Miscellaneous desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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.

September 29

Will a medical office and hospital being build behind my home lower my property value and make it hard to sell?

I live in a small neighborhood that is surrounded by a field. The city would like to rezone the field behind my home for medical offices and a hospital. Will my home value suffer if they build the medical offices and hospital? Will the rezoning make it harder to sell my home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.133.67 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hire a lawyer or get some legal advice. Talk to your neighbors and contact the zoning board and attend any relevant meetings. You may be entitled to compensation if a change in zoning lowers the value of your property, although it may be a hard and losing cause to fight city hall. See takings clause. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't think your property value would suffer. If it was an airport or a factory and you were being rezoned to industrial, than I would be worried. While your property value could go down from noise from sirens, your land value may increase as you become more urban and you may be able to sell your property for business use depending on the rezoning, which may bring more money than selling your home as residential. I too suggest you keep in the know about the building and zoning plans, but the high cost of a lawyer probably isn't worth it unless you own a mansion or you see something seriously wrong. Public awareness (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Obviously the advice of someone whose name is "public awareness" is cheeper than and more relevant than that of a lawyer trained in the relevant laws. Never mind what I said about taking the issue seriously and getting professional advice. Just give up. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name was given to me by another editor when I finally got an account. [Can you imagine a world without lawyers?] Don't make me lawyer you with WP:COI. :D

You might be able to sell your house to a rich doctor. There's a conflict between negatives (noise, increased traffic, construction work, other development nearby, and a possibility of perceived social undesirables such as drug addicts arriving for treatment) and the positives (improved transport links, increased amenities catering to influx of people, near to major employer). It may be harder to sell in the short term while construction work is going on, but it's hard to know the long-term effect on house value, as this will depend on the existing area and the changes (houses in the middle of nowhere tend to be less expensive than those in built-up areas). You could check nearby property prices: find a similar neighbourhood with a hospital, and compare. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land value tax

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding a part of land value tax.

"Because the supply of land is inelastic, market land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so LVT cannot be directly passed on to tenants."

Say you are renting space in a building and paying $1000/month. A new LVT tax is introduced charging the building owner and other building owners $XXXX/month. The rent I pay is determined through competition for my demand with other local buildings, so why would my rent not go up? Also how is land inelastic? If the owner of a 10story apartment building saw there was increasing demand he could build, in theory, another 10 stories ontop of his building. Is land slightly elastic, thus the statement at LVT wrong and there is a deadweight loss created. If rent goes up due to the tax there must be a deadweight loss. Please no discussion on whether LVT is good or bad, just on whether the quoted statement is true or not. Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you build another ten stories on top of a building, you're not increasing the supply of land. Land value tax is typically calculated on the area of land, not on the floor area of the buildings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headphone cord curl

My headphones' cord (1⁄16 inch (1.6 mm) wide, wire encased in what seems to be some kind of very flexible plastic or rubber) has a tendency to curl. What can I do to either get rid of the curls or to prevent them from developing? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untwist the cord. The curl is caused when the cord twists. Dangle the cord free, and watch how it untwists; let it unwind on its own, and throw a few additional "untwists" for good measure, and it should curl less. --Jayron32 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on that: In my house, this action is traditionally done by gently lowering the headphones (or the telephone handset, etc) over a railing/down a stairwell, allowing the cord to untwist on its own. Do this a couple of feet at a time until you're holding the plug; when the phones stop spinning, let it rest in that position if you can, otherwise pull it back up and let it lay flat on the floor.

"Works for me..." --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans and Kennewick Man

