Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

2006-08-17T08:02:12Z

Mearom: Eskimos and Basque

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How to ask and answer|[[WP:RD/L]] [[WP:RD/LANG]]}}
'''See also [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language/FAQs]] for answers to frequently asked language and usage questions.'''

'''If you would like to have a text translated, you might want to post on [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Translation_requests this Wiktionary page].'''

=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Language/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== Before Babel ==

Is it known or theorised what language was spoken before, according to the Bible, the [[Tower of Babel]] was built? Thank you in advance. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well there are certainly theories. [[Confusion of tongues]] has some info and suggests Hebrew, [[origin of language]] suggests more scientific and amusingly named options but for extra freak points I'd choose [[Enochian]]. [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) AMGEDPHA CAMLIAX AZIAZIOR IAD

::Those articles are very interesting. Thank you for directing me to them. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::We have also that [[Adamic language]] page. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hebrew phrases ==
What do the Hebrew phrases "לב בשר" and "עזות-פנים" mean? [[User:Mo-Al|Mo-Al]] 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*See [[Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)]] for the former. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:A wild guess about "עזות פנים" is that it means something like "insolence". --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::"עזות פנים" is indeed ''insolence'' or ''impudence'', and the other one is literally ''a heart of flesh'', i.e. showing compassion or pity. [[User:Sputnikcccp|СПУТНИК]][[User talk:Sputnikcccp|CCC]] [[Special:Emailuser/Sputnikcccp|P]] 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

==Ugly words==

What are some of the ugliest words in the English language? (Please don't ask me to define "ugly"). My two stand-out candidates are:
* usufruct
* palimpsest.
[[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:I kind of like your two. But for me, it's '''denigrate'''. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::[[List of Latin words with English derivatives]]. -- [[User:Greatgavini|THE GREAT GAVINI]] {[[User talk:Greatgavini|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Greatgavini|C]]|[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=Greatgavini #]} 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:It's got to be ''gusset''. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Euch, ''gusset''. Urgh, it makes my teeth hurt. That's a gross, gross word. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:''pug'' is one of mine. I'll write more if I think of some. —[[User:Dbmag9|D]][[User:Dbmag9/Esperanza|a]][[User:Dbmag9|niel]] [[User talk:Dbmag9|(‽)]] 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::honorificabilitudinitatibus (Love's Labours Lost, v.1)--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few shockers: goiter, smegma and swank. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Epee]]. 'Nuff said. -[[User:Obli|O]][[User:Obli|bli]] ([[User_talk:Obli|Talk]])[[WP:TALK|?]] 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::In the ''English'' language! --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If "epee" isn't an English word then neither are goiter or smegma. --[[User:Ptcamn|Ptcamn]] 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Hmmm, I like goiter, smegma, epee and swank. Don't like honorificabilitudinitatibus. Hope I typed that right. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'll stand up for palimpsest. I don't think it's ugly at all. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The article [[palimpsest]] is fairly messy though. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Agree with "usufruct". Like palimpsest, though. How about phlegm? --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

: [[wikt:unctuous|unctuous]] and [[oink]] are ugly ones for this humble user. And [[wikt:boing|boing]] is one of the least ugly. Better than "cellar door" any day. --[[User:Brandnewuser|Brandnewuser]] 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:kitchenette, liaise and genre [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:''utilize'' has always seemed ugly to me. — [[User:James Crippen|Jéioosh]] 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not quite ugly, but ''Ill'' seems too stripy to me, and in some fonts is almost illegible. –[[User:Rholton|RHolton]][[User talk:Rholton|≡]]– 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I had a friend call himself ''Illi'' before. That was too stripy. --[[User:Brandnewuser|Brandnewuser]] 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Someone once told me that she hated the word ''moist'' and a few days later I made it seem as though I was humming and ended it with "mmmmmmmmmmmoist!" She seemed pretty mad but I'm sure that deep down she thought it was pretty funny. [[User:Aeusoes1|AEuSoes1]] 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[[Delmarva]] and [[Arklatex]]. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:I like "among", but I cringe at "amongst". [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::"pulchritudinous" is ugly if, like me, you prefer words that sound like what they actually mean :) [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have a computer named Usufruct. You hurt its feelings, Jack. —[[User:Bkell|Bkell]] ([[User talk:Bkell|talk]]) 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::Awww, I'm sorry, dear computer. (No offence to your computer, but I think it's time for a [[deed poll]], or whatever they use in Nebraska for change of name). :--) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== 'aufgelassen' ==

Saw a notice in my home town of Vienna today by a closed tram stop, saying that the stop was 'aufgelassen'. I assume this is a past participle, but of which verb? My dictionary only gives 'auflassen', meaning to leave open, which sounds like the complete opposite. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:It is indeed the past participle of ''auflassen''. But in [[Austro-Bavarian German]] ''auflassen'' can mean "close down, shut down". [[User:Angr]] 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Is it cognate to ''[http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/oHL..&search=aufl%F6sen auflösen]''? [[User:Wikipeditor|Wikipeditor]] 2006-08-17

:::Probably is - they've similar enough meanings... -- [[User:Greatgavini|THE GREAT GAVINI]] {[[User talk:Greatgavini|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Greatgavini|C]]|[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=Greatgavini #]} 06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have also seen ''gesperrt'' used in the same context. Wish they'd make up their minds! --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 07:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== language ==

which is the mostly speaking language in the world.
:The one in which such questions are suitly emphazied. :--) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 11:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::[[Mandarin Chinese]] is the most spoken language in the world. --[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray Porpoise]] 11:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Although as that article makes clear, the status of Mandarin as 'a language' is somewhat suspect. [[User:Henry Flower|Henry]][[User talk:Henry Flower|Flower]] 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If Mandarin is just a dialect of a larger Chinese language, then Chinese would still be the mostly speaking language in the world. [[User:Aeusoes1|AEuSoes1]] 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I think Henry means Mandarin may be two or more languages, each of which may have a less claim. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Stroopwafel ==

What would be the plural (in Dutch) of [[Stroopwafel]]? My guesses are Stroopwafels, or Stroopwafeln, but I don't know Dutch.

Thanks. —[[User:Dbmag9|D]][[User:Dbmag9/Esperanza|a]][[User:Dbmag9|niel]] [[User talk:Dbmag9|(‽)]] 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's stroopwafels- see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroopwafel . [[User:Henry Flower|Henry]][[User talk:Henry Flower|Flower]] 12:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. —[[User:Dbmag9|D]][[User:Dbmag9/Esperanza|a]][[User:Dbmag9|niel]] [[User talk:Dbmag9|(‽)]] 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:If the plural would have been with an 'n', it would have been 'stroopwafelen', so with 'en'. Just 'n' is more typically German. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==yookoso==
what does "yookoso" mean? --[[User:Shanedidona|Shanedidona]] 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Which language is it? Japanese? In that case, "Welcome!" [[User:Wakuran|惑乱分からん]] 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::You're so kind. [me bowing deep too] But what does it mean? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Ceres and Charon ==

With all this talk of new planets, I realized that I'm unsure how to pronounce two of them. How are Ceres and Charon pronounced? [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[1 Ceres]] and [[Charon (moon)]] both have pronunciations in a few different formats. Do those help or should I go find my mic and record my pronunciations? —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:For me, ''Ceres'' and ''series'' are homophonic, and ''Charon'' sounds like the female name ''Karen''. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I pronounce "Ceres" like "seres" with two "short e"s, and "Charon" more like "Sha-run". I guess it depends on personal preference. —[[User:Keakealani|Keakealani]] •[[User_talk:Keakealani|Poke Me]]•[[Special:Contributions/Keakealani|contribs]]• 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Actually "Charon" is pronounced "KAR-un", (like Keenan noted but with more of an "uh" sound ([[schwa]]) and "Ceres" is pronounced the same as "Series" (although I have heard "seres", as Keakealani noted, also. [[User:Adambiswanger1|AdamBiswanger1]] 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:They're not planets, by the way. And there is talk of no longer classifying [[Pluto]] as a planet (the verdict is due next mnth), so there may actually be one ''less'' planet in our solar system. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::There won't actually be more or fewer planets, we will only call more or fewer objects planets. When I keep hearing that the "number of planets will change" I can't help but picture some cosmic event that has caused our solar system to gain or lose large objects. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Mightright|Mightright]] 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== crossword help ==

could u help me with these clues

and so on (2,6) '''et cetera''' --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

staying power (7) '''stamina''' --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

sermon -lodging (7) '''address''' --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

bing ,1904-1977 (6) '''crosby''' --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

special linguistic usage (I***E) '''idiom?''' - check that final E. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

millitary alliance (***A) '''NATO'''? - check that final A. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you[[User:212.72.18.18|212.72.18.18]] 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks again for the other clues could u help me with one more clue

where prizes are displayed (*R*P*Y*O*M)or 6,4[[User:Mightright|Mightright]] 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:'''trophy room''' --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
that was fast !! please tell me one more derogatory term for a hippy evangelical (5,5) (jesus*R*A*)[[User:Mightright|Mightright]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
i got that one before u it is jesus freak ,anyway thanx for ur help

== geographic affects on languages ==

I notice that languages around the world sound similar to each based on geography, even comparing languages in totally isolated places in the world but share close latitudinal (right word? word at all?) coordinates. I have many questions to be answered

== Eskimos and Basque ==

I read somewhere that Eskimo and Basque people have similar languages true? sorry for posting so many questions

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

2006-08-17T07:59:26Z

Mearom: geographic affects on languages

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

2006-08-17T07:35:05Z

Mearom: black sheep

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/H]]}}

=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== Hitler's "Ultimate Ambition" ==

Almost literally, zillions of pages have been written on Hitler's lead role in instigating WWII, his responsibility for the 50 million deaths that resulted, his bizarre racial theories, his virulent anti-Semitism, and his ultimate responsibily for the Holocaust. A enormous amount has also been written about his tactics, his strategies, his diplomatic, political and military victories and failures, as well as a his ambitions concerning Europe and the central role that Germany should have within it.

