Revision as of 12:52, 1 September 2012

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/M

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 27

Carpathia

Hi, does anyone know if there is, or ever was, a region called Carpathia, presumably somewhere in or near to modern Romania, from which the adjective Carpathian derives? It seems "obvious" that there should be, but I can't seem to find any actual reference to it anywhere. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am Carpathian. See Carpathian mountains, Sub-Carpathian Rus, Carpatho-Rusyn. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have already been through all that stuff and more, and none mention a place/region that is actually called Carpathia. I also cannot find it on any map, nor any mention of it anywhere in Google search, which I find surprising. Lots of adjectival uses but no plain Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop press: I have just found http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uiHtJ9e1p6wC&pg=PA54&dq=carpathia , which refers to an old principality, though this seems to be a novel so I do not know if it is meant to be historically correct. This is the only mention I have found anywhere of a place simply called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such place as Belgreb, as mentioned in the book, so far as I can tell. There is a small town named Berehove. Mukachevo and Uzhhorod are the largest cities in Sub-Carpathian Rus. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Carpathian Ruthenia. I think the answer is that it was a fictional nation, but only a roughly defined region overlapping several nations, in the real world, similar to The Levant. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I already linked to that, StuRat. It was part of Czechoslovakia after WWI, briefly independent, then annexed by Ukraine after WWII. It is about as fictional as Transylvania. The IP seems to want to see a map with the English word Carpathia on it and nothing else. That's easily enough done with a google image search. Might as well look for a place officially called "Alp" or "Czech" or "Soviet Georgia". μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide links to the maps you have found that show a place or region called Carpathia. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Carpathia is the mountains; thus it is the dark green areas on this map. Other regions like Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia and Carpathian Ruthenia are named in relation to the mountains. I don't believe there ever was a polity or state or country or principality or whatever named Carpathia. It refers to a geographic region. The best U.S. equivalent would be Appalachia; there has never been a state or polity named Appalachia, but it is still a region. --Jayron32 02:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit more: the Carpathian mountains derive their name from the Carpi, so "Carpathia" could mean "the land of the Carpi", but I don't know if there was ever a formal state. I don't know that the Carpi people ever reached the level of state organization, or if they had a defined land with recognized boundaries. The Carpathian Mountains could just mean "the mountains near with the Carpi lived". Still, I think understanding the term "Carpathia" like the U.S. term "Appalachia" may capture it best. --Jayron32 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The name of the mountains was originally the Carpathian alps, the alps that were in Carpathia. The land is not named for the mountains. The name is an ancient, and mostly geographical one. The analogy with Appalachia is a good one. But if you want a recent political entity, you have to look at Karpatalya. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This section from StuRat's Jayron's link is very interesting: Carpi_(people)#Name_etymology. I should clarify something. I wouldn't call myself Carpathian ethnically, but Ruthenian. It is common for us to refer to ourselves as Russian, but to distinguish ourselves from Great Russians or "Moskow" Russians as Carpathians, especially to Russians and Ukranians. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that Carpatho-Ukraine? It declared itself independent but the very same day it was invaded by Hungary. I doubt it was ever accepted anywhere as an independent nation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the Abkhazians. The point is, if you were going to point to a place you would call Carpathia, province or whatever, as a political entity, that would be it. Obviously it is a very contentious subject, with the official Ukrainian position being something like that of Iraq calling Kuwait "Province 19". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@ IP 86 above, I simply googled "carpathia map" for images. One of the results was StuRat's Jayron's map shown here, but it should be noted that this is a user creation at wikipedia, not an academic creation, and that the area labeled Carpathia is simply land over a certain elevation in that area. It doesn't correspond to any historical entity. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Of minor concern, I added the map, not StuRat. --Jayron32 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Googling "carpathia map" or "map of carpathia" was one of the first things I tried, but I could not find any maps that actually showed the name "Carpathia", except for one fictional one from a game I believe. I am not in any doubt about where the Carpathian Mountains are situated. Anyway, thanks for all the replies. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

planting cuttings- fresh or later?

Cutting (plant) says nothing about this. A friend who is experienced in gardening says it is better to plant cuttings a few days after so that the cut is healed and the cutting less susceptible to rot. Any idea? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your friend is not wrong, but many 'experts' also advise planting the cuttings immediately after severance from the parent plant. The difficulty with waiting a few days to allow the cut end to 'heal' is the high risk of the cutting wilting, especially if it is not a succulent. It is of course easy to place the cutting in a plastic bag to prevent this but that increases the risk of fungal growth. I am interested to know how your friend prevents the cuttings from wilting. I have read that some plants, cacti, epiphyllums, ficus and pelargoniums for example do make roots more certainly if the ends are allowed to dry before insertion into soil. I have taken many hundreds of cuttings and have never allowed the end of the cuttings to dry and have achieved probably 80% success rate. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and as such does not contain 'how to' instructions but WikiHow does have information on taking plant cuttings. Richard Avery (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I grow them hydroponically (in just water with nutrients added) until I see some nice roots, then I plant them. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax lists

Is it possible to get a list of all taxes and fees paid by average employed citizens within a particular state?174.20.230.202 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To judge by the lack of response, perhaps not.

Hi, I would start with the Policy Center I also know that the Heritage Group and Grover Nordquist's group does tons of research on everything concerning taxes. Google search those names and different combinations and there are lots of documents and studies available. MarketDiamond 08:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this passport text awkwardly worded?

I know passport language can be more formal and unrecognizable from the language I'm used to so I'm not certain if the following sentence from a passport is gramatically incorrect or just of another sytle. What's everyone else's opinion?