I just finished reading the article about Kennwick man and I am a bit uncertain about a point in the article. The writer stated, "In a publication about Kennewick Man, anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said "expert on Asian populations" "physical anthropologist" C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan" believed "people related to the Jomon" came before the "modern Indian" and that "two varieties of American Indian" arose from the former being "absorbed" by the latter with the "Plains Indian" resembling the older group.[4]", now, as I understand, the two varieties of Indian came from somewhere other than America. If this is a correct interpretation of reading, then the Indians came from Asia. This logically leads me to conclude that the term "Native American" is a misnomer. There seems, then, that there are no Native Peoples in America but that they all came from somewhere else. If I take a plant and go to Japan and plant my plant, even if it is there for a million years, it would not make it "native" by any stretch of the imagination. It would make it pretty darn old but even so, not a native plant. So, I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.56.242 (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "native" is a relative term. See Indigenous peoples, especially phrases like "...before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture", "...groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state", etc. Also see Settlement of the Americas. Pfly (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are no native peoples from anywhere, save Africa. The question then becomes how long does a people have to claim occupation to a land to be Native. There is some question about when the first people crossed the Bering land bridge to be the first pioneer population of Humans in the Americas; and even on how many crossings there were. There are competing theories on how the Americas were settled. One holds that the settling originally happened in a single crossing, and that this first pioneer population represents the sole ancestors of the entire population of the Americas. A second theory holds that there were multiple settlements, and that the people we refer to as "Native Americans" or "First Nations" may have actually been of a later wave of people who displaced the earlier settlers. (i've somewhat oversimplifed the two theories for the sake of keeping this short-and-sweet, but you can read about them at Settlement of the Americas) That's the crux of the dispute over the Kennewick Man. If you ascribe to the "single settlement" theory (called the "short chronology" in the literature), then all human remains are direct ancestors of the current Native American/First Nation peoples, and thus they have cultural rights to those remains. If you ascribe to the "multiple waves" theory (called the "long chronology" in the literature), then Kennewick Man may be sufficiently old as to have predated the arrival of the peoples we now call Native Americans, which would essential mean he doesn't "belong" to them. --Jayron32 05:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also theories that humans came to North America from Europe, living at the edge of ice and fishing for sustenance as do Alaskan natives. Edison (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are probably theories that it was settled by space aliens as well; the scientific evidence (as shown by things like mitochondrial DNA studies and archeological finds) tends to support the settlement via the Bering land bridge as the main route. There are various theories of various groups of people who reached the Americas in the years between the initial settlement and the Colonial era, see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but to my knowledge there is no solid evidence of any pioneer settlement of the Americas via Europe directly. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfly is correct that Native is a relative term. The claim that humans are native to Africa ignores that primates Euarchontoglires are native to Eurasia. The claim that the Americas may have also been settled in part from Europe is based on mitochondrial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)), hardly on the same level as spacemen theories, but of course ignorance and scorn together create a powerful explosive, so I won't criticize what Jayron32 has said, lest it come back to bite me. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go, that's an excellent reference! Well found. --Jayron32 04:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states that the Solutrean hypothesis is not well supported even by the genetic data. Rmhermen (talk)

:) --Jayron32 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Solutrean hypothesis noted the similarity of the Solutrean arrowheads to those found later in North America. It is inappropriate to ridicule it as being just like saying people came to North America from space ships. Europeans could certainly have migrated to North America when the North Atlantic had ice, but I have never understood how they could have transported flint working techniques over a long span of time while living on the edge of the ice. It is interesting that some scientists classify Kennewick Man as Ainu. That seems more credible than one TV documentary and much discussion in the blogosphere which noted that the skull with muscle and skin added (pic) looked remarkably like Jean-Luc Picard (pic). Edison (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very well-thought-out and important points, Edison! --Jayron32 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non-free thumbnails. —Akrabbim^talk 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two identical questions about the difference between innovation and creation, which won't necessarily receive identical answers (maybe that was the point)

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.5.130 (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the difference between innovation and creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kulkarni (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely illustrated

. Warofdreams talk 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Innovation says innovation means making a substantial positive change to something. Creation or "to create" typically means to bring something into existence or make something happen[1]. So innovation is improving an existing thing, while creation is making something new. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam was the creation, Eve was the innovation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty

What is beauty? Why is it that computer rendered faces are so much more prettier than real girls? Money is tight (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not hanging out with the right girls. Since beauty is so subjective, it's hard (dare I say, impossible) for us to tell you why you don't find real girls as pretty as fake ones. Dismas|^(talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is beauty? I don't know, but John Keats had some observations on the issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.236 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faces with a left-right symmetry are perceived to be more beautiful than asymmetric ones. Most human faces are, to a greater or lesser extent, not completely symmetrical. Computer rendered faces are probably just more symmetrical. 194.176.105.147 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people find truly computer generated faces to be quite disturbing. See Uncanny valley. This is different from faces which are modified by "touching up", which generally involves evening skin tone, removing blemishes, and that sort of thing. But a human figure which is created from scratch by computer tends to be off-putting. --Jayron32 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D: Look at picture 4 on this page, for example. 86.162.71.40 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Japanese version of a Barbie Doll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say they are more attractive. They are more mainstream, and therefore, they appeal to more people. However, has some human ever fallen in love for a computer animation? Quest09 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be kind of a high-tech Pygmalion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S1m0ne (2002) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very good article on physical attractiveness. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, maybe I'm not hanging out with the right girls, but it's more likely you're not looking at the right CG animations. Look at [[2]] from 0:32 to 0:43. I finding her unusually attractive. I don't recall seeing any real person this pretty, including the best looking actresses out there (but I have seen prettier CG images, i.e. not animated in a movie). Money is tight (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty must be very much in the eye of the beholder. That CGI person did nothing for me. Pfly (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fake, of course. Put glasses on her and she would look like a fake Sarah Palin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look at [[3]]. If you still don't think that's pretty, please give me a pic of what you think is pretty. Money is tight (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. That has more of a painting look than a CGI look. Regardless of the medium, you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman to compare with Ingrid Bergman in her prime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find her attractive but I wouldn't say unusually so and I definitely don't consider her more attractive then all real people. I do find her more attractive then the one in the wallpaper image who doesn't really do anything for me. Beyond the not 'hanging out with the right girls' thing, it may also be the 'girls' you do hang out with are CG so that's what you're used to and find attractive. Besides that, it's not clear to me if you played the Resident Evil games and watched the movie. If you did, your opinion on the above images beauty may be influenced by any emotional connection you formed with the Claire Redfield's character. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty in general is the result of unity of form. An impala is quite magnificent, but one mangled by a lion is not. Yet its bleached skeleton will be restored to a type of beauty. The same with buildings. A well kept, well designed building is beautiful, while an abandoned burnt out lot with broken windows is ugly. But return after centuries to look at ruins showing a form swept bare of debris and the beauty may be restored. In humans, unity of form is best exemplified by symmetry and signs of sexual health such as full red lips.

