Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 May 4

Miscellaneous desk
< May 3	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 5 >

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.

May 4

Further education in the UK

Is sixth form education in the UK (A-Levels/NVQs etc) covered by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills or the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The articles do not make this clear. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's DCSF, but I can't prove this off-hand. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DCSF for funding, but QCA http://qca.org.uk for qualifications. Dbfirs 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. The article, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills claims that DIUS covers further education learning. Clover345 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be A-Levels, NVQs etc in Colleges of Further Education. School Sixth Form education is funded through LEAs. The funding formula has recently been standardised across the sectors. Dbfirs 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The existense of a study

I remember one of my high school social studies teachers mentioned that the US government conducted a study to prove whether or not ketchup could be counted as a vegetable in serving students at school cafeterias, and his point in mentioning it was how it cost (what he made seem) an absurd amount of money to conduct the study, for (what he made seem) such a trivial matter. But he only presented this verbally.

Can anyone give me a reference for this? I didn't even begin to know how to Google this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitman6787 (talk • contribs)

See Ketchup#In politics. Believe it or not, we have information in our Wikipedia article on this, and there are references you can follow. This was not just an obscure bit of government trivia, back in the 1980's this was a HUGE deal in America, and you should have no trouble finding stuff on this. If what we have here, and the references from there, are not enough, you could try googling something like "Ketchup as a vegetable" or "US government classifies Ketchup as a vegetable" or variations on that, and you should get good results. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn. We have one better. See the article titled Ketchup as a vegetable. Sometimes I think that Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. We really do have an article on EVERYTHING. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Now linked from the other article. --Anon, 14:05 UTC, May 4, 2009.

It's wonderful that the article exists. I do wish it has more citations than a single one pointing to The Straight Dope, though. Tempshill (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Everything" in a metaphorical sense, of course. I have hundreds of subjects on my To Do list, and I'm sure thousands of other users do too. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. While I did not see any mention of the existense a study done to determine whether or not ketchup could be counted as a vegetable or not or the amount of money used to conduct the study (which, as I mentioned in the question, my teacher implied was an absurdly high amount for the triviality of the issue) when I read Ketchup#In politics and Ketchup as a vegetable, I did find both of those ideas when I went the sources for both (which turned out to be the exact article with the the same website adress).

Doesn't answer your question at all, but Nix v. Hedden is pretty interesting! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people don't feel that a story like "a department of the Reagan administration once proposed lowering free lunch costs by claiming ketchup is a vegetable" is sexy enough, so they juice it up a bit with an expensive government study. I think that's probably what happened here. See space pen for a somewhat similar situation. --Sean 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wifi and Bluetooth

Alright, here's the scenario: my phone has Bluetooth and my Windows Vista computer is connected to the internet through a Wifi connection. Is there any way I can send a picture over Bluetooth on my phone and in reality be sending it to my computer through its Wifi connection? 75.169.206.206 (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WiFi and Bluetooth are completely different systems - they don't share frequencies or protocols - so no. If your computer has bluetooth then you can probably get at stuff that way. Failing that, your phone can probably email the photos to your computer's email account. SteveBaker (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wi-Fi section on our Bluetooth article seems to suggest that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth do share frequencies, but there are no references. Also, the Bluetooth 3.0 section on the same article says that the initial pairing and handshake is performed over normal Bluetooth, but then the actual data is delivered via Wi-Fi. --Rixxin (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WiFi and Bluetooth do share the 2.4GHz frequency, but that doesn't mean you can connect one to the other. A Bluetooth dongle is just two bucks. Buy one. F (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Google and Wordpress

This question has been moved to the Computing Desk, in hopes of better answers, by the original questioner. 117.194.229.230 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Making Music Videos

(I know that you might think, based on just reading the Subject/headline, this would better fit in the Entertainment section of the reference desk, but when you read further, science is somewhat a component of at one of the questions here [dealing with being able to record visuals and being able to match them up to audio recordings, based on mouth movement and instrument playing])

I thought about music videos and thought that the difficulty of making a music video would be relatively high, due to the fact that the the audio of a music video is not recorded along with the visuals of the music video, but rather in a studio-type setting, although the audio and visuals of a music video appear to be recorded at the same time (at least generally), due to the fact that the band is, at least at times, seen playing instruments and/or singing that at least, in timing, go along with the audio recording heard.

