Miscellaneous desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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.

August 6

Book Layouts

I have noticed that the layout of books varies considerably. Children's books will invariably have the both the synopsis and critical quotes (if there are any) on the back cover. Young adult paperbacks are laid out with both critics' quotes and synopses on the back cover, but young adult hardcovers usually have critical quotes on the back and a synopsis on the inside of the dust jacket. And there appear to be no real rules for adult books, which have synopses and quotes spread in various places in both hardcovers and paperbacks. Who or what determined these rules (or lack thereof)? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 02:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules at all really, though each publisher will have their own preferences and style for each type of book. It is entirely up to the publisher and the designer to decide what they think will be best marketing and "look" for each particular book. Even the price isn't always easy to find, if it's there at all. Obviously a dust jacket gives an extra opportunity for publicity inside the flaps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't judge a book by looking at the cover (video) but marketers know that almost everybody tries. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A children's book is often hardcover with no dust jacket. There's no way to put type on a jacket that doesn't exist. And as far as the price, I don't know about other countries but here in the US, the price can often be figured out by looking at the last few digits of the number on the barcode (often called the SKU). If the number is XXXXX2995 then the book is likely $29.95 unless there is a sale or some other such thing. Dismas|^(talk) 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which old book said earth is a penal colony for criminal souls from other planets to get reformed?

My mother read a book in 1952 which stated that earth is a penal colony (or dumping ground) for all of the worst criminal souls in the galaxy. According to the book, when beings on other planets commit a heinous crime or they absolutely cannot get along and/or function properly in their own society due to a serious character flaw, they are banished to earth. They aren't sent to earth physically, but rather their "life forces" or "souls" are sent here to be born in human form to become us. Every single human on earth is a criminal from another world that was sent here to be reformed. While on earth, we are subject to the physical laws of this planet and we are absolutely unable to remember our home planets. Also, we must keep being reborn on earth until we learn whatever lesson we need to learn or fix whatever character flaw that got us sent here in the first place. Only then can we go back to our home planets, and we are stuck here for as long as it takes. This, according to the book, explains why there is so much conflict and misery on earth, and why so many people believe in reincarnation and have memories from past lives on earth. This also explains why many people feel as though they have known a particular person who they just met. My mother does not think that it was a science fiction novel or short story. She thinks it was a nonfiction philosophy book or something of that sort, but she is not sure. She knows that it must have been published before 1952, but she does not remember how long before 1952. I have done extensive research on the internet and I have found various comic books and science fiction television shows that have plots which include earth being a penal colony (but in these comics, the criminals are usually physically sent here in their actual bodies and look like aliens). Also, there was a science fiction novel published in 2010 entitled "Prison Earth: Not Guilty as Charged" by Clifford M. Scovell, in which earth is a penal colony for criminal souls from other planets, but, in this book (which I really enjoyed) the souls are implanted in false humans which walk among us real humans and the story is much more about warring alien races out in the rest of galaxy than what is happening on earth. I suspect one or more of the writers of these comics/TV shows/books may have read the same book my mother did. Does anybody have any idea what the title or author of this book from before 1952 could be? I originally heard about it ten years ago and have not been able to find it. D G Webster (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that it was a slightly garbled version of the Scientology creation myth. But I think the fifties would be too early for you mom to have been reading a copy of that. However, see Xenu.

APL (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Scientology 0-8 - The Book of Basics" was first published in 1950. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1970, actually. According to the book I just read a couple of days ago "Inside Scientology", the alien stuff isn't revealed until OT 3, which wasn't "revealed" until the '60s. Mingmingla (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mingmingla, the First Edition of Scientology 0-8 indeed shows (C)1970 but it also claims rights from every year back to 1950. Another book Scientology 8-8008 has alien stuff and was first published January 1953. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, what you describe is, in fact, very close to the fundamental beliefs of Scientology. Of course, you don't hear about the alien stuff until the 7th level, and only after you've sold your unborn children into slavery. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 4 the price of 1 which is free

1. If identical twins both put on weight, the first by over eating healthy things with vitamins and minerals and the other gains weight by eating junk, with litte or no health value, if the both get fat and weigh the same, if they then starve, will the one that got fat via healthy food live longer or is fat just fat and it makes no difference what it originated from? 2. The Romans had special shields that could fit together and so stop arrows and swors and protect a whole battalion of men, why did their enemies not make similar shields, and employ the same technique rather than using the flimsy round shield? 3. Is there any use of the scales that come off on your hands after touching a moth, and is it true that a moth will die if its wings are touched? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat is fat. We need much more information about the lifestyle of both twins to estimate their relative survivals time without food.
Roman soldiers had superior training and discipline.
It depends how you touch the moth. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is more appropriate for the Humanities desk, but the testudo formation used by the Romans was a specialized tactic, not something the entire army did (and certainly not all at once). The big rectangular shield used in a testudo was not the only shield the Romans carried. Most of them carried a smaller round shield. See Scutum, Clipeus, and Parma for various kinds of shields. As for why their enemies didn't use a similar formation, well they did, sometimes, but as Cuddlyable said, Roman soldiers tended to be professionals with superior training and discipline, not amateurs without regular training and weapons (as were most of their enemies). They were rich enough to afford to equip a professional army with diverse kinds of armous and weapons. (It didn't last forever though - an enemy army with heavy cavalry, like in Persia and later the Germanic tribes, could defeat Roman infantry.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's worth remembering that a large part of the Roman's success was indeed the fact that their society had enough organization and resources to build high-quality weaponry and employ a separate warrior profession. The majority of their "enemies" (e.g. the "barbarians" of Europe) generally did not have these sorts of things as their disposal. A large part of the history of warfare (if Jared Diamond and John Keegan are to believed) is a question of resources and organization. (You might as well ask why the Taliban don't use radar-proof helicopters or nuclear submarines.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more productive to split this question, and move 2/3 to the Science Desk? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) While "fat is fat", the one who gained it by eating junk food will be low on other nutrients, like vitamins and minerals, so might die earlier during a starvation phase, since those nutrient levels wouldn't have as far to drop to reach lethal levels. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On #1, much of the junk food is bad not only because of the fat content, but the sodium and other things which the body doesn't handle well in excess. So the "junk food" twin would probably be worse off than the "health food" twin for that reason alone. How that would affect starvation, I've no real clue, but it can't be that good for it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol tax