Here is a woman who puts Ingrid Bergman to shame.

μηδείς (talk)

Isabella's quite attractive, but I still prefer her mother, Ingrid Bergman. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not possibly argue with you there. Have you seen Cactus Flower (film)? μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, OP, maybe you have a paraphilia for computer generated images. You know, if it exists, there's a paraphilia for it. --Belchman (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea mentioned above, that symmetry plays a huge part - when designing a computer model using 3DS Max, for example, many models - especially faces - are designed completely symmetrical. The simple fact is, it takes half the time to do it that way. See this. In reality, when a baby is forming in the womb, gets born, and grows up into an adult, the genes are operating individually to create that person. The operate under the same rules, but with disparate resources, resulting in asymmetrical beings, such as us (and in many cases, mutations and what we call deformities). If the genes all had the exact same resources, and no mutations, we would all look exactly the same, like clones. The human brain looks for symmetry to make sense of the world around it - a simple survival instinct - and symmetry is the most simple, and therefore attractive. Hope this helps. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma

HELLO MY NAME IS CAMILLE HUDSON AND I GRADUATED FROM THERE I DIDN'T MARCH AND WHEN I WENT TO PICK UP MY DIPLOMA OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT I WAS NEVER ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ANYONE SO HOW DO I DO THAT NOW IT HAS BEEN SOME YEARS . THANKS I WILL APPRECIATE A RESPONSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.145.150 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(personal data removed.) This is Wikipedia, an internet encyclopedia, not the office of a high school. You are most likely to have better results contacting the school directly. Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be an awful bore and ask you to turn off your Caps Lock miss? Thanks so much. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do go back to your school or college. You might still be able to pick up your diploma. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eHOW Advice Article, Condo Regulations in New Jersey

The article by Elaine Severs, EHOW Contributor cites The New Jersey Common Interest Real Property Act of 1995 as one regulation regarding condos. I cited this in a conversation with an NJ official that works this arena and he said the cited "Act" is not a New Jersey law or statute. He said it might have been a bill. Could you look into this with the author and have someone call me. If the official is correct, the article should be corrected. HELP!

Jack <removed telf. nr.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.105.208 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to call you: any answers will be here. I think you are talking about an article on eHow: if so, you need to contact them directly: this is Wikipedia, and we have no connection with eHow. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Greenland Islands

What is the current thinking on whether the Island of Greenland is one island, two, or three? I see our article on Geography of Greenland says that "The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level and is so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands." The supporting reference, however, is just a passing mention in a newspaper article. Apparently the three-island theory is based upon findings reported in 1951, for example here, asserting that the icecap conceals two deep sounds running from coast to coast and splitting Greenland into three islands. Is this still considered a viable theory? There are, of course, small islands, such as Uunartoq Qeqertaq, that are concealed by the icecap; this isn't what I'm talking about. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell, but a separate tectonic plate for Greenland has fallen out of favor. Maybe [4] will have some clue. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Greenland ice sheet has a nice map that suggests that although the central depression is below sea level, that area wouldn't be connected to the sea, so just one island. This older version [5], from the National Geographic in 1981 has the central depression connecting to the sea to the west, but basically still one island. Mikenorton (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on scale. It's complicated. See: How Long Is the Coast of Britain?. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in the OP, I recognize that there are some very small islands that are separate and am only referred to large-scale separate islands. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miami News public domain?

Hi, I'm wondering if a 1958 issue of the now-defunct Miami News would be in public domain so that its images could be used here. Here's the article on Google News. Thanks. Delaywaves ^talk 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd like to know the same thing about this 1961 Pittsburgh Press article. Delaywaves ^talk 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not. Both articles indicate that the papers were acquired by other newspapers; that likely includes their intellectual property rights. In any case, it's very, very hard to establish whether something is a legitimate orphaned work — a work whose copyright status has elapsed because technically nobody owns it. Unless one has a very strong reason to believe that is the case, one cannot assume it. It's also not clear if the copyright to those photos was owned by the newspaper, or a wire service. In any case, the photos are not exactly very good quality, so I think the loss is pretty minimal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]