pilot depicted in froth's example. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Short-term loan vs. Long-term loan

This is something I've learnt but not entirely understood. It's about the rule of financing a business, that is to use

short-term loans to finance short-term assets (normal operating expense like labor costs, advertising costs etc )

and

long-term loans (mortgages) to finance long-term assets (e.g. plant additions etc)

However the interest for short-term loan is higher than the interest for mortgage so I don't understand why a business should follow this rule? I've seen people using mortgages to finance their short-term assets also. Are there any drawbacks of using mortgage to finance short-term assets? What is the basis for the above financing rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.56.146 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are often penalties to paying off a mortgage early, I think that is the main drawback. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What about mortgage that allows extra prepayment without penalty? Would it be advised to use mortgage to finance long-term assets in that case? 117.0.56.146 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Line of credit article is only a stub, but that's what you are dealing with here. (If you want to look into the topic in more detail start from Corporate finance and follow the links from there.) You might think that it would be ideal not to use any credit at all. For all but the most basic businesses that's not true. If you put all your capital into the operating business it is exposed to all your business risks and isn't available for other purposes. Even if you are just doing it for tax purposes, you'll want to do some borrowing. That's where the above credit lines come in. Basically they will tell you what securities your bank(s) want to have for lending you how much for what period (at what interest rate). If you use them all up that's like your house is mortgaged and your credit cards are maxed out. So you'll want to have more credit available than you are using. If you are using your mortgage credit line (security=building, long term debt at low interest rate) to cover your short term need then you won't have that credit line available anymore if you need it. Say your business is thriving. Your customers will want more of your product. If you can't supply the quantities they need they'll go find a company that can. So you'll have to expand. Buy more equipment, build new offices. Big investments you'll want to spread over a long term to pay off with the money you are going to make from the expansion. But oops, you have exhausted your long term credit line. You have borrowed against your long term (fixed) assets to cover your short term expenses. What you have left to borrow against now are short term (current) assets (inventory, recievables=the money you expect to get for products you have sold) and goodwill. So you'd basically have to finance your new building with high interest short term loans. Your banker will likely insist that you shuffle around your credit use. You'll need a pot of cash to finance the interim and it's going to be expensive. So finance the fuel in your car via credit card debt till your next pay check comes in (short term) and use your mortgage to put a new roof on your house and replace the furnace (long term). Hope this helps. 76.111.32.140 (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Long term mortgage loans are secured by the property so if you default, the bank takes away your house. This reduces the bank's exposure to risk so they can charge a lower interest rate. Short term personal loans that are unsecured would have a higher interest rate. Does that answer your question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what the above people say, in a business's balance sheet, your assets have to match your liabilities (by definition of "balance sheet"). If you finance short term assets with long term loans (liabilities), once your short term assets are amortized (used up) you still have the long term liabilities to pay off. This messes with your balance sheet and makes your company less stable. Even if you claim you'll pay of the long term loan early, investors may not believe you. While many homeowners do use their mortgages to finance short term assets, the practice is not sensible. All too often people take out second mortgages on their home to buy unnecessary luxuries like fancy cars or big screen TVs. In 5 years the car and TV aren't worth anything, but they're still paying off the mortgage. Even using the mortgage to pay for necessities often doesn't make sense. If you're unable to afford food and clothing now, how will you be able to afford paying back the mortgage later? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. Sorry I still don't quite understand. Unlike the example of homeowners buying TVs, which don't generate profit, for business, if the mortgage is used to finance current assets/operating expense like, say, buying raw materials or producing goods, then the money is being put to good use and generating profit. I'm thinking of a scenario where a new business follows the rule: requests mortgage only for business expansion as 76 said, and requests short term loan to cover operating expense. Then that business has to request short-term loan each quarter, pay it back (with the interest) the next and then request short-term loan again that next quarter. (New business may need short-term loans to cover operating expense for several quarters I think). If the business uses mortgage, it can pay back (or keep) the mortgage with little interest (without having to taken loan then pay back and then take another loan right away, all with higher interest). I'm still not sure why this is bad idea? Were I wrong at some point in the scenario? 117.0.56.146 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They may not take out individual loans each quarter, they could use something similar to a credit card (although with better interest rates). I'm not convinced short term loans will have higher interest rates than a long term loan with no penalties for early payback - the reason long term loans have lower interest rates is because the lender knows they will be getting that interest for a long time, so it is worth getting a little less in exchange for the security of known income, if you can pay it back early they don't have that security. As long as the short term loans are secured (against inventory, for example), the interest rates shouldn't be any higher (perhaps even slightly slower because the risk of the company going bust before paying it off is lower if it doesn't take as long to pay off). Another reason not to take out a mortgage is simply that they may not have appropriate assets to secure it to. A lot of businesses, particularly small ones, rent their offices, and if they have bought a factory or something they will probably have taken out a mortgage to do so, so they don't have enough equity in it to secure another loan. Once they have paid of that first mortgage they could consider taking out another one, but they may never do that (they might well sell the factory and buy a bigger one, or something, without ever completely paying off the mortgage). --Tango (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up revolver loans, term loans, working capital facilities and capital expenditure facilities - what I'm saying is that the "short term loans" and "long term loans" division is rather rudimentary. In reality, there are infinite variations of loan terms that will suit the company's needs. Need cash every month to cover operating expenses until the sales accounts get paid? No problem - the bank will give you one of those revolving loans / lines of credit where you can draw and repay the loan each month. Need something to finance a project that will give you a big payoff in 3 years time and then steady income for the next 2 years? You'll probably get a construction loan that has no repayments (interest capitalised) for 3 years and then converts into an amortising term loan after the 3 years.

