Miscellaneous desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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.

November 21

Nine MSN

On NineMSN, why do some of the news photos that appear on the home page have a miniature photo of a person mentioned in one corner of the photo? ([1]) jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 03:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example? That link doesn't show any. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean like [2] that's a fairly common practice on news sites and news papers as a way of showing both people involved in a single picture (forgot to add, and giving due prominence to the person of most interest to the story) Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find historic snow conditions for a Ski Resort? eg. Heavenly

I am planning to go to Heavenly Ski resort or maybe a different US ski resort sometime December til May.

I'm looking for real data, like snow depth or #of runs open on different days in past ski seasons.

In planning my trip, I intend to go when it's least crowded and has a good chance of decent snow conditions based on the last 5 years of actual snow conditions. 125.27.70.193 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link might get you somewhere. It gives you historic snowfall, but doesn't take account of wear and thawing so it might not correlate with conditions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friends and I used to live within a few hours drive of lots of ski resorts in the French Alps. We quickly found the worst time to go was during the school half term break (usually mid-February); there was usually poor snow coverage until mid-January and by the time late-March came around the snow was starting to melt. For coming weekend's ski trip, it would work like this:

Wednesday or Thursday - look at the local weather forcast and ski report on the internet
Thursday afternoon or Friday morning - seek out accommodation and book it
Friday evening or early Saturday morning - drive up to the resort

The choice of resort was the one with the best current snow coverage, best percentage of lifts open, and with available and affordable accomodation. Later in the season, a high altitude also became important. I got to ski most weekends for 2 seasons. We occasionally got poor weather, but more usual was bright sunshine and great snow. In summary, we were flexible and prepared to go anywhere at almost the last minute.

That said, we were in Europe and within a reasonable drive of lots of resorts. maybe that's not the case with you. Astronaut (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those in North America "half term" translates to "March break". At least in this context. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon-style trapdoors in office

It is a rather well known tool, from Scrooge McDuck's office to other cartoons or comedies: In front of the desk, the visitor is left to stand and becomes subject to falling through a trapdoor beneath, devised by the owner/creator to get rid of unwanted people. My question is, are there any famous examples of this occuring in reality? 77.18.71.126 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, since this would usually involve major structural work, and you still have the problem of removing them from the pit. The closest thing would be sending someone to the gallows; these sometimes had a trapdoor.Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably goes back to the tales of Sweeney Todd and I would not be surprised if it is even older. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trapdoors are common on theatre stages, where such an office scene may have been depicted for comic effect. 78.146.30.105 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to permanently correct personality flaws?

This question appears to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to clarify your question. Thank you.

Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it.

Value of diamonds

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12diamonds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hpw

Though it is a major commodity producer, Russia has traditionally not embraced policies that artificially keep prices up. In oil, for example, Russia benefits from the oil cartel’s cuts in production, but does not participate in them.

Diamonds are an exception. “If you don’t support the price,” Andrei V. Polyakov, a spokesman for Alrosa, said, “a diamond becomes a mere piece of carbon.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125650986946206903.html

"Tiffany's is an extreme example of an industry shift that started during the recent luxury boom. Like most other diamond retailers, Tiffany long bought the vast majority of its diamonds pre-cut and pre-polished from industry middlemen. But with global diamond-jewelry sales soaring earlier this decade, Tiffany and others worried they would soon be fighting over dwindling supplies."

