Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 February 14

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.

February 14

WikiLove

Hi are there any cases where two Wiki editors simply met in the unlikeliest of places had some fights but gained gained consensus for merge in the end.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Err...do you mean people who met on Wikipedia and later married? bibliomaniac15 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes sensei, I'm feeling a little Valentiney today, must be the bag of chocolates I ate yesterday.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of several married admin couples, but I doubt they originally met on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some are already joint editors; at the other end of the spectrum (naming no names), there are wiki widow/er-causing types that confess now and again. Back to chocolates,  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah chocolates don't leave you and always make you happy ;)--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but chocolates do leave you!--88.110.47.4 (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't, that's the problem with them! --Tango (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I start a bird sanctuary?

Or bird farm, aviary auditorium,- or whatever it's called nowadays. Need at least one male and female of every species. I want to see birds as far as the eye can see! Damn, I love birds!Goosemaster Charlie (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The first thing you'd need is a huge plot of land. Become a political activist and lobby that your government will set aside a site. Birds as far as the eye can see isn't a good idea if you really love birds. (Unless you love them like hunters love deer.) Overpopulation isn't healthy and creates a ton of problems. These days birds no longer have the luxury of finding another habitat nearby. Species who can use areas settled by humans as habitat don't need a sanctuary. The others are going to end up in a huge bird cage without bars. If you make the cage big enough and don't put in a lot of birds they'll do fine. If you put in more birds than your cage can support they will suffer. For bird habitat the "Costner movie" rule applies "If you build it they will come." 76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree up to a point. So many birds seems incompatible with human populations but there once was paradise (see Passenger Pigeon):

The Passenger Pigeon ... was once the most common bird in North America. They lived in enormous flocks and during migration it was possible to see flocks of them a mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long, taking several days to pass and containing up to a billion birds.

Maybe you could find a bird sanctuary and work there to research your dream. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the farmers who lost their crop to them would not agree with your definition of paradise. Another example: ducks on city ponds have in some places increased in numbers due to humans feeding them. They pollute the ponds because they produce too much waste for the natural processes to handle. During mating season female ducks get drowned by several males trying to mate with them. Young males die in attacks by groups of older males. Couples are stressed because nesting sites are overcrowded and territories overlap. Good intentions can be a terrible thing.76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right though I was speaking of pigeon paradise before farmers and the rest – duck life in artificial zones is not that. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile phone

I am partly deaf, and always have trouble hearing voice on my mobile. Does anyone know of a mobile that is LOUD by default please?88.110.47.4 (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise but my initial instinct would be to look for a mobile that you can plug a set of earphones into so you can block out extraneous noise when on it, or better yet one that can be connected to a hearing aid. Exxolon (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of googling on "phone suitable deaf" and found this phone, which claims to be designed for people with hearing impairment, having a hearing aid induction coil built into the phone itself and also featuring extra loud ringer and speaker volume. There are probably others out there too. Karenjc 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, most helpful.--Artjo (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out www.emporia.at they specialise in phones for the hard of hearing. Also BINATONE have one. My wife and I have Biantones, and they are good.90.0.5.114 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)DT

Thanks but I can't find www.emporia. Do you know the full URL please?--Artjo (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP gave the full URL - you missed off the ".at" part. --Tango (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobiles are generally hard to listen to even with normal hearing. You might try something like a bone conduction headset. Of course you will want to use the vibration setting for noticing when the phone is ringing. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