But what next? What about the rest of the world? Had Hitler succeeded in conquering all of Europe (along with a few nice perques such as a few Asian or African colonies) would that be it?
What about the US? Was it his ambition to move on to conquer America? Was it indeed his ambition to go on and conquer every square inch of the world?

It's unfortunate that despite the enormous amount of writing that's been done on this "man", Hitler's "ultimate ambition" is barely, if ever touched upon.

Perhaps some of the answers to these questions can be found in ''Mein Kampf'', but I've yet to figure out a way to 1) Go about obtaining a copy, and 2) Be seen leafing through it in some coffee shop without appearing to be some sort of neo-Nazi lunatic! :--)

Nevermind the extermination of the Jews or the conquest of Europe, those parts couldn't be any clearer. What I'm more interested in is if anyone can offer any evidence as to Hitler's "ultimate ambition". Thanks to anyone who can offer any insight! [[User:Loomis51|Loomis]] 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:After Mein Kampf, I would recommend [[The Winds of War]] by [[Herman Wouk]]. Not only is it a good read, it goes deeply into (one opinion of) both the geopolitics and the psychology of the third reich and Hitler. Of course, it is Wouk's opinion, but i've heard he employed a lot of graduate students or something to do research and make sure everything was accurate. Eh. Either way, the way I understand it is that Hitler was a crazy bastard, but his general idea was to create German "living space" in Asia. He was fanatically afraid of the barbarian hordes of slavs which he believed would overrun Europe if he did not crush them first. He also believed that his fictional race of aryans were destined to rule as overlords for the "lower races". I think he was very regretful about going to war with England and the US - he viewed them as natural allies in his ultimate race war against the "inferior races". I think his idea was to kill a lot of slavs and jews, cleanse the earth, and have a merry good time being white and blonde with the americans and british with all the other races bringing them margaritas and fueling up their BMWs. Like I said, he was a crazy bastard. The scary thing is how close he came to his goal. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::And btw, I would go ahead and take out Mein Kampf in a coffe shop. It's a good test of whether or not free speech or freedom of thought still exists in whatever country you live. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Exactly. I don't see how it's possible to come to a fully rounded view of Hitler and his motivations without reading ''Mein Kampf''. If you're serious about researching this part of history, then you have to ignore what people may think of you if you're seen reading it. Anybody who would seriously object to you reading whatever you please, or downgrade their opinion of you because you're reading MK, places themselves in the same moral camp as book-burning Nazis. Anybody who has ever contributed to our articles on Hitler, the Third Reich or related topics, would be equally suspect. I don't think so. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you're embarrassed to take Mein Kampf to the coffee shop, you can read [http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ the whole thing online.] If you want to read ''that'' in a coffee shop, you can always wrap the computer in brown paper. ;-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seriously, I appreciate all of your supportive suggestions, but the whole ''Mein Kampf'' reference was a bit of a side point. Perhaps I exaggerated my "embarassment" a bit just to add a bit of levity. And thanks to you especially, Anchoress, I'll definitely take a look at the link you provided. But again, my main question was about Hitler's ultimate ambitions, not about my courage (or lack thereof) to read ''Mein Kampf'' in a coffee shop. But thanks anyway, I really appreciate all your supportive comments. [[User:Loomis51|Loomis]] 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You also HAVE to look at [[Zweites Buch]] (Hitler's Second Book) written in 1928. An english copy is online [http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm here]. Hitler actually talks about the whole "conquer the entire world" thing and talks about a future war with the US after taking over Europe. Which, is interesting, because I always had figured it would be something he would do if given the chance, but I hadn't always realized he had explicitly said so. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] 03:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read about half of Mein Kampf, but, for the ravings of an insane lunatic, I found them pretty dull, going into his position on every tiny political party at the time. So, if you're going to read it, you should probably do so in a coffee house, as you will need the caffeine. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:If you want slightly lighter reading try [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0935312560/103-2142788-8824639?v=glance&n=283155 Swastika Night] a dystopian novel of what life would be like under after Hitler's victory written before WWII. [[User:Nowimnthing|Nowimnthing]] 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== illegal housing ==

how do i find out if the apartment that im living in is legal or not{{unsigned|65.80.50.78}}
:Where do you live? The rules for [[Abkhazia]] and [[Zimbabwe]] are different. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? Why don't you sign your own post with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:Ohanian|Ohanian]] 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Ohanian! Do you need a scolding?? Don't bite the newbies!! — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

== Licensing question ==

Hello. Suppose a person releases an image on his website under a particular Creative commons license today, and I upload it to wikipedia. A few days later, the person removes the license tag from his website. The web archives show the tag to be present on the site around the time I uploaded the image. So can I still have this image on wikipedia, or should I put it up for deletion? TIA. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]a.k.a.D[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]epu Joseph |[[user_talk:Deepujoseph|TALK]]07:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Is this hypothetical, or "based on a true story"? If the person had the right to relinquish the image, with that license, in the first place, they cannot suddenly revoke it, and particularly not if you already used it. They may have a case though, depending on where you are and what law applies, if they can show that their interest in the picture is disproportionately larger than any damage you might have if you give up your rights. Unless you behaved unreasonably, they would have to indemnify you. If they didn't have that right in the first place, you may have acted in good faith but should have the image deleted. This is not legal advice. I don't know what I'm talking about. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 07:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:The consensus over on Commons Village Pump seems to be that "revocation" of free licensing has no legal validity worth worrying about, but should be honored for ethical reasons in certain particular cases (not all). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:The terms of the free licenses generally explicitly say that it is perpetual for the duration of the copyright—see the "Termination" section on all of the CC licenses, for example. Which means that it cannot be legally revoked if it was put upon a work in good faith. That's the legal answer, not necessarily the "what should you do" practical/ethical answer. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have wondered about something like that. Suppose someone uploads an image and tags it as free, but it is foud that it originally isn't (eg downloaded from some website) and the image is removed. Suppose someone has downloaded in the meantime. They can then distribute a copyrighted image in good faith, but still breaking the law. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*Yes, they would be breaking the law, but if it ever came to court, I would blame it on whoever mistagged it. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 11:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*What he said. It would be false representation of copyright. Because we make users attest to the copyright status being accurate it is supposedly their issue. If we completely neglected such things and it was clear we encouraged that, perhaps we'd have a problem (I suspect YouTube will eventually run into this issue), but a lot of time is spent cracking down on that sort of thing for just this purpose. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::This was indeed "based on a true story". Thanks guys. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]a.k.a.D[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]epu Joseph |[[user_talk:Deepujoseph|TALK]]05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Son of The Buddha ==

Hello! Does the word '''Rahula''' mean - a snake, or, a rope, or something which pulls you back?Did Buddha himself, name his son Rahula (as he considered his son's arrival as a ''Maya'' - bondage)?? In some articles & books, I noticed that, it's printed as '''Rahul''' instead of Rahula(though I doubt it's authenticity)...but then, the meaning of the name changes completely!Is it only a misprint ???
'''Buddham Sharanam Gachhami''' , Thanking you,--[[User:Pupunwiki|Pupunwiki]] 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:See our articles [[Rahula]] and [[Rahul]]. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 07:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Although it is not clear from the article, it depends which language is being used. In [[Pali]] and [[Sanskrit]] (the languages of many Buddhist texts) the -a is very common, but in modern Hindi -a is a feminine suffix so it is not used for men's names. My name is Pali, but Indian people who are not familiar with the differences between Pali and Hindi insist on calling me Shantavir. --[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I've tried to improve [[Rahul]] and [[Rahula]] to clarify this, but although the meaning of Rahula as a fetter or tie is well known in Buddhism, I can't find it in my Pali or Sanskrit dictionaries. However, Malalasekera's ''Dictionary of Pali Proper Names'' does say it means "bond".--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== department of federal government ==

my grandpa told me he wrote a request to washington dc 25--like a department 25--to get info on opening up a buisness--i can't finf anything on this subject. do you know what hes talking about- if it was real and maybe what it's called today.. i've searched al over the web but everytime i enter the #25 thats all i get:numbers. thank you tifanie

:Before the introduction of the current ZIP Code system, major cities were broken down into postal zones with one- or two-digit designations. See [[ZIP Code#Background]]. I suspect that your grandfather was writing to some agency that had an office in zone 25, so that its address was in "Washington 25, D.C." If so, the "25" became obsolete when the old postal zones were eliminated in favor of ZIP Codes. I doubt that "25" was the designation of any department. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]] 09:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:You might try the [http://www.sba.gov/ U.S. Small Business Administration] [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

*That would have been the the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington 25 DC. I wonder if mail to there would still work? Anyway, now that's http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ -- and they still carry a lot of the same stuff. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Deliverance of Saints ==

Can anyone tell me if there's a specific term for the moment in a saint's life when he/she is lifted up to heaven, or undergoes some kind of miraculous deliverance from his/her martyrdom? I was thinking 'apotheosis', but it doesn't seem quite right; 'deliverance' might be closer, but I was wondering if there's a more specifically hagiographic term (if hagiographic is a word, that is). Thanks in advance [[User:Adambrowne666|Adambrowne666]] 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if you mean 'assumption' as in Mary's assumption into heaven? I think that involves the body being taken too, and is considered extremely uncommon among those who believe in it, even for saints. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe there is a term for this, but I don't think "deliverance" is it. "The deliverance of St. Peter", for example, does not refer to his martyrdom, but to the time when an angel freed him from Herod's prison. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Are you talking about Christian saints? From what do you derive the idea that there is such a moment in a saint's life? Most saints are not martyrs, but if routinely miraculously delivered from martyrdom there wouldn't be any martyrs left. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, my ignorance is showing - I guess I thought martyrdom was one of the prerequisites for Christian sainthood. In the case of the [[Rapture]], I see 'rapture' itself means 'caught up'; can it be used as a verb? 'to be raptured'? Or is there another term? Maybe 'assumption' is the term I'm looking for? If the Rapture happened, would all the people borne into heaven be undergoing an assumption? Thanks for your answers [[User:Adambrowne666|Adambrowne666]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Statutes ==

According to [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act/Title_VI#Sec._614._Office_of_Justice_programs. section 614] of the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], "Section 112 of title I of section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277 and section 108(a) of appendix A of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-20) are amended to..."

