Science desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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 16

Stupid pharmaceutical names..

Where do the ridiculous names like 'Gemtuzumab ozogamicin' come from? It it's a Calicheamicin-(another one!)-bound anti-CD33 antibody then call it that! Don't tell me that Gemtuzumab ozogamicin is less cumbersome! --Seans Potato Business 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic use have a specific nomenclature. See Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. I agree it looks crazy, but the name is actually quite inforamative. I imagine IUPAC has rules for naming other compounds, but I'm not sure. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full IUPAC names would be a terrible mess for drugs—while they would describe the drug structure completely, they'd never fit on the label for any but the very simplest molecules. Instead, standardized generic names are created based on a set of standardized stems, prefixes, and suffixes to create International Nonproprietary Names and United States Adopted Names. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article List of chemical compounds with unusual names about real chemicals with funny names, such as "curious chloride," "traumatic acid," "moronic acid," and "draculin, an anticoagulant found in the saliva of vampire bats." There was a strange scientific paper which sought to determine "Is an Arsole aromatic?" Edison 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names are choosen to be stupid and long and hard to remember! The producer with patent for the medicament (chemical substance) is allowed to choose two names, one for the own business, mostly easy to remember, and than an second name used for the other producers after the patend has run out or the product is licenced to somebody else.--Stone 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long would you retain consciousness/awareness if your head was cut off?

Simple enough question. If your head was severed from your body, (for the sake of argument lets say this is almost instantly), how long would a person retain consciousness/awareness (assuming the shock didn't kill them instantly). Could someone cut your head off and show your headless body to you before you lost consciousness for instance? Exxolon 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of the articles decapitation and guillotine, they answer those questions. Since the effectt is always quickly fatal, there is no real way of knowing, movement and supposed reaction has been observed in severed heads immediately after the act, but no one can tell if they were purely physical/reflex or conscious movement. For quite obviousl reasons there has been a lack of research in this specific field. Vespine 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

au contraire our fascination with death has, in fact, lead to some experimentation on the subject. Plasticup ^T/C 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this more a humanities question but there have been arguments about how long it takes for brain death to REALLY occur when oxygen is cut off from the brain for a long time. If your head is cut off I'd guess you would lose 'consciousness/awareness' as opposed to brain death in fractions of a second of the spinal cord being severed. If you've ever had a really nasty knock/shock you lose all awareness. When I was a child I fell off a roof and was knocked unconscious (big surprise) so I had no awareness, I could have died that day and would have had no awareness that I was lying starfished on the ground so my awareness would have ended when I hit the ground. But (and I said this was a humanities question) the perception of how long it takes you to lose awareness may be very different. --Cosmic joker 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this question borders on a sort of philosophical / semantic debate about what it means to be conscious. To simplify the issue, we could define a standardized test for responsiveness of some type. Then, simply perform that test on the head. Such a test might need to be specifically crafted given the uniquely limited communications capabilities of a severed head. Nimur 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Languille responsiveness was measured by his opening and closing and focusing his eyes. Carcharoth 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has yet mentioned Mike the Headless Chicken?! For shame! You should all have your Wikipedia editing privileges revoked D: --Lu c id 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question has also been covered by the great Cecil, briefly in this article and more extensively in this followup. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. That last story is horrible! It should be possible to carefully decapitate without using a large impact that would render someone unconscious, but then you get into the realms of science fiction and 'heads in a jar' type things. Carcharoth 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, don't miss Guillotine#Living heads! :-) Carcharoth 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nickle silver alloy

nickle silver alloy combination is 55% CU 27% ZN 18% NI my question is what is the withstand temperature of this alloy (that is in which temperature itss colour will be change

Does Nature utilize prime numbers (qua prime) for any reason?

