Miscellaneous desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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 26

Live from the Concertgebouw

The classical music station in my city plays a promotional sound byte for this program with some excerpt from a piece of music. Here is my attempt at a transcription: C F (going up) E C B G (going down) F G A B C# D# F (going up). The notes are: quarter, quarter, eighth, eighth, eighth, eight, eighth, sixteenth, sixteenth, sixteenth, sixteenth, eighth, half, played by brass instruments. Does anyone recognize this, or has anyone heard the clip? What piece is it from? 70.162.12.102 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be the opening motif of the last movement of Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra. (Midi version available here.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

formal names

What are the formal names for the display and the edit areas for the same text? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could be talking about an online rich-text editor, a control which in some cases allows you to edit text in the same area where it will ultimately be displayed (e.g. on your blog). Then again you might be being utterly unclear. The display and edit areas of what text? Perhaps you want the article form (web), specifically textarea forms, which in the case of the display area could be set to read-only. 81.131.25.53 (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi Wikipedia

What is the current state of the Gurmukhi Panjabi Wikipedia? Like are there active editors?, how many articles does it have?, and stats on it.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See pa:Special:Statistics. :-) Killiondude (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those statistics use numeral symbols as in Indian numerals#Other modern Indian languages. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

featured pictures- light fittings/lamps

I want to refer the featured pictures appeared during the first week of this month. There were about 80-90 lamp fittings were shown in that picture. I want to refer it again for further information. how can I access that picture? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.25.100 (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The directory of featured pictures is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one you want is File:Eclairage.jpg. (The handy day-by-day archive of pictures of the day is Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 2010.) Deor (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star gazing + creation of synthetic life

1. When star gazing, I am able to easily see constelations such as the crab, and the full Orion, not just the belt but the skirt, arms. bow ect. Now obviously the ancient greeks could see this too, and in my opinion it is not difficult, so why is there speculation recently that these are difficult to make out?

2. Do we have an article on the recent synthetic life that was created. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your first question, I am not sure there is any such recent speculation - do you have a source for this? On your second question, we have an article on Craig Venter who is the guy responsible for this work and a rather techy article on Mycoplasma laboratorium which I gather is what the recent breakthrough is about. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To partially answer your first question, if you live in a city then the city lights will drown out all but the very brightest stars and planets. There has been a fuss made about that, and if you search for "Dark Skies 2010" you will find sites which tell you more. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the main body of Orion (ie, the shoulders, belt and feet) contains 1st and 2nd magnitude stars, the shield or bow of Orion contains a group of stars, all called Pi Orionis, none of which is brighter than magnitude 3.6, and the skirt (Upsilon Orionis, 29 Orionis and 49 Orionis) is no brighter then magnitude 4.5. In Cancer the brightest star is Beta Cancri with a magnitude of 3.5. In my experience, unless you are somewhere very dark, stars below 3rd magnitude are difficult to see with the naked eye. Certainly, where I live very close to London, it is difficult to see any but the brightest stars. If I use binoculars, I can then see too many stars which makes 3rd and 4th magnitude difficult to pick out from the background of fainter stars, particularly if the background is the Milky Way like it is in Orion.

I guess by synthetic life, you mean the bacteria mentioned in this BBC report. Indeed, the Craig Ventner mentioned above, is involved in that project. Astronaut (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Q2, I live just outside London, and when it is not raining, it is easy to see them so why? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean Q1, and haven't looked at our article on Light pollution. If you go to Light_pollution#Effect_on_astronomy then you will see the effect for yourself. You probably live in an area where the light pollution has little impact on the visibility of the stars you quoted. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: Are you asking about why people say it is difficult to see stars, or are you asking about the psychological phenomenon of recognizing shapes and patterns when you look up at the stars? (Our Constellation article may be of interest, though it sadly lacks much information on the latter phenomenon.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"speculation recently that these are difficult to make out" - I'm not sure what you mean by "make out". The others above interpret it to mean "see", in which case their answers are useful. If you mean "perceive", I'll chime in and say that I find the vast majority of constellations next to impossible to perceive, no matter how dark the sky (and bright the stars) as the patterns are so vastly different from the shapes they are fancifully supposed to represent, even if you take into account the motion of stars since ancient times. You need more than merely a good imagination to spot the patterns, you need an outstanding one. --Dweller (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of the OP's question in terms of being able to imagine the shape described by ancient greeks. I just assumed the OP lived in an area with no light pollution and therefore could easily see the stars despite their relative dimness (umm - is "dimness" a word?). Astronaut (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live 10km from central London but can only see the very brightest stars at night, I once saw the Milky Way from my back garden, but it was during a power cut. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sad price to pay for urbanisation, or more to the point, electrification, Alan. I get to see the Milky Way in brilliant definition most every night of the year. But I'm three hours drive from the nearest opera house or symphony hall. Swings and roundabouts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip mongers

what is it with some people who gossip and create a veri amiable environment to a envious and destructive. what is their motivation in doing this and how does this help them...anyone please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on gossip, which suggests that it serves the purpose of creating community while reinforcing social norms. The article suggests that some gossip to become closer to their communities, while others may use gossip to isolate and harm others. I also found an interesting Scientific American article that explores some of the evolutionary psychology behind gossip. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payday