Where would I find the statutes? I've tried looking up the GPO website, but a search gets me nowhere! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[http://www.thomas.gov/ Thomas] is the place to search for laws. [http://uscode.house.gov/classification/priortables.shtml This table] of recently amended laws probably has what you are looking for. (Patriot Act was passed in 2001). [[User:Nowimnthing|Nowimnthing]] 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Step by step (you probably know most of this already): From [http://thomas.loc.gov Thomas] (I haven't checked to see if that is different than the link above), click on Public Laws under Find More Legislations. Click on 106. Then, select 106-101-106-250 and click on View. Next to 113, click on H.R.3194. After Last Major Action, click on Text to see the whole text of the law. Search for 1501A-20 and you will see that statute in the law. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== why moses crossed the red sea?? ==

I know that according to Biblical records, Moses parted the red sea to bring his fellow men to Jerusalem
from Egypt. what i cannot understand is that when i look at the map of Middle East, there is no water body
between Jerusalem and Egypt, (Suez Canal was built by britishers in 18th century). So, why does anybody
need to cross the Red Sea to go to Israel from Egypt. Please tell me where i am wrong in my observations??[[User:Nidhishsinghal|nids]] 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:There's a few issues there. The Jews lived in the land of [[Goshen]]; presumably the most direct route out of Egypt from Goshen took them by the route of the Red Sea.
:In terms of timing, the crossing of the Red Sea takes place at the start of [[Exodus]]. Entry into [[Canaan]] takes place at the start of the book of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]]. An awful lot takes place in between. First (and before the Red Sea crossing) God decides not to take the Israelites by the quickest route, along the coast. Unusually, we're given God's reasoning; 1) it was too close (perhaps He wanted the Israelites to spend longer on their travels) and 2) because the warlike [[Philistine]]s lived there and He was concerned that the slave-people would be afraid.
:Futhermore, there was 40 years of wandering before the Israelites entered the land. When they did so, they crossed the [[river Jordan]] from East to West, opposite [[Jericho]], which is a 90 degree angle from the southern approach from Egypt. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:They were also being pursued by an army, who may have got between them and the normal crossing-point. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yeah - I think the idea is that the Egyptian army was hot on their heels, once the Pharaoh reneged on his promise to Moses to "let my people go". They needed a quick escape, and God provided for his chosen people (or so the story goes). --[[User:68.64.100.100|68.64.100.100]] 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I also heard that Red Sea is a matter of bad translation; instead of being the Red Sea it should be translated into [[:Sea of Reeds]]. Read it (and read also [[:Passage of the Red Sea]], its is explained in greater detail. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's generally thought that the "Red Sea" of the Bible was actually the [[Gulf of Suez]], [[Lake Manzilah]] or a body of water in the [[Bitter Lakes]] region. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== printing query ==

There seem to be quite a few folks here who are knowledgeable about printing, so hopefully one of them will be able to answer this. I've noticed that in most books, the first line of the opening paragraph of a chapter is not indented. Why should this be? Subsequent paragraphs are always indented, so surely the first paragraph should be as well. I'm not talking about cases where the first letter, word or few words are given some kind of special typographical treatment such as capitalisation. Rather, the first line begins right at the left hand margin of the page. Thanks. --[[User:Richardrj|Richardrj]] 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not entirely sure if there's a specific precedent for that, but I don't believe so. I know that in most of the magazines I work on, we usually don't indent first paragraphs of any story or subsection as a stylistic thing. On the first page of a book, it's probably just to pull the reader in. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:The reason for indenting is to visually offset the next paragraph from the preceding one, which is particularly needed if that ended with a full line. The first paragraph has no preceding one and doesn't need to be thusly offset. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Looking for a songname and artist ==

I am looking for a breakbeat song. It's a very known breakdance song. Some phrases from the lyrics are "Mash up the place", "Roughnecks" and "Freestylers". Can't seem to find the song using Google though. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific than this. Thanks in advance.
:Did you try [[Musipedia]] ? Any (musical, not word) hint may help. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Dictatorships ==

What existing nations are generally reconized as dictatorships? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:The ones under the people in the [[List of dictators]] may or may not be dictators depending on your definition. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== A mother's dislike ==

Why does my mother seem to dislike me? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

:Probably because you ask so many questions. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::(To clarify, this was a comment on the fact the anon IP who posted this question also posted a bunch of others at the same time, on a diverse range of questions. This was not meant to be snarky or mean or anything.)[[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 05:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::A mother shall love her child and still dislike some little odds, is it so hard to feel ? Are you a boy or a girl ? How old are you ? Symptoms (your impressions about her attitude) may vary. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::He is (or claims to be) a 25-year old man who finds sex boring, has never had a date with a girl, and connives to have a threesome with Enya and Jo Swinson (at least he spells her name right now). He also wants to get a job interview with Jimbo Wales, and become a secondary school administrator. In the meantime he wonders who the last living Boer War veteran was, and what the mandatory retirement age is for British Generals. If I was his mother, sure, I'd love him, but... little odds... what can I say? --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 07:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely your perception which is faulty, especially if you are a teenager. At a certain age almost anything a parent does is taken as a sign of hatred: "My mom bought me a new shirt, and it's bigger than my old shirts, this must mean she thinks I'm fat and hates me." [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Any child will confirm they dislike their parents for years, sometimes decades, at a time. And any parent can confirm that there are times when they don't like their children either. The important thing is that parents love their children unconditionally, most particularly when (a) they don't like them, or (b) they don't seem to deserve their love. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Shangrala and Shambala ==

Are Shangrala and Shambala the same place? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Shangri-La]]. [[Shambhala]]. You tell us. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Shangri-La seems to be a composite of a number of real and legendary places, including Shambala.

== police state ==

Is the US a police State? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

:Research it at [[Police state]] and make your own judgement. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]] 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:One requirement of a police state is that the police are not subject to law - giving them the authority to try and convict anyone at will. I don't know about the whole U.S., but where I live the police have more laws governing how they do their jobs that I have governing how I do mine. There are many people who try to loosen the definition of a police state in order to argue that the U.S. is a police state and, because so, Bush is evil. But, redefining terms to prove your point doesn't prove anything. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Where I live the police also have laws governing their jobs, they just have the option of ignoring them. That's not to say that there are no laws governing them, for instance if a police officer discharged his or her weapon into a crowded subway car during rush hour killing 12 people and spilling a cup of coffee, I'm sure, someone in the mayors office would make sure that such an officer was given a ticket for uncovering a hot beverage in a subway during rush hour, that's against the law you know--[[User:152.163.100.72|152.163.100.72]] 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Wow. A police officer killed 12 people in a subway in your town and wasn't punished? Or - are you just making up things that haven't actually happened because you can't find anything that really did happen that is bad enough to justify your position? I can do better: President Bush came to my town and, for no reason, stopped by my house while I was at work and ate my hedgehog. I tried to complain, but the secret service threatened to exile me to Iraq. Damn Patriot Act!!! --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::If you're trying to belittle the serious threat of coffee spillage, it's not going to happen. Unless you're trying to have a serious conversation here, which seems doubtful--[[User:205.188.117.12|205.188.117.12]] 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes, spilled coffee represents an enormous threat, especially to [[Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp.|McDonalds]]. :=) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Figurine ==

What was this figurine used for? And how old is it?[[Image:Rita's_figurine.JPG|thumb|right|Possible Staffordshire figurine]]

It appears to be able to be hung, as on a wall, but it also contains a dish, beyond a hole, like a [[holy water]] [[stoup]]. The dancing characters seem to suggest a function that is not religious, however. Any suggestions gratefully received!--[[User:G N Frykman|G N Frykman]] 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:No clear idea, it could be a wedding gift. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like a bud vase. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
* The hole is to hang a pocket watch in when you go to bed so you have a kind of bedside clock.It dates from the times when clocks/timepieces were rare and expensive.If it's undamaged,it's quite valuable.hotclaws**==([[User:82.138.214.1|82.138.214.1]] 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

::A very simmilar ebay example[http://images.google.com/images?svnum=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=STAFFORDSHIRE+POCKET+%2F+WATCH+STAND+FIGURAL&btnG=Search] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Alfredo Stroessner ==

I just heard Alfredo Stroessner died; does anyone know a web address (prefferably) or physical address where I can send my condolences? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

:Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Sex ==

Why does sex seem so boreing? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:You'd have to ask a [[boer]]. --[[User:68.64.100.100|68.64.100.100]] 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Any of a number of reasons. Maybe you're under 12, or over 70. Or you're bored with your partner, or you don't have a partner at all, or you've watched the same video too many times. Try including more [[affection]], [[friendship]], [[play]], [[foreplay]], doing it in different places, or try different [[sexual positions]]. You might also find [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts|this link]] helpful.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Lack of [[testosterone]]. Or [[clinical depression]]. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Lack of whips and chains ? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know, and I don't want to cross the line from jocularity and ribbing into ridicule, but to quote an old chestnut:
:Person A: "I'm bored."
:Person B: "That's because you're boring."
:--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Boer war ==

