Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 22

Music in youtube video

What is the music in this Youtube video here. It sounds vaguely familiar and I was thinking of John Williams but my search of him doesn't make it likely. What is it? --Blue387 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is the theme from From the Earth to the Moon, a miniseries from HBO in 1998. Can someone find a copy I can download? --Blue387 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't sound the theme to me, judging by the clip on the soundtrack's Amazon.com page. Personally it sounds like one of Holst's The Planets though I don't know which one (and am no audiophile). --24.147.86.187 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is similar the Mars portion of The Planets, but is not. Plasticup ^T/C 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. It is probably meant to be evocative of Holst? I dunno. --24.147.86.187 15:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it sounds very stock music (no article?) to me. Recury 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you define stock music for me? I have no idea what that means. My quick google search indicated that it may refer to any royalty-free music... Plasticup ^T/C 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is also called Production music. Plasticup ^T/C 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Homework for social studies

im 11 years old and i need hlp with my homework for social studies. it's due on monday the 24th of september. hi. i need help with social studies. my teacher is asking me to define:continent, Eurasia, Hemisphere, Prime Meridian, and International date line. If you could help me that would be awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.96.210 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest looking at all those articles. Just type them (individually) into the search bar at the left side of the page, near the top. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked for you! 128.196.149.25 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you'll find a definition of all those in a good dictionary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the Reference Desk is doing its job. That's what it's here for :) Rfwoolf 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. We don't do homework, but if you still need help after you look at the articles, please come back and ask for specific help. You can even give your answers here and ask for comments, but if you do, show the results to your teacher. -Arch dude 16:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to visit this Web site, Wiktionary. Jet (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A New Wikipedia?!

Having read the article in New Scientist, I'm asking is it true that there will be a new version of Wikipedia where in order to make the site "realiable", users' edits won't be displayed immediately unless they are part of some hierarchy of users with "trust"? Is this for real? Is there any way I can vote against this? Or will I just have to vote with my feet like I know many others will do once this new system is implemented? --Candy-Panda 08:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of Wikis and a lot of publically-editable encyclopediae (like Citizendium), and they may have different rules of their own. But much like Kleenex for tissue, the name Wikipedia tends to get applied to a lot of things that aren't strictly it. So no, as far as I know there are no plans to do anything that drastic to Wikipedia. You can bet there'd be an uproar if anyone suggested it. --Masamage ♫ 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you might be interested to read Wikipedia:Trust network and Wikipedia:User access levels.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Stable versions is a new part of the software that is in the works. As far as I remember it doesn't affect how soon material is displayed, but it does allow some trusted users to tag a certain version of an article as stable, correct and vandalism-free - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the questioner was refering to this article: Wikipedia 2.0 - now with added trust. Unfortunately, as with many articles on Wikipedia, it is jumping the gun, announcing changes that are not finished or even yet agreed upon. Rmhermen 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been long debates about this kind of thing in various Wikipedia forums - and this is certainly one of the things that's been discussed - but I don't think it's been widely agreed upon. As for whether a Wikipedia clone with different rules might come about - I would be rather surprised if that hadn't already happened - but such things are a total waste of time because they don't get many editors and within a matter of months they are hopelessly out of date compared to "the real thing". You can start a Wikipedia 'mirror' and you can set up alternate editing rules - and you'll start off with 2 million articles too - but when the real Wikipedia hits 3 million, I doubt you'd have 2,001,000. SteveBaker 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Citizendium is probably the best attempt out there at a Wikipedia reboot, but they seem to have levelled off at around 500 edits per day (as compared to WP's 2000 new articles per day). The public's preference for Wikipedia reminds me of the slogan for one of the early full-automatic paintball guns: "accuracy through volume". :) --Sean 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the impression that an unvandalised cache would be kept - for display to search engines etc - editing proceeds as usual - but the 'official page' is only updated by 'an expert' -- or something like that...87.102.89.127 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the changes discussed in the article are currently only being proposed for the German-language Wikipedia. I doubt that we'll see them rolling over here any time soon. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How uninstall FLVDownloader