I know that the American periodical cicada has two sub-species, one which resides underground for 13 years and the other for 17. Apparently, these numbers were selected by evolution because, being prime, they make it difficult for any predator species to correlate their own life cycles to those of the cicada. For example, had the cicada’s periodicity been 12 years, then any predator species having cycles of 2, 4, or 6 years could prey on them. I am wondering if this is the only example of prime number utilization in Nature, whether it is in the organic or inorganic domains. Humans now use primes in encryption, a practice broadly analogous with that of the cicadas. But, before computers, was there any practical use for primes. Myles325a 04:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could predators could evolve to be in sync with one of the sub-species and thus have a predictable food supply? An alternative explanation I've heard is that having several reasonable-sized prime-number periods keeps more than one of the sub-species from appearing at the same time, thus preventing them from competing with each other for food or territory or whatever resources the noisy critters use. DMacks 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Meh, off-topic...scientists have apparently been arguing about the evolutionary reason for the length and primeness for a long time and don't appear to have good consensus. DMacks 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you count the number of seeds in a circle around a pineapple you will get a prime number. Also look at the sunflower seed head. This sort of thing happens when things are arranged in a spiral growth pattern on a plant. Frequetly the prime mumber is 2, or 5 but the large plant objects like fruit or flower heads could have larger prime numbers in use. Graeme Bartlett 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OP myles325 back. Yep, Graeme, that's interesting, but I did specify "prime(qua prime)", in other words prime numbers BY VIRTUE of their primemess. Now, is this the case here? Do we find primes in spiralling entities, and if so why? Myles325a 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think in the case of natural spirals the tendency is more towards Fibonnaci numbers, it's just that four of the 6 smallest of them happen to be prime (counting the repeated 1 only once), and then after that the numbers are getting too big to be particularly likely to occur naturally. Confusing Manifestation 06:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the Fibonacci number page (note spelling:) has some examples from nature. DMacks 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's example sounds like one given by Marcus du Sautoy in The Music of the Primes, and his Royal Society Christmas lectures. You may have access to this already and have got the example from there, but if not, it may well have more details. Cyta 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OP myles325 back. No, Cytal, I was not aware of this site, but thanks, I have checked it, and the ONLY example it gives of "primes from nature" is this one of the periodical cicada, which you can find [|here]. Surprisingly, it is quite badly written. It appears that Nature makes abundant use of Fibonnaci numbers, but the humble cicada is the only organism to utilize the power of the prime. Nothing on primes in geology, physics, cosmology etc either, although there might be something in du Sautoy's book. Myles325a 04:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought (which does not answer your question): If a lifeform uses a prime/fibonacci number by virtue of it's prime/fibonacciness then that suggests that nature does maths. If it just a reaction to other lifeforms not using them, then the evolution of that would require doing maths. Whichever way around, nature selects numbers. So if nature does maths, then we are not unique in that ability. Another 'human uniqueness' down the drain. :) DirkvdM 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus

How is hibiscus distributed?

It is normally proagated by taking a cutting and sticking it in the ground with rooting hormone. Graeme Bartlett 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of non-copyrighted image of plants

Could someone help me to find a non-copyrighted picture of guar bean and processed guar gum? E.g. are there any federal institutions having photos of plants? Thank you in advance, Timur lenk 06:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fault my logical and scientific proof for personal immortality?

It’s based on the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment. Suppose you have a person in that box instead of a cat. ( “Schrödinger’s Friend”). As before, random events determine whether the box is flooded with poison gas or not. As before, Quantum Theory says that BOTH possibilities exist until an observer looks at it, and then it snaps into one option or the other. Suppose YOU are the guy in the box, and you are recording what happens. You notice an INCREDIBLE THING! Each time the random event occurs, it always comes out in your FAVOUR! It’s like betting Heads on a coin toss a hundred times in a row and never losing once. That’s becoz it is logically impossible for you to observe and record your own extinction. The scenario where you live is the one you will always experience. Thus, if quantum theory is true, and it appears to be rock solid, I will ALWAYS and forever be observing and recording my own continued existence. I will see everybody else die, but never myself.

And what goes for me goes for all the other people too. In the Universe they end up in, they will see me die, but never themselves. Can anyone put a hole in this? You will need to know a little about Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