Who was last living boer war veteran? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well "last boer war veteran" in google [http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:K57WY5uF4k0J:www.pcug.org.au/~afogg/5qib_c17.htm+%22last+boer+war+veteran%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 suggests] Pte. Gordon Williams but then again [[George Ives]]. Or [http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/archive_presents/boerwar/whatsallthis.html a rather differnt kind of survivor] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== principal ==

I have undergrad degree in bussiness and a law degree; however would like to become a secondary school administrator; what should I do next? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:The requirements will vary from one country to another. In the United States, some training and experience in education (typically at least a couple years as a classroom teacher) is usually expected. Normally, this involves gaining licensing or certification as a public-school teacher, a process which varies from state to state. Check with your state department of education on the process for obtaining a teaching license or certification if you are in the United States. I believe the requirements and process in Canada are similar and are handled by provincial governments. However, I do not think that classroom teaching experience is an absolute requirement. Districts might accept experience in education administration. Given your law background, if you have passed the bar, you might try working for a large district as legal counsel. Or, given your business background, you might apply for a job in the business office in a large school district. Without at least some experience in the field of education or education administration, I don't think that most districts would see you as a serious candidate for one of the top jobs in the field. I do not know the usual practice or procedure in other countries. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:And work on improving your spelling. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Greatest Polyglot ==

Hi! Who is considered to be the greatest [[Polyglot]] till date? What are the languages he/she learnt? Thanks...--[[User:Pupunwiki|Pupunwiki]] 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Check out [[William Jones (philologist)|Sir William Jones]]. [[User:Nidhishsinghal|nids]] 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::[[Adam]] (and Eve) did speak every [[Adamic language|language]] existing during their life ... --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Where on earth did you get that idea?? [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Moreover: [[Kenneth Hale]] who was exceptionally fast at picking up new languages. [[user:Sluzzelin]] 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:They appear to be outclassed by [[John Bowring]] and [[Hans Georg Conon von der Gabelentz]]. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::[[Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti|Cardinal Mezzofanti]] deserves a mention too. There's a lot of information on him on this site [http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/], which gives an indication of how he might have been able to acquire proficiency in such a large number of languages. There will almost certainly never be a clear winner of the greatest polyglot title, though, as there are too many differing criteria. How do you decide what counts as a language as opposed to a dialect, for example, and how do you decide what counts as ''knowing'' a language? For documented and demonstrated language acquisition, someone like [[Kenneth Hale]] would probably be at the head of the list. [[User:Mattley|Mattley]] [[User talk:Mattley|(Chattley)]] 21:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Jimmy Page ==

Just a suggestion, but could Wikipedia upload (since I can't for some reason) a picture of Jimmy Page on the article of him? Type in 'Dragon suit' in google images and pick the second one FROM the right.[[User:Jk31213|Jk31213]] 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you have doumentation to prove that the image is not copyrighted? Just because it is on Google doesn't mean you are allowed to use it. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it won't let me upload it and it isn't copywrighted. Not my fault.[[User:69.31.216.242|69.31.216.242]] 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:'''How''' do you know it isn't copyrighted? If you upload it and don't provide documentation, it will be deleted. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, there's already an [[:Image:Page.jpg|image of Jimmy Page]] on [[Jimmy Page]]. What is the question? If you want to provide a different picture, you must clear it with copyright laws. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:And which image is the fourth from the right depends on the width of your browser window. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== wealthy ==

who are the least wealthy members of both houses of the us congress? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

::Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know, but you can look at all of the financial-disclosure reports at [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/disclosure-reports/2005/ this page]. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Franz Müntefering ==

Is Franz Müntefering likely to ever become the chancilor
: Chancellor?? of what? a university? a country? Please be more specific. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean [[Franz Müntefering]], former chairman of the [[German]] [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SDP]]? Well, his successor as chairman resigned after six months, so if turnover remains that rapid he may well return to that position. But seeing as he's currently not at the top of SDP hierachy, is 66 years old, and won't be having another general election 'til 2009, odds would not seem to be on his side. Seeing as he's currently Vice-Chancellor, what does the [[German constitution]] say would happen if you killed [[Angela Merkel]]? [[User:Mnemeson|Mnemeson]] 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, if you kill Merkel the [[Vice-Chancellor of Germany]] doesn't automatically get the job. So although my crystal ball is in storage somewhere, I'm gonna guess that Franz won't ever be the [[Chancellor of Germany]]. [[User:Mnemeson|Mnemeson]] 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== london society ==

…i am currently writing a novel the characters being gangsters to provide authenticity i would like to learn of areas in london where social and economic structures would provide the correct setting for gangsters to live as they have for generations

:Like the [[East End]], for instance? Are you saving up all your punctuation for the book? [[User:Mattley|Mattley]] [[User talk:Mattley|(Chattley)]] 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What about white chaple

:Do you mean [[Whitechapel]]? [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 22:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

*What period?It has changed over the years.It would appear your knowledge of London gangsters is so poor that I hold no hope out for your book. hotclaws**==([[User:82.138.214.1|82.138.214.1]] 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

::Unnecessary, Hotclaws

:::i'm really not sure how to answer your question but I'd say the first step would be to do some research on the history of london then I'd proceed to do some research on the development of the welfare state in the UK then I'd do some research on the history of organized crime in London and perhaps try to interview some experts in the field and then draft a rough outline of your novel and take it to a publishing company to see what they think but before you do that I think you should take it to a decent editor so that he or she can perhaps offer you some advice such as the fact that run-on sentences are very awkward and very hard to comprehend all at once but still there may be people who disagree in any case the editor will at least be able to introduce you to a few simple English concepts such as the capitalization of the first word of every sentence and such other English idiosyncracies such as the coma and the period [[User:Loomis51|Loomis]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes. I. Go. To. Extremes. To. Avoid. Run. On. Sentences. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 05:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope the questioner doesn't find these answers discouraging - writing prose is very hard, harder still if one feels discouraged. Some of the best crime novels written here in Australia are the work of Mark '[[Chopper]]' Read; an illiterate thug with a brilliant wit and a passionate understanding of his subject matter - he's written several bestselling and eminently readable books. [[User:Adambrowne666|Adambrowne666]] 05:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

=August 17 =

== street prostitutes ==

Is a street prostitute a good person to have "practice sex" with? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}
:*Could you please stop asking stupid questions from AOL? It makes the entire Internet Service Provider look bad--[[User:205.188.117.12|205.188.117.12]] 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Depends on your definition of 'good'. A [[prostitute]] is probably going to be fairly experienced, but whether that makes them a good teacher is another matter. The increased risk of [[STD]]s brought about by their increased frequency of sex with multiple partners is a bit of a risk. Oh, and don't forget that depending on your locality, it's probably illegal to pick one up. Have you tried chatting to women at bars? [[User:Mnemeson|Mnemeson]] 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:This is a reference desk, not an opinion desk. So, checking... Nope, no references in our library about the "goodness" of "practice sex" with "street prostitutes". Looks like you'll have to do your own scientific study. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well there is at least an anecdotal connection between men whose first sexual experience was with a street prostitute and premature ejaculation, because the combination of performance anxiety, anticipation, fear of being discovered (because sex with street workers usually takes place in a car), physical discomfort due to location, and the impatience of the sex worker trying to get the man to 'get it over with' habituates fast ejaculation without attention to the signals that indicate imminent ejaculation.

:Also, and I say this as someone who fully supports the freedom of people to exchange money for sexual services, most street workers are there by necessity, not choice. Many are drug addicts, many are HIV or Hepatitis carriers, most are controlled by pimps, etc etc etc. And frankly (I'm speaking from intimate knowledge, if not direct experience) have ''NO'' respect for you, may even ''HATE YOU'' and hate the experience of having sex with you. Is that the kind of person you want your first time (or any time) to be with? Practice is great, but being with someone who isn't dying of impatience for you to be done, who is healthy and happy, who doesn't have a pimp, drug dealer or boyfriend standing 20 feet away from your car waiting to take his cut, and with whom you can at least share mutual respect is better. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Edited to add: My answer does not reflect a worldwide view. I live in Vancouver Canada, which, despite supposedly being one of the best places in the world to live, a) is anecdotally known as the sex-trade capital of North America, and b) statistically (in one neighbourhood at least, Vancouver's '[[skid row]]) has one of the highest HIV and Hepatitis infection rates ''in the whole world'', so the particularly dire circumstances of our street sex workers may not be reflective of the norm. However, since there are better ways for people to make their money ''on their backs'' so to speak (in massage parlours or as escorts), it still holds true that street workers are the most marginalised and desperate segment of the sex trade, irrespective of nationality. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Mandatory retirement age ==

what is the mandatory retirement age for British Generals? {{unsigned|152.163.100.72}}

:Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wearing white after US Labor Day ==

What does "don't wear white after (US) Labor Day" mean?

:That means it is only considered fashionable to wear white until the end of summer. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it may have had a more "cultural" meaning so cheers, I will try not to be unfashionable on my trip :-).

== black sheep ==

my accent is totally different from anybody around me, people ask if I am a foreigner. I have no speech inpediment.why?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing

2006-08-17T07:17:16Z

Mearom: GPU v. intergrated

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How to ask and answer|[[WP:RD/COMP]] or [[WP:RD/C]]}}

=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== Accessing "restricted" folders on Windows XP ==

For whatever reason, Windows XP just got completely corrupted on my system. I've installed another copy of XP on another hard drive. Reinstalling XP on my primary hard drive did not exactly work, so I've determined I need to format my primary hard drive. I don't really have a problem with this, except I'd like to save my "My Documents" folder, by copying it over to my second hard drive during the format. Unfortunately, when I try to access or copy that folder, I get a message saying I do not have permission to open it. I presume this is because it is the user folder of an administrator's account. Since I have reinstalled Windows, I can no longer log in under that account, and therefore I cannot access that folder.

