Miscellaneous desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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 8

How do I avoid abuse when asking for more information about a Wiki reference?

If I don't understand the entry provided in Wiki; where do I go to ask for clarification without being subjected to abuse? OR: Am I using this site incorrectly? Often; entries are defined with explanations that require advanced tertiary degrees to understand. In an encyclopedia that is intended for the general public, these entries provide no benefit to the ordinary reader. I understand that the "Discussion" tab is provided for contributers and editors to collaborate on the shape and content of the main page. It is not there for "Readers" to ask questions. So I presumed that the Reference Desk may be a source of charitable advise regarding my difficulties. I thought that the "Talk" pages were provided for just such a purpose; however, when I posted my questions there, I received answers that either:

Ignored the questions or answered a different question
Repeated the complex and opaque language in the original definition
Provided additional examples that only led to additional confusions

I, dutifully, thanked contributers for their help and pointed out the existing and additional confusions that transpired from their answers and attempted to ask my questions in a more targeted form. I was assailed by contributers with insults and gratutious advise regarding solutions to my ignorance. This behavior appears to be common throughout the Internet; however, I was surprised to encounter it here. Nevertheless, I apologised for my initial ignorance and my veracity in admitting to my continueing ignorance - presuming that reasonable people understand the difference between ignorance and intelligence. Now, I am perplexed: Is there no place within Wiki where I can ask genuine questions without having to endure the sorts of comments my enquiries provoked? I am merely trying to use Wiki in a manner that I thought stood it apart from other encyclopedias: an on-line source of information, constantly under review and improvement, in the hands of the people who hold the knowledge - not just a single entry, take it or leave it. I assumed that the community writing the definitions would appreciate additional questions from genuine readers. If sufficiently interested and motivated to help, they could gauge the source of my misunderstanding and re-work the entries to render them more accessible to the average person. But no; some entries seem to be testimony to the brilliance of the contributers and show little interest in providing useful information to the general reader beyond expecting them to marvel at the intelligence of the geniuses that wrote the page. I can't pick up a tertiary volume on any esoteric science or technology and expect to understand the language, as it is not written for the lay-person. Is this the same for Wiki? If so; I'm sorry. GPCViriya (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing problem at Wikipedia, where a group of experts dominates the edits of an article, and write it in such a way that only they can understand it. I've personally worked very hard to fix one such article, which even one of the founders of Wikipedia had criticized as being overly complex, only to have it continually changed back to the same PhD level article it was when I started. I suggest asking your questions on the appropriate Ref Desk. You might still get some of those type of answers, but hopefully there will be some people who can also gauge the audience (you) and provide answers at the desired level. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I am a genuine fan of Wiki and have benefitted greatly from it as a resource. I fear that my writing is too clumsy and leaves the wrong impression at times, causing people offense when none is intended. Maybe there is scope for the PhD's to invite educators to provide a more general explanation for public consumption and still expand the topic to the highest level for the sake of completedness.
GPCViriya (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - it's certainly an endemic problem in some math and science subjects. If you take something really basic like Force - I'd want to see "F=ma" in there someplace near the top - just like our Momentum article puts p=mv right there in the second sentence. But Force goes on for two long sections before it gets into the equations - and then it starts off with a vector differential equation for chrissakes! I can't think of anyone anywhere who could understand the concept of a vector differential equation who'd need to look up the equations for Force! Even the info-box says that it's the differential with respect to time of mass times velocity - a true statement but since masses of things don't change much and the differential of velocity with respect to time is more simply stated as 'acceleration', it's really unhelpful to someone who actually NEEDS to understand this subject. It does eventually gets around to say F=ma (albeit with some arrows over the top). But for a kid in highschool - the obvious, simple explanation needs to come first. There are much worse examples out there - this was just the first one I looked at.

A complaint about the complexity of the article most certainly does belong on its discussion page. However, requests for clarification do not. The Ref.Desk can answer questions like that - but you need to explain that you've already tried to understand the article and cannot - or we'll just point you right back to the article.