In short, the rule should be "you would get a loan whose repayment terms and tenor best suit your cashflow and liquidity needs." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Wikis Devoted to Fictional Works

Resolved

I'm trying to build a list of Wikis (roughly similar to Wikipedia) that are devoted to fictional works. Off the top of my head, I am aware of:

• Star Wars http://starwars.wikia.com/
• Battlestar Galactica http://en.battlestarwiki.org/
• Lost http://lostpedia.wikia.com/
• Heroes http://heroeswiki.com/
• Star Trek http://memory-alpha.org/

Can anyone think of any others? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the web addresses on hand, but I know that there are wikis for the games Fallout3 and Oblivion. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there's hundreds! (thousands?) Most fictional works with any significant fanbase would have a wiki of some kind- The Inheritance Cycle has at least two that I can think of, for example, and there's got to be a dozen Lord of the Rings ones. There's ones for Half-Life, for DragonFable, for everything imaginable... google <name of fictional work> wiki, and you'll probably find a few. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely thousands, more likely tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. These range from Thomas the Tank Engine Wikia:TTTE (popular children's book and TV series) to Wikia:TLJ (one of my favourite game series but hardly an extremely popular series sadly) to game series that are sadly long dead Wikia:QuestForGlory meta ones like Wikia:Gaming to soap operas popular in their home country but without a significant following worldwide Wikia:Shortland Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of those you've listed are hosted by Wikia. Here are some more wikis they have on fiction works: tv shows, books, comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's the Harry Potter-pedia, but that's just my name for it... Dismas|^(talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who!! [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.65.160 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't realize that there were so many. Thanks to all! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And there are the huge lists of wikis using MediaWiki which you can hunt through from mw:Sites_using_MediaWiki/en, mw:Sites_using_MediaWiki/multilingual etc. Nanonic (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ThePlenty.net has a wiki for Robin Hobb's Realm of the Elderlings: [2] Steewi (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