How do I uninstall the FLVDownloader and all of its components from my computer? Also, where would I find the temporary internet files such as ones I had just viewed on youtube on my computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.231.244 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The control-panel add/remove programs should contain a removal link for your application. In the Windows folder of your main drive (usually C:\) there is a folder (I think) called "Temporary Internet Files" which would have them in. Alternatively inside your browser there will be an option to 'clear cached pages' or 'remove temporary internet files' that sort of thing. ny156uk 15:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it under another name because when I went to the control panel FLV, Moyer didn't show up, nothing that seemed like it appeared, am I just searching under the wrong name? Also, my computer which is new and I just put on Windows Vista onto it, it does not have a temporary internet file folder, index.dat, or a content IE5 folder. All the links that supposedly take me to it just are dead ends. But, when I go the internet tools and click on delete temporary internet files it seems to be clearing something. Is it possible not to have a folder, or am I just looking in the wrong place or under the wrong name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.242.169 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Carparo

I need some help. The Carparo case I believe was an australian court ruling in which a Universal rule was formed.

Would I be right in stating that the Carparo rule is to with damages awarded for child maintainance cases. In that the rule states that damages shall only only be awarded if there is a sufficient relation between defendant and pursuer and that it can be proven fair, just and reasonable enough that full maintainance costs ( or part?) are awarded.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.107.4 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.107.4 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of the Caparo test based on Caparo Industries Plc. v Dickman, but it isn't an Australian case, nor a case on child maintenance. In some circumstances the Caparo test could be authoritative in family law on the question of 'sufficient relation', but go carefully. Xn4 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Losing weight by thinking?

Per Brain, towards the bottom of the article, it is stated that the brain can consume about 1.5 calories per minute performing crossword puzzles. Does this mean one can lose weight by engaging in neuronically stimulating activities such as writing tests and essays, while maintaining minimal physical movement? Acceptable 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, any time you burn more calories than you take in, you can lose weight. At 1.5 per minute though, don't base your diet around it. :) Saturn 5 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What would be the rate of calorie burning for an average adult male during moderate jogging? Acceptable 20:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

12-15 Calories per minute. But the real weight loss comes from the effect that exercise has on your metabolism, not the exercise itself. Plasticup ^T/C 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the brain uses more energy "thinking" than not thinking. "Thinking" is a small part of all the stuff the brain does. Gzuckier 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"5 alarm fire"

News reports of a big fire characterizes it as a "5 alarm fire". What does that mean and how are the numbers assigned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.125.195 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of "alarms" is the number of different fire stations that have been called in to fight the fire. So a 5-alarm is so big, it requires equipment from 5 stations. Saturn 5 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Or sometimes, the number of alarms refers to the number of dispatches must be made to bring additional firefighters to the scene. For example, the initial call ("alarm") might send one or two fire stations. The chief on the scene will assess the situation and request help — a second alarm, which could include multiple stations, often specifically requested by the chief. If the fire starts spreading, the chief (or by this time, perhaps someone higher in the chain-of-command) will call in with, "We need a third alarm here!" And so on. A five-alarm fire is really huge, and could actually have crews from 15 to 20 stations. — Michael J 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have references for the alternate definitions above? Which Wikipedia article should contain such an explanation? Samw 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition apparently varies from one city to another. Some fire departments have official designations for number of alarms, while in other areas the terminology is created by the local media reporting on the fire. According to WRC-TV in Washington, D.C., on a first alarm the city's fire department "sends 5 fire engines, 2 ladder trucks, one rescue squad and one fire chief. This is call a box alarm. If the fire is confirmed, it becomes a one-alarm fire meaning one more engine, one more ladder truck, one battalion fire chief and one ambulance. A two-alarm fire brings 4 more engines, 2 more ladder trucks, 1 more fire chief and EMS equipment, in all about 110 firefighters and 45 pieces of equipment. 3 alarms brings 4 more engines and 2 more ladder trucks. Four alarms signals a huge fire and the department sends much of the equipment it has available." [1] A few years ago, the New York City newspaper The Villager reported on a fire this way: "At 6:39 p.m., it became a three-alarm fire, meaning 33 engine and ladder trucks and 138 firefighters responded. ... At 8:01 p.m., the blaze was upgraded to four alarms, meaning 39 units and 168 firefighters were at the scene." [2]. In rural areas, there is often no official designation. I write for a rural newspaper, and we go by the number-of-dispatches method, regardless of the number of fire companies. — Michael J 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the wise Ogden Nash had to say on the subject. Marnanel 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The one-L lama, he's a priest,

The two-L llama, he's a beast,

And I will bet a silk pajama

There isn't any three-L lllama.