It’s a bit like the basic idea in the film “The Prestige”. SPOILER ALERT! When the magician gets access to a cloning machine, he makes a clone of himself each night as part of his act, and destroys the clone during the act. Now, the two versions of the magician are identical, but each night one of them dies. Nevertheless, the magician’s life and memory carry on unimpeded, because there is always ONE of him left over. Now think of the man in Schrödinger’s box. He would see the experiment that has a 50/50 chance of killing him played over and over, and yet each time he finds himself alive. Like tossing a coin hundreds of times and always coming up heads. In the wider reality, a version of him perishes each time the experiment is done. The existential reality of his life has continuity because if is carried forward by the surviving copy. Myles325a 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds something like Wigner's friend. DMacks 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at quantum immortality. It all depends on how you interpret quantum mechanics. It's a clever idea, by the way, even though other people have thought of it before. --Reuben 07:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sounds more like Russian Roulette. You can play and write down whether you live or die. You will never write down that you are dead. But that doesn't mean you live. Plus, you treat death as a single event rather than a sequence of discrete failures of body systems. What you will see in your scenario is your body and brain failing in sequence on a march until death (i.e. heart fails, levier fails, muscles fail, stomach fails, etc). Your scenarios is most likely a fate worse than death as you continue to live in a less and less capable shell. --Tbeatty 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the quantum mechanics aspect, but one thing seems hard to deny, "I will see everybody else die, but never myself." Still, never seeing yourself die doesn't necessarily mean "I will ALWAYS and forever be observing and recording my own continued existence." As an analogy, consider falling asleep. Replace "dying" in this thougt experience with "falling asleep". Does it follow that not observing your own falling asleep means you are forever awake? Pfly 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in solipsism. It's perfectly rational that I am immortal --Lu c id 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought a lot about this - and certainly what you describe seems possible within our present understanding of quantum mechanics. There are other interpretations of what we know that says it isn't true - but I'm not aware of any science that says it's impossible. A way to have personal immortality without messing around with all that religious stuff about after-lives initially seems very attractive and comforting. But remember that the 'anthropic principle' is the only thing that ensures that "you" always end up in the universe where you are still alive. But you only have to be sufficiently alive to "observe" events - and things around you would go on as normal. This principle won't prevent non-fatal injury so expect to lose arms and legs in car accidents - but to somehow always survive. You can lose your eyesight - your hearing - your sense of smell and touch. Everyone and everything around you can fizzle out. So you could be the only thing left alive in the universe - with just a portion of your brain operating and essentially nothing else - you could be in continual anguished pain and have no way to end it because anything you could possibly do to kill yourself will always fail. You're being kept alive by a continual series of increasingly unlikely coincidences - you can be starving and on the point of dying of thirst - and every thousandth of a second (say) just enough nutrition and water will appear (somehow) to just keep you alive for another thousandth of a second. After a couple of hundred years of life - you are going to be in the most terrible state imaginable. This is more like the classical vision of a personal hell than it is of immortality "the good way". We'd all better hope this isn't true. But read quantum immortality, quantum suicide, Final anthropic principle for more information. SteveBaker 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's obviously wrong, your claiming its impossible to die if nobody is recording it. Also, you'll die of natural causes anyway, even if the box doesn't kill you you'll still die. ΦΙΛ Κ 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - you can't hand-wave this theory away so easily. Quantum theory shows that at the very lowest level of matter, events that can come out two ways don't just randomly come out one way or the other - both ways happen at the same time - and it's only when we try to measure the outcome that things settle down to one or the other answer. There are at least two ways to interpret what's happening - one of which is the 'Many-worlds interpretation' that says that when the quantum event happened, a complete parallel universe was spawned - one result happens in "our" universe - the other result happens in the other. Thus, there are infinitely large numbers of parallel universes in which every possible outcome of every possible event down to the subatomic level are played out. It follows that if there is even a billion-trillion to one odds of you surviving that car crash, then somewhere with the multiverse, you'll still be alive. In fact, in an infinite number of the infinite universes you'll survive and in another infinite number, you're dead. Now comes the tricky part: Which of those sets of universes are "you" in? Well, the strong anthropic principle (which is another controversial - but possible theory) says that since you're here talking to us now, you must be in one of the ones where you survived. In some set of those universes, you'll miraculously survive every possible terrible event - even millions of years from now, insanely unlikely coincidences will keep you alive...and that's the universe you must perceive yourself as being in. Of course in versions of the universe that I survive in - you'll be dead and I'll survive. This seems strange - but nothing in science says it can't be true - and the parallel worlds version of what happens when quantum events occur is actually rather well accepted (although by no means universally). Dying "of natural causes" is just another random event - you can die because your heart stops - or a random fast-moving set of cosmic rays can just happen to strike it in just the right way to jolt it back into action...and if it fails again two minutes later - something else utterly miraculous will save you. Maybe the wonderous immortality drug is invented in your lifetime in some universes. Maybe aliens in other universes have selected you to be the representative of humanity who is saved when some global catastrophy wipes out the Earth. Sure, that's astronomically unlikely to happen - but we have a literally infinite number of parallel universes in which the event can just happen to come out right for you to survive - so not only is it POSSIBLE for you to survive in some of them - it's absolutely certain that you'll survive in an infinite number of them...if the many worlds hypothesis is true (which it may not be) and if the strong anthropic principle is true (which it may not be). The trouble is that most of the other hypotheses to explain the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment are every bit as weird and unlikely-seeming as this one. SteveBaker 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That,s why I stick with the Copenhagen interpretation. In this situation, in the time between the potential nucleus decay and your reaction the wave function propagates, and then when you record either the poison release, or converse, it collapses into either the poison releasing and you dying, or it not releasing and the process continuing. I don't see how anything has been achieved here. ΦΙΛ Κ 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OP myles325 back. Well, thanks to all for what was an impressive and high value response to Q. In line with my policy of talking right back, here goes:

1. DMacks. I looked up Wigner’s friend article, and ended up rewriting it, mainly for stylistic reasons, and then putting some queries / thoughts in the talk page there. You are welcome to look at it and see if I’m onto something, or up the wrong tree. In any case, Wigner’s friend bears on the topic, but not directly.

2.Reuben. You were one of several who pointed me to quantum immortality. I now see what I should have immediately known at the outset. And idea like this would have been chewed over many times before now.

3. TBeatty was one of several who pointed out that even if the reasoning was sound, it guaranteed immortality, but not any kind of health, which would ensure I would become even more decrepit than I am now. No one alluded to the ancient story of the man who asks the gods for immortality, and being granted it, now longs for death as he had not thought to insist on eternal youth as well.

4. PFly dropped a particularly robust fly in the ointment with his analogy of sleep. I can’t fault it as of now, though I sense there may be an out. But certainly, in sleep we lose consciousness, as we must do in death. Could I say that I will never experience sleep because at the moment of lapsing into unconsciousness, it would be that reality that included an “awake” version of myself which would inherit the continuity of my life? I don’t know.

5. SteveBaker was however, and again, the standout here. And his considered arguments, and links to various sites were illuminating and useful. Thanks Steve. Some thoughts. If there is literally NO chance of survival in ANY scenario whatsoever, like surviving a nuclear blast while being strapped to the bomb, then perhaps there is no alternative reality in which I live, and therefore I can then die. But perhaps in such a situation, the continuity of my life would demand that we go back down the tree structure of choices and alternatives that LED to the strapped to bomb situation, and adopt a branch that does not go there. Now THAT does make my brain hurt. Also, the idea of a conscious organism that continues to decay but never dies, has some compelling analogues. Perhaps, this process would lead to me becoming a sort of devolved form of life, eventually turning into some kind of organic soup, keeping only the most rudimentary apparatus allowing for consciousness. Would I ever be allowed to become unconscious and die in this way? Or would I be like a light ray that becomes so weak that its wave length is light years long, and it can no longer interact with matter, but it still perseveres, crossing the universe with its ghostly message? Myles325a 06:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myles325a deleted the question I asked on this thread. I was truly curious about it. Why the deletion? Pfly 07:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was an editing accident - I've added your question back into the question stream right at the bottom. SteveBaker 15:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question of "NO chance of survival in ANY scenario whatsoever, like surviving a nuclear blast while being strapped to the bomb" - I sense that you lack the true sense of what it means for there to be an INFINITY of possible parallel universes in which EVERY outcome is played out an INFINITE number of times. So:

A cosmic ray hits the bomb timer and changes a 0 to a 1 in the computer chip instructing it not to detonate.
It detonates and by a billion-trillion-quadrillion to one chance caused by a microscopic flaw in the shape of the plutonium in the bomb you are flung away from the bomb and land unscathed in a tree 100 miles from ground zero with nothing more than a small scratch on your left thumb.
You are indeed blasted into atoms - but by a googol-to-one chance, your atoms happen to land in a pile that is exactly the same as you before the explosion and you carry on living as if nothing had happened.
The Starship Enterprise (complete with crew from the first series) forms spontaneously from an amazingly coincidental set of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs. In his surprise at suddenly forming from the nothingness of space, and concerned about the 'anti-particle' version of himself - Spock accidentally sits on the transporter controls 2 seconds before the bomb goes off and by virtue of the incorrect settings of the Hisenberg compensator, it winds up being transported into the transporter bay - the bomb goes off and returns all of the particles of the Enterprise to annihilate with their anti-particles, returning space to how it was just moments before any of this happened. All that is left from the molecules of the atom bomb is a rather confused sperm whale and a bowl of petunias (who are thinking "Oh no, not again").