Is it me or does the WSJ article seem to be missing a lot of details? So does Tiffany's really just fear the new cartel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highcountbedsheets (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds have long been subject to market manipulation by De Beers, but that mostly ended in the 1990's (see that article for details). I've only skimmed the article, but it seems to be saying that the demand for cheap diamonds has been rapidly increasing and Tiffany's wants to get their share of that demand, which requires cutting costs. They are doing that by cutting out the middle man and cutting/polishing diamonds themselves (to lower standards). So, I don't think there is a new cartel, there is just an intentional reduction in supply in order the match the reduction in demand caused by the recession. Without that the price would reduce and diamonds only have value because they are expensive (that sounds tautological, but it is true). I don't think that is really connected with the change at Tiffany's - they are in response to changes in the market on different timescales. The recession is just over the last year or two, the shift to cheaper diamonds is over the last decade. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of diamond prices must touch on the issue of laboratory diamonds, which can be even purer than natural diamonds. Of course, those who depend on keeping lab diamonds off the market will try to convince everyone they are "fake", but they really are real, and eventually, as the price comes down and size and quality goes up, I expect consumers to accept them, leading to a crash in natural diamond prices. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The price has come down and size and quality have gone up. The only way to tell the difference between a synthetic diamond and a natural one (using typical diamond examining technology - ie. a bright light and a magnifying glass, not a spectrograph) is that the synthetic ones are too flawless. I'm not sure what is stopping "fake" diamonds flooding the market - massive efforts from the natural diamond industry, I guess. --Tango (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds are the ultimate Veblen good; they're valuable because they're valuable, and natural diamonds will always be prized much more than artificial ones. How shiny you can make the artificial ones look is irrelevant. FiggyBee (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they could be made indistinguishable, the price would still plummet. --Tango (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are distinguishable. Natural diamonds come out of the dirt, artificial ones come out of a factory. See what I'm saying? Their origin affects their value as much any other variable. FiggyBee (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes them different not distinguishable. Distinguishable means that, if you were given a diamond, you could tell which type it was. If you can't tell a natural diamond from a fake one then you can't charge different prices for them. --Tango (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can - and it's not like it's unheard of. Books, art, and collectibles are just three areas off the top of my head where provenience can mean more than anything else. There's no reason diamonds or other gems couldn't also be the same way. DC comics have re-published Action comics number 1 several times, sometimes with only the most minor changes to make it obvious that it's a reprint. It would be trivial to remove those changes and publish as many copies of Action #1 as they'd like. Not only would those ersatz first issues not be worth anything in particular, they'd have no effect on the value of the real book. You could mail a copy to everyone in the world, so that there couldn't possibly be a demand for the issue, but the original book would still be more valuable than most houses (~$440,000 according to a quick googling). If factory made gems flooded the market, it would only create a side industry of companies that would certify that particular stones came out of the ground or not. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can not distinguish between two things you cannot charge different prices for them. Fact. In all those examples you can tell the difference between them. If they managed to make a perfect reprint so you that you couldn't tell the difference, then that would reduce the price of the originals because nobody would know whether they were buying an original or a reprint. There is no point certifying where a particular stone came from if you can't identify the stone - some people have started engraving serial numbers into stones to make sure they can be identified, that is really the only option if someone manages to make synthetic diamonds that are truly indistinguishable from natural ones. Serial numbers would mean they had to make diamonds that were indistinguishable from a specific natural diamond (assuming the person certifying them stored some detailed information about the stone), rather than natural diamonds in general, which would be a much harder challenge. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confoederation Helvetica

What is value of 1963 and 1968 5 FR coin? Where will I find this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.217.193 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those years particularly rare? If not 5 Swiss Francs equals roughly 5 USD. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling 1968 5 FR brings up some relevant hits, the gist of which seems to be that 1968 was just a normal issue year; it might be worth 10 dollars if it's in exceptional uncirculated condition, otherwise it's just a normal coin worth face value. FiggyBee (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case the country name is throwing you, note that Confoederatio Helvetica is the "latin" name for Switzerland. (Hence Ronhjones' reference to the Swiss Franc.) -- 128.104.112.237 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original 5 Francs coins were made with silver (0.835 ounze) until 1967 and again in 1969. Therefore the coin from 1963 is worth something around 15 USD due to the current silber price (18.61 USD/oz). Indeed, in Switzerland, they get traded at about 9 CHF / 9 USD. The 1968 coin is from the first coining with Cupronickel. This might give it a very small higher value than the 5 CHF face value. 84.72.151.222 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hair washing

