Miscellaneous desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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 9

Assault Amphibian School

Do we have an article anywhere for this Assault Amphibian School, possibly under a different name? It's currently a redlink at Justin LeHew, a page I helped an IP with some formatting issues a few days ago. A google search brings up this Assault Amphibian School Battalion. I found this List of United States Marine Corps battalions#Training battalions which includes a redlink to Assault Amphibian School Battalion but thats it. Just wondering if we really have no article on this or if there is another title it could be hiding under, military aficionado editors are usually so thorough it seemed weird we wouldn't have one by now. Thanks for any help or enlightenment. He iro 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens

Could a chicken survive on nothing but but it's own eggs (and water), thereby creating it's own food source?--ChromeWire (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who fertilizes the eggs? But assuming you got past that, and assuming the chicken would eat its own eggs, only until the eggs no longer provided enough nutrition for its body to keep laying more eggs.He iro 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens regularly produce unfertilized eggs. In fact, the overwhelming vast majority of commercial laying hens are virgins. Most egg producers don't even have roosters on the premises. --NellieBly (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Since energy isn't created or destroyed and only changes form (and since chickens can't photosynthesize or get energy some other way), energy from the chicken is transmitted to the eggs, so eating them would not yield more energy back to the chicken than what the chicken had expended in producing the egg. The chicken is doomed even under the assumption that it would eat its eggs; it would either die from lack of energy or lack of proper nutrition.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above is pretty much correct and chickens can and do eat their own eggs. I have chickens and if left in the nest for too long, the eggs will get broken and the chickens will eat them. A chicken will lay an egg just about every day. But not all the chicken's energy goes into creating eggs. Some is used for breathing, keeping it's other organs working, and some nutrition is lost to waste (feces/urine, and yes, for the pedants in the audience, I'm leaving out a lot of detail in the composition of chicken poop). The chicken can only get back some of the energy that it puts into the egg. So eventually, it will starve. The chicken is not ~~spherical~~ a perfect system. Dismas|^(talk) 04:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a wild guess at it, I'd think maybe only 10% of the energy needed to make an egg and keep the chicken alive during that period would actually be recovered from eating the egg. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a lot of birds. If nothing more goes into the chicken, then it will die. It needs to replenish it's vitamins and minerals that are not stored each day in the body. Birds will help replenish calcium by eating the shells from the hatched eggs, but they will always need more. Just the energy it takes to live and move would be more than it will get back from the egg alone. 50.36.184.49 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.184.49 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About memory storage

My name is prashanth.I am interested in learning about digital technology.My question is that,can memory stored in the form of light,Is there any possibilities? and witout any hard drives,flash memories.I heard about digital radar frequency technique used to store memory digitally.But it is expensive.can you suggest me about this.My email id is (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanth561 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean it in the strictest sense of the data only ever being in the form of light, this can be done over (relatively) short periods of time using optical delay memory (search in Google for that term, we seem not to have an article for some reason), which is basically a whole bunch of fibre-optic cable or a whole lot of mirrors. There are experimental materials where the speed of light can be effectively made zero, and these have been used to demonstrate data storage (I'm not at a place where I can look up the ref for that). Another way to "store" light is to use a holographic memory. Franamax (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to store light is on photographic film. An optic fiber is more for moving information from one place to another rather than storing it. Radar can use electroacoustic modulator to despread a Doppler frequency dispersed pulse, but that too is not a memory, but a signal processing method. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

finding and legally downloading songs

Assume a) someone has hi-speed internet, b) and has a credit card, and c) every commercially released song ever recorded is available, legally, for download. (I know the third point isn't true, but I want to avoid ifs/and/buts about availability.)

What are the steps, from point zero, to download a given specific song? You start with hi-speed, a credit card, and complete availability, plus a specific song you want. Nothing else, no further information. Then what?63.17.84.21 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really clear what you're asking... I have A and B covered. If I want a song that is available (sort of covers point C), I just fire up iTunes and download it. I could also get it from Amazon, though I've never used their service before. Are you asking about how to download iTunes or create an Amazon account? Dismas|^(talk) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. You say "fire up iTunes" and "downlaod it from Amazon," both of which presume more information than given in my premises. I'd like a more specific step-by-step approach (not comprehensive, just brief, conversational, like you're explaining it to somebody from 1997ish). Oh, and by "legally," I mean PRESUME you're paying for the song, not getting it from a friend or peer-to-peer (whatever it's called nowadays) or stealing it or getting a free sample, etc.63.17.84.21 (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:

Go to http://www.amazon.com
In the search box at top, select "MP3 downloads" on the left pick-menu
Type the name of a song in the right box
You will be given a list of songs which match the name you selected. Click the "Buy MP3" button next to the song you want to download
After you have arranged payment (via credit card, pay pal, amazon's own system, etc) you will download the song to your hard drive.
Congrats, you own the song.