Yes, these things are ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely - but they aren't INFINITELY unlikely - they are so unlikely that the odds are incalculably tiny - but at the subatomic level, everything is random - so everything you could possibly imagine CAN happen...and indeed MUST happen. If it can happen at all - it'll happen an infinite number of times (in some of them, it's Scotty that sits on the transporter controls).

So yes - if we believe this theory then you can (and will) survive the worst death you can come up with. SteveBaker 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the search of balance I'd like to add that these statements are only defendable if the many worlds interpretation can be taken as fact, which is an audacious and somewhat contentious thing to do, seeing as there are many other interpretations. So though it may be an educated opinion, supported by the proponents of its underlying theorem, we must not deviate from the fact that it is just that, an opinion. Not fact. ΦΙΛ Κ 18:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. There are at least a couple of other interpretations that don't entail parallel universes. Nobody yet knows which is true. You also have to be a proponent of the strong anthropic principle - which is just as contentious. I doubt that one in three experts in quantum theory would support many-worlds - and probably less than one in ten scientists are comfortable with the strong anthropic principle - so perhaps only a few percent of experts in the field would remotely consider quantum immortality to be possible - and even then, the idea that you can be arbitarily close to death and still be considered to be an active observer may well mean that even if both principles turn out to be true, the quantum immortality thing may be nothing. I sure hope so - because I can't imagine a worse way to exist. SteveBaker 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. But also if believing that we see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to observe it is being anthropic, then yes I am. But with many worlds, you do have to consider that even if all possible paths are considered not all outcomes are possible. ΦΙΛ Κ 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Time-Like Loops

Hypothesized to exist philosphically/physically when the big bang(big crunch) creates(destroys) time due to the nature of anything leading up to the big bang not affecting our current universe, and in the negative radius of of a spinning black hole's circular singularity, closed time-like loops go-on and reapeat to infinity. If relative time, or true time, were to play back a "recorded version" of a seemingly infinite loop, one would find a beginning other than the one seen repeated infinitely in the loop. As in the case of the black hole, it would be the infalling energy or space in our real universe outside the horizon. My question is, in the case of the universe, what would I find? Borahborah 10:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is all hypothetical there may be no particular answer. However you may be able to use topology to describe possibilities. Can I rephrase your question as whether linear time and loop time could exist in the same universe? One possibility I can think of is a wormhole that goes back into the past. A time line could travel through the wormhole and back to it again. This may repeat forever. Otherwise perhaps the whole universe is in a time loop and the big crunch returns as a big bang. Graeme Bartlett 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron pentacarbonyl

What technique is used to detect trace level of Iron pentacarbonyl in gases ? 71.199.170.8 10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass spectroscopy might be a easy one.--Stone 11:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT-IR is another.87.102.66.173 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how trace is "trace", what else is in the gas, whether it needs to be on-line or can be an off-line sample, whether it can be destructive testing, etc. Googling for "iron pentacarbonyl" detection gives some good refs for some applications. DMacks 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cities

which is the worlds most technologically advanced city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.68.129 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 August 2007

Tehachapi, California.

(That's a wrong answer, btw, but it's not much more wrong than any of the "right" answers you're likely to get. The question is impossible, of course; there's no one right answer. We can't even say what the world's longest or tallest bridge is; how can we possibly determine the "most technologically advanced" city?

What do people think they're looking for when they ask these questions? There's an implicit notion that any attribute of any entity can be reduced to a simple, objective, linear scale. It's at best a goofball, and at worst a dangerously misguided notion -- why is it so prevalent?)

—Steve Summit (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's prevalent because most mainstream educational systems are very effective at destroying the capacity for original thought, and insist on a single "right" answer for any question. DuncanHill 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reference desk or a pie throwing contest? Bendž|Ť 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...KERSPLAT!!! - gotcha! Hehehehehe! SteveBaker 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are things for which a simple one-dimensional scale is possible - but this isn't one of them. It's not even clear what the question is. For example, are we asking which city produces the most advanced technology - or the city that uses most? Are we looking for the most widespread use of technology (measured, say by the city with the highest cellphone usage) - or the single most advanced single use (eg: Which city has the most advanced Particle accelerator)? It's really not a very answerable question. SteveBaker 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the above, about never being able to answer the question fully, since we don't know what that even means [1], I'm going to have a go at offering some examples.