If i didnt wash my hair for 6 mnths or a year, how dirty would it get. would it cause me scalp rotting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.107.248 (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. See dreadlocks. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK den, why people wash there hair?--79.75.121.239 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't want to have dreadlocks. Also, dreadlocks isn't the only possible result of not washing your hair - see Polish plait (a term I only learnt after I felt I should read the article I linked you to!), which some people seem to like but sounds disgusting to me. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, you do wash "dreads" or your hair will stink, and you may well end up with scalp problems that attract vermin. Our article leaves this bit out for some reason, speaking almost nothing to the hygiene part. You don't brush or comb the hair, except to help the dreads' styling, but you do wash the hair and the scalp. Bielle (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of approaches. Some do wash their dreads, some don't. It is advisable to make sure you clean off any dirt that gets on them, but the natural oils aren't a problem for many people. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if you comb your hair but not wash, what happens?--79.75.121.239 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a while, combing becomes difficult, if not impossible, and your hair will smell awful. Tango's view notwithstanding, if you live and work or go to school in a western culture (and many others besides) and you are not a social hermit, you may find yourself with no job and few friends. I know numbers of people who wear or have worn dreads, and I know of none who did not keep them and their scalp scrupulously clean. Hair oils do attract vermin. Bielle (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep your hair scrupulously clean it won't form dreads, it is the natural oils that matts the hair together. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The hairs in (clean) dreadlocks are mechanically "locked" together by weaving or rolling. As the lead of dreadlocks says, natural oils prevent locking, they don't cause it. FiggyBee (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "polish plait" is a much more likely outcome than dreadlocks if you ignore your hair, especially if you're a european. A few years ago I grew my hair long, and at one point ended up with a horrible gummy lump of hair that I had to cut out after spending several days trying to unpick it one hair at a time (note, washing your hair without undoing your ponytail is a bad idea). These days, I keep my hair as short and maintenance-free as possible. :) OTOH, my partner, who's African-American, has dreadlocks. She has to wash and re-roll them every couple of weeks, which takes hours and is very hard work. FiggyBee (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was much younger I never washed my hair (my upbringing was remarkably lacking in certain key areas - this was one of them). No-one ever said anything, and nothing notable happened. Other than the occasional rainy day, my hair probably didn't get wet once in over six years. Vimescarrot (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you went six years without washing your hair, it probably didn't get wet even when it did rain -- hair oils do a decent job of waterproofing. --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally wash my hair so much as rinse it. I don't comb it, either, just a run of the hands. It is a little greasy, but it doesn't smell or anything. Nothing much really happens, otherwise. Aaronite (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I depends on your general lifestyle habits. The cleaner you are to begin with, and the cleaner you live for that year, the less horrible your scalp and hair will become. I myself have little need for shampoo (once a month); just the hot water is sufficient generally. Vranak (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I just never wanted to know. I think I am going to give up reading the Ref Desk late at night. Bielle (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwashed hair is stereotypically a haven for lice and such. In any case, I would try to keep a safe distance from someone who doesn't wash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone very well who does not shower. They will do a sponge bath of sorts with a hand towel if they have been doing any heavy activity but that's it. Their hair does not form dreads, plaits, or look at all greasy. Dismas|^(talk) 11:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You poor miserable squeamish souls. Shampoo strips your hair of essential oils; you want to keep those around unless you have a serious cleanliness issue. Otherwise you do get dry unmanageable boring hair. No fun at all. Vranak (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to all of this would seem to be the skinhead look, which is becoming increasingly mainstream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from aesthetic and thermoregulatory considerations, your idea is entirely prodigal. Vranak (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you calling "prodigal", son? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered shaving my head, but I'm not convinced it is a good look for a middle-aged white guy.