The above question got me thinking. Why do US employees generally get paid by 'check' evey 2 weeks (presumably they then have to take it to the bank and deposit into their account)? Here in the UK (and I believe in most of the EU), employees usually get paid monthly by a transfer into the employees bank account. Astronaut (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many US employees get the option - we choose whether we'd prefer to have a check, or a transfer. Most of the people where I work choose the transfer. I don't really have any statistics other than my own work experience. We do still tend to refer to our payment as our 'paycheck,' even though there's no physical check to cash, possibly for the same reason that I might still say, "I'm going to the record store to buy an album," even though I'm not sure I even remember how to operate a record player any more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you often have the choice of how you are paid (I have almost always been paid by direct deposit, as they call it—it just transfers in). Different jobs have different pay periods; most jobs I've had pay monthly, only a rare few paid every 2 weeks. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is just the opposite, with biweekly pay periods being the most common arrangement. Many states have laws regulating pay periods. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of jobs were you each doing? In my experience in the UK, salaried jobs almost invariably pay monthly, while jobs with an hourly rate often pay weekly or fortnightly. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, employers often prefer employees to take the direct deposit option because it reduces the amount of paperwork (I don't understand the details, but am told this is so by people in the department) and also reduces the hassle of having cheques floating around out there un-cashed but still "on the books" as it were since they could be cashed at any time. Matt Deres (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It varies in the US. In different jobs, I have sometimes been paid every two weeks and at other times, twice-monthly. A previous job gave me the choice to have a 'live check' or direct-deposit. My present job will only do direct deposit. That seems to apply even to the most senior employees. I think that at least a part of the difference is that in the US, there are typically very short notice periods for employees being fired or wanting to resign - two weeks either-way is common - so I suspect that there is a tie-in there somehow. In the UK, it's more common for 'salaried' employees to be paid monthly and 'blue collar' people weekly...but notice periods for salaried employees are typically much longer. The last job I had in the UK required TWO MONTHS of notice on either side! Since we're paid in arrears in both countries, the US system is fairer than monthly pay because you don't lose the potential interest you could earn from getting half of your salary paid two weeks earlier than you'd get it in the UK. Weekly paid people in the UK are also better off. What I really hate is that my mortgage payment comes due twice a month and I get paid every two weeks so there is this horrible arrhythmia where the random decisions of various Roman Emperors about the duration of each month does horrible things to my bank balance! SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, comparisons based on loss of potential interest work only if you assume you'd be paid the same amount per unit time otherwise. I doubt that's a valid assumption. After all, interest you get is interest your employer doesn't get, or vice versa. So I would expect employers who pay weekly, losing out on that interest, to pay slightly less. Overall it probably evens out, more or less, though certainly it might not even out exactly in a particular case. --Trovatore (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Sweden, THREE months of notice is required on either side for most steady jobs, and my employer can't just sack me without a valid reason. Of course, the employer can always claim there is "not enough work" - but that means they cannot hire someone else to do my job instead. Lova Falk talk 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On either side? You're saying that you're contractually bound to keep working even if you don't want to? What happens if you don't? Your employer sues you?

The two-weeks thing Steve talks about is also not really familiar to me. More typical in the software industry is that, when you are terminated (probably no matter whether it was your choice or the company's), you are immediately locked out of your computer account, and your keycard stops working. What they may very well do is pay you for two weeks or so, or longer in stable companies, assuming that the company fired you and it was not "for cause". It's called a severance package. Of course you're not likely to get one if you resign. But they're not going to ask you to keep working, or even permit you to, in most cases — there's too much mischief you could pull if you were so inclined. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get your employer to agree with letting you go earlier, it's a breach of contract if you don't show up, and yes, you could be sued even though I have never heard that it really happened. Lova Falk talk 07:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think I like the at will system better, even though it's certainly less secure. --Trovatore (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the part that I cannot be sacked just because my employer doesn't like my face anymore. Three month's notice is not a problem in Sweden, because it is the same for most. So when looking for a new job, it is not a huge disadvantage. Lova Falk talk 10:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly was the traditional way 'unskilled' work was paid in the UK, but there's been a move towards monthly payment by many employers. And towards direct payment into a bank account. When I was doing various temp jobs a couple of summers ago, this was a real worry for a lot of the permanent staff I met: they were being switched to monthly payment, and had spent decades budgeting with a weekly salary. Quite apart from a month != 4 weeks confusing things, weekly payment was a deeply ingrained thing for them. I offer this as anecdata. 212.183.140.17 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a salaried professional, and I get paid twice a month. Weekly paychecks were quite common when I was doing blue-collar work.