"Please insert below particulars of two person who may be contacted in the event of accident." CORRECTION: "Please insert below particulars of two persons who may be contacted in the event of accident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bldegroup (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bldegroup (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Should be "persons" and probably "an accident", check again. Other than that, yeah, it's correct. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not insert 'an'. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd change "persons" to "people", although "persons" is valid, just less common. I'd also make it "the particulars" and "an accident", but I speak US English, which adds more articles than UK English. I'd also change "particulars of" to "particulars for". The placement of the "below" is a bit awkward, too. So, I'd write it as: "Please insert the particulars below for two people who may be contacted in the event of an accident." Also, "emergency" might be a better term than "accident", as presumably they would contact those people for emergencies beyond accidents, as well. StuRat (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes it much, much worse. "Particulars for" is not English, whether US or UK. (BTW we are talking about the wording on the British passport.) --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Really ? I get 719,000 Google hits. StuRat (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I got 8,860,000 for "Particulars of", but on delving deeper I find that 'for' gets 877 distinct hits while 'of' gets only 806 (but that's google search for you), so I would say either is fine. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And I get 81,300,000 hits for "me and you are." There are several variations: "me and you are meant to be", "me and you are warriors" and so on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The text in my UK passport (issued 3 years ago) says "The holder should insert below particulars of two relatives or friends who may be contacted in the event of accident:", which avoids using 'person'. It looks fine to me, if a little terse. Mikenorton (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But should the list really be restricted to relatives or friends ? Say you move to a new city for a job, and don't have any friends or relatives there, couldn't you list your boss, who you would want to have notified if you can't come in to work ? StuRat (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, the primary reason for the In case of emergency list in a passport would be so that family or friends could be notified that the person has been seriously injured or died or whatever probably when travelling (which is when people normally have their passports with them) since it's the sort of thing such people generally like to be informed about often even if they're now living in different cities, and they may also want to try and help the person. It's not normally considered that important to notify your boss that you can't show up for work in such cases, particularly since if you're travelling you may not be expected at work anyway. Of course if your boss is really one of the two most important people you can think of adding to such a list (and you aren't close to your boss) no one is going to stop you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The words "persons" and "people" are not perfect synonyms. They are both plurals of "person", but usually "persons" implies more specificity than "people" does. It isn't a perfect fit, but usually "people" is a mass noun where "persons", if it is used, is usually used where a traditional plural would be. Thus, you would never refer to the "British persons", to mean the British people. You can sometimes use "people" in places where you would use "persons", for example you could say "I need two persons to volunteer." and "I need two people to volunteer", and those both sound equally natural to me. However, the environment of the word can tend to favor the usage of "persons" over "people", for example in the phrase "person or persons unknown", which sounds much more natural than "person or people unknown". In the OPs original example, persons is a perfectely acceptable word to use. People may also be acceptable, though some dialects of English may prefer "persons" if they treat that as the Count noun and treat "people" as a mass noun. --Jayron32 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In my dialect, "persons" sounds strange, old-fashioned, and/or formal. I see "people" gets 24 times as many Google hits as "persons", so I suspect it's not just me. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Please provide contact information for two individuals to be contacted in case of accident."

There is no need for the word "below" if the above wording occurs within an enclosed box with obvious space left for the information it requests. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Referring to humans as "individuals" is very off, unless you're making some distinction between them and groups, which is not the case here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The book was better than the movie or: why listening to Debussy is like watching a movie

Everyone knows that the book is always better than the movie, yet nobody can quite explain it. Is the book engaging a part of our brain that the film adaptation ignores? What's going on here? And if we can imagine entire worlds out of language on a page, why can't we also see pictures from musical notes on a score? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that books are always better. They tend to be far more detailed, just because it's not possible to put an entire book on film, unless it was several days long. But more detail isn't always a good thing. For example, Moby Dick tends to be a very dry read, with large swathes devoted to the history of whaling, etc., while the movie limits itself largely to the few action scenes in the book, making it more entertaining. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You may not agree, but that is the consensus. Exceptions like Moby Dick aside. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is the consensus, based on the large number of people who see movies but don't read the book on which it was based. I suspect that many people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate. StuRat (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a really unlikely explanation. It follows that when someone likes a book more than the movie, they usually explain why. For me, it's because I'm the one envisioning the characters, the scenes, the entire story, in my head. With a film, the director is putting those visuals in your head instead. The human mind is designed to think as little as possible (formation of habits, etc.) and reading forces it to actively create the story whereas watching a film is a passive process that requires one to merely be receptive. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions of taste are purely subjective and defy objective definitions. If people say they like a movie better than a book, they do, and they aren't wrong about their own tastes. You can't say that people should like a book better based on your own preconceived notions of how quality should be judged. Once you're predefined people who prefer films to books as uneducated cretins (or whatever more diplomatic language you've chosen to say essentially the same thing) you can't then go and establish a set of ex-post-facto criteria to justify that assessment. People like what they like, and it doesn't make them less in any way because they like a movie better than a book. StuRat has given some excellent reasons as to why a person may find a movie better than a book, and those reasons are not invalid merely because you've decided that books are always better than movies. They aren't for some people, and those people aren't wrong in their preferences because preferences are arbitrary and personal, and aren't subject to measures of correctness and wrongness. You have your criteria, they have theirs, and neither is correct or incorrect. --Jayron32 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking to, but it surely isn't me. The statement that "people just say they prefer the book to sound more literate" is just ridiculous. There are significant reasons reader prefer books, and these reasons have been published in various articles. None of them say anything about "sounding more literate". Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that when some people prefer X to Y, they describe that as "X is better than Y". If they thought about it for one second, they'd realise their "better" ought to come with various qualifications. But they don't think. And then they get into debates and slanging matches about whether the movie or the film was better, when there will never be a right or wrong answer to that. If they said what actually was the case, namely, "I preferred the film to the book", and not "The film was better than the book", it would save a lot of time and trouble. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Word. --Jayron32 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Slanging matches" ? Is that an Aussie-ism ? StuRat (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

NSFW but you asked... --Jayron32 23:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(cough) Try this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yours may be true, but mine was more fun. --Jayron32 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