km/h in the US

I was just watching Dogma (film) and in the scene where Jay burns out the car by not changing gear they show the panel. The speedometer shows MPH on the outside and km/h on the inside, similar to this one from the UK. At first I assumed the film had been made partially in Canada and the speedometer was something that had got missed. However after checking it appears that the film was made in the US. So the question is, do US cars/trucks have MPH - km/h speedometers and if so why? Is there a push on to have the US become metric? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, standard vehicle speedometers always show both units, the only difference is the primary unit for the territory the car is sold in is the outside ring and the other one the inside ring. This allows the car to be driven in other countries using the alternative unit without having to do continual mental calculations of indicated speed vs posted limit in the other units or requiring a speedometer change (in those countries that have a legal requirement for speedometers on vehicles to use local units). Exxolon (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also - vehicles with electronic displays are probably switchable between the two units. Exxolon (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. But I wonder if it's only true for certain countries. The prime example being Canada, Mexico and the US. If you look at the images at speedometer there are some with MPH (outside) km/h (inside), a few km/h (inside) MPH (outside), and those appear to be UK based. while the majority are in km/h only. I think your answer is correct but its only for the three major North American countries. In other parts of the world there would be little need for the conversion scale and would probably be distracting. It would be interesting to see what Liberia and Burma, plus the surrounding countries use on their speedometers. I also looked at the school bus, made in the US and redone in Quebec, and it has km/h with MPH on the inside. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What? The USA using pinko communist bastard smelly-cheesy-eating suspender-banging yoo-roo-pee-an units? What is this world coming to? Someone please think of the children! 194.100.223.164 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC) As far as I can tell a car must have a speedometer calibrated in kmh to be driven legally in Canada [1]. It would be stupid of US car sellers to prevent their owners driving them across the border occasionally just so that they save a few pennies in cost. Cars in Canada almost invariably have kmh on the oustide and mph on the inside. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had american made cars with both types. My Oldsmobile had both MPH and KPH, while my Ford has only MPH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Some US speedometers show both mph and kph. I think it is more a matter of style; the kph looks sporty, like having a pseudo-tachometer at the cost of a little extra paint. Of course kph isn't a truly metric unit either. If those furriners really used the metric system, their speedometers would read in meters per second. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, kilometres per second would be OK too, but there are very few cars capable of going that fast. It's a common misconception that any SI unit with a prefix is a bastard unit which should be avoided at all costs. They are not base units, but that doesn't make them any less suitable for use. It's just the hour that is not a real SI unit, as it's actually 3.6 kiloseconds. JIP | Talk 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about nanolights? —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neck is broken

I've heard that you don't die immediately when your neck is broken, you're just immobilized until you suffocate. True? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It varies. Some people die immeadiately, some suffocate, some are just left paralysed, some make a full recovery. See Cervical fracture. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A broken neck is not necessarily fatal, or even permanently disabling. A lot depends on whether there is damage to the spinal cord - it's entirely possible to break your neck and die instantly, or make a complete recovery - it depends on so many factors - type of injury, speed and quality of medical care, immobilisation of the casualty prior to movement etc. Exxolon (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ref Desk does not give medical advice. Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) --41.15.215.119 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Err... Whose neck do you want to break? Not your mother-in-law's, I hope? :P 117.194.229.147 (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are vitamins placebos?

Study after long term study claims that vitamins have absolutely zero benefits. I clearly have felt better since starting my own vitamin program a few years ago, however. I now need less sleep, dont get sick anymore, cut way back on caffeine, etc. Is this just my imagination? Jabbering Jogger (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vitamins are quite definitely necessary for healthy human life. Do you mean dietary supplements? Where are these studies you mention? Algebraist 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant remember the exact reference, but I've been reading article after article in major newspapers for years. 2 major studies just concluded in the last month so those should be easy to google. The thing is however, I feel healthier. That's why I was asking (about supplements).Jabbering Jogger (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much anything can, and will, have a placebo effect. I'm sure dietary supplements have one. If you have any vitamin/mineral deficiencies then they will also have a "real" effect (real in quotes because placebos are, in fact, very real, but I couldn't think of a better word!). --Tango (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be one of the studies you are referring to. It actually appeared to show that supplement are HARMFUL in the long term. Are supplements snake oil? --S.dedalus (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are beneficial if you actually have a vitamin/mineral deficiency. It's just that most people don't. A healthy diet contains everything you need (that's what makes it healthy!), and really isn't difficult to have. (There are groups, like pregnant women, that may benefit from supplements - I don't think the study you mentioned considered any particularly at risk groups.) One last point - you didn't link to a study, you linked to a newspaper article about a study, they often bare little resemblance to the study itself. If you are seriously interested in the subject you should at least read the abstract of the actual scientific paper. (For the one mentioned in that article, see [2].) --Tango (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true Tango, but I felt that the newspaper article would be more useful to the discussion as a whole. I have trouble deciphering what “...significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06). In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity” means, and I suspect I’ve taken bio-chemistry more recently than the average reference desk reader. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bio-chemistry is useless for this, it was a statistical review of previous studies. You need to be a statistician to understand it. The abstract does contain an understandable conclusion, though. --Tango (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would reserve judgment for experts, like say...Nobel laurates. The Nobel prize was awarded to Linus Pauling for the discovery of vitamin C, and he followed up with a book on the relationship between vitamin C and the common cold. Preventative medicine does not sell well, like peace initiatives. Your experence is anicdotal, i.e. its only a single example, but studies in the 80s and 90s in regards to Dennis Levine's free-radical theory of aging showed both how seriously flawed the RDA allowences and the variation in metaoblism, and the scientific studies related to life extension. I also have anicdotal evidence. I have taken vitamins for decades, and I am much healthier than all my high school cohorts. start with looking for "Life Extension, A Practical scientific approach" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.70.244 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect more Nobel laurates think Linus Paulings beliefs on vitamin C were 'far-fetched' then support him. And actually, there are a lot of people very interested in preventative medicine, many even more interested then they are in peace iniatives. Of course, they do want the iniatives to be subjected to ordinary peer reviewed studies before they support then rather then simply going by the beliefs of one nobel prize winner. Linus Paulings is of course not the only nobel prize winner who has controversial other beliefs, so does James D. Watson for example Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