How can I copy it/its contents to my secondary hard drive? I don't really use that hard drive, so I'm willing to install DOS on it or whatever if it would help. Is there any way to access the user folder of an administrator on XP?

Thanks in advance for any assistance. -[[User:Elmer Clark]] (sorry for the wrongly-done signature, this keyboard lacks tildes).

:I would try a booting on linux [[live cd|LiveDistro]] such as [[Knoppix]] or [[Ubuntu (Linux distribution)|Ubuntu]] (see [[List of Live CDs]] for a full list). Then copy the information you want to a usb key or upload it the internet (a gmail account should work). [[User:Jon513|Jon513]] 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I had this a while ago when I reinstalled XP. I solved it by restarting in safe mode, then using the administrator account (a new one is available from the 'welcome' screen). This gives complete control to everything, so I changed the permissions of the restricted folder to allow everyone complete access. The files were then accessible to everyone when logging in normally.
::Below all the editing stuff is a bunch of helpful symbols, included is four tilda's which you could use to automatically insert your signature.
::I hope that's useful to you, let us know how you get on. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you so much Icey, that worked great, and I certainly would never have figured it out myself. Jon, I'm sure your way would have worked too, but it was more effort, so it was the backup plan ;) -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Cool, I'm glad to hear you got it sorted. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 07:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== PROCESSORS ==

Hi, just out of curiosity can an AMD Dual Core 3800+ be the equivalent and out-perform the Intel 3.8GHZ??? THANKS JON

:There is a marketing trick used in processors. Because the designs are different, each processor can perform certain functions faster than the other. So, AMD will engineer a "test" that they know ahead of time will greatly favor their chip and then claim they outperformed the Intel. Intel will engineer a "test" that they know will greatly favor their chip and then claim they outperformed the AMD. So, you need to decide what it is you will be doing (playing the latest 3D video game?) and try it on each chip. There used to be online reports showing FPS for things like Quake and Doom. But, since that is mainly the video card now, I don't know what they use as the neutral basis for checking chips. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Forbidden P2P discussion ==

Why in some chat rooms chatting about p2p is forbidden?

:I would think it's becuase most peer to peer emulators are used, almost exclusively, for illegal activities.

:"No warez" Warez is such a freaking old term. Who the hell says ''warez'' anymore? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

== Mysql syntax error! ==

Im trying to backup a database using the mysqldump command. All i get is a message saying that i have an error with my SQL syntax... but i don't!! This is also the case for some other commands. I'm aware that the mysql administrator tool can backup databases for you, but i would like to know how to do this via the command line. Any help would be appretiated!

:It might be helpful if you paste the query you're using here. [[User:Benbread|Benbread]] 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. In MySQL Cookbook (O'reilly), it says "To export a table in SQL format to a file, use a command like this: % mysqldump database_name table_name > dump.txt". This is the command im trying to use. The reason im doing this is so that i can import the data from one database into another.

:You do know that that is supposed to be typed on the command line, not inside of MySQL - right? --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Im using the MySQL Command Line Client.
:::That's what's wrong, then, you need to do it from an OS command line. Simply type everything after the % (which represents your prompt) in a plain command prompt.
:::mysqldump is a seperate application, not an SQL command - that's why the client doesn't understand it. --[[User:Pidgeot|Pidgeot]] [[User_talk:Pidgeot|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Pidgeot|(c)]] [[Special:Emailuser/Pidgeot|(e)]] 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Stop Drag-n-Drop ==

In KDE or Gnome, is it possible to completely disable drag and drop? If you click, I don't want it to pay any attention to any dragging. Just register it as a click on wherever the mouse was. This is an issue for accessibility. I work in a hospital and people with extremely shaky hands cannot use something as simple as a web browser because every time they try to click on a link, the OS thinks they are trying to drag it around the screen. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know about doing it in software, but I'd suggest just using/providing a [[touchpad]] or a [[trackball]] — anything where the buttons aren't mounted on something which, if shaken, counts as mouse motion. --[[User:Tardis|Tardis]] 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Changing Colour ==

"when i visit to the web site from the search engine, the links colour change to purple when i come back to search engine, How i change that purple colour back to blue?"--[[User:86.62.220.233|86.62.220.233]] 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:The purple means you have visited the page. In your web browser's settings, set the color for visited links to blue - or clear your browser's cache so that no pages are visited. I wonder why you'd be worried about someone seeing which pages you've visited. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:New browsers tend to have a privacy setting that you can turn on so that it won't save any information like the purple links when you have "private" turned on. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

== stylebook 2000 ==

Hello!, does anyone know how much does a stylebook (those X2's laptops which come in colors) cost aproximately? and is there any webpage where I can buy it? or any other brand of colored laptop for that matter?.
I've been googleing it and I didn't find any useful links.
oh and also! is there any place I can learn about 'laptop skins'? thank you! XD--[[User:Cosmic girl|Cosmic girl]] 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:By "laptop skins" do you mean snap on plastic panels to change the color ? If so, I just have to say "You're such a girl !" ... (most guys would be just fine with a single color laptop). [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== plz help > ERROR ==

Hello... I get a error message saying "Azureus did not shutdown tidily. Check C:\Documents and Settings\My name \Datas programa\Azureus\logs\save for diagnostic log files and consider reporting them to the Azureus team if this is the result of an application error. Also check the Wiki (see the Help menu) for 'Azureus Disappears" and Azureus hangs then all I could do is to get Windows Task Manager and end Azureus I have tried reinstalling azeurus and deleting all azureus stuff from my computer but it is no use.

Can any one plz help me solve this error ?????

Thanx in advance

:You could try checking the [http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Azureus_disappears Azureus wiki page] like the error message suggests. It has instructions for finding out which dll is causing the problem, and what to do. If that doesn't work, searching the SourceForge forums for "Azureus disappears" turned up [http://sourceforge.net/search/?forum_id=349817&type_of_search=forums&group_id=84122&words=%22Azureus+disappears%22 12 pages of results] - I'm sure there's some useful info buried in there :) [[User:Cadaeib|Cadaeib]] [[User talk:Cadaeib|(talk)]] 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== GPU v. intergrated ==

If I have a modern video card with, say, 256 mb. of memory on one computer and identical computer but using modern intergrated graphics + huge amount of memory (assuming both computers and GPU use same memory) (pardon my poor explaination) will there be a huge differece in fps on games? also assuming both GPU and intergrated graphics computer have equal pixel shader, etc.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T07:04:47Z

Mearom: /* poltergiests are in my water! */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: What is a cactius, anyway? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in ''[[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]''

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::How many gulls would be required to make up one elephant leg? By all accounts, they're pretty lean birds --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::The more the better, clean out the whole neighborhood ! :-)[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

:I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Figured that, never could find any reference on it, though

== poltergiests are in my water! ==

Sometimes when water is cold and in a bottle, un opened, it rapidly turns to slush upon opening

:If it's below the freezing temp (at normal air pressure), the higher pressure in a sealed container may keep it from freezing, until the bottle is opened, then the lower pressure allows it to freeze. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T07:04:14Z

Mearom: /* why does water boil at low pressure? */

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T07:03:47Z

Mearom: /* poltergiests are in my water! */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: What is a cactius, anyway? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in ''[[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]''

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::How many gulls would be required to make up one elephant leg? By all accounts, they're pretty lean birds --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::The more the better, clean out the whole neighborhood ! :-)[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

:I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== poltergiests are in my water! ==

Sometimes when water is cold and in a bottle, un opened, it rapidly turns to slush upon opening

:If it's below the freezing temp (at normal air pressure), the higher pressure in a sealed container may keep it from freezing, until the bottle is opened, then the lower pressure allows it to freeze. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T07:02:41Z

Mearom: /* poltergiests are in my water! */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: What is a cactius, anyway? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in ''[[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]''

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::How many gulls would be required to make up one elephant leg? By all accounts, they're pretty lean birds --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::The more the better, clean out the whole neighborhood ! :-)[[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

:I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== poltergiests are in my water! ==

Sometimes when water is cold and in a bottle, un opened, it rapidly turns to slush upon opening

:If it's below the freezing temp (at normal air pressure), the higher pressure in a sealed container may keep it from freezing, until the bottle is opened, then the lower pressure allows it to freeze. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Figured that, never could any reference on it, though

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T06:52:59Z

Mearom: poltergiests are in my water!

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: What is a cactius, anyway? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in ''[[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]''

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::How many gulls would be required to make up one elephant leg? By all accounts, they're pretty lean birds --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

:I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== poltergiests are in my water! ==

Sometimes when water is cold and in a bottle, un opened, it rapidly turns to slush upon opening

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T06:43:37Z

Mearom: /* Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit.... */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, you say that "It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations." Technical terminology aside, isn't it more likely to be the other way around? People started breeding animals for certain traits because they understood that could be possible. So they had some idea of selection. Extending that to natural selection does require some intelligence, but until not too long ago, intelligence was no guarantee to become a 'scholar', so there must have been quite a few highly intelligent farmers. Over thousands of years quite a few of those must have figured this out. Of course, lack of means to spread the knowledge meant the insight was probably lost when they died, so we won't know about them. But they must have existed. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: What is a cactius, anyway? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't math a simplification of English? One equation of medium complexity = a paragraph of english, to use an equation.
Math and english can mesh perfectly if you use the right words, but physics professors sometimes lack in that area.
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The untrained man reads a paper on natural science and thinks: ‘Now why couldn't he explain this in simple language.’ He can't seem to realize that what he tried to read was the simplest possible language – for that subject matter. In fact, a great deal of natural philosophy is simply a process of linguistic simplification – an effort to invent languages in which half a page of equations can express an idea which could not be stated in less than a thousand pages of so-called ‘simple’ language." —Thon Taddeo in ''[[A Canticle for Leibowitz]]''