People who like that sort of thing will no doubt find it's the sort of thing they like. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd say you can see pictures from musical notes, although people who don't read music would need to hear them played. It also helps if somebody explains which instruments represent what, as in Peter and the Wolf. StuRat (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different things when I say "pictures". For example, a visual depiction of the ocean as seen in La mer. If one concentrates, one can actually picture the ocean while listening to it, much as one can envision the ocean while reading about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a double translation involved, first in converting written notes to sounds, then in interpreting those sounds as visuals. Probably just too far to go for most people. StuRat (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Listen to La mer and then reply. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know La mer well. As with all abstract music, we hear what we want to hear, except to the degree that we're pre-conditioned by the title, or by what, if anything, the composer has said about the piece. Had Debussy called it "Symphonic Rhapsody No. 1", I wonder if most people would be hearing anything to do with the sea at all. Conversely, everyone has different mental images when they hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but if he'd called it "The Siege of Vienna", everyone would be swearing blind they can hear cannons, the clash of swords, the groans of the wounded and dying and so on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this piece is different. In the Misplaced Pages article, it says that Debussy used a unique approach, employing a "musical onomatopoeia" to evoke the ocean. This is exactly what I'm talking about; I'm proposing that without knowing the composer or the name of the piece it is possible for a musical passage to evoke an image, just like a word. It appears possible to communicate visual images through music in the same way that reading a book can leave an image of the story in the mind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is impossible for music to reliably convey images except in the broadest and most general of senses, such as "tranquil", "violent/chaotic", etc. As has been mentioned, people are overwhelmingly influenced by the title of the piece. 86.160.214.75 (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Music attempts to convey images all the time, from the landscape and temporal quality of Grieg's Morning Mood to the sounds and experience of Spanish palatial gardens in Concierto de Aranjuez and to the Fountains of Rome, to the seasons of the year by Vivaldi. Listening to these pieces is no different than the process of reading a book, and creating an image of the piece in the mind, regardless of the title. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Morning Mood. We all think of Norwegian fjords, misty mornings, fog with a bit of sun breaking through, maybe a swallow or two circling around, yada yada. Lovely. Was this the image that Grieg wanted us to have? Decidedly not! It comes at point in Peer Gynt's story where he's in the Sahara Desert, of all places. We have the cool nordic mental associations because that's what we've been told to think by marketers of LPs and CDs, not because the music itself causes us to think of such things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Tthere is a general agreement that there is a landscape and music can convey such ideas. This has been demonstrated experimentally. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A particularly stunning bit of program music, I've always thought, is the thunderstorm in Strauss's An Alpine Symphony. It's impossible for me to say how obvious it is depicting a thunderstorm since I knew it was called that before I ever heard it. It would not be hard to conduct a little experiment, since most people probably don't know the piece. Find someone who has never even heard of An Alpine Symphony and play the thunderstorm part and see what they think... Anyway, I don't think anyone mentioned the page program music, which is about this kind of thing. I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't give away in it's title what it is supposed to be about. But even pieces like Strauss's Metamorphosen, which gives very little clue what it is about are often very quickly associated with specific imagery—in this case the destruction of Munich in World War 2, whether or not Strauss meant it to evoke that (I think he was aiming at something more complex and multifaceted than just that, at least). So even music that does not tell you what it is supposed to evoke often has acquired popular opinions that influence listeners. Pfly (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This sort of territory has been explored previously on the ref desks. One such was in the context of a question I myself asked: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 23#Mental images of unseen people. It’s worth reading to the end. I produced a fairly stunning example of a performer knowing exactly what the composer was depicting, and not just in vague general terms but a specific notable landscape painted by a specific artist. So, yes, this sort of thing is possible. However, that example was very much an exception to the general case that music and visual imagery, while not unconnected, are not connected in a way that matches a particular set of sounds to a particular image. If I were to play La Marseillaise right now, what would people think about? Something French, no doubt – but what specifically? The Eiffel tower? The tricolor? The Arc de Triomphe? The storming of the Bastille? Cheese? Champagne? The Can-Can? The guillotine? Casablanca? The 1812 Overture? Napoleon? Louis Pasteur? The Burgers of Calais? The Mona Lisa? Condoms? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First, let me join in questioning the premise. While I think that the book usually is better than the movie, there are clear exceptions. For example, most people think that The Princess Bride (film) is better than the original novel (although the novel is also quite good). The film The Graduate makes many greatest films lists, while The Graduate (novel) is not particularly well-remembered. Vertigo (film) recently topped a greatest films list, while The Living and the Dead (1954 novel) has topped no lists. There are many cases where it is not obvious whether the book or the movie is better. Both the book and the movie versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather, for example, have their adherents. And, of course, it's a rare case where a novelization is thought to be better than the original movie.

That said, the conventional wisdom is that books usually are better because they more directly engage the reader's imagination. Alternatively, it may be argued that a book represents the integrated creative force of a single author, while movies necessarily are created by many people working together, with the attendant disadvantages of creativity by committee. John M Baker (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

John, thanks for the best answer I've received so far. I agree. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Jaws is another where many would agree the film is better than the book. However, I think StuRat has it partly right. A novel can contain a lot more information than a film, and adapting it as a film means cutting quite a lot of that out. Someone who enjoyed the novel may find that a lot of what they enjoyed is missing from the film and be disappointed by that. But another thing people tend to miss is the importance of form. A big part of a good novel is not just the ideas, characters or plot, but how the writer has used the form of prose to express them. No matter how faithfully you translate the ideas, characters and plot into another medium, something vital about the original - the way the author expresses himself in words - can't help but be lost.