I also thought of the fact of comparing the lengths of time of the studio version of a song and live versions, which are rarely, if ever, the same.

The only explanation for the production of a music video in which, in at least some parts, the band is seen playing/singing along with the song is that the band has to re-record, at least visually, at least parts, of the song, and then maybe replace all of the audio with the version recorded at the studio, and, because of timing, I thought this would be very difficult.

This also didn't make sense to me. I guess its possible that when the visuals for a music video are recorded, while we see the singer opening his mouth, he never verbally sings. But we see the instruments being physically placed; I would assume some sound is produced. So, take a music video in which the band, at least some points, can be seen playing/singing along with the song, but it is throughout the whole music video. Based on this, it wouldn't make sense to even make a studio version of a song (if a subsequent music video, in which the band is shown playing/singing along with the music, is planning on being made), as they would just have to replicate it, audio-wise, when making the music video. Or is it the case that the studio version is made, even if a subsequent music video is planning on being made, in order to have something to replicate for the music video?

I am very confused. I know this includes a lot of questions, but let me try to some it up with these questions: Generally, when you have a music video, and this music video shows the band playing/singing along, at least timing wise, is the audio recording just a duplicate of the studio version? Or is the sound taken out and replaced with the studio version of the recording? But that doesn't make sense, since based on the actions of the artists in the music video, it would seem as if sound is being produced, and, since, visually, the timing of the artists's playing/singing matches the studio version, the sound produced would, in timing, match the studio version, and would therefore be a duplicate.

Generally when they're shooting the video, the studio recording is played back on the set for the band/singer to play or mime along to so that the sound and visuals match up. The studio version is then dubbed on later, and no sound from the shoot is actually used. There are exceptions where the song is recorded live - the video for Last Nite by The Strokes springs to mind. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bewildebeast is correct. The band stands around and lip syncs — and the musicians finger-sync — to a boom box playing their studio recording. The audio is not even preserved after the editing of the music video is complete. It can sound totally crappy. The intent is, as you say, for the audio they produce (during the video shoot) to be a duplicate of the studio recording; but it's going to sound 100 times worse than a properly recorded and edited studio recording, and so in the end the audio recorded during the video shoot is discarded. One other point: You know how most music videos these days seem to have the vocalist walking around in slow motion as he or she sings? During the video shoot, they play the studio track on the boom box, at, say, twice the speed that the song normally runs, so it sounds like it's being sung and played by Alvin and the Chipmunks. The vocalist sings like a Chipmunk there on the set, and then in the editing room they run the video at half speed so everything is in slow motion - but the vocalist appears to be singing at the proper speed! Technology! Tempshill (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"they play the studio track on the boom box, at, say, twice the speed that the song normally runs" - or even twice the speed and backwards! — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacrifices

what is understood by word "scraifices"?kindly help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.217.58 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See sacrifice — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the meanings listed in our article it can also mean "to do without". If you came across s.th. like "In the current economic crisis we are all going to have to make sacrifices." You are neither asked to offer the nearest virgin nor choose a certain game strategy or act altruistically. It simply means that you will be forced to make do without certain habits or items you have become accustomed to - either because s.b. (government, mortgage company, media) force you to or because you can't afford it or it no longer makes economic sense. 76.111.32.140 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Up Day

Here in Vermont, we just observed Green Up Day. (no, there isn't an article there's an article now...) It's basically a day where people go out and clean up the roadsides of all the litter that has accumulated. We still have work crews that do this year-round for the interstates and state highways. Green Up Day concentrates more on the secondary roads and residential areas. The state provides green trash bags which, once filled with roadside trash, you're allowed to just leave on the side of the road for the trash collectors to pick up.