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::::How many gulls would be required to make up one elephant leg? By all accounts, they're pretty lean birds --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

:I assume you are asking why water boils at lower temps, when under lower pressure. This is also true of other liquids. Basically, pressure "pushes" the water molecules together to form a liquid. With less pressure, you reduce this effect. High temps cause rapid movement of water molecules, which makes them "break free" from the bonds that hold the water together as a liquid. So, temp and pressure both interact with each other to determine the boiling point of any substance. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T06:17:08Z

Mearom:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::The ones round here (UK) are mutton, salad and garlic mayo in a pita bread. I always feel bloated and usually wake up early the next morning with heartburn. I know, I should probably just stop eating the damn things. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Could also be the raw onions (some places use them) or maybe cuz they're so greasy? Some people get upset stomachs from that. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yup, raw red onions usually - and they are greasy. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::If mutton disagrees with you, might I suggest making them out of seagull meat ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

==why does water boil at low pressure?==

Why does water boil at low pressure?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

2006-08-17T06:02:08Z

Mearom:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}



=August 11=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 11}}

=August 12=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 12}}

=August 13=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 13}}

=August 14=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 14}}

=August 15=
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 15}}

= August 16 =

== "Black threads" in [[tilapia]] (edible fish) ? ==

I regularly eat freshwater, farm raised tilapia. It often contains what I would describe as "black threads". They seem to break apart easily. What are they ? Two thoughts I had were some kind of worm and blood vessels. I cook the fish before eating it, but still, if it's worms I think I'll switch to some other type of fish. I can try to take a pic, but they are quite small and my digicam is so-so, so I'm not sure how well they will show up. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Are you sure its not what was in the intestines of the tilapia? — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Sounds like [[vein]]s to me. But it would depend on how thick they are. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I agree - it sounds like the blood vessels. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::I think I've seen the same, and I'd say it's veins / [[blood vessel]]s. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good, I'm not so grossed out now. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Safety Glasses ==

I recently sustained an eye injury, and my doctor insists I wear protective lenses to prevent something happening to the other eye and rendering me entirely blind. I've gotten polycarbonate lenses, which work well enough, but a friend of mine (whose father is, he says, a welder) wears a nifty set of dark glasses that are, he claims, actually shop goggles, capable of defending against flying metal debris. I handled them, though, and they seemed like the same sort of thin plastic thing you could get at WalMart. They must have been reasonably high quality, though, since they were so good at cutting out glare without effecting much else. What do you think? If I got a pair, would they really protect me? If so, can anyone offhand point me to a source? [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think having 100% coverage is more important than the material. So, try to get glasses that cover the sides as well as the front. Most object flying towards the eye can be stopped by any glasses, so long as the object actually hits the glasses. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Polycarbonate is the toughest thing you can get for protective eyeware. The side-shields are necessary when you are working with flying debris. In Canada, nobody gets away with working on a job site without approved eyeware. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::They've got great coverage. In fact, that's part of why I'm interested in them - my damaged eye is still very sensitive to light at the edges, even though it doesn't really get an image, so I've been wearing those huge post-surgery shield glasses for awhile. The glasses my friend has, though, hug the edges of the eyesocket, so they keep out just as much peripheral light. As for the material, though, what do you figure these might be made of, and does it sound like they might actually be an acceptable substitute for the approved material? About the worst thing I can think of is having my glasses actually shatter into my eyes. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::[[Polycarbonate]] is strong -- it's the stuff they make bulletproof glass out of. And based on the mechanical properties described in the article, it's a very ductile material, so you don't need to worry about it shattering: if something hits your glasses hard enough to go through, it's got enough energy to continue through your brain and exit the back of your skull. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, right. I recognize that. It's the glasses my friend has that I'm not sure about. I'm asking whether anyone can suggest based on the information I have (related to welding, full coverage, cut out glare, thin and flexible, etc.) what they might be made of, how strong they might be, and perhaps where I can get a pair cheaply if the first two work out. [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 05:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Bananas inducing gag reflex ==

I have an unusual question, but I'm sure you're used to that around here.

When I eat a banana, it often induces my gag reflex. I have nothing against the taste of banana, and, yes I do chew it (ie. not deepthroating a banana!). Any suggestions what might cause this?

[[User:Aaadddaaammm|Aaadddaaammm]] 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Do you get similar sensations from other squishy foods? Sometimes the physical [[mouthfeel]] of food can be a very negative sensation. I don't mind the chemical taste of [[broccoli]] but the wet slippery squishy slightly grainy feel of it boiled...YUCK! Oh, and thanks for mentioning the chewing issue, that was my first thought when I started reading your question :-) [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Try steaming it, or stir-frying it with a bit of garlic and some salt. Crispy broccoli isn't squishy! :-) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:A fellow programmer here had his gall bladder removed. Now, he throws up every time he eats bananas. He doesn't know why (and is upset because he normally had a banana for breakfast every day). I wonder if there is a relation between your problem and his. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::The old banana gag : peel it and throw it some place, to see if someone shall fall. Please subscribe to a good insurance first :) --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bananas give me a similar feeling (like I want to gag), which is why I don't like them. I attribute it to the texture. Ironically, my husband, who won't eat fresh tomatoes because of the texture, enjoys bananas. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] [[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']] 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel queasy and often have a gagging reflex when I eat a banana or anything banana flavored. I avoided banana for a long time and eventually mentioned this to an [[allergist]]. It turns out that I was diagnosed as allergic to bananas and that this is actually a relatively common symptom for this relatively common food allergy. For me, eating bananas produces no effects (rashes, swelling, etc) other than nausea. Maybe you have the same issue? (The preceding comment is not meant to reflect any medical advise. Please consult your physician.) -- [[User:Csjoiner|C. S. Joiner]] ([[User_talk:Csjoiner|talk]]) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Make sure you don't eat any of the little strands that are between the meat and the peel.

2) If the sliminess bothers you, try eating them in oatmeal. I've noticed that this counters the effect, and I don't end up with my mouth feeling like it's coated with slime. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I had a cat who would put his ears down and run from the room whenever a banana was peeled, making me wonder what banana-related trauma he suffered before we got him. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Lots of cats (such as my cat) do not like bananas either. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bananas shouldn't leave your mouth feeling like slime unless they're under-ripe. Try giving them a day or two more before you peel them. (Not too long, though. Waiting till they're black is waiting too long, unless you're making a banana cake). And broccoli should never be boiled. No wonder you find it distasteful. Steaming (and light steaming at that) is the only humane thing to do to a broccoli, if you don't want to eat it raw. [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. All bananas leave a slimy feeling in my mouth. I suspect they have something in them which isn't water soluble (perhaps a potassium compound ?). I rarely eat a plain banana, for this reason. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors ==

Numerical study of rotational effects for rotors
It has been recognized that rotational effects can increase lift and at the mean time delay dynamic stall. Studying such phenomenon is very important for predicting rotor performance and optimising rotor shapes. A quantitative study of rotational effects has increasing needs for industrial usage. The project will focus on (1) numerical development of a modified Quasi-3D model based on the previous Quasi-3D model and (2) study the rotational effects at different spanwise distances and different angles of attack.
please help me that how to design things(CFD/EFD etc ) that would help me in this research
:When asking for free help, it is best not to cut&paste the exact assignment. Otherwise people might feel that they are being taken advantage of. In fact, I remember there is something about this at the top of the discussion. --[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Time course of evolution ==

Over what period of time or number of generations have evolutionary changes been seen? Specifically, have Sherpas and other peoples living in higher elevations shown genetic adaptation to the high altitude conditions? Thanks![[User:24.5.103.166|24.5.103.166]] 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Scott