05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a persistent problem on many, many math and science articles. I do ask for clarification and simplification on the talk pages of these articles and my advice in response to abuse is to remain very patient and remind the regulars that an encyclopedia is written for the layman. Usually they know it's a problem (again, WP:OR). Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that articles in need of rewriting can be added to the queue at WP:COPYEDITORS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for the phenomenon, so it can be countered with some pithy guideline like K.I.S.S.? Hmm no sig but the voice is strangely familiar...213.122.53.235 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the force article. The third sentence pf the article says "Newton's second law can be formulated to state that an object with a constant mass will accelerate in proportion to the net force acting upon and in inverse proportion to its mass". That is a clear high-school description of "F=ma". If you put equations in the lede section then you fall foul of another group of readers who complain that the article is too mathematical and does not explain its concepts in "plain English". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that the given sentence is at least as mathematical as the equation, and don't really see any way to reduce it without going to something like "force is equal to mass times acceleration". 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why not say it that way ? It's simple, concise, and yet still defines the terms for those who may not know what "m" and "a" represent. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "Newton's second law can be formulated to state that an object with a constant mass will accelerate in proportion to the net force acting upon and in inverse proportion to its mass" is a really horrible sentence. "can be formulated to state that" is the sort of thing nobody should have to read. There's an "it" missing after "net force acting upon" as well. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the sentence has two faults. 1) It includes extraneous verbose language. "can be formulated to state" is unnecessary, the word "states" suffices. A common writing fault — even among those who are well-educated — is to assume that grander language is somehow better language. 2) The sentence is largely incomprehensible to those who don't already understand the concepts. What in the world could a typical ten-year-old make of the phrase "constant mass"? I'm not sure I know! Is the writer trying to draw a distinction between classical mechanics and an object accelerated near the speed of light? Simple, educational words and concepts are needed. Perhaps taking several sentences. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that anyone has abused this user. He or she asked a question about space on the science ref desk and received a number of helpful answers. When he or she disagreed with the answers, they were reminded to be polite to the ref desk contributors. No abuse, just careful help.

FWIW I would suggest that if there are aspects of the Space article which they don't like, they should raise them at the talk page and will likely get a good hearing. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limits

I have been brushing up on limits in my spare time (I don't usually use them in my profession, but I'd like to know them). So if I remember right from high school maths, in $\lim _{x\to a}{bx^{n}}$ or some such formula, couldn't you just substitute a for x to find the limit (unless doing so would result in an undefined solution, as in $\lim _{x\to a}{\operatorname {bx^{n}} \over \operatorname {x-a} }).$ In the latter case, I would have to try to get the a out of the bottom or modify the limit to not result in an undefined solution. After I do that, am I correct in assuming I can just plug a in for x whereever? 68.76.146.111 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might get a good answer here, but you might improve your chances by posting this on the math page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for the first example, since the expression doesn't do anything odd around x=a. However, you're not going to be able to get the a out of the bottom in the second case. As Buzz Lightyear would say, you're just going to + or - infinity (if not beyond). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond. Right. As in the final section of 2001, "Beyond the Infinite". Or as a weird math teacher once said to our class in reference to irrational numbers, "There are at least an infinit number of irrationals." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thats just on WP:RD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.232.131 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your math teacher knew what he was talking about. There are different sizes of infinity. There are exactly the same number of rational numbers as there are integers (

\aleph _{0}

), but there are strictly more irrational numbers (

2^{\aleph _{0}}

). See cardinal number and Cantor's diagonal argument for a start. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do prices include sales tax in California?