According to the BBC, Tallinn appears to be among the most technologically advanced cities in Europe. [2], While Birmingham ranked top for "eGovernment" [3]
Popular Science "weighed dozens of variables, from the number of homes with wireless internet to the number of robotic surgeries performed at local hospitals, to rank U.S. cities by tech quotient". Their overall ranking was [4]:

Some magazine list Shanghai or Tokyo as the most advanced, wile others cite purpose built "cities" (although most of them are really towns or suburbs, certainly much smaller than a regular city) like New Songdo City and Cyberjaya. Rockpocket 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond, it has Microsoft. :-) --S.dedalus 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it guys, which is the most beautiful city, and which city is the happiest? Capuchin 08:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean natural beauty, then Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town are often mentioned. No idea about the happiest city. Rockpocket 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the most technologically advanced city, that would most likely be in a rich country. And it would probably be a new city (as a city) because old infrastructure can hold back new developments. As for the Internet connectivity, the Netherlands is one of the top ranking countries. In the Netherlands, Eindhoven is a very new city. And it's the home of Philips, a rather innovative automobile industry, a University of Technology and ASML, one of just three companies in the world that make the machines that make the machines on which our society runs. Of course there's no definite answer to the question, but Eindhoven would probably be fairly high on the list. As for beauty, well, it's butt-ugly. I know this because I have studied there for four years. As for happiness, the Netherlands usually scores rather high on international polls in which people are asked how happy they are. Not that I put a lot of faith in those polls, but it should help that the Netherlands is one of the richest countries in the world (per capita) in exchange for a normal working week of just over 30 hours, combined with a very low income inequality, insuring everyone can enjoy the wealth. DirkvdM 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream question

I remember a little bit of a dream I had last night in which I was going to say the name of a running back who plays for the Chiefs (I would explain why, but it would make even less sense) and another guy in the dream said "Priest Holmes!" before I could think of his name. And that's who it was! I kind of assume that my thoughts in dreams are at a more conscious level than whatever it is that is making all of the other stuff (other people, places, events, etc.). Is that a good assumption to make? If so, how did my subconscious know before I did? Are there Wikipedia articles that address the difference between "self" and "other" in dreams? Recury 13:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a really good question. Dream_interpretation says that Jung considered others in dreams to represent parts of the self. But I'm not aware of any discussion about how the brain seems able to simulate multiple others with enough complexity as to seem conscious and with access to memory, all without these others sharing the consciousness of the dreaming person. --Allen 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course Recury knows the other guy in real life, which means his brain would not have needed to create too much SGGH ^speak! 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inhibited self control is a common dream issue. It is usually an inability to walk. It can also be an inability to do things such as open a door or start a car. Similarly, it can be an inability to speak. When this occurs, it is normal for other entities in the dream to continue as normal. Therefore, you had an inability to think of a name while another entity in the dream could think of the name normally. All in all, it is a normal dream. As for what it means, that is debatable. I've usually heard it interpreted as a lack of self esteem. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. This was a very small part of the dream and I'm quite sure it "meant" nothing. We were even having the conversation while we were doing something else (travelling somewhere as part of a large group). I really don't remember much else but there were a lot of other things that happened before it. To answer your question SGGH, we were friends in the dream, but he wasn't anyone I knew in real life. It wasn't as if I was having serious trouble remember the name either, he just kind of interrupted me while I was pausing or saying "um" to interject. But I'm not really interested in the meaning or content of the dream as such, just how that specific part of it was created. Recury 02:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams are all about the subconscious, it controls everything in your dream. Unless of course you take over. Your subconscious knew because it's the part of the mind that's doing *everything*. Anyway, look into Lucid Dreaming, it will explain a lot about how dreams works, and it's the most fun you can have without being imprisoned. Plus, you can show your subconscious who's boss-- there's not much you can't control in lucid dreams. Although the "people" there are odd... --Lu c id 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nero mammoths

These beasts appear in the Prehistory section of two articles, History of Kansas and History of Arizona, and seem to have sprung from the same source. Would anyone have any idea what "Nero" refers to? (The answer may have nothing to do with any kind of science, in which case I apologize for the intrusion on this reference desk.) - Mu 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; the only google links are Wikipedia. Probably should be removed. Geologyguy 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase was added to the Kansas article on September 27, 2005 by User:Reddi, who is a major contributor. I will remove the instances in both articles, and leave a note for Reddi. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sashimi Grade" fish, and parasites and other nasties