Now, this is not an endorsement of Amazon.com as a music service over any other, just one specific procedure you can follow to buy and download a song legally from the internet to your home computer. You can also check out Category:Online music stores and select any other service you wish. Some services charge a per-song download fee (like Amazon.com) while others charge a monthly subscription, and give you unlimited listening as long as your subscription is paid up (like Rhapsody (online music service)). Caveat emptor, as always... --Jayron32 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is assuming that your hypothetical user knows what an MP3/hard drive/search box/etc is. Is that too little detail? Dismas|^(talk) 04:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my explanation on what someone who was familiar with the technology in 1997 would know, per the OPs request. MP3s, hard drives, search boxes, etc, were all common enough 14 years ago. Given that the OP found their way here, the basic operation of computers and websites seems to be within their grasp, if not the process to download music, which perhaps they have never done (to be fair, I myself have only done it occasionally, given that I still prefer CDs). --Jayron32 05:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing reminds me of a lesson that a teacher tried to convey to our class a long time ago. The teacher asked the class to explain the game of baseball as if the person had never been exposed to the sport at all. We all started out with something like "A player called the batter is supposed to hit the ball with a bat". To which the teacher replied "With a bat?!?!" And it went downhill from there. To me, the OP's question is being asked in a very round about way when they could have just said "I'd like to buy some songs by downloading them but have never done so. How would I go about it?" We've fielded hundreds of such questions on subjects from getting a train from City A to City B to how to grill a steak and they've never been asked in such a confusing style as this one. Dismas|^(talk) 05:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, my reading of it is that the OP is somewhat embarassed about the fact that they don't know how to download music. This reads like "See, I have this, um, "friend", and they..." sort of situations, where a person is asking a question about some third person, but they really want to know for themselves. People who are somewhat technophobic often don't have the confidence to experiment and screw around, because they often feel they can do more damage then they can do. Such people work well when given specific instructions to complete a specific task on the computer, but don't want to stray from known procedures lest they upset the demons in the magic box, or something. My mom is very much like that. She's good at working with computers so long as you teach her how to do something specific, she's a good learner and will do it right every time. But she needs to be shown everything, and would never think to just "figure it out". --Jayron32 05:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Thanks for pointing out how it looks from your end. Dismas|^(talk) 05:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Depending on how much detail you want, this could cover pages and pages from turning on the computer to the steps to filling out each page of the registration form for each service. You have been able to navigate to this page and have enough computer proficiency to ask a question here. So, why can't you already come up with the instructions without our help? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand why you can't do this yourself. You obviously have a goal in mind and you know how much detail is "too much" or "not enough" for this hypothetical student of your own making. Am I the only one who is confused by this project? Dismas|^(talk) 04:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a logical question, with premises that seek a conclusion. My premises were: hi-speed, a credit card, and legal availability that requires payment. Do we REALLY need the "junior psychologist" stuff? Believe me, if I wanted to, I could ascribe all sorts of motivations underlying the accumulated postings of BOTH of you. This a reference desk. Either answer the question or don't -- junior psychology can be gotten from the guy at seven-eleven, or the barbershop.63.17.84.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Then ask them if you don't like the answers you got here. He iro 06:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is junior psychology? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps be helpful if you could tell us whether Jayron32's step-by-step response has answered the question to your satisfaction, and if not, what further information you require. --Viennese Waltz 07:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is for a fictional literary or related work (film, theater) set in 1997. Would that be somewhat correct? Bus stop (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the interpretation of the question, it may not be logical. For example taken to an extreme, you could have high speed internet, but no computer or other device to use the internet. This would therefore require you to out and purchase a computer and then connected it up to the high speed internet somehow before you can even start. But this doesn't make much sense, since who has high speed internet without a way to use it? And of course even having gotten the computer to work, you need to learn how to type and use it. This may not be easy, if again taking the premises to the extreme, the person can't read or write. And once they've purchased the song, is it necessary to specify that owning a credit card is only half of the equation, they need a job or some other way of making money so they can pay off the credit card? In general there's no way to get a credit card without a way to pay it off so another thing which doesn't seem logical but if we are supposed to make no assumptions... I would note many people in developed countries in 1997 wouldn't need this level of detail, but given the criticism, it's unclear whether we are thinking of such a person. Also are they even a person, someone can be ambiguous as it could theoretically refer to an alien. Since you the OP haven't specified any of this, instead primarily criticised the entirely reasonable answered that have been received because insufficient info was provided to make it clear whether more detail was needed. It is entirely reasonable for people to make assumptions in an attempt to help. When clearly insufficient detail is provided and the question is rather strange and the questioner has criticised previous attempts to help or ascertain further info without sufficiently clearing up the points of confusion this is even more important. If those assumptions are wrong, it isn't the fault of the people doing their best to help with the limited detail provided. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of 1997 is interesting. By then (at least here in USA), many people were already very familiar with the Internet and the World Wide Web, just as today, but a number of people still regarded it as a mysterious thing that Nerds did.