JUst to correct the innacuracy, Pauling's 1954 Chemistry Nobel Prize was awarded for, and I quote from the Nobel Committee themselves, "for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances". There were TWO Nobel Prizes awarded for the work on discovery, isolation, and synthesis of Vitamin C; both in 1937: Albert Szent-Györgyi won the Medicine award for its discovery and Walter Haworth won the Chemistry prize for its laboratory synthesis. Pauling did write a book in his very later years titled "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" which advocated for Vitamin C megadosage; however mainstream medicine has largely discredited such practice as likely quackery. Pauling was undoubtedly the most important chemist of the 20th century, however the Vitamin C thing was not his best work... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if we approach the problem from the other side? What are the causes of night blindness, beriberi, pellagra, macrocytic anaemia and scurvy. Personal experience is not the best guide in scientific experimentation. Richard Avery (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, vitamins are very important. The question is whether or not doses of vitamins beyond which is needed to prevent the above disorders are important... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad weather this week?

Where is an area of the world, preferably the United States, that experienced bad weather this week and/or power outages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.31.223 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The UK has had pretty bad weather for the last couple of weeks - more than a few millimetres of snow, so nobody could move. I don't know of any power outages, though. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There was some pretty bad weather in the February 2009 tornado outbreak... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This would probably qualify [3]76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There were something like 30,000 homes without power (not to mention 181+ people killed) as a result of the 2009 Victorian bushfires that reached theiir most critical point last Saturday, 7 February. The immediate cause was record high temperatures combined with gale-force winds, which ignited vegetation that was very dry as a result of prolonged drought. It didn't help that there was also considerable fire-bug activity, and one person has been arrested for arson causing death. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Auckland has had both bad weather (at least by some definitions) [4] [5] and power outages [6], the past two weeks although they were unconnected and of course isn't in the United States Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing drought in China, and I'm sure I heard about floods somewhere as well. Astronaut (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

HOA 2/3rds, 3/5ths of members - what happens when the result is not a whole number?

My HOA by-laws state that for certain actions a fraction of the total board members must vote in the affirmative. If the fraction does not result in a whole number, e.g., 2/3rds of 8 = 5.33 and 3/5ths of 8 = 4.8, what number of members does that imply 2/3rds = 5 or 6, 3/5ths = 4 or 5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellCurve (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order (and common sense) demand that the specified fraction is a minimum standard which must be passed. (See, for example, this link.) If the requirement is 2/3 and there are 8 voters, there must be at least six votes in favor to pass the motion — fewer votes in favor would be less than 2/3 of the total votes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't specify, I think you always round the requirement up. As a general rule of thumb, when in doubt you always err on the side of status quo (which is usually rejecting a motion). Sometimes you see phrases like "the whole number closest to one third of the membership", in that case you do exactly what it says - round to the nearest (how you round halfs in that circumstance, I don't know... I would round them up in most cases in order to favour the status quo). --Tango (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need to round? In the example of requiring a 2/3rds majority with 8 voters, 5 yeas does not meet the 2/3 requirement and so is insufficient to pass the resolution. Six exceeds the minimum; no rounding needed. Even if we increase the totals, 499 yeas out of 999 votes doesn't make 50%. You have to meet the minimum; close doesn't cut it! Matt Deres (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Linked the subject, for people like me who have no idea what 'HOA' might stand for) --ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Colin. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)