I would also agree that music is abstract and conveys no actual meaning without words. Debussy cannot invoke the sea in music without using words - the title - to associate his abstract music with the sea. The mind then fills in its own associations of the sea. But the instrumental music carries no information itself. Someone who did not know the title would not imagine images of the sea - and neither would someone who had never experienced the sea. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try to think about what you are saying, as it makes no sense. Words convey meaning because we have already agreed what they mean. But one word can mean many different things depending on the context. Likewise, music can convey meaning because certain sounds mimic or resemble the natural environment, an aural landscape that most people are familiar with and can agree upon. That is the informational content of the music. Someone who did not know the tittle might very well imagine the sounds and experience of the ocean, which is what happened to me the first time I heard it many decades ago without knowing the piece or being prompted by the title. Music can and does convey concrete information provided the listener is able to understand it. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked a question. I can't help it if you don't like the answers you get. Please leave off the abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I like and I'm not seeing any abuse. You said that music "conveys no actual meaning without words", which is an extraordinary statement. I have to ask, have you ever listened to music before? It's OK to answer no. There is relevant research that is at odds with your opinion. Samples: "Single sounds can activate representations of meaningful concepts in a similar fashion to chords and musical excerpts...the distribution and time window of the N400 effect found in this experiment is comparable to that in other domains such as environmental sounds or language." "Recent studies have shown that music is capable of conveying semantically meaningful concepts...individual aspects of the acoustic input are all capable of signaling affective meaning...It is likely that the mechanism underlying this process is the basic ability to perceive emotional signals in one's auditory environment via the processing of several acoustic signals. These signals are rapidly interpreted in terms of their emotional expression, which are then linked to associated affective concepts...the information is capable of interfering with other types of affective information which in the case of verbal input, is coded in the meaning of the word....the experiments...suggests that individual musical features communicate signals which are procesed as affectively meaningful...These data provide the first evidence that several individual features of the musuical input are capable of communicating meaning..." Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The movie adaptation of Grisham's The Firm (novel) is far better than his book. The movie has a clever ending, the book falls apart at the end. The difference is usually unity of purpose and artistic integrity. The usual motivation in filming a book is the profit to be made from a pre-existing audience. Artistic vision usually has littel to do with it. Peter Jackson's butchery of The Lord of the Rings shows you what happens when a hack puts his stamp on things better not messed with, like "Dwarf Tossing" that destroy the viewer's suspension of disbelief. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The motive you give is only one reason. Many, many movies hae been made from extremely obscure books. Usually a producer (or director) sees something in the book that he thinks will translate into a successful movie; examples include Dr. Strangelove and The Secret of NIMH. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am no cynic, just a realist. I did not say the profit motive is the only one. I highly recommend Bambi vs Godzilla, by David Mamet, which I am in the midst of reading for the first time right now. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What you see is what you get in a film. But in a book you provide the specific details. A good writer takes you down the path most likely to allow for associations that will be especially powerful. This power is made manifest in the sights and sounds of a well-made film. There is an appeal in each art form. But the film is closer to reality. This can be a limiting quality if in the hands of a good writer abstract language can trigger more powerful associations than the technology of film is able to produce. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Koelsch et al. conclude that music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words." Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more the case that a derivative work is generally not as popular as the original? When a film is based on a well-known novel, many people already have an attachment to the novel and are likely to see any deviations from the novel as flaws, and since the storyline is not original, the film isn't so likely to receive critical praise. Novelizations of films are also generally not as popular as the films they are based on. An obvious counterexample is 2001: A Space Odyssey - the novel and the film were produced simultaneously, and both tend to be regarded as classics. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather interestingly, Clarke himself preferred the film to the novel. In notes he made on writing 2010, he specifically chose to make 2010 as a sequel to the film rather than the novel because some of the "happy accidents" that went into making the film he preferred over what he wrote in the novel; a major plot point difference between the two is that in the Novel, the Discovery is bound for Saturn, and in the film it is bound for Jupiter. The choice, IIRC, was made for stylistic reasons, I think Clarke mentioned that the special effects crew had an easier time creating realistic backgrounds for the Jupiter destination. Clarke, in writing the sequel, took these changes to his novel in stride, and ended up preferring the film's Jupiter setting better; it becomes a vital plot point given what happens on Europa during 2010. So you have a case where the author himself preffered the film version, and used that (rather than the novel) as the canonical version for future sequels. --Jayron32 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the operative vernacular is "different strokes for different folks" chaps. Take any creative endeavour that's realised in more than one medium and some people will prefer one interpretation, others another and still more will like all of them equally. Lord of the Rings is a good example. Both the book and film series are very good, but things that work on paper don't necessarily translate very well onto celluloid and vice versa. There's also the issue of the vast difference in time they were written/filmed. The books were written fifty to sixty years before the films were made and published forty five years before - a huge time difference in cultural terms. Many things in the books would feel very jarring to a modern audience if slavishly copied for the film. Tom Bombadil would seem incredibly twee by modern sensibilities, Sam seeming incredibly servile and class concious and a lot of very talky exposition, poetry and song that work well in the book but would be tedious on screen. Not to mention it would end up being much longer!. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cutting Bombadil and cutting in general makes perfect sense for movie adaptations; much of the movie was very faithful and well done. My main problem was the washed out colors. Substituting Arwen on the ride to the ford made perfect sense. That so much attention was paid to faithfulness made stupid touches like dwarf tossing and the added nonsense with Aragorn being dragged by the hyaena-warg all that much the worse. Those touches in no way improved the movie. That has nothing to do with "different strokes." No person would have left the theater saying I really would have loved the films much more if they had included a Dwarf tossing joke. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of hat needed

Hello,

how do you call this type of hat:

Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

An astrakhan hat , also known as Karakul (hat) --Xuxl (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edhi Van

What is name of the van used by Edhi foundation in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.47 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Edhi Foundation website states that the original 'Poor Patient Ambulance' was a second hand Hillman pickup. A Google image search on 'Edhi Ambulance' shows me that the current fleet mainly consists of Suzuki Carry and something that looks like a Daihatsu Fourtrak. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of Manusmriti

Where do we find the most accurate interpretation of the Manusmriti? Has Dr.BR Ambedkar interpreted it correctly in his Riddles in Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.26.202 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Manusmṛti before now, and I've had only a very cursory look at the page. When it comes to interpretation of these old texts (or new texts, for that matter), who can say that any one interpretation is better or worse than any other? What would "accurate" mean here? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