: Modern humans are not under as strict [[selection|selective pressure]]s as other species (due to healthcare, the [[welfare state]], and other societal considerations etc). This, combined with long lifespans, means "evolutionary changes" among humans are very difficult to quantify over generational timescales. [[Founder effect]]s precipitate "evolutionary changes", but are often not advantageous (evolution does not occur with forethought, remember). There are examples of genetic variation that could, one could hypothesise, shape modern human evolution over quite short generation times, in the absence of modern healthcare. Consider the potential selective advantage of the ''[[CCR5|CCR5-Δ32]]'' allele during a global HIV/[[AIDS]] pandemic, for example. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Outside of humans, there are many animals that have shown changes due to both natural selection (classical evolution) and human-controlled selected (breeding). For example, the common pet hedgehog has an abnormally high chance of being albino because humans have purposely overbred albino hedgehogs. In the natural world, there was an article from National Geographic last month about evolutionary changes in the birds on the Galapagos Islands (the Darwin Species). Also, I recently read about some green-brown tree frogs that are beginning to have the ability to turn white. If it propagates throughout the tree frog population and doesn't die out as a weird mutation, it will be another evolutionary step for them. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's always the same story about birch butterflies growing darker with pollution that darkens boughs. --[[User:Harvestman| DLL ]] [[User talk:Harvestman | .. T]] 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a form of evolution. And, like Kainaw said, since you didn't specifically ask for ''natural'' evolution (natural selection), breeding animals to give them the characteristics we want them to have can also be seen as evolution. Actually, I think that farmers must have come up with the idea of evolution from the time they started doing that, thousands of years ago. The notion of evolution is a whole lot older than Charles Darwin (his father was a protagonist of the idea, for one). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You mean Charles Darwin's [[Erasmus Darwin|grandfather]], not his [[Robert Darwin|father]] (who was an immensely large society doctor, like his grandfather, but not a reknown scientist, unlike his grandfather). Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, of course, but is the one credited with the development of [[natural selection]] in particular as the mechanism of evolution, and propelled it into serious scientific discussion. But in any case selection ''by itself'' is not the idea of ''evolution'', per se, which generally indicates population-wide effects and speciation, which breeders generally did not have any grasp of. It is actually quite a conceptual leap from manipulation of passive stocks to the idea that organisms can transmute into other organisms over generations, though it seems obvious once you know it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 00:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Did I just become a referenced source? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_June_10#Chemeleon_Frog] [[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't think so, and if you have, its been misinterpreted. Its unlikely that the tree frogs [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] refers to have recently evolved the ability to turn white. Most frogs and reptiles have this capacity so some extent (see ''[[chromatophore]]''), they just don't tend to use it that often. Moreover, even if they recently acquire this trait, its unlikely it would become fixed in the population. There would be no obvious selective advantage to it. Infact, it is more likely to be disadvantageous, as the dearth of naturally occuring [[albino]]s demonstrates.
::: However, there are some interesting examples of pigmentary adaptation that has evolved over (relatively) short time periods. My particular favorite is the [[Rock pocket mouse]]. See also a recent study on ''[[Peromyscus]]'' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16825572&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, it was Black Carrot's question that led me to hunt down the article on white tree frogs in our library. Going from memory, the study (which didn't have conclusions - only study data) showed that tree frogs in northern Florida and southern Georgia were increasingly turning white when on white surfaces. Tree frogs found in other areas turned green. So, they wanted a grant to study if this is an evolutionary step in the tree frogs or have they always turned white and nobody noticed. I don't remember who it was and I don't know if they got the grant. But, I remember the tree frogs turning white. I just remember weird facts and lose the source of them all the time. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, [[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]], i accidently edited my comment after you reply. The grant you mention is asking the right question, of course, but i would be very surprising if it was a novel adaptive trait. There could be the result of subtle variation in chromatophore distribution or hormonal control. However, if this was a genuine novel trait, i would guess it is a subsequence of selection for another function of the gene involved, rather than selection for the colour change ''per se''. This is usually the case with pigmentary variations that are not obviously cryptic in purpose. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Humans do show evolutionary adaptations to different environments. For high altitude, there are three responses. Humans who are from sea-level populations react to high altitude with increased concentration of red blood cells (and thus thicker blood) and a higher respiration rate. I don't remember the details of the other two reactions, but peoples from the Andes mountains have a reaction similar to that of sea-leve peoples, while Sherpas and other peoples from the Himalyan Plateau have a different reaction entirely. The time scales for these changes aren't known, but the Andes changes could not have taken more than 15,000 years. --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't believe there is any evidence that these physiological adaptations are genetically encoded and thus a result of natural selection. Athletes from all populations undergo high [[altitude training]] to obtain the same effect. A similar example is from the [[Moken]] sea gypsies. This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12747831&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum remarkable study] showed that Moken children have underwater [[visual acuity]] that is more than twice as good as that of European children. This, it was suggested, could be the result of a novel evolutionary adaptation to underwater vision. This would have been an amazing find, but just this year the same authors demonstrated that it is actually a skill that can be learned, irrespective of genetic background [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16806388&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]. Of course, there is no doubt that human populations have evolved under selective pressures (or the lack thereof) - differences in skin tone between Equatorial and Northern European populations [[MC1R|demonstrate]] that. Its just that correlating positive selection of an allele to phenotype is tricky at the best of times in outbred human populations. Putting a time scale on it is even harder. '''[[User:Rockpocket|Rockpock]]e[[User_talk:Rockpocket|t]]''' 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It is common for people to confuse evolution with adaptation. A single person will never ever evolve. All of your evolution was done when your father's sperm hit your mother's egg. Everything after that is mere adaptation. Unfortunately, "evolution" is often used in place of "adaptation" in what should be credible sources. It confuses the issue and fuels the fire for anti-evolution people who want to find any reason at all to prove that science is wrong. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been a few recent papers on selection in the human genome in different population, like [http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 this one].--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other things which seem to have evolved recently [http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/956696920.Ev.r.html] [[User:MeltBanana|MeltBanana]] 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue ==

i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.
:To check, apply a drop to two blocks of glass, press together for two seconds, and try to pull them apart. If you succeed, the glue was not super. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but if you don't succeed that doesn't mean it ''is'' superglue because you might not be strong enough. The basic idea is right though (and rather obvious). I've once seen on [[Klokhuis]] (great show - I wrote the stub :) ) how glue manufacturers test this. They glued two strips of wood (or whatever material you want it for) together, overlapping, attached one end to a hook and hung weights on the other end, adding to it until it broke. If the breakage was in the wood, the glue was stonger than the wood, and therewould be little point in making it stronger than that. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== living rocks ==

While watching a presentation on the History Channel called the Grand Canyon the narrator referred to the rocks along the Colorado River as "living rocks." What does the term living rocks mean?
James L Barden

:Well, they eat, drink, and love women. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:Living rocks! Damn straight! Well, except sometimes. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:[[Living rock]]s are cactii. I doubt that is what the narrator was referring to. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::Becuase there aren't any cactii anywhere near the Grand Canyon?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Next one - what are [[living daylights]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I have one link that may be tangentially helpful - [http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-77.pdf this PDF] file has a section entitled "Blood of the Living Rocks: What Colors the Sandstone Red", but it never really says ''why'' it is using that term. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::"Living rock" means "in its native condition and site" [[OED]], e.g. the Sphinx is hewn out of the living rock. So I would guess the narrator meant that what looked like individual rocks were actually part of the bedrock.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Some other, and possibly more obviously illustrative examples, would be the sculpture of [[Mount Rushmore]], and the Treasury at [[Petra]].- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they mean the rocks change over time (from erosion) or appear to change (due to lighting conditions). They could also mean there are living things on the rocks, like lichen. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 21:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:'Living Rock' appears to be some sort of not-very-scientific jargon that is applied to the canyonlands. [http://www.cnha.org/product.cfm?id=E57A910F-B620-4EAC-A4CDFD3D737F0331] There appears to be lots of literature using this, but it is not defined anywhere. By the pictures, I'll go with the natural sculptures carved out of the bedrock.--[[User:Zeizmic|Zeizmic]] 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== EMP's affect on a crystal radio ==

Would an [[electromagnetic pulse]] adversely affect a [[crystal radio]], which uses a passive circuit? --[[User:Dynamite XI|Dynamite Eleven]] 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why it wouldn't be overloaded and fried just like any other electronic equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Depends how much power was incident on the crystal radio's antenna, of course. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:In its simple form, a [[crystal radio]] does not contain electronic components. It should hold up better than current electronic radios. This is not directly related to its being passive. A sufficiently powerful EMP will evaporate your cast-iron stove; it is all a matter of degree. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Cellphones......and the jammers there of ==
I remember reading an article, not sure where, about commercial radio frequencies, where the author claimed that your average person with a reasonable amount of engineering experiance could probably buy $11 or $12 worth of electronics from a radioshack and be able to build a device that could blackout all cellphone reception in an area the size of Manhattan, is this true? and if it is, how would you do it?--[[User:152.163.100.74|152.163.100.74]] 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Flood the frequencies that the phones work on with extremely powerful garbage signals. Not too hard to create, but it will not "black out" the phones. It just makes the phone's signals appear weak in comparison. What I think would be cool is a system that collects signals and then repeats them at higher power on a delay. That should confuse the phones and towers. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:: You could enclose the entire area in a [[Faraday cage]]. Some [[National Security Agency|secure agencies]] have taken to integrating one into their buildings structure, but it's not exactly feasible to build one to block all of Manhattan. It rather sounds like something that an [[Doctor Evil|evil genius]] might devise. Hmm... – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|Soul]] 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you were to flood the frequencies enough, all that the mobile phones would pick up would be a load of noise, and no communications. I know this to be true, as I recently stayed on a military singals base, and when they had the radio transmitters on high power, the comms of civilian networks in the area would break down, with mobiles failing to ocnnect or send SMS. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Twenty years ago, cell phones used simple technology that could be jammed by sending out high-power at the system operation frequency. Modern cell phones use [[CDMA]], or [[Code Division Multiple Access]], which makes "brute force" jammers very ineffective. So, perhaps ten years ago, a $10 dollar home-made 50 watt [[sine wave]] transmitter could jam the system. CDMA is actually extremely effective at evading exactly such high-power, "dumb" jamming (it was developed for [[electronic warfare]]; it also serves to prevent thousands of legitimate cell-phone calls from "jamming" each-other.. One feature of CDMA coding is to divert power to frequency [[sideband]]s where the jam tone has no effect. To jam such systems, you would need a more sophisticated, [[digital]]ly controlled jammer, which would cost more than $10 or $20 dollars (perhaps more like... several tens of thousands of dollars, or several months to years of home-made re-engineering). In addition, your home-engineer would now need to diversify his expertise from basic [[analog circuit]] design to include [[software]], [[radio frequency]] electronics, and other areas of expertise. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::: P.S. [[User:Martinp23]] mentions a jammer that exists on a military base. Without doubt, such jammers do exist. However, they operate as I described above (digitally controlled, CDMA-aware systems) and certainly are not home-made. I also doubt their operational range is more than a few hundred yards; if larger areas are covered, it is probably using multiple independent jamming devices. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ring tones ==

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a question in reference to the wikipedia article entitled "ring tones". When making a telephone call, does the ring tone that the caller hears correspond and occur at the same time the ring of the phone recieving the incoming call? In other words, if the caller hears eight dial tones, will the person receiving the call hear his or her phone ring eight times simultaneously? If not, why?