About once a week I go past a prominent fish-shop and ask them if they have any "Sashimi Grade" salmon or tuna- and when they say they have stock, I order, and they go into the back and come back with my order. However, what is totally killing the fantastic sashimi experience, is my paranoia over parasites and other nasties.
Some questions not addressed in the sashimi article:

If something is "sashimi grade" fish, does that sort of guarantee that it's been frozen, or just that the fish is of a high quality? Or does it only refer to the "cut" of fish - the part of the fillet with the most oil (as one fishmonger I spoke to claimed "It's just about the cut")?
After buying "sashimi grade" fish, are you still expeced to thoroughly check the meet for any sign of parasites?
Is there some resource that I can use to educate myself on all the possible little things to look out for?

Any knowledgeable answers would be appreciated.
Rfwoolf 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it looks as if there is no governmentally enforced standard involving "sushi" or "sashimi grade" fish in the U.S.
Here is some advice from the FDA for selecting fresh, safe seafood, and here is an overview of the FDA's seafood regulatory program.
If you want a definitive answer, you could cal 1-888-SEAFOOD (not a joke, btw).
Mrdeath5493 05:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't uncooked fish, even if previously frozen, be capable of introducing parasites into the body of the person consuming it? Edison 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezing an organism will kill it. Some organisms have freezing points significantly lower than water, but to my knowledge, these are only organisms that hibernate at temperatures below freezing. Freezing the fish will kill anything in it just as effectively as boiling it. — Daniel 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But freezing fish changes the texture. So high-end sushi and sashimi is prepared from never-frozen fish. There was a huge row about this here in 2004. The provicial government (Ontario, if you care) ruled that all fish had to be frozen prior to use in sushi and sashimi. There was a huge outcry, and it was recinded. There's more info about freezing fish in this PDF. I guess part of the training for sushi chefs is recognizing whether the fish has parasites. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana skins

I would like to know why banana's are typically eaten without their skins, as I prefer to eat them whole, as I don't like the mushiness/softness of them without the hard skin to contain them. Could anybody tell me why the skins are not eaten? Thanks 81.110.75.212 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Steven[reply]

This may vary with both the eater and the variety of banana - I personally have tasted banana skin and found it bitter. DuncanHill 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it's just a matter of taste rather than there being anything poisonous to humans in them?81.110.75.212 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Steven[reply]

Just make sure to wash them thoroughly. Since the skin isn't generally eaten, I suspect handlers and vendors are less concerned about cleaning the fruit than might otherwise be the case. But then, washing fruit before eating is always a good idea :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that in any pictures I've seen of other great apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, eating bananas they usually peel them as well. As far as I know there's nothing dangerous about eating the skins per se. Most people I think would find them pretty bitter as Duncan said, and also very tough and unappealing in general texture and mouth-feel. But maybe it's just a matter of taste. --jjron 09:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If banana skins were poisonous, believe me, we'd know about it.

The only part of a commonly-eaten plant that's truly poisonous is the leaf of the rhubarb. Usually, when you buy rhubarb, the leaves have all been carefully stripped off, to protect you in case you don't know to.
The only parts of commonly-eaten plants that are microscopically poisonous are the seeds of apples, peaches, and a few other stone fruit; these all contain trace (and unharmful) quantities of cyanide.
A plant that was once thought to be poisonous, but is commonly eaten today, is the potato, which is related to deadly nightshade, although not, as we now know, closely enough to be poisonous itself.

As you can see, this is a very short list. No bananas in sight. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Tomato says that the leaves and stems of that plant are poisonous - so it's not just the rhubarb. Whilst the potato isn't poisonous as such, the 'eyes' in old potatoes are a risk to unborn babies - pregnant women must not eat potatoes that have started to sprout like that. Also, uncooked potatoes - whilst not poisonous - will make you quite sick because of the way humans digest starches. Chimpanzees and Orangutans always eat the entire banana (unless they've been trained not to) - they are sufficiently closely related to us that we can deduce that we can eat the banana skins too. SteveBaker 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cashew nuts are also poisonous but fairly harmless once cooked. Tapioca (cassava) is also poisonious altho again fairly harmless if processed properly. Bamboo shoots also have cynageous compounds altho generally not in sufficient concentrations to be harmful [5]. Also see cyanide. As for Oxalic acid, it's also present in star fruit and other commonly consumed plant parts. Nil Einne 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This calls to mind Nerval's poem Delfica

Reconnais-tu le Temple au péristyle immense,

Et les citrons amers où s'imprimaient tes dents,

Et la grotte, fatale aux hôtes imprudents,

Où du dragon vaincu dort l'antique semence?...