August 28

Notable People With Large #s of Children All With One Gender

Mitt Romney has five sons and no daughters. Are there any notable/famous people who can beat Romney's record for sons or the inverse of Romney's record (5 daughters, no sons)? The reason that I'm asking is that the odds of having 5 consecutive kids of one gender are 1 in 32, or about 3%. It's even less than that for 6 or more consecutive kids of one gender. Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not famous, but my grandmother's sister had 9 boys and no girls. I can confirm that such events have happened in human history. --Jayron32 06:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that the random variables giving the sex of each child are independent identically distributed random variables, and also that each sex has the same probability. Most likely neither of those assumptions is correct. First, boys are generally slightly more likely than girls. But in any case, the father may have a different ratio of androsperm to gynosperm than the general average, or the mother may favor one or the other (supposedly this is influenced by the acidity/alkalinity of her internal environment). So the sex of the first child is going to give you a Bayesian update of the probability of each sex for the second child, and so on. --Trovatore (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Much more to the point, until comparatively recently having 9 children was reasonably common, and 1 in 512 is quite a high probability when compared to the average national population. Straightontillmorning (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the assumption of i.i.d. births is pretty good (the main deviation is due to identical twins). --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I may not have expressed myself very precisely. I'm not really talking about the effect of having a boy/girl on the sex of later children, or of it being easier to have a daughter as the second child than the first child, or that sort of thing. I'm suggesting that each couple has an unknown probability of having a boy, and that even assuming that the births are i.i.d. given that unknown parameter, having all babies the same sex might be more likely than you would calculate if the parameter were the same for all couples. Do you know whether that question has been studied? --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You also have to take into account that various methods of sex selection are common in some places - in parts of China, the male-to-female ratio of newborns is as high as 1.3. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is 1/16, not 1/32. There is a 1/32 chance of having 5 boys and a 1/32 chance of having 5 girls, and 1/32+1/32=2/32=1/16. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My mother is the youngest of 5 daughters, and there were no brothers. My Dad also had a sister but no brothers. Consequently, all my aunts, uncles and cousins have surnames different from mine. Their loss. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 11:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, Sidney Poitier (6 daughters, no sons) would trump Mitt Romney's score. - Karenjc 11:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is there anyone notable with a higher "score" than Poitier or with a higher son "score" than Romney? Futurist110 (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anyone, although Donny Osmond (5 sons, no daughters) is neck-and-neck with Romney. - Karenjc 09:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's notable by Misplaced Pages standards and has an article, so ... Ede Staal fathered six sons. - Karenjc 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• With a little searching, I've found:
  • Carelton Delbridge had eight daughters and a zoo full of other animals.
  • Charles Douglas, 6th Marquess of Queensberry had eight daughters, which meant his barony became extinct.
  • Frederick Louis, Count of Nassau-Ottweiler had the same situation, so his cousin inherited his land.
  • Sir Julian Goldsmid, 3rd Baronet; what's with these nobles having eight daughters?
  • John Richard Partelow had eight daughters, but happily practiced his politics in Canada.
  • Gene Dalton had eight daughters, and probably ran in the same circles as Romney: he was a Mormon and a Harvard Business School professor.

--M@rēino 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Goebbels had five daughters and one son. Karenjc 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, if you include mythology, I'm pretty sure that the all-time record holder would be the twin brothers Danaus and Aegyptus. Danaus sired 50 daughters and Aegyptus sired 50 sons, and then, because this is Ancient Greece we're dealing with, the daughters and sons all marry each other on the same day, and then 49 of the brides murder their husbands that night. --M@rēino 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And here was me thinking Kardashian was an Armenian name.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Apple has over 10 billion dollars in cash

Where does all that money sit?

210.82.30.69 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they have numerous bank accounts. The details of which I'm equally sure you or I will never be privy to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually short-term holdings, see Cash and cash equivalents Royor (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not in Steve Jobs' wallet. That only had $1 in it. Dismas| 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He obviously plays the wallet game Two envelopes problem#History of the paradox. Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The most recent financial statements are here . Cash and cash equivalents at year end were $9,815m (page 44). Note 2 on page 55 gives a breakdown. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the information provided by Viennese Waltz: Apple at September 24, 2011, had about $2.9 billion in "cash." That probably means mostly demand deposit accounts (accounts providing immediate access to cash, such as checking accounts) at a large bank with which Apple has its primary banking relationship, plus a variety of other banks at locations around the world where Apple may need local banks. Apple also had about $0.7 billion in certificates of deposit and time deposits, about $1.9 billion in money market funds, about $2.2 billion in commercial paper, and about $2.0 billion in other short-term securities. John M Baker (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Roy Salvardori, English racing driver.

Who was Roy Salvadori's first wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.117.49 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How sure are you that he had a wife before he married Sue Hindmarsh? This article claims they lived together in Monaco since the late 1960s. I've checked his obituaries and articles in the specialist press and can only find reference to Sue. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Trick q? Sue Hindmarsh was his first, last and only wife. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

...and it's Roy Salvadori in respect to the great man let's have his name right. Richard Avery (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting collection of words you have there, Richard. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quebec

In your article about Quebec it states that the official language is french. Although this may be accurate from a provincial perspective, Quebec is still a part of Canada and as such has English as an official language in the NATIONAL sense ! Is there any way to correct this, as last time I looked Quebec is still part of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.162.182 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Quebec#Language gives details about the status of French and English and includes an offical reference which says "French is the official language of Québec." If you refer to the infobox at the top right of the article then infoboxes give limited details but you can make suggestions at Talk:Quebec. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada is a federal country, like the United States and Australia, and as such, the subdivisions (provinces in Canada) have a form of limited sovereignty that, constitutionally, cannot be superceded by the Federal government. In other words, Canadian Federal Law does not automatically supercede provincial law. The official languages of Canada are both English and French, while the official language of Quebec is solely French; this is not contradictory because Quebec has its own form of sovereignty and is free to declare its own official languages that it uses, for example, on official documentation and is not necessarily bound by the laws that govern what the Canadian Federal government does. See Canadian federalism. It is worth noting that education is the sole jurisdiction of the Provinces, thus, per se, Quebec can decide not to make English education mandatory in its public schools even if it is an official language in Canada (in practice, many Quebecois learn both French and English and are functionally bilingual). It is also worth noting that Quebec in some places in the Canadian constitution is given special consideration distinct from other provinces. --Jayron32 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm repeating what the above say, but basically the official languages are the ones that are guaranteed for equal use and access by the level of government that makes the declaration. Federally, that means all nationally provided services much be offered in French and in English (but not necessarily limited to them). In Quebec it means that for provincial services only French is guaranteed. Other provinces may or may not have made similar declarations. New Brunswick is the only provincial level that has French and English. AS far as I can tell, British Columbia for example hasn't declared an official language, though English is defacto the main language of government. Mingmingla (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've traveled in Quebec and will tell you that outside Montreal, there are many, many Quebecers who do not speak English beyond a few words learned in school. I was in Chicoutimi and Rimouski and found this is true even for young people. I don't know what their parents are thinking, because in my opinion, it limits what they can do as adults.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Switch the languages around, and that is true for virtually everyone in the rest of Canada too. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quebec likes to declare itself officially francophone, and quite a lot of people like to complain that Quebec is officially francophone, but (I lived there and I know that) in fact Quebec government services are generally and helpfully available in both French and English. Tom Haythornthwaite 22:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Maybe so, but they aren't required to be. That's all the law is stating. It doesn't preclude services in other languages; it just doesn't guarantee them. Mingmingla (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I dial this UK number from the US?