But I have certainly heard that if you don't wash your hair it gets pretty nasty for a few weeks until your natural oils take over. It seems obvious that you would still need to comb it regularly to avoid the aforementioned Polish plait and occasionally cut it to maintain an appropriate length. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skinhead look worked for middle-aged white guy Jesse Ventura. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times political sketchwriter Matthew Parris, and the BBC's political presenter Andrew Marr, both are on record as saying they never use shampoo. I'm sure if you go on the Times website and search there through Parris's articles you will find his thoughts on the matter. OR my grandfather never used to wash his hair either: he kept it pretty short (about half an inch to an inch) and grandma used to rub olive oil into his scalp to keep it from becoming scaly. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR: I briefly dated a woman with a hair weave, and it didn't smell too good. Thus briefly. --Sean 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR: A friend didn't wet his hair, brush or wash it over a one year period. It got pretty smelly, and had more than just dirt in it (also boot polish, powder, occasional creams and more). It itched and looked quite foul, but didn't result in any lasting conditions. Steewi (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point, according to [3] [4] [5], it's fairly common Sikhs including those who wear turbans (and therefore their hair is likely to be fairly 'protected' from the environment although it may also cause problems for the same reason) do wash their hair a few times a week. Of course they do have religious reasons why they would want to keep their hair clean so it may not be just because their hair gets dirty. Also not using shampoo =/ not washing your hair, I know of some people who prefer to use soap for example. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 7 cats

Is it really true that any question that anyone may ask can be fitted into one of only seven categories (as here on WP). (This one is Misc BTW)--79.75.107.248 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one of categories in "Miscellaneous", which means "doesn't fit in to any of the other categories", then: yes. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how a service such as this is set up. We could have hade it as only three categories:

Life and Times of Britney Spears
Life and Times of Paris Hilton
All other subjects.

Fortunately, we didn't do that. We could also have had 50 or more categories; but we seem to have struck a reasonable balance between accessibility and functionality. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length on the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk page. The problem is that adding more categories reduces the number of eyes on each sub-desk - which reduces the number and quality of the answers. If any change is likely - it would be to eliminate some of the less-used desks. At any rate - this is the wrong place to discuss it - please read back through the talk page archives and if the answer is still not clear - then start yet another discussion over there. However, be warned - you're opening up a hornet's nest. SteveBaker (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP, I can now say that that was a pretty stupid Q and the answer is obvious. What I should have asked was: why is 6 cats plus misc all that is deemed to be needed. I am not suggesting any change- just musing.--79.75.21.130 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no stupid questions, only stupid questioners. :) :) :) And the answer is not at all inherently obvious. That's why there have been debates and discussions on the matter. The simple answer would be that these categories seem to be a reasonable balance at this point, between too many and too few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The desks are the way they are because they are a reasonably even split of the traffic. Over the past week, we had close to 300 questions: 44 Science questions, 46 Misc, 65 Computers, 23 Math, 64 Humanities, 36 Language and 27 Entertainment. My gut feel is that this is perhaps an unusually high number for Computers - but otherwise, pretty typical. None of those are unmanageably large - we have plenty of people to answer even 10 questions per day per desk. So there isn't really any pressure to split them up. The two that are small (math and entertainment) have questions that we mostly agree are ill-suited to being merged elsewhere. The math desk requires a rather different kind of respondent - the threads are longer and much, much more detailed. The entertainment questions tend to annoy the heck out of respondents on the other desks ("Identify this actor/music/movie please?" gets old, fast!) - I think we're all happy to have it off in it's own area. But in any case, what would you merge them with? Math merged with science would make science bigger than any of the others...Entertainment merged with Misc or maybe Humanities...again, too big. I can't imagine any other merger combo's that would work. So those aren't going away and they aren't going to be merged with anything else. Should we split some up? Well, computing isn't usually that large - and splitting it would be really tough ("Theoretical Computing" and "Practical Computing"? "Programming" and "Not-Programming"?) - nothing like that really works. I suppose we might split up Humanities - but when we've discussed that in the past, we never found a split that we felt would be 50/50 and wouldn't result in all of the same people simply having to patrol both desks. So we can't split any - and we can't merge any. Hence, it seems that we have just about the right split. This does get discussed fairly regularly - the result of the discussion is pretty much always the same - do nothing. It's not like there is a major crisis going on - so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]