(Among other things, he remembers his girlfriend biting into bitter lemons) Xn4 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cytochrome c measurement

Hi, my question is related with the measurement of cytochrome c from canine blood. So far we have tried using HPLC but because of the high amount of proteins on it the life time of the columns gets short. Besides the results are variables and so the standar peaks. ELISA would be a good idea but seemenly there are some proteins binded to cytochrome c and its use could not be meaningful. according with some papers we should have to dilute the samples and at the same time dilute the cytochrome c. What do you advice me? Thank you very much,

Pedro Vargas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvarpin (talk • contribs)

HPLC of unmodified blood will probably not produce any reliable results due to the rapid deterioration of the column. This would also be quit expensive. When a column changes that much from calibration to testing, the results will be questioned. I can't be too specific here, but the general strategy would be to get blood with the least amount of extra stuff in it as well as cytochrome c. Can you add anything to the blood that will make unwanted compounds precipitate out? How would a centrifuge affect unmodified blood? Could you centrifuge the blood, extract only the layer where you would expect to find Cyto-c, lyse the remainder, and then run the HPLC (hoping to improve column life)?
There are companies that do stuff like this and patent the column so they can sell it;they usually provide some sort of standardized method for whatever you want to do, but it necessitates the use of their column.
Most of what I said was very speculative: Mrdeath5493 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

troubleshooting

i would like to now hints on how to troubleshoot an electrical line.≠41.219.216.183 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very carefully. You should probably not troubleshoot an electric power line if you are not a trained electrician because high voltages and currents in electric power lines can kill you. Call an electrician. If you are seeking a long-term solution, you might consider one of the various engineering disciplines or a vocational training as an electrical technician. Nimur 21:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to document carefully what is the problem - eg no power form a power point - which ones, circuit breaker popping, lights too dim, overheating in part of the line. You can unplug all your appliances from power points and then plug in one by one to see when the problem appears. (Divide and conquer algorithm) What kind of electrical line are you talking about? Graeme Bartlett 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most stores (Walmart, KMart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes...) sell a device that looks like a pen. When AC current is near the tip, it will flash and beep. This is handy (and relatively safe) for non-technicians to use. Buy one (they are not expensive). Put it near an outlet that has power. Notice that it beeps. Now, go to an outlet that you don't think works. If it beeps, the outlet is working - it is some other problem (perhaps the outlet is wired wrong). If it doesn't beep, go to the switch for the outlet. Does it beep? If so, the switch is most likely bad. If not, follow the line to the next part - usually the breaker box. Note that this can also be used to see if there are power lines behind the wall. You can follow a live line by tracing the beep along the wall. Since you never actually touch a wire, it isn't too dangerous. -- Kainaw^(what?) 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways for different kinds of electrical lines. What is appropriate for a 15 amp circuit in the walls of your house would not be appropriate for a 12000 volt underground cable or a 345,000 volt overhead line or a 120 volt DC control cable in a piece of equipment. Edison 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a seagull

Does anyone know where I can find a video of a seagull egg hatching? --84.65.110.20 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube here [6] DuncanHill 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I was looking on YouTube for more gull hatching vids and I found this one. That's just pure evil. Why the hell would someone do that - *and* be stupid enough to post it online? Does anyone live in Gibraltar here? The person who made that video should be reported to the local police. F-ing dirtbags. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too found that one. I reported it to Youtube as inappropriate. Was really rather vile. DuncanHill 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly shocked. I mean, what was the point of that? Those kids belong in a detention home. If those were British kids, I'd be forwarding that video to the authorities - people have gone to jail here for doing that sort of thing. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be breaking Section 3 of the Nature Protection Act 1991. [7] DuncanHill 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Royal Gibraltar Police have now been notified. DuncanHill 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right. See my post on your talk... --Kurt Shaped Box 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely and utterly vile. Those brats are lucky that I wasn't there when they were torturing that chick. If I'd caught them at it, they'd be drinking their food through a straw and wouldn't be having kids of their own - ever. I hope the Gibraltar cops throw the book at them (they still birch criminals in Gibraltar, don't they?). Beneath contempt. Takes a real big, tough man to take on a baby bird still in the egg, huh? --84.66.252.78 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]