Miscellaneous desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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 19

"October 30" article

Hi,

In the "October 30" article, "birth" category, you forgot to mention that Yana Sokolova (very famous russian actress) was born on the 30th of October 1986. How to add it in the article?

Thank you Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.132.234.53 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. Ms Sokolova doesn't have an article - in order for her to have one, we'll need evidence from reliable sources that she's notable. WP:ENT is the relevant guideline. Secondly, as she's (presumably) still alive, any facts about her have to pass WP:BLP, so we'll also need a reliable source specifically for her birth date. I've done a quick Google search and there doesn't appear to be anything immediately available which will enable this to happen. Tevildo (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googled the name. By very famous, do you mean the youtube starlet or the personal coach or who? врать нехорошо. Asmrulz (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the common connotation of "The Internet"? Just the WWW/HTTP one?

The http;// style "web browser" accessed internet started to go mainstream in about 1994 in America. Before that, however, many home enthusiasts, such as myself, used local Telnets, Freenets, Compuserv in the early 90's, and BBS's in the 1980's. Are those considered "The Internet", or does the Internet only mean the WWW/HTTP style internet? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiesturm (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign Zombiesturm (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all part of the internet, yes. The web is also a part of it. --Viennese Waltz 13:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^This is wrong; most of the above didn't use IP. See Internet and Internet Protocol. -- BenRG (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but nobody called it "The Internet" until the WWW/http style browsers came out. We called it "BBS'ing". Zombiesturm (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was on the internet in 1994 when the web was just starting. I wasn't on BBSs but I was on things like telnet and gopher. We certainly called those the internet. --Viennese Waltz 13:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See History of the Internet and History of the World Wide Web. While the origins of the Internet can be traced as early as development in the 60s of packet network systems such as the ARPANET, the first network to implement TCP/IP, creation of the first web page by Berners-Lee on servers at CERN can be dated to January 1991. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zombiesturm, that's not true at all.

The Internet and BBSs are not the same thing. Sometimes they're not even connected.

That's like saying "We called it AOLing". No. AOL existed separately, and eventually they offered internet access through their service. APL (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "internet" (inter network) and the "World Wide Web" (WWW) are two seperate things. You can read the articles or if you have 10 minutes this video on youtube clarifies it [1]. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's technically true, but we must pay some attention to WP:COMMONNAME. I was there in the BBS, Telnet and Gopher days too, but now even my spellchecker regards the lower case form of "internet" as being wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, our article says TCP/IP is the sine qua non of the 'internet'. So, if you were using Xmodem or Zmodem, you weren't using the internet, just using a network that connects users in a star topology. Now, our article on Bulletin board system says that some used telnet and packet switching, but that wasn't really common in the heyday of BBSs. What was common was ~~Fidomail~~ FidoNet and other such services, which effectively asynchronously linked lots of BBSs together. To me, it seem that using Fidomail in the 1990s was basically using "the internet," in the sense of an interconnected computer network, regardless of whether it used TCP/IP. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I did my first searches on FTP-site spider Archie, I do think the general connotation of "Internet" is the things you do using a browser. Example poll question: "do you use Internet for WhatsApp?" My guess is that a majority people would respond with answers like "no, I can only use it on my phone" (while knowing you need to buy "data" from your phone company). Joepnl (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CompuServe, dial-up BBSes, and Free-net were definitely not the Internet unless you're talking about later in their history when some of them were (also) connected to the Internet. If you meant Telenet rather than telnet, that was not the Internet either. Neither were FidoNet or the UUCP network. I don't recall anyone ever (incorrectly) calling them the Internet, either. The Internet was the new(ly popular) thing that displaced them. -- BenRG (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FIDE election with Garry Kasparov

Anyone know where to find which countries voted for Kasparov and which voted for Ilyumzhinov, compared to how the federations voted in 2010? Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE is the Fédération internationale des échecs or World Chess Federation. The published results of FIDE 2014 election report the re-election of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov as President and elections of other officials, but do not reveal how countries voted. Ilyumzhinov defeated Garry Kasparov, winning 110-61. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was a secret ballot (last sentence). Dalliance (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rhetoric. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is anyone surprised? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem with secret ballots? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, just pointing out that no one can really be surprised that the federations that voted for Ilyumzhinov are a secret. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do whinging rhetorical questions show insincerity that should be kept in check (except this one) ? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The federations that voted for Kasparov would also be secret, which is kind of the point of a secret ballot, but apparently that's somehow different. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, it absolutely is. The federations voting for Kasparov would not be brought under accusations and scrutiny as a part of bribery scandals. There's a big difference. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we use luminous paint in houses to save energy during the day to be used at night?

I read that this is done in the Netherlands on certain roads, so I'm curious why it isn't done in houses. It seems like an obvious idea.--Leon (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i would think that it has to do with the lack of control over the emission of light. you can simply flick off a light bulb, but the glow which a painted wall would give off would last for hours fading slowly over time. roads are more practical because cars have their headlamps and the lines can be seen from the repeated exposures. houses, not so much, since it's too dark for practical use but too bright for if you want to sleep or whateverer idk this is mainly speculation lol ~Helicopter Llama~ 20:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radioluminescent types of luminous paint are based on a beta emitting radioactive isotope (radionuclide) combined with a radioluminescent substance. Their radioactivity is a health hazard, demonstrated in the case of the Radium Girls who painted watch dials around 1917, and they decay after a number of years, depending on the chosen isotope and phosphor. Chinese suppliers offer purportedly non-toxic luminescent water-based paint for road marking. Information found about their formulation is "made by firing a mixture of alumina and rare earth" and "rare earth-activated silicate aluminate", categorized as an Alkene. See the article Luminous paint. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The kinds of "glow in the dark" products I am familiar with put out only a faint glow. I have made a sort of experiment because I have a room with a light switch well inside the entrance. To help find it I placed a couple of luminescent appliance boxes from my dentist next to the switch. If the lights have been on for a while the luminescent boxes will grow brightly when the electric lights are turned off. However, the material quickly sheds its energy becoming dimmer and dimmer.

If I were going to use sunlight to provide for night time lighting of a road sign or something of that sort then I would use a photovoltaic screen to charge a battery during the daylight hours and have the electric light switched on and off by a photoreceptor switch. This scheme is used fairly frequently in the U.S., but the panels I've seen on power poles or telephone poles by the sides of highways do not connect to electric lights. I think they are used to provide current for low-amperage radio transmitters or other devices that use relatively little energy. (Probably 4 D-cells would be enough to power the same units for a day or two. Much larger solar panels would be needed to provide enough juice to light up a couple of floodlights. Signs that create a message by selectively turning on or off the extensive grid of little LEDs would be the most energy-efficient signs that we could produce today. P0M (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A light switch containing an NE2 neon is still a better choice for your room. An LCD matrix display takes less energy than an LED matrix. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]