I want to dial 01803 31xxxx from the United States. Google is telling me to maybe drop the 0 after the country code, so I dial 011 44 1803 31xxxx. However, neither 011 44 1803 31xxxx nor 011 44 01803 31xxxx get me anywhere (I get a beeping noise, possibly signifying that the number is disconnected?). What's the basic process for dialing such a number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.3.192.2 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The first way you're dialling is correct. The area code locates to Torquay, btw. This page has samples of the different tones the UK's phone system can make - engaged (busy) is broken beep, out of services is a solid beep. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this site which confirms Finlay's correct. Looks a cool site to me! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 29

International Phonetic Alphabet

Can someone convert the word Nexus into the phonetic alphabet? I'd like to add // to an article I'm working on. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes: /'nɛksɨs/ for General American (including Canadian) and Received Pronunciation. I can imagine Northerners and Scots saying /'nɛksʊs/ μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have /'nɛksʌs/, I think, but would probably be a little less specific on the unstressed vowel and write /'nɛksəs/. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The /ʌ/ vowel is not used in reduced positions, only full ones like "cup". The schwa /ˈnɛksəs/ is acceptible, that's what the OED has, although I definitely use the higher reduced vowel. See Misplaced Pages:IPA for English for /ɨ/ as in "roses" as opposed to /ə/ in "Rosa's". μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the name of the smartphone is pronounced the same as the word itself, then, any dictionary will tell you the answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, only a dictionary that uses IPA. Those tend to be fairly specialist dictionaries, I think, because most people don't understand IPA. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found that reference and grammar books published in Britain and Europe almost always use IPA when they offer phonetic transcription. It is certainly no more difficult to use than the systems dessigned by Merriam Webster and others, and a lot less subjective and idiosyncratic. If the IPA is metrics, US Dictionary pronunciation keys aren't imperial units, they are furlongs per fortnight. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SHACKLOCK BICYCLE

I am researching the name of "SHACKLOCK", and find listed in the Australian 'VICTORIA POLICE GAZETTE' of 14 January, 1915, on page 151, the following notice under 'STEALING OTHERWISE THAN FROM THE PERSON OR FROM DWELLINGS' -

BANBURY, JACOB, labourer, yallock, reports stolen at Koo-wee-rup, on 28th ult.,a Shacklock bicycle, No. 243, enamelled carmine redwith single yellow lines, Eadie free-wheel, 28 by 1 3/8 Oceanic tires (sic), Taylor handles. Value 11 pounds 10 shillings. - 0.11494. 12th January. 1915

I write to inquire who and where was the manufacturer of SHACKLOCK bicycles? Ian Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.187.90 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Shacklock appears to be a motorcycle manufacturer from Manby Street, Wolverhampton (). There is a Misplaced Pages article about it, but it's in Dutch. It doesn't appear to give a lot of information about the company. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Did bicycles really cost such large sums of money in 1915 ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They were a high tech sporting hobby that workers indulged in. Bicycles were a combination of personal transport, leisure and sporting capacity. And cycling was big time sport. Compare to contemporary US hot rodding. £11/10/- Australian in 1911 is equivalent by CPI (a poor measure) to $1,042.37. That shows more how ridiculous the RBA's CPI series is than anything else. A $1042 bicycle isn't particularly pricey in 2011, that's about a good price to pay for a heavy duty commuter. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear - Cucumber Mike's link above is to a motorcycle rather than a bicycle. You would expect a motorbike to be rather more expensive than the leg-powered type. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I should say, though, that I'm not sure that the item in question was a motorcycle - it has an 'Eadie Freewheel', something that you'd really expect to be on a pedal cycle. I guess it could be some sort of Derny though. My suggestion was that it's a pedal cycle made by the Shacklock Motorcycle Co. - it seemed more likely than the other Shacklock I found, an Australian wrought-iron stove manufacturer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There were British Motorized bicycles at that time - an example is the Phelon & Rayner 1.75 hp. Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I found Northern Territory Times and Gazette for Thursday 19 August 1915, in which is advertised the "Universal Bicycle" which was "built of B.S.A. parts" with a "two speed coaster hub" and Dunlop tyres at the price of £12 and 10 shillings. So a reasonably upmarket unmotorised bicycle would have been in that price bracket in 1915. (Also available: gelignite at 87s 6d per case!) Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cash

Does anybody know the approximate value of all the cash that's going around in the world right now? Thanks in advance! 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the global gross national product is around 44 trillion United States dollars. 169.199.30.228 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't cash, that's production per year. It isn't 44 trillion dollars, it is 44 trillion dollars per year. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm retarded. 169.199.30.228 (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See money supply. If you want physical currency (notes and coins) then it's the M0 money supply. I don't know if you'll find a global figure - it's usually done by currency. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This program is about 4 years old, so it is getting a bit dated, but it is VERY well done and explains for lay people how the global money supply works. --Jayron32 22:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This article from 2007 estimated the total global M0 money supply at around 3.25 trillion US dollars, using the prevailing exchange rates. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 30

Paralympics. rowing 4. Ireland

what url will tell me when they are rowing the 4s? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the timetable for the mixed coxed fours (LTAMix4+). The heats begin at 11.30 on August 31st. The exact timetable (i.e. which team is going in which heat doesn't appear to be available yet. Paralympics Ireland might put the times on their website, but it currently shows 'London 2012 events will be updated shortly'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, cuke Kittybrewster ☎ 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

August 31

Why Has the Combo of Short Shorts/a Short Skirt and Knee Socks Become Extremely Popular for Young Women During the Last 10 or 20 Years?