US Navy procedure when boarding a vessel

What is the procedure when boarding a vessel of the United States Navy, or when boarding any vessel if you're in the Navy? Different works of fiction I've read have different takes on this — for example, do you need to ask permission of the OOD to board? do you need to salute him if he's of lower rank than you? salute the colors? etc.—msh210℠ 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found this line in a news story (about the construction of a new vessel reaching a certain stage where they began to treat it as a ship) on the official US Navy website: "Sailors also began observing the tradition of requesting permission to come aboard the ship." [3] That's all I've found so far, but I'm still researching (you've aroused my curiosity!). --Tango (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Found this:

Normally, when a ship is tied up to a pier – or moored out in a harbor – the “official” entrance to the ship is called the “quarterdeck” – generally where the brow reaches the main deck. When a ship is not underway, the quarterdeck watch is headed up by the OOD, generally in full uniform, and he holds under his arm the “long glass” as a badge of office. He’s the Sailor you salute when you reach the top of the brow and say “Request permission to come aboard, Sir.” [4]

--Tango (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are very helpful, but (as you know) incomplete. I don't know how to keep this topic open so it's not bot-archived, but would like to do so, to seek further replies.—msh210℠ 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. When boarding a U.S. Navy vessel (as a military member), you salute the flag (if in uniform) or face it in acknowledgment (if in civilian clothes) and then approach the whoever is on watch at the top of the brow (larger ships like Aircraft Carriers have two brows; officers use one and enlisted use the other, and the personnel on the brow watches vary). You salute him (if in uniform) or face him (if in civilian clothes), present your military ID (usually with the ship's sticker affixed) and request permission to come aboard. Hope this helps. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Horol is correct, with the following clarifications. The service member only salutes/faces the flag if/when it is flying between 0800 (8:00a.m.) until sunset. The Officer of the Deck (OOD) will initiate a salute to a more senior officer comming aboard. FWIW, the procedure is reversed when going ashore. Officers will salute and say, "I have permission to go ashore" while enlisted say, "Request permission to go ashore." Then climb the brow, face/salute the flag and hit the beach! Keep in mind that this is the formal procedure. Often, there are litterally hundreds or even thousands of Sailors waiting to board or debark, so these procedures are often trunkated.E2a2j (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, folks.—msh210℠ 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

God's Address

Apparantly, 'God' (I am a firm atheist, though as a disclaimer to any reading Christian I would very much like to be wrong) has a mailing address. If you send a letter to him, it ends up somewhere in Israel (I think they might place it in the Wailing Wall). Can anyone track down what you'd actually put on the envelope to make sure that it got there, no matter where you posted it from? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anything official, but postmen are generally very good at getting letters where you want them. I bet "God, c/o Wailing Wall, ISRAEL" would get there (if you put enough stamps on). --Tango (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See [5].—msh210℠ 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Chaps, where would you expect to find Him, other than at Lord's? (NB "Wailing Wall" is often perceived as a perjorative term by Jews. The more PC name is "Western Wall".) --Dweller (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we have an article about this: Letter To God (I'm trying hard not to be amazed by this...and failing).

But for it to get to that service - you have to mail it to that company, specifically. If you don't (eg, if you addressed a letter to "God, Heaven" - it'll probably go the same way that letters to Santa Claus go (See: Santa_Claus#Letter_writing) - the post offices in some countries doubtless have some place to send them to. We know, for example, that the Canadian postal service (See: Canada_Post#Letters_To_Santa) sends the letters to volunteers who actually make a serious effort to answer letters sent to Santa, God and the Easter Bunny. SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Also [6]) SteveBaker (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Also [7]) .froth. (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why write a letter to God when a fax or email will get there so much faster? —D. Monack ^talk 02:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the varied responses! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Student Council Tax

I'm struggling to find on the VOA website what council tax would have to be paid in a house when only one resident wouldn't be in full time education, I'm guessing there would be a discount but I'm not sure how much it would be. If someone could point me in the direction to find the information would be helpful. Thanks. MedicRoo (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe they get the same discount as a person living on their own (which is 25%, see [8]), but I'm not 100% sure. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in Bristol a few years ago the council pro-rated the tax based on the number of students and non-students in the property. However, I'm fairly sure that was their local policy and not a national rule. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)