APL (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do an Internet search for "buy [name of song here]" and click on the results until you find one that works. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it asks for your credit card info, put it in, and cross your fingers ;)Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then spend the next month cleaning all the malware off your system... Dismas|^(talk) 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do/see near the Hyde Park Corner tube station

For someone who has about half a day left after a meeting in London near the Hyde Park Corner station, what would be some things to do/see? Any suggestions? --96.227.60.152 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers' Corner might be worth a visit. (Disclaimer: all I know about its location is what I read in Wikipedia - I don't know how far it is from the tube station.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers' Corner only really functions on Sundays, unfortunately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellington Arch is right there, and Wellington's house/museum. Green Park and Buckingham Palace are also a short walk away. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a bus or taxi the short distance to Piccadilly. From there you have a choice of theatreland, Shaftsbury Ave; Leicester Square; Regent Street (Only large shops).81.14.3.87 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page for wikitravel:London/South_Kensington-Chelsea might be of use. --M @r ē ino 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of central London is in easy reach by bus, tube and taxi. You're on the western side there, but you could be in the East End of London in about half an hour, and everything in between in less. What do you like to do? There's tons to do in central London. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff or Bristol

I am going on a trip to London, I am also planning on taking a day or two trip to either Bristol or Cardiff, which city would be more interesting for a tourist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.45.11 (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you're interested in. Cardiff has the advantage of being in Wales, so you will see signs in Welsh and (possibly) hear the language spoken. It also has good shops, interesting buildings, great scenery in the area, national (Wales) museums and galleries, and an industrial heritage. But Bristol also has many of those features, is closer to London (hence, more time available there), has an interesting harbourside with features such as the SS Great Britain, is only a few miles from Bath which has many unique attractions of its own, and so forth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you're a fan of Doctor Who you can see plenty of filming locations in and around Cardiff (but not the Dr. Who Exhibition, which is closed at the moment), and if you're a fan of Gavin & Stacey you can go to Barry Island. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explore other places in the Bristol area, Cheddar Gorge and Wells are also worth a visit. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel (no relation to Wikipedia) is a good place to go for this sort of information. They have pages on Cardiff and Bristol which should help you make up your mind. --Antiquary (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC):[reply]

The official websites of each city's respective visitors' bureaus may be of use. VisitBristol.co.uk lists such attractions as Tyntesfield, At-Bristol, Bristol Zoo Gardens, SS Great Britain, Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, Clifton Suspension Bridge, Avon Valley Railway, Cheddar Caves, Wookey Hole Caves, and Westonbirt Arboretum. VisitCardiff.com lists such attractions as Cardiff Castle, Caerphilly Castle, Millennium Stadium, National Museum Cardiff, Cardiff Bay, Wales Millennium Centre, Norwegian Church, Cardiff, St Fagans National History Museum, Big Pit National Coal Museum, and Llandaff Cathedral. Personally, since you are headed to London, I would choose to go to Cardiff to see Wales. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Cardiff but spend a lot of time in Bristol. Personally, for a nice day out in a cool city I would choose Bristol over Cardiff in a flash. The following is a rather exaggerated expression of the differences, but I think sums them up reasonably: Cardiff city centre is flat, concrete and largely devoted to shopping, rugby, beer and professing welshness at every opportunity - which is fine if you're obsessed with designer brands, rugby, beer and Wales. Bristol city centre on the other hand, has a bit of that type of thing going on (swapping rugby for football and removing the interest in national identity entirely), but is much more notable for being hilly, leafy and picturesque with an incredibly diverse culture and near obsessive attitude to promoting art, intrigue and social equality.213.120.209.210 (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Severnside derby..... ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why just Cardiff or Bristol? I'm sure there are a great many things a tourist could do or see within the same travelling time from London. Others will be more expert on this than me, though. 92.15.3.59 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]