The author's attention has been drawn to a type of conflagration known as a three-alarmer. Pooh.

-- The Bad Parents' Garden of Verse, 1930

Thanks everyone. I've added a new section: Fire_fighting#Categorizing_fires. Feel free to elaborate more there. Samw 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How does a "water expander" trick work?

I realize this is pretty obscure, but I once saw a trick where 500 mL of water was poured into a 5 gal bucket, and 1000mL came out the other end. Obviously there's a reservoir of water inside somewhere, but I was wondering about specifics on how it works. Thanks! 76.226.103.14 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of the trick, but an easy way to make such a thing look real without a reservoir of water would be to have the "1000mL" bucket or measurer or whatever actually only have a volume of 500mL and have it just appear to be twice as much volume (thicker inside than outside, less depth, whatever). (There's also the possibility of keeping the original 500mL at twice its normal density but that seems like it would be both hard to prepare as well as obvious when executed.) --24.147.86.187 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We had a similar problem in my freshman biology class. We put in water, and then a different amount of water would come out. Sometimes some, sometimes none, sometimes alot of water would poor out. After a few trials we found that it was a repeating cycle, and then had to diagram how we thought the system worked, as we could not see the inside of the box. When we were seniors we got to go back and open the box. It turned out it was a system of siphons. I would assume your situation is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.147 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an old magic trick that I had a small version of as a child (marketed under Paul Daniels' name) In the one I had, it was a jug that had a hidden hollow section between the jug's exterior and an inner wall that became the apparent wall of the jug if you looked inside it. So, the apparent volume of the jug was far less than its real capacity. Flow from the hidden reservoir was controlled by placing a thumb over (or releasing the pressure on) a small airhole. My Physics knowledge is sparse to say the most, so I won't hazard a guess as to how it worked, but it did. If I approximate its design in section, it would be:

         ___________
spout->  \  |     | |
          \ |     | |
          | |     |    <- air hole
          | |     | |
          | |     | |
          |_________|

The natural shadows at the bottom of the jug hid the (otherwise) tell-tale small gap between the inner walls and the jug's bottom. I now resign my membership of The Magic Circle --Dweller 11:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can not find the Internet Folder

I have a new computer and recently put Windows Vista onto it. I can't seem to find the temporary internet folders although when I go to internet tools and press delete temporary internet files folder it erases, so where could it be erasing from? Is it possible I don't have and internet folder on it? And, how could I find it? (There aren't any folders when I do a search on index.dat, Contents IE5, or twmporary internet folder, why can't I find these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.242.169 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have it enabled to show you hidden and system files? Often that is turned off by default, both in viewing as well as searching. --24.147.86.187 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried The Computing Reference desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.--Ybbor^Talk 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Injecting oneself

It is often depicted in movies where the character needs to inject him/herself intravenously, he or she will often slap the forearm and possibly tied a constricting fabric around the arm. Why do they do this? Is it done to see the blood veins more clearly? If so, how does it work? Thanks. Acceptable 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is done to raise the veins up so that you can see them and inject into them more easily. Try it yourself by slapping the inside of your elbow a few times: you should see the vein rise up. Why it does so, I dont know.--212.139.98.210 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

doesn't work on me. Gzuckier 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume it's because even very minor skin trauma makes you swell up, so everything gets poofy. As for tying it off with fabric or rubber, that traps blood in the arm and increases the pressure as blood tries to get back out, which also makes veins rise. (This one you should probably not try on yourself.) --Masamage ♫ 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The principle is explained at tourniquet. Rockpocket 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Being a Wikipedian User"

Hello, I was wanting to know how are users able to use another font on Wikipedia besides the one provided (which is Arial)?

P.S. Sorry for getting on your nerves jjron

--Writer Cartoonist 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to do: Do you want to control the way what you write appears? Or do you want to change the the default appearance on your screen of what everybody writes? --teb728 02:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page, then select the "skin" tab. You can preview different skins until you find one you like. I find it handy to use a different skin from the default, so that I know if I've been logged out.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? If so, just look at the coding I have used in answering this post. NOTE: Don't do stuff like this is actual articles. --24.147.86.187 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arial? Ptui! Everything on Wikipedia is displayed in Lucida Sans – coincidentally the font that I've chosen as default in my Firefox settings. —Tamfang 06:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)