I have always been curious about this. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the last 10 or 20? Have you ever seen the 1960s babes with their mini-skirts and full-calf boots? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1960s? Have you seen the Chinese Women's Militia? Video on YouTube ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Long boots does not equal long socks. Futurist110 (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fashion. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Cultural history of the buttocks (possibly my favourite article title). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be the best titled article in all of Misplaced Pages. WP:WHAAOE. --Jayron32 14:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who created that article was being a bit cheeky. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, when women wear short shorts and long socks I am primarily attracted to the upper part of their legs being exposed rather than by their buttocks. Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• To the original question: asking "why" for fashion is generally a futile exercise, as though the question expects a rational, mechanistic, or deterministic process which can be explained what becomes fashionable and what doesn't. I don't think that is an answerable question in any meaningful way. Dweller's brief answer is the best way to answer this: there is no "why", per se. There are predictible patterns to how fashion trends grow and evolve and become popular then leave the cultural consciousness, but this process (covered in excellent detail in Malcom Gladwell's book The Tipping Point, so if you want to see how it happens, I suggest starting there) is completely independent of the substance of the fashion trend. That is, we know how fashion trends develop, but there is no reliable way to predict or explain the substance of those trends. --Jayron32 14:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'm not so sure. I tend to take a conspiracy-theorist view of fashion. I don't know if I actually believe that, but at some level I presume that it's all decided by some dark cabal, and the sheeple, for unknowable reasons, go along. I take some pride in not doing that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Except if you intentionally always go against the grain, it requires you to keep a constant inventory of what the grain is. That takes just as much effort as going with the grain does... --Jayron32 02:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, but I don't do that. I dress to please myself. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Accessing wikipedia library

hi i am a research scholar i want to know that is there any option in wikipedia that i can access the references which given in the last of articles?as i need to access that books or journals for further references to write research papers.

Thanks Regards Mohammad OSama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firoz osama (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the answer is no. You would need to find the books and journals yourself in an actual library. --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are a research scholar, then presumably you have access to a university library. I suggest you ask the librarian there what references are available. Most universities have subscribtions to all the major journals, and often a lot of minor ones as well. --Tango (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:REX. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you got the time?

I travel quite a lot and quite often find myself wandering round a strange city. It surprises me just how often I am asked either for the time or for directions - often if it my first ever visit. For example, on my first ever visit to Venice, I was there for only three days yet was asked at least three times for the time or for directions to somewhere in the city, and only the other week I was asked for directions to Dam Square in Amsterdam by three different people in the space of an hour. Is there some commonly used strategy that people use when asking strangers these kind of questions - perhaps a kindly looking fellow, or at least somone who isn't a psychopath? Does this happen to other people too? Maybe this is an example of confirmation bias (I just don't notice when I pass the day without someone asking the time or for direction), or it has occurred to me that this is maybe some secret code that I am oblivious to (an invitation to further conversation perhaps?). Astronaut (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens to me as well, and I don't know why. I hope someone has an explanation for this phenomenon! AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn, and I thought I was the direction guy wherever I went. I have confirmed that, at least partially, this is true because my wife never gets asked for directions by strangers, whereas I always do; though that may come from some societal preference for asking men over women (I have no idea of the gender of the above two posters, however). In objectively assessing it, however, this seems to be a version of the well-known bias known as the Street light interference phenomenon. That is, an astonishing number of people have the belief that street lights spontaneously turn off around them. What this really is is confirmation bias; street lights turn off at the same rate always, with or without us present. We happen to remember all of those lights that happen to turn off when we are around, but we a) don't remember when they stay on and b) have no awareness of when they turn off when we aren't around. So we build up a false sense of a pattern: we believe ourselves to have a special effect (we turn off street lights) because when it happens we take it as positive evidence of an effect, but when it doesn't, or when it does we don't know about it, well those bits of negative evidence are ignored. Likewise, it is probably the case that the random average person on the street gets asked directions the same as anyone else does: but when it happens to us, we assume its because of some strange phenomenon; we're "directions people". In reality, it is just confirmation bias: we ignore evidence that would lead us to believe the phenomenon doesn't exist, but we tend to overemphasize the importance of those times when it does. --Jayron32 12:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, a priori, that it's confirmation bias. I suspect some form of profiling is also going on. Are you a non-aggressive-looking white male who dresses fairly conservatively? --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(OR)In London this would be completely understandable. The natives are all on a mission to get somewhere, will be walking quickly, will probably have headphones in, and will be looking down and trying to avoid eye contact. Tourists, meanwhile, will be moving more slowly, will be looking around them, and as a bonus probably have a map with them. It's just easier to get directions from a tourist than from a local. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although when I worked in the City, I used to be asked for directions regularly and found it a pleasing task. However, the grumpy old man that used to sell newspapers in a booth outside Tower Hill Station had a large placard saying "DO NOT ASK ME FOR DIRECTIONS". Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, and possibly a silly one, but (a) do you wear an obvious wristwatch and (b) do you carry a map when in a strange city, or have a guidebook tucked into a pocket or bag? If I wanted to ask someone the time I'd first glance to see whether I could spot a watch, and if I wanted directions I'd ask someone who seemed to be carrying a map in preference to someone who didn't. - Karenjc 17:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See, I have the opposite feeling towards a map. People who are native to a place don't carry maps; they already know where to go. If I ask for directions, I'm not asking the guy with the map, he doesn't know either. I'm looking for someone who is from where I want directions, who will have a native's perspective and understanding of geography. --Jayron32 18:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The obvious strategy is to avoid eye contact at all cost. If someone does manage to get your attention, try answering them in a foreign language. This will, of course, backfire terribly if they happen to know that language. Studying a little Zulu is a good strategy, so long as you don't live in South Africa. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I'm walking my dog, I get asked directions constantly. (My wife as well.) We live in a city heavily frequented by tourists, and walk the dog in tourist-heavy areas (also heavy tourist areas, but that's another thing altogether), and the dog is a magnet for lost tourists. The reason is obvious, of course: only locals walk dogs. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to ask women for directions, because they refer to landmarks, which I invariably don't know. Men, on the other hand, give you street names, distances, and north/south/east/west directions, which is what I want. I'd ask a man with a map, too, since he could show me, and I absorb info much better visually than by spoken word. Alternatively, I might ask them to draw me a map, if paper and pen were available. And, of course, somebody friendly and not too busy would be my target. StuRat (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see you try to navigate by compass directions in London! Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer cities with a proper grid. StuRat (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Because most young folks don't wear watches these days, asking them for the time is a way to see how fancy a phone they're carrying. It was a ploy recently used by muggers in my city. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's confirmation bias, but maybe I am also a "...non-aggressive-looking white male who dresses fairly conservatively" and who oftem wears a watch. When I visit a place, I tend to walk confidently, looking like I know where I'm going - even if I don't - and I keep the map (usually the hotel map ripped down and folded to just the area of interest) in a pocket. Perhaps that is why people seem to like asking me such questions. Astronaut (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-voters