In 1949 I protested that my then weekly pay was to be paid monthly by cheque, objection over-ruled. All my employers since have paid monthly and a day or so early if pay-day fell on a bank holiday.--Artjo (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to toss in some anecdotal data from Canada: most of the jobs my wife and I have had over 30+ years either paid every 2 weeks or twice a month. Every 2 weeks is nice because the paychecks are equally spaced (except for holidays), but twice a month is nice because most bills you pay are on monthly cycles. I've had two jobs where I was paid monthly, but they really only count once because the same people were running both companies. I found this unusual and inconvenient. In my experience medium-to-large companies typically pay by direct deposit while small ones pay by check. All of these have been technical/professional jobs. --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, May 26, 2010.

I'm not sure abotu your assumption. I'm in USA and I get paid twice monthly, not every two weeks. This is an important distinction that seems unimportant. (And I had the option of physical checks or direct deposit.) APL (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what "assumption" are you "not sure about"? --Anon, 15:59 UTC, May 27, 2010.

Oh. Not yours, I was referring to the original question-asker. APL (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're in anecdote mode, let me add mine -- as an example of how you don't want to be paid. This was a US company that no longer exists, and they paid monthly "on the first working day of the month". What this meant was that if the actual 1st of the month was on a weekend, you got paid after it. That was a serious bitch if you had automatic transfers coming out of your account in the first three days of the month, and worse if January 1st was on a Friday, in which case payday was the 4th!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are given the choice, but unless they don't have a bank account, why would anyone US employee prefer to get an actual 'check'? Direct deposit (I think the same thing is called BACS in the UK) seems like such an obvious thing, but when my former (US based) employer was proposing to move all US employees to twice monthly (or maybe two weekly?) direct deposit, there was quite some opposition from my American colleagues. Astronaut (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put check in scare quotes. As to why someone would want to be paid by a physical check in hand, I can't think of any very good reasons, but you know, some people are traditionalists. Who knows; maybe they get a little dopamine rush from holding the check, and that's part of their reward for doing their job. Whatever floats your boat, as they say. --Trovatore (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to spell check with a "q" in it at Referense Desque if it seems more natural. Edison (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have objected to him using the cheque spelling. I objected to the scare quotes, which seemed to imply that the US spelling was somehow a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I normally spell it with a "q", but I deliberately spelled it incorrectly because we are dealing with why things are the way they are in the US. Would using {{Sic}} have been a better way to indicate my own incorrect spelling? Astronaut (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an incorrect spelling. Please don't say or imply that it is. --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think every person is entitled to hold his or her own opinion as to whether a form of spelling is corret or not. Within their community (i.e. their half of the English world) the other spelling would be regarded as incorrect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incorrect, period. It is perfectly fine American English. That is not a matter of opinion. Using the scare quotes is plain offensive. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is the OP wasn't speaking American English Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as I say, he might easily just have said cheque, and that would have been fine. To write check but put it in scare quotes, that's offensive. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scare quote is a US neologism that does not exist in major British English dictionaries. This source[1] defines scare quote n. the use of quotation marks to indicate that it is not the authors[sic] preferred terminology. Methinks Trovatore complains too much. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if he/she was talking in some variety of English where check was not an accepted spelling but wanted to use the American English term for whatever reason (which the poster is surely entilted to do, and in this case even gave what I would consider good reasons for it when queried), then using quotes to indicate this is surely not different from if I talk about "Hari Raya" or "pasar malam"; both of which may be considered an acceptable English term in Malaysian, Indonesian and Singaporean English but potentially not in most other varieties of English. It seems to me that Trovatore is implying people are forbidden from using foreign terms on the RD (at least if there is a non-foreign substite) and although I may be partially influenced by my background in Malaysia where Manglish is common, it doesn't seem like I'm the only one who doesn't agree with this view point. In other words there should be no requirement or expectation that I am somehow forbidden when making comments, from using terms that may be unusual or unaccepted in whather variety of English I'm choosing to speak, even if there are alternative English terms that arguably can substitute. Nor should there be anything wrong with me choosing to indicate via the use of quotes that the term could be considered foreign in the variety of English I'm talking. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another anecdote: I get paid twice a month for my regular salary. For my shift differential and overtime, the check comes every Friday. So, every Friday I get a little money but if a twice monthly check falls on a Friday, I get paid twice in the same day. And yes, it's direct deposit. From the other side of things, if you go into most any small town market or general store in the US on a Friday evening, you'll often see people having their paycheck cashed there. These are generally blue collar workers who live paycheck to paycheck and possibly don't have a bank account. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination

what's a LP and a RTU in extermination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.58.5 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTU = Ready to use

LP = Lawn and perimeter (?)

as far as I can see. The context where you found these might clarify matters. --Kateshortforbob _talk 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or Return to Unit in military parlance.--Artjo (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP should have specified who or what was being exterminated...--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]