How much revenue does the US government make from taxing alcohol? -- noosph e re 17:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that states make most of the revenue, did you mean to ask about that ? StuRat (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are US federal excise taxes, right? So wouldn't that money go to the federal government? Do you mean the feds pass the money along to the states, or that the states add excise taxes higher than the federal excise tax? State sales taxes on alcohol aren't excise taxes, are they? Edison (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, it goes beyond sales tax, the state also controls the distribution, and takes a cut for that. For example, there may be state-run warehouses which charge fees for storage there. StuRat (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, from taxpolicycenter.org, indicates it's in the range of ten billion USD. But I'm not sure what the distribution is. Here is the state-by-state data. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leica's price

I know, quality is expensive, but what justifies the price tag on Leica cameras? There are something like 5.000$ more expensive than comparable models of other brands. :(

Mostly hand crafted, small production runs, highly skilled and highly paid labor, brand value, excellent optics, and some people willing to pay for them without asking questions LIKE YOU. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They Leica them berry berry much. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take "Leica" out of the question and insert any high end brand name such as Bentley or Rolex and you'll have the same answer. Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hand crafted (in western nations), long tradition for quality and high precision, limited production capacity. On top of that there's a "collectors' market" for them, which always jacks up the price. APL (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Leica cameras is a Veblen good for which people's preference for buying increases in proportion to their price, as greater price confers greater status, instead of decreasing according to the law of demand. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are dog whistles outside the human range of hearing?

Just wondering whether or not this is an urban myth. I've always been able to hear them but people tell me that is unusual because dog whistles are usually outside the normal range of hearing. Can anyone help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our dog whistle article basically answers the question, although it doesn't give any references -- dog whistles are usually near the upper end of the human hearing range, at frequencies that some people can hear and others can't. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs added.

^Avic _ennasis @ 00:23, 7 Av 5771 / 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Have always wondered about it. I have a dog whistle so it had always puzzled me that I could hear it. Just tried a little experiment too, recording me giving blasts on the whistle onto a hand-held recorder to see if it would pick it up. It does, so I think my whistle must be within the human range, or both myself and the recorder have very good sound reception. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Hearing range may be helpful. The upper limit of hearing can be as high as 20 kHz but usually declines with age, more so in men than women. A source in the article Dog whistle gives a range of 23 to 54 kHz which is definitely inaudible i.e. supersonic. Perhaps your whistle is not like this; dogs do respond to ordinary whistles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up an interesting follow-up question: Does the high-frequency hearing of dogs also decrease with age ? StuRat (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry you StuRat but rats undergo progressive hearing loss beginning at age 12 months. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My aunt has a terrier who's almost deaf now and you have to really shout for him to hear you, so they certainly lose their hearing, but whether his hearing range went before that I don't know. Answering Cuddlyable3's question. That would make sense I suppose since I could record it. I guess it must be a normal whistle. Have been thinking about this, and by comparison, I remember as a kid I could hear the high-pitched whistle of the television when it was on, even if I was in a different room in the house, but I don't seem to be able to do that nowadays. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV's and computer monitors don't all make that whistle, or at least not at the same volume and frequency. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV's whistle at 15 625 Hz the horizontal scan frequency due to magnetostriction of the core of the scan output transformer needed for a CRT. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it must be the volume which varies, because I hear it on some, but not others. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That frequency would likely vary with the frame rate of the TV system. Modern TVs have no CRT so might not have the squeal at all. As for audibility, I once read of a famous ESP scam, whereby two children could signal information to one another, by their ability (not shared by adult observers) to hear a dogwhistle (at the top of their frequency range, too high for adults). A third party, outdoors would sound the whistle repeatedly, to synchronize messages between the two. I forget the details, but it might involve repeated sequences of 5 blasts, like a tap code, with any of a great many movements (sit down, lift one foot, roll the eyes, scratch the nose, cough, turn to the side, all actions a restless child might do, slow enough they didn't looking like a baseball catcher signalling the pitcher.) indicating the 1 to 5 number, with 2 consecutive numbers indicating a letter of the alphabet in a 5 x 5 matrix, omitting Q or K. They should be able to transmit perhaps 5 letters a minute reliably. The (inaudible to adults) whistle was not sending the message, it was just a synchronizing tool. Edison (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The frame and line rates of the main TV systems are:

405-line television system (obselete UK system): 25 frames/sec 10,125 Hz line rate
NTSC USA: 30 frames/sec 15,750 or 15,734 Hz line rate
PAL Europe: 25 frames/sec 15,625 Hz line rate
more....

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your recording device and its microphone, it would be possible to record sounds that most humans can't hear. thx1138 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange.. I thought that even "some parts" of human voice can't be heard. can we hear all of the sounds we make?

In speech, Sibilant consonants, as in hissing "sssst!", can have energies as high at 10,000 Hz which exceeds some older peoples' hearing. Sounds made from the Vocal folds are low-pass filtered by the mouth cavity so they do not contain so much high frequency energy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]