I am looking for statistics about who the non-voting (but registered or eligible to be registered) US voters would vote for if they were to vote. Specifically, I am looking for statistics pertaining to the upcoming election between Romney and Obama. Obviously we don't know yet who will vote, but the polls are usually conducted for "likely voters". But has anybody bothered to poll the "unlikely voters"? I am looking for references; I am not looking to start a debate. Thanks, Falconus 16:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They don't specifically poll likely voters. They poll people at random and one of the questions they ask is "how likely are you to vote?". They then filter the results to only include those that are likely to vote because that gives a better prediction of the actual election result. If you look at the raw polling data (which any reputable polling firm will publish) you should be able to get the unlikely voters' figures. --Tango (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Though, I could easily see how polling unlikely voters would be useful; one of the main parts of campaigning isn't convincing people to vote for you (indeed, the vast majority have already decided, well before the campaigns even started, who they are likely to vote for). Instead, campaigning is about getting the people who would vote for you anyways to the polls to actually do that (the bullshit term for this is "energizing the base", but what it really is is getting people who would never vote for the other guy anyways to just get off their asses and to the polling places). Finding out what people who aren't going to vote think is a good way to find out what you need to do to turn them into voters. --Jayron32 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, but less pleasant—it's not just about getting your own voters to show up; it's also about getting the other guy's voters to stay home. A lot of negative campaigning has that aim. In terms of the outcome, 'energizing' one member of your base has exactly the same effect as 'de-energizing' one of the other guy's voters. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See voter suppression. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, voter suppression and negative campaigning are entirely separate concepts. Negative campaigning is about making a given candidate unattractive, whereas voter suppression is about making the act of voting unattractive (generally in such a way as to discourage participation by particular demographic groups). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Democratic leaning voters are less likely to vote. This is mostly due to demographic differences, such as many being poor and having to take buses to get to the polls, which can require both more time and money than somebody with a car, and potentially incur more risk, if this involves waiting for a bus in a dangerous neighborhood. There may also be a sense of hopelessness, leading to disenfranchisement: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, since the rich will just buy them off, either way". StuRat (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Leisure time activity that people can enjoy, individually and with other people, for free?

What's a leisure time activity that people can enjoy, individually and with other people, for free? Rebel Yeh (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex? --Jayron32 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedophilia (possibly a subgroup of Jayron´s lemma) is much more fun and does not lead to visual dysfunction when pursued in a solitary state. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. My eyes get tired and my vision gets blurry when I edit Misplaced Pages for a long time. I don't get the same effect from self love. SO I think you may have that backwards. --Jayron32 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Walks/jogs/runs. Exercises like sit-ups and jumping jacks. In some places you can swim for free, too.

Many games have a tiny initial purchase price, and then can be played for years. For example, a deck of playing cards can be used to play many games for years.

Similarly, singing is free, and karaoke just requires a basic radio, not a fancy karaoke machine.

Making up stories could be done alone, but is more fun with others. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading. IMHO it is the absolute best solo activity, and has been for millennia and will be for millennia more. And gathering with friends to discuss what you have read or are reading is quite fun. (As for the free part, these groups are often hosted by public libraries, which provide the books as well.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

September 1

Heather Killough Walden--- Why was her page deleated?

Why was the Page on Heather Killough Walden deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.238.251.60 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I want the Page on Heather Killough Walden put back up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.238.251.60 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted. It was moved to User:Kayos627, presumably so the concerns that were raised about it (the subject not being notable and the article's tone being overly promotional) can be resolved. --Tango (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dreams

I would first of all like to know if there is a place/thread/topic/forum or wiki article about inception (not the movie, not the band or the book...) - the actual phenomena. If there is one, please be kind and provide me a link where I can read about it :). The search machine is like google or youtube, type something in and you get at least 50 different stuff, 45(at least) of them not even related to the phenomena - which on wikipedia should be the mainly observed article. Prioritizing that may be hard but not impossible, either way, I thank you guys for any further answer or help with my 'question.

P.S: if there are no such articles, I would like it to be created and documented, I would gladly do it but the material that I have happened in my dreams, and by following your instructions that would be a "conflict of interests" - which totally negates the purpose of trying to help from self experienced situations. I had a very strange dream, I would like to know how that works, and mostly why and what it could possibly mean. Writing about myself in this case would not be any conflict, since(being a sane person) I believe a dream is a dream. To be more precise I am interested in the content of the >>>(3rd dream inside). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.220.74 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear quite what you mean by "the actual phenomena". The phenomenom that appears in the movie - the infiltration of someone's dream state - while it makes for an interesting premise in a movie, does not actually exist. If you mean the dream within a dream aspect of the movie, where one dreams about ordinary life including going to sleep and dreaming, then the appropriate article might be false awakening. However, the word "inception" has a different meaning altogether: wikt:inception. Astronaut (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in active dreaming. But, since we seem to lack an article on it, see Robert_Moss#Works on active dreaming. StuRat (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Princeton New Jersey part of the Delaware area?

Is Princeton New Jersey part of the Delaware area? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums