Miscellaneous desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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.

November 13

Song lyrics in Chinese

Since Chinese dialects are tonal languages, with each word depending on a correct tone for it's meaning-how do Chinese song lyrics interact with the melody of the song? Do the lyrics depend on the melody or vice versa or is the relation between words and music independent, as with songs in Western languages, where only meter matching is involved? If the latter, how are the song lyrics understood?99.11.250.160 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, you may want to look at some instances in which this question has been asked here before: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 June 25#Tones in Mandarin Songs, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 July 7#Singing in a tonal language, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 July 31#Singing in Mandarin. Deor (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think tones of Chinese language is not as strict as you think. Some tiny change of the tone is acceptable. There are many dialects in China. Although I can speak just Mandarin (and a little Nanjing dialect), I can understand people from different place with different dialects. I don't create music, but when I listening to music, I can directly understand the lyrics. I can also understand the lyrcis by thinking the tone before or after. However, in some extreme situation, I cannot understand the lyrics until I read them. :) --Jack No1 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are socks more susceptible to bleach than other clothes ?

I always add bleach to my laundry, and most of the clothes do just fine. My socks, however, fade and get streaks in them. Pretty much all my clothes are cotton/poly blends. Any idea why the socks show bleach damage and no other clothes do ? StuRat (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have to do with the elastic in socks? My white cotton shirts don't have elastic in them like socks do... --Jayron32 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your socks are probably black, colored with the cheapest black dye available. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, socks are rarely built to last, given how much wear they endure. Although I never use bleach except for pure whites and long-faded pastels that are used as rags. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is always the Lycra composition, most of the 'cotton' socks I've bought recently appear to have a percentage of Lycra/Elastane or Polyamide/Nylon mixed in - neither of those particularly like bleach. Nanonic (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorine bleach is useful in certain specific circumstances (sanitizing scrubs and, occasionally, whitening badly stained pure white cottons and linens), but otherwise it shouldn't be used, and certainly not as an everyday laundry additive; it's simply too corrosive. For white cotton socks containing Spandex you might want to try an oxygen bleach like Clorox 2; it won't whiten them as well but it won't damage the Spandex either. For everything else, use a high-quality HE laundry detergent - generally one-quarter of a capful of liquid does the job for all but the filthiest clothing or the hardest water. You don't need bleach, you don't need liquid softener, and (unless you either have a lot of polyester double-knit or really like cheap nasty scent) you don't need dryer sheets. --NellieBly (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the sock problem, bleach seems to be a better way to clean laundry, provided it's added properly (after machine is full of water and started):

1) Kills any mildew. I occasionally forget the wash in the machine overnight, and, without bleach, it can mildew.

2) Inexpensive. This is especially true if you compare with scent-free detergent, which is even more expensive.

3) In a high efficiency washing machine, they seem to keep the old wash-water in the reservoir for the next load, which can again lead to unpleasant things growing in there, unless bleach is present.

I may end up saving my socks to run in a special bleach-free load. Another option is all white socks, where bleach can do no harm. Not my favorite fashion statement, though. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'inexpensive' could easily be false economy if your clothes have a noticably depreciated lifespan due to the high usage of bleach. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jeep comanche pickup

Do you know how many were produced the last year of production, (1992)? The article did state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.184.24 (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 952 were built and 3181 sold, according to the bottom of this page: [1]. I can see why it was discontinued. (I'm not quite sure how they managed to sell 3 times as many as they produced.) StuRat (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either they sold some 1991 models or stole/repossessed the 1992s a couple of times each. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Drummond cocktail

Does anybody know what constitutes a cocktail known as a 'Bulldog Drummond'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.152.195 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt it's described in one of the many Bulldog Drummond books. A cursory web search finds a restaurant menu describing it as made from scotch, tomato water, celery, lemon, and "bacon tincture". Yum. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Drummond is a fictional character for which we have quite a few related articles. This review and others I have read mention that the character likes cocktails without naming one in particular. Others have mentioned that he like beer. If the cocktail is related to the character, maybe one of those articles or their sources contains the answer. Astronaut (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mourning doves

Wew have come across Mourning Doves at our summer house on the Newfoundland coast. Is this a natural place for them to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.109.93 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Dove does not indicate that Newfoundland is part of their native habitat, but birds being birds, it isn't always unusual to find them occasionally outside of their normal range. Also, there are other species of pigeons and doves besides Mourning Doves which could be confused for them. --Jayron32 22:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This interesting map seems to indicate that in Newfoundland they are pretty rare but no unknown. The map is zoomable so you can see fairly accurately where they have been reported. Richard Avery (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing Telephone Call

Hello! I am now in the USA and I just get a cell phone number 3 monthes ago. But now there are ton of harassing calls which are mainly for product selling. I don't think I have told my cell phone number to commerical insititutions. How did they know my phone number and how could I avoid them?--Jack No1 *Take Me Home, Country Roads* 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try the National Do Not Call Registry. Quite possibly you inherited somebody else's phone number. I once got the phone number for "E & G Construction", which apparently went bankrupt. I got constant phone calls for them, and, to add injury to insult, I was billed $500 from the phone company for a full page yellow pages ad for them. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, they only count as harassing if they are threatening or obscene. Hang-ups, repeated calls, and solicitations are not harassment. But, if you get solicitations from certain parties 30 days after you sign up for the DNC list, and you report the calls, and have proof, the callers may be subject to FCC sanctions--not that that helps or compensates you as the victim. You might also call your state attorney general's office, since local laws may apply. Basically, never answer your phone if you don't recognize the caller, and approach your carrier about solutions they may offer such as call screening. Here's Verizon's advice for residential phone customers: http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/phone/homephone/general+support/support+tools/general/95622.htm. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, that sounds not very good, maybe I should try that, is National Do Not Call Registry a free program? ... another thing I found is that when I answer other people's phone call, I still need to pay. Is that a common thing in the USA or just in some specific situations?--Jack No1 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The do not call registry is afree government mandated program. It does not stop all unsolicited calls, but the site will explain that. Whether you pay for incoming calls depends on your carrier, it is typical to do so as "minutes" for cell cariers. You have to contact your carrier, we cannot advise you on their behalf. Again, basically, do not answer calls you do not recognize, and ask your carrier how to avoid such calls. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to change your phone number. Your cell phone carrier will probably do this for free, once you explain the problem. Of course, this means you need to tell everyone your new phone number, and there's always the chance that the new number will get unwanted calls, too. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will contact my telecom company for more details.--Jack No1 00:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a basic flaw in the cellular system, that anyone can call you, and you have to pay to find out who they are and what they want. Caller ID might help with who they are, but not always (if it says "ABC industries", how would you know if that's the owner of your gas station, calling to tell you they found your wallet ?). I think they should send a free text along with each call stating who they are and what they want, for you to use to decide if you will pick up. Alternatively, each phone could have a private code your friends must enter to ring through (this would be much simpler to implement). Or, you could have a different code for each friend, so you know who is giving your number out, and cut them off. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hears not bad.--Jack No1 00:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What ? StuRat (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably "that doesn't sound bad". μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's still illegal to make a commercial call or text to a cell phone unless the business has a prior relationship with the customer. Thus in effect every cell phone number is automatically on a do-not-call list. If someone is calling you anyway, they probably don't care about the law and probably ignore the free do-not-call list anyway. But you never know -- maybe their software screens out numbers on the do-not-call list but for some reason fails to screen out your cell phone number. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was never simply illegal to solicit to cell phones in the US. Originally there was simply no database listing cell phone numbers. Such a database was recently promulgated, and since then it is up to the consumer to register on the cell phone do not call list. Even then, there are many work-arounds such as posing "surveys" and charities and non-profits can solicit, and certain regulated businesses with governmental 'competition' schemes (like local phone service and utilities) are required to give out their customer's numbers to their 'competitors'. Bottom line, resgister you cell phone http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/national-do-not-call-list-wireless-phones and call your carrier. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, did you even read your own link, even the first two sentences? You say It was never simply illegal to solicit to cell phones in the US. But the second sentence of the site you link to says Rest assured that placing telemarketing calls to wireless phones is -- and always has been -- illegal in most cases. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Duo, I worked 10 years in the industry quoting FCC regs to people as part of my job description. In most cases doesn't include directly dialed telemarketing cold calls from people--unless you are now on the recently set up do not call lists. Automated dialers with prerecorded unsolicited marketing messages are illegal for land lines too, nothing special about cell phones there even if the FCC bureaucrats want to take credit for protecting cell phone users. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said since then it is up to the consumer to register on the cell phone do not call list. (emphasis added) and you said resgister you cell phone http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/national-do-not-call-list-wireless-phones. But that site says the federal government does not maintain and is not establishing a separate Do-Not-Call list for wireless phone numbers. And there is nowhere on that site to register. And that webpage says A number of e-mail campaigns seem to suggest that if your wireless telephone number is listed in a wireless 411 directory, it will be available to telemarketers, and you will start to receive sales calls. In addition, some of these e-mail campaigns suggest that there is a separate do-not-call “cell phone registry,” which you must call to have your wireless phone number covered by the do-not-call rules. This information is wrong. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW if I get a call from an unfamiliar number I ask them for the name of the person they wish to speak to. If they don't know my name, I hang up. (Why would anyone call a number rather than a person?)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the US is unusual in that the called person is charged. In most of Europe, the caller pays. Cell phone numbers can be recognized by format, so the caller knows (or at least should know) what he is doing, while the callee has no choice (other than refusing to accept the call). Charging the callee is like forcing people to pay postage when other people send them mail - a very bad idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that one, Stephan Schultz. I was wondering why someone would be being routinely billed for receiving a call. This does happen to European users who take their phones abroad, but not usually in the country where the contract is based. - Ka renjc 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the US had one highly-regulated land-line phone carrier, Bell Telephone, that carried all calls on their own network, so a system of charging only the caller was easy to implement. Cell Phone service began after the Bell monopoly was broken up, with myriad cell providers paying the local Bells to connect calls to home phones. Calls from one cell provider to another company, however, met with highly different network costs depending on the receiving cell phone caller. It was simpler to let each carrier charge for its own costs, including that of connecting incoming calls from another carrier. Had there only been one cell carrier, the scheme would likely have been regulated like Ma Bell before the breakup. As it is, companies did start giving unlimited in-network calls, and now, unless you pay for minutes, most carriers provide unlimited incoming and outgoing minutes during non-peak hours or all the time. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor factual corrections— Bell's complete monopoly on landline service ended in the 1890s when some key patents expired. While they continued to dominate the market with explicit government approval, parts of the country had independent telephone service (and still do). Next, the introduction of cell service pre-dated the Bell breakup; AMPS was introduced in the U.S. in the late '70s, years before the Bell System divestiture. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of those local carriers were established in unserved rural areas like upstate New York where many still exist--I just didn't see the point in clouding the issue since calls between them were regulated like calls between the local bell affiliates as monopolistic utilities, not on a mutually negotiated basis. Cell phones are largely not regulated as utilities. And yes, cell phone service predated the Bell breakup, but was virtually unknown to the average layman til executives started getting car phones in the '80's. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phone with filter ?

As I mentioned above, I'd like a cell phone where anyone who calls must enter a code to ring through. Do any cell phones currently offer this ? (Note that only letting certain phone numbers through isn't the same, as I still want somebody who knows my code, but is using a new phone, to be able to ring through.) StuRat (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon has a system like this called call-intercept for land-line phones which allows those you've given a pin number to to enter it and then be connected. I am sure there must be similar cell phone services, but I have only a barebones phone I put $10 or less a month on for emergency calls. Verizon does also have a system where you can pay to block certain numbers. I would call your current carrier. If you let us know who that is we might be able to be more helpful. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My land line is AT&T. My cell phone is Tracfone. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for, but Google Voice has a call-screening option. If the incoming number isn't in your contact list, it asks for them to say their name. When you answer the call it plays their name to you and lets you decide if you are want to answer or not. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having to listen to their name would still be annoying. If it's a cold call, I don't want to have to respond in any way. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My carrier is AT&T and now I just answer the number which is in my contact because I hardly know people in the USA except my classmates and friends. I don't use Google Voice, I use skype to make phone calls, it's amazingly cheap.--Jack No1 05:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if somebody you know calls from a new number ? StuRat (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a device which does what I want for a land line: [2]. Hopefully, in the future, they can shrink it down and also do that for cell phones. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most cell phones allow you to assign custom ring tones to callers (some cellphones are only assign-by-group). You could put your phone into silent mode, and then assign a non-silent ring tone to everyone in your phone book. Thus you won't get disturbed by an unknown caller. CS Miller (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]