Thank you for your assistance
WJK August 16, 2006

:Not necessarily - it all depends on:
**the length of the ring tone (recieving)
**the length of the ring tone (sending)
:The first one varies according to phone brand/personal preference and the latter according to country. At certain times (when a certain ring tone in a certain country is used), both will be the same, but at most other times they will be different. [[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|a]][[User:Martinp23|rtinp23]] 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::If I ring my mobile phone from my home phone, my mobile starts ringing very slightly before I hear the rings in the home phone. The delay is very slight, however. I live in Australia. [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hair bleaching question ==

I currently have 3-foot long hair that's a mess of different colours after various dye/bleachjobs over the last couple of years. There's reds, browns, blondes, oranges, bits that look black, etc. In short, it's horrible. Is it possible to simply bleach all the different pigments out of it with peroxide, leaving it white-blonde again? Ta. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I'm reading about hair dye, hydrogen peroxide opens up the hair cuticle and allows whatever proteins or compounds that are coloring your hair to escape. If this is true, I wouldn't think it matters whether the color is natural or synthetic as long as it's behaving the same way. And if your hair is as beautiful as you say, would it really matter if your bleach job failed? :D [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think so, but you should ask a hairdresser. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 23:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Depends. How much damage are you willing to do to the structure of your hair? --[[User:Serie|Serie]] 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would have more luck dying it black, which can cover any colors already there. And, in the future, only change your hair color when you're on the run from the cops. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

= August 17 =

== Where is the center of earth's land? ==

Hello,

I was wondering, what is the "average place of land"?

This is how I would define it :

Consider earth as a ball with radius ''R''.

Let ''A'' be that part of the surface where there is land.

Define <math>\vec{v}=\int_{A} \vec{r} d\sigma</math>

where <math>\vec{r}</math> is a threedimensional vector from the origin to that point on the surface.

The average place would then be <math>R \frac{\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||}</math>

My guess would be somewhere in Africa??
[[User:Evilbu|Evilbu]] 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Don't think just because it is in the center of the map, it is the center of land. I believe it would be in the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent, but that's just my mind-model with weighting and the shape of the Earth in mind. Probably more accuratley somewhere in the Indian Ocean. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

::Well, it will be somewhere inside the earth, deep within the surface, by the given definition. Of course I don't know exactly where, but given that the pacific ocean is the biggest region with no land, it will probably be somewhere on the other side from the center of the earth from the Pacific ocean. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I retract that comment. I reread the definition, and it would indeed be on the surface :) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I take that the centre of the ball is the origin. Assuming <math>\vec{r}</math> is distinct from zero, the definition given results in a vector of length ''R'', so that is not inside. --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|Talk]] 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit....==
as long as they have a 4 year degree in math and physics. Isn't it a bit elitest of wikipedia to write all the science and math articles filled with equations and other things that no one can be expected to understand? isn't it contrary to the personal liberty of all peoples that wikipedia should be written in such a way as to restrict knowledge from the common man?--[[User:Milboage|Milboage]] 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you don't have an advanced understanding of high maths and physics, why on earth would you attempt to write an edit that required such knowledge? Monolingual [[Basque people]] are free to edit this too, but they refrain from doing so because they don't understand it, just as you don't understand integrals and trigonometry or whatever. It's inappropriate to require all physics articles to either stick with basic arithmetic or explain the basics of calculus anytime they need to demonstrate a proof just so Joe Everyman can understand it. Why not take a class or (heh) read up the Wikipedia article if you're so interested in a subject? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] [[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:You can always contribute to the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]! --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::I have often complained about this. I know that no math geeks will ever be able to wrap their brain around this complaint, but I'll try again. Being able to recite an equation is not intelligence. Being able to mix and match equations is not intelligence. It is no more complicated than playing with Legos. Being able to take an equation and explain it without math is intelligence. Einstein wasn't a genius because he looked at a graph of energy to mass ratios and realized that it was a constant relationship with a constant equal to the square of the speed of light. He was a genius because he was able to explain relativity without using equations. Steven Hawking is similar. Read A Brief History of Time and notice how few equations there are. Even when he uses one, he quickly dismisses it and goes on to explain the concept in plain English. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia has a bunch of math geeks who are quick to delete any attempt to explain the equations. Why? They claim, "It is right there in the equation! You don't need to explain it!" They will never understand that it isn't a matter of "need". It is a matter of intelligence - even genius - to explain the math concepts without formulas. So, in my opinion, the math geeks just feel inferior and delete anything that they can't do themselves. --[[User:Kainaw|Kainaw]] [[User_talk:Kainaw|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well it might help you if you got your words right too. The plural of LEGO is LEGO. No such things as LEGOS. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think you understand relativity "in plain English", you're wrong. Can't be done. Some of the motivations? Sure. Some of the consequences? Those, too. The theory itself? You're only fooling yourself. Until you get into the equations, you simply don't really understand it, period. And that goes for lots of other things.
::::I agree. In addition, it would be ''impossible'' to understand quantum electrodynamics using only words. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''
:::Now, it's a valid criticism that in many cases there is accessible material to present, and it's ''not'' presented, or not as clearly as it could be. That's absolutely an area for improvement. But it doesn't mean the specialized material ''shouldn't'' be there. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Math is of ''extreme'' importance to some people. Equations are little meaningless symbols that describe the world around us. Einstein was not a genius because he was able to explain relative without using equations, because he ''was''. You can't just say something you know, you have to write it down, and the language of the universe is mathematics. Stephen Hawking mentioned that in his book a few times I believe. His book was popularized physics, meaning it is meant for the sole purpose of mass nonfiction entertainment. Who the hell would want to read a mathbook for fun? Well ''real'' mathematicians and physicists do. I do. If you've ever cracked open a college quantum physics text book... there's quite a bit of math. In fact it is almost all [[integral]]s, [[differential]]s, partial derivatives, and [[summation]]s and [[delta]]s and [[dot products]]. The last time I checked [[M-theory]] they had a layman, and smartman section :) That's good. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:I sympathize with both "camps" here - and I think there is plenty of room for compromise. For every complex physics or mathematics article, there can be a full mathematical treatement as well as an English interpretation of the idea intended for those unwilling or unable to go through the mathematics. No need for an "either or", I think. BTW, one of my favorite quotes by Feynman here is that "if you can't explain it to a college freshman, you don't understand it yourself" (inexact quote, too lazy to look up). On the other hand, as someone mentioned, "mathematics is the language of the universe". --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue I see is that some level of simplification is required to make complex topics more understandable to the general public. For example, when explaining atoms, the model of electrons in circular orbits about the nucleus is easiest to understand. The probability wave function, orbital shells and energy quanta concepts should only be introduced after the basics are understood. However, when academics get hold of an article, they frequently delete any simplified explanation because it's "wrong". This leaves the general public incapable of understanding the article. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

*It ''is'' wrong, it's much simpler to say that the universe is a large poorly lit christmas bulb that's over 200 billion AUs wide, but we can't put that in an article--[[User:71.247.125.144|71.247.125.144]] 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:*So then you're in the camp that says "no simplifications can ever be permitted, and if that means the general public can't understand our articles, well, screw 'em". [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. To have an article on, say, the [[exterior derivative]] without equations would be doubly useless: Serious students couldn't get any useful information from it, and casual readers, if they ever cared about such a thing, would have to spend hours reading other dense articles just to understand the "plain English" explanation. Further, as someone pointed out above, though every article ''can'' be edited by everyone, not every article ''should'' be edited by everyone. You should only edit articles you actually know something about, and if your knowledge of math doesn't go beyond college algebra then you shouldn't be editing math articles. But let me hasten to add that this isn't because math is special, or because I'm a snotty nerd with a math degree. I don't know jack about Hindi phonology, so I don't edit it. The same should go for everyone and every subject.

:That said, there's a good argument for, where possible, giving both a technical and non-technical explanation. The articles on [[relativity]] do a fine job of that, as do articles on several other well-known physics topics. Unfortunately that's just not always practical. It really does take a rare talent to convey these advanced ideas in simple ways, and for many of them it's just not worth the effort (see above r.e. "exterior derivative"). --[[User:Antifamilymang|George]] 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Science fiction: stellar explosions and disc formation. ==

In many science fiction television programs, particularly - in my memory - [[star trek]], when a stellar object such as a planet or star, etc. explodeds the ejecta forms a two-dimensional disc which rapidly expands from the centre of the explosion. Is there a scientific basis underlying this effect, or is it purely artistic license? I looked at [[accretion disc]], but it only appears to deal with collapsing matter, not mentioning ejected matter; [[ejecta]] is also no help. Thanks in dadpants, -somesortamoniker. [[User:88.144.1.63|88.144.1.63]] 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nah, I think it's just for visual coolness. I have nothing to back this up, except the intuition that nothing would cause such a violent asymmetry in the explosion. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 02:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::I first noticed this in Star Wars, when the Death Star exploded. It had a deep equatorial trench, however, which might be presumed to cause that effect. A rapid rotation might also cause such an effect. In general, however, if a spherical object exploded, I would expect a spherical debris field. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I should mention that planets don't usually spontaneously explode, so if they do, there's a mighty funky mechanism at work, probably available only from Starfleet command, which means it could look like anything. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]]
:I second visual coolness. — '''['''<nowiki></nowiki>'''[[User:Mac Davis|Mac Davis]]] ([[User talk:Mac Davis|talk]])'''

:When there's gravity and an atmosphere about, there's lots of interesting shapes that explosions can take, mushroom clouds, dust rings. In space, they should probably just explode apart in all directions, and the fires would probably disappear quickly as the oxygen escapes. I think it was just modeled after explosions on earth that produce an outwardly expanding shock wave, and figured it looked more interesting given a planar shape than a spherical one. The earliest one of these I can think of in movies would probably have been from the end of Alien. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Doner kebab]]s ==

Why do they taste so nice when I eat them, yet make my stomach feel soo bad up to 12 hours later? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 05:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:Has every single donair you've ever eaten made you feel this way? If yes, then you might be allergic to something in them. If it's just one vendor, and you don't actually get ''sick'' from them, I'd guess either it's that they're using [[homous]] and you aren't used to eating beans, or the yogourt sauce ([[tzatziki]], although it has a different name) is a bit off. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

why does water boil at low pressure?