In brick-and-mortar stores in California, do sticker prices in brick-and-mortar stores normally include applicable sales taxes? Neon Merlin 05:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. PhGustaf (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the answer is "extremely rarely, so much so that a store that does this would certainly have to put signs up all over the place telling the customer about it". I can't actually think of a store in California that does this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally a store like Orchard Supply Hardware will have a "We pay the sales tax!" weekend sale. But incorporating the sales tax into the usual price of a product is, I think, illegal in California. PhGustaf (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd be interested to see that law. I can't think of a reason to prohibit such behavior; it certainly doesn't mislead the consumer into buying something that's more expensive than he's expecting. If anything it makes the consumer think the price is higher than it is; then he gets a pleasant surprise at the register. --Trovatore (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it here before and the reason given was checkout operators and others may cheat the customer who doesn't realise the sales tax is built in and make them pay extra which they pocket. Personally I think the better way to handle it would be make it compulsary to include the sales tax or make it abundantly clear if they aren't as done in most countries who use a GST/VAT. Of course just moving to a GST/VAT may be better but that's no an argument for here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes in the US are generally itemized. One common exception would be at sporting and theatrical events, where the taxes are built in on the concession items, presumably to help keep the lines moving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another case where taxes might be included is a concession stand which sells snacks or other low cost items. One reason is that they don't have to calculate the taxes while the customer waits. Another is that they can use "round numbers" for prices, to the nearest dollar, quarter, dime, or nickel, so as to limit the time needed to make change. Those differences could make the line move twice as fast, and therefore make a big difference in total sales. Some dollar stores take that practice to the extreme, and make everything a dollar so no price tags, math or change is needed, although I've seen others that do add taxes. StuRat (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who comes from a jurisdiction in which taxes are included in the advertised price, I must say I find it very confusing and misleading to go into a shop and be charged more than the price on the label. DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even worse than that are ads that say "Only have a dollar in your pocket ? Well you can still get any of the items off our value menu for just that". Anyone trying to do so will quickly find out that they can't, since sales tax takes the price over the dollar they have. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you can, if you get it "to go", at least in California. If I understand correctly, California does not impose sales tax on food, but it does on food eaten in restaurants. This exemption is intended to make the sales tax slightly more progressive (or some would say less regressive), given that poor people spend a greater fraction of their incomes on food than rich people. However the exemption does not apply to restaurants, because rich people eat in restaurants. But if you take your food out, then I guess the restaurant is acting like a grocery, so the exemption kicks back in. No warranty on any of this — this is just my vague understanding. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Prepared" food that's taken out is also taxed. This apparently includes anything they heat for you. At Subway, I could get away without paying taxes if I claimed my sub was to go, didn't have it heated, and, for some odd reason, didn't use a coupon. (I think the coupon thing was just a bug in their software.) StuRat (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the US situation, but here in the UK whether or not you get a price with VAT (what repalced sales tax in the UK) seems to depend on the primary nature of the type of customer a seller deals with. Prices quoted by retail chains tend to be VAT inclusive, whereas firms who primarily deal with 'trade' customers tend to list the VAT as a seperate item... Some firms I've dealt with sometimes list two prices... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this (as Sfan00 probably knows) is that most trade customers are buying on behalf of another business which is 'registered for VAT', and will therefore be able to reclaim the VAT paid as part of its routine accounting: for such customers, the price excluding VAT is therefore the actual price that (eventually) they will be paying.

VAT ("Value Added Tax") is sometimes defined as a Consumption tax as distinct from a Sales Tax, though in most ways the two seem very similar, and when introduced in the UK it did not, so far as I recall and can discover, replace any pre-existing sales tax, though I would welcome correction should I be mistaken on this point. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are mistaken. VAT in the UK replaced Purchase Tax in 1973, but you are correct in that many items to which VAT was applied did not previously carry Purchase Tax which was levied only on "luxury goods". Dbfirs 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, the two reasons for not including tax in the price that sound most reasonable to me are A) If tax were included, then the tax would somehow have to be deducted from the prices when non-profits and churches purchase items. They don't get charged sales tax in the US. and B) it eliminates confusion for the manufacturer because tax rates are different between states and even from one town to the next. So they can set their price for their product and not have to worry about what the tax rate is for a market. So, for instance, McDonald's can have their "dollar menu" or whatever and the price remains the same. The store charges the tax and that's that. If they had to include the tax, then they'd have to advertise it as a "something close to a dollar but maybe not depending on your local taxes menu". Dismas|^(talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (B) answer is most of it -- and there's another facet to it, too: Yes, tax rates can vary by town, county, and always by state. But, printed advertising (think of the Sunday newpaper color section) is printed and distributed across wider regions, and broadcast advertising covers a wide area; there's just no way you could advertise a price that included taxes and be correct about it.

And, frankly, it's what we're used to on this side of the pond. It's not a big deal. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B may be relevant, but A doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. The vast majority of purchases are surely from ordinary consumers not churches and non profits. Whether your adding tax or subtracting it, either way it's an inconvenience to someone (the only case you can perhaps argue adding is easier then subtracting is for a nice round number like 10% where adding it is very simple maths but subtracting is more complicated), if you're an organisation that mostly deals with churches and non-profits then perhaps it makes sense to exclude taxes but otherwise for McDonalds etc, for the average consumers POV including the taxes surely makes sense since they will be paying it. The complexities mentioned in B are relevant and the complexities mentioned by StuRat. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churches and non-profit organisations are very fortunate not to be charged sales tax in the USA. In Europe, they cannot escape VAT. Dbfirs 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Inquiry...

Hello Sir/Madam,

With due honor i wish to appreciate your services and ask a visa related question.

Am a successful business man in Cameroon who wish to take a vacation by going on a touristic tour to Singapore, Kosovo, and Georgia. please i understood this countries were visa free for a Cameroonian. so i will like to know if there are still visa free for a Cameroonian this year 2010???????. 'If yes', what is required on entry the countries listed above?????. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRUERIC (talk • contribs) 09:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted your question so that it's easier to read and changed the heading to be more descriptive. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to your question. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you picked these countries solely because of their visa-free status for Cameroonians? They are very far apart. Also, while Singapore is well known for its tourism, Kosovo and Georgia are emphatically not, and are indeed dangerous places which many countries strongly advise their citizens not to travel to (that said, so is Cameroon...). FiggyBee (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you exaggerate, in the case of Georgia. There are plenty of attractions - our article on Tourism in Georgia provides a very brief summary - and British government advice states that much of the country is safe enough for travel. They also state that "most visits to Kosovo are trouble-free", although I'm not aware of any significant tourism infrastructure there. Warofdreams talk 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual sources of information about visa requirements are embassies or consuls of the countries concerned, and travel agencies. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings

How is a paintings value determined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcolis (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally by reference to the prices paid for other paintings by the same painter, and then taking account of secondary considerations such as the state of the market, the relative importance of a particular painting, etc. There is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors involved in the art market, and the process is at best somewhat arbitrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings are often sold by auction and thuis it depends on what people are willing to pay for them, which, as mentioned above, affects what other paintings are valued at. The price is therefore influenced by the prominence of the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For living painters, a standard is how much they've been paid for previous work. No matter how good they are, they tend to start small. People are willing to pay what others have. Over months and years, a successful painter raises prices. Another example: an acquaintance at university was so good they almost didn't accept him saying, "We have nothing to teach you". At the time, he was selling paintings at an exclusive store in a major city. He charged by the square foot. No kidding. So, in sum, there are many forces at work, here. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any given known artist has a sort of base price, depending on experience and visibility, which varies up and down depending on the size of the painting and the medium used. In short, oils are valued more highly than acrylics, and acrylics are valued more highly than water colours, all other things being equal, which of course they seldom are. A "per-square-inch" price is more likely than "per-square-foot" in my experience, but either is possible. And any recent public sale, as in a reputable auction, for example, will affect the value of most other paintings by the same artist. Pricing one's own work appropriately, until you have a reputation, is one of an artist's greatest challenges.Bielle (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive material

What is the most expensive (moneywise) material on earth? I guessed diamonds but I could be wrong. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that pound-for-pound Saffron is more expensive than Gold. Never investigated to see if that's true though. Diamonds may well be worth more. Would you include or exclude man-made materials? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you are, of course. In Spain, Saffron is expensive, but not as expensive. Kingsfold (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no exclusions --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard inkjet printer ink was more expensive than gold! This link gives a grouse about it. [2] --TammyMoet (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) link added--TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Moon rocks are expensive, at the present time. Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests antimatter and LSD are worth more than diamonds. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of materials that are truly priceless. At infinite value, they're hard to beat. I'd head the list with any of my vital organs, which currently are priceless, but could potentially be acquired at a quite remarkable discount at some point in the future. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a real answer to that question. One candidate might be Californium. This is a real material, in that it's used in milligram quantities, but is said to have an interesting property: a .45 bullet made of the stuff shot onto a concrete wall would compress into a critical mass and go kablooie. That would be one expensive bullet. PhGustaf (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Californium cost $60m per gram in 2000[3]. In contrast rhodium is according to the Wikipedia article the most expensive precious metal at $80,000/kg.

60 micro dollars? Perhaps you mean millions: $60M --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, William Shakespeare's signature is reportedly worth $3 million[4], and a 10x10 cm piece of paper with his name on might weigh 1 gram. --Normansmithy (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great source about Californium. It makes sense here to consider a "material" as "something one can make stuff of" — objects of antiquarian or personal value don't count. PhGustaf (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it is almost certainly antimatter, specifically antihydrogen at $62 trillion/gm. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my lungs are far more valuable than that. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, your lungs are not a material. If they were, I would gladly sell 1 gram of my lung tissue for $US62 trillion. Googlemeister (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense are your lungs priceless, exactly? I'm sure one could hire someone to acquire them for rather less than trillions of dollars, and they certainly wouldn't sell for that much on the open market. Algebraist 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently own them and therefore set the market price. I'm sure there's a nice case study here on elasticity of demand, as the price is entirely unrelated to demand and interestingly/peculiarly related to supply. On your other point, if you're going to hire someone to acquire things (presumably nefariously) the prices for all these things are rather more arbitrary than the figures we're bandying around. A bloke down the tube offered me a gram of anti-matter for a fiver this morning. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you ask him to shake the container to make sure that it was still in there? Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have two lungs (I presume) and can survive with one, so would you really be unwilling to sell a lung at any price? I find that hard to believe. It wouldn't be too hard to buy a replacement lung on the black market with some of that money, for a start. Few things, if any, are truly priceless. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point... if I had said "lung". But I said "lungs". --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point... if a pair of lungs could be considered a material. Honestly, your lungs have very little value to anyone but you, and trying to sell you your lungs back probably will not work well either. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. Given the lack of organs for transplantation and while the scare stories (e.g. [5]) are almost definitely exaggerating there's also almost definitely a black market for organs and if Dweller is a good enough match to someone in need of and willing to pay for a lung or lungs, it's likely he or someone could sell Dweller's lungs if they knew the right people. Of course since he/she'll be competing with poor & desperate people and the middlemen will take a very big cut, I doubt Dweller will be happy with the price. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now we get to it. Is the price fixed by the buyer or seller? In most realworld economics, the price is set by the two meeting, but in Dweller's Lungs Economics, if demand was infinite, and supply=1 set the price exceeds infinity. Equally, if demand =1 or even 0 and supply still=1, the price remains in excess of infinity. Honestly, I think I need to create an essay about my lungs for economists' elucidation. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic slightly:) Price elasticity of demand is up for GA at the moment at my behest, no reviewers yet :) It used to have (I think) the human heart as an example inelastic good, but in reality, there is a limit: if the market price of hearts (or lungs) is $1 million, I'm dead, and consequently, I would no longer demand a heart (or lung). (Obviously, it's also a bad example on many other ground, many of which are unrelated to this topic.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ink ($/ml) in a typical inkjet printer cartridge is a potential candidate, albeit artificially inflated by HP and the likes. --Chan Tai Man 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

anyone have a link to read about that californium bullet nuclear explosion thing?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea may have started here[6]. PhGustaf (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. However, I would want to sure it couldn't be forced into criticality by the compression force inside the gun. Astronaut (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kahn proposed the nuclear bullet more as a gedanken experiment than as a useful weapon. But your point is good: I wouldn't want to fire a nuclear pistol myself, nor would I want to drop a nuclear depth charge from my ship's fantail. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case for MythBusters. "Okay, Jamie, so the handgun didn't work, but what if we use a high-powered rifle ..." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fungibility" as a quality would have to be an aspect of any "material" to be considered as an answer to this question. That would rule out such items as body parts or Shakespeare's signature. Otherwise Fort Knox or the Taj Mahal or the Pyramids are "materials." Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When something is so spectacularly rare, prices become almost meaningless. Take most recently named element "Copernicium" - only 75 atoms of the stuff have ever been made. If those atoms cost only $1 each to make (and I absolutely guarantee it was a LOT more than that!) - then the price per gram of the stuff would exceed, by far, all of the money in the whole world - more than all of the money there has ever been in the entire world! But is there a market for the stuff? Probably not - if you decided to corner the market and buy all 75 atoms of the stuff - then you'd find that 29 seconds later, you only had about 40 atoms - after a minute, maybe 20. Within 5 minutes, you'd be lucky to have even one atom left. That probably makes it pretty worthless! SteveBaker (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the answer will depend somewhat on what constitutes a 'material', and whether it actually needs to be available for sale on the open market. (The $62 trillion per gram price of antihydrogen, for instance, is very impressive — but it's not exactly something that you can actually go out and buy from Sigma Aldrich.)

I know that tritium is quite pricey, and also readily available (with the proper licenses). It runs about 100 thousand USD per gram (warning, PowerPoint slides). For comparison, gold is trading at around 40 USD per gram. The californium example above is another valuable illustrative case.

If you want to limit the search to non-radioactive materials, then I'd look to the world of molecular biology. Looking at a pretty standard commercial monoclonal antibody against p53 tumor suppressor protein, we find a list price of 259 USD for 200 micrograms. That works out to a little over a million USD per gram. For more highly-specialized biomolecules, I'm sure you can find materials that are orders of magnitude even more costly, but I don't have time to go catalog-diving today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In honour of this thread, I have created User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics. Economists and clever people who really do comprehend the terms I've bandied about in that essay are welcome to come and amend it, and explain to me (using small words) why I shouldn't use technical terms I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to place this late reply. How much does one share weigh? Berkshire Hathaway have them going at $123,250 each as of right now. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much would 10,000 electronic shares weigh? Googlemeister (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a pull-up, not a chin-up

In the pull-up, the palms are facing away. In the chin-up, they are facing you. But, how is it called when you are pulling your body up with the palms facing each other? --Mr.K. (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some body-building websites (eg [7]), it's just called a "parallel grip chin-up" or a "semi-supinated chin-up" - there isn't a more specific term that I can find. Our own chin-up and pull-up articles don't cover it, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The grip described is similar to that in the exercises Rings (gymnastics) and Flying rings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney

I need an address so I can send him some material. Rich Wareing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.175.91 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your physical address from this posting. It is not necessary to post your physical or e-mail address here, because we answer all questions right here. (It's also a bad idea to post them, for privacy reasons.) As to your question, our Mitt Romney article implies he's unemployed at the moment, but you may be able to send him your material via his PAC. Though his signature is right at the top, the text at the bottom claims it's "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee", so you should write them an e-mail first to see what to do. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S$1.8K - S$2.5K Sales Secretary cum Coordinator

What does this secretary have to do?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not touching this one. Bugs? Woogee (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's safe from me, since I don't have a clue what the OP is asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Cum will elucidate. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary for sales with ("cum") some role as a coordinator. All that for the low, low wage of 1800-2500 Singapore dollars, which is $1300-1800 USD. I don't know how far that goes in Singapore, but I hope those are monthly wages, not annual! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Definition -cum- preposition used to join two nouns, showing that a person or thing does two things or has two purposes; combined with This is my bedroom-cum-study.Froggie34 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The job description implies that the post includes some controlling responsibility for sales-related activities where several people are involved. That might involve exhibitions, publicity campaigns, monitoring a sales team or whatever else the activities are of the company sales department. Ask them! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.K. will have his joke. Bielle (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi friendly after-hours place in central charlotte

Hey, I'm working in Charlotte (NC) today and I'm not going to be able to leave until around 9/9:30 or so. I know a lot of places close after people leave the area for work. But I'm looking for a place where I can just sit for like 4 or so hours on my laptop, get free WI-FI, not buy anything, and it be a relatively comfortable environment. Any ideas? Chris M. (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, Charlotte's main library, at 310 N. Tryon St., has wi-fi and is open until 9:00. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you. Chris M. (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

paralegal professional

can a client restrict the use of information obtained as part of an investigation?--Msladys (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for legal advice? In that case, this is not the venue to do so (see WP:NOLEGAL). Consult a professional lawyer instead. Gabbe (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the general point, this will be jurisdiction-dependent. For the law in the USA, see Attorney-client privilege - articles on the law in other jurisdictions are linked from that one. The answer is "Usually, depending on where you are in the world." Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]