This came up in conversation with the guy I drive to work with. I mentioned that I didn't know of anywhere else that had a Green Up day and he was rather surprised by this (I'm guessing it's because he's lived here all his life). I, on the other hand, have lived in three different states and had never encountered this until I moved here to VT. So, does anyone else know of a state, county, country, etc. that has a Green Up Day or something to that effect? I'm looking for something government sponsored (although, even the VT version is only partially state sponsored) and not just some environmentalist activist group that advises people to clean up the area. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here in Germany, many cities and towns have "clean up days". The exact name varies, as does the amount of advertisement that is invested by the city administration. In Düsseldorf, where I once lived, there were big posters advertising for the event and I think there were also some central events with speeches etc. As far as I know this not directly organized by the government, but rather by the individual cities. TheMaster17 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dearborn, Michigan has elementary school "Clean Up, Fix Up, Paint Up Parades" in spring since 1955. It is part of the City Beautiful movement and used to be more widespread. See also the Keep America Beautiful group for similar events. Rmhermen (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In Toronto it's "Community Clean-Up Day" and I never heard of it until a few years ago. --Anonymous, 14:08 UTC, May 4, 2009.

Big picture time, people. Clean Up the World. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One wonders how the litter is allowed to accumulate in the first place. Is it just ignored for a year until Green Up Day? Gwinva (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it's ignored. A lot of Vermont is rural. And a lot of the roads have long stretches of woods. So, it's not a common thing for property owners to walk their frontages every week or even once a month. People keep their lawns and the areas immediately around their driveways clean, of course, but these other areas are often less looked after. Additionally, the first Saturday of May (Green Up Day's traditional observance) is normally one of the first warm weekends where there isn't snow on the ground. A good portion of the trash is obscured by the snow, so once everything melts, it's a good time to clean up the trash that is left behind. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See also the somewhat related Don't Mess with Texas and Adopt a Highway for similar programs, though not necessarily date-dependent. And then, of course, is Earth Day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up Australia#Clean Up Australia Day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the inaugural version of the big picture I mentioned above. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of broadcasts (Canada)

Could anyone tell me how long broadcasts are copyrighted in Canada, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.68.197 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting from Canadian copyright law#Duration, see s 21 of the Copyright Act, and s 23 (c). The answer? 50 years after braodcasting of the signal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Public domain works of governments

Other than the Netherlands and the US, which countries' governments release their works into the public domain --217.227.68.197 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany as usual has a slew of mutually conflicting laws governing what information can/should/has to be disclosed and to whom. There are many paragraphs protecting an individual's privacy. On the other hand an individual can demand that information gathered on him/her is made available for their inspection, unless that would interfere with provisions protecting another individual's / group's or the nation's safety. Government plans and reports generally have to be made public, but there are exceptions that could keep a couple of lawyers happy for a while. So, it depends. 76.111.32.140 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as releasing it to the public domain (which is a question of copyright, not freedom of information). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In Commonwealth nations, government works are held under Crown Copyright. Within the individual countries, some works/documents have their crown copyright waived; others have terms which allow (for example) non-commercial reproduction. Copyright length varies. Gwinva (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On that subject, there is a rather bizarre irony. The US Government releases their work into the public domain immediately; the UK withholds copyright for (generally) 50 years. At the end of 50 years, the British Government documents are released into the Public Domain....except in the US, which refuses to recognise the loss of copyright, since they do not accept the rule of the shorter term. Such bizarre situations cause all sorts of problems for Wikimedia, whose servers are located in the US and subject to US law...see the caveats at WP:PD and the interesting m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. But there is commonsense to be found out there: The Crown do not consider the US law to be binding on their works, and have told WP so. Gwinva (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that it really doesn't matter what the Americans think about the 50-year rule for Crown copyright? Unless copyright infringement is a publicly prosecutable offence in the US? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? It would be interesting to see a test case: would the US copyright-police prosecute someone for the replication of a work whose original copyright has been legally and officially released by the originator, merely because the American copyright hasn't expired? Gwinva (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "American copyright", right? If the copyright holder has released it into the public domain, that's where it is. The American thought-copyright-police are just pretending that there is copyright.

It would be analogous to a man who throws away rubbish that he definitely, absolutely does not want, and the police prosecuting someone for "stealing" the said rubbish even though they know the previous owner has definitely said that the rubbish is no longer his?

Can the police press charges against the wishes of the purported victim? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "American copyright police" in the sense you mean. (Details for the pedantic: There are groups set up by copyright holders to enforce their properties, but these are private. There are also some occasional instances of official police forces getting involved for major operations relating to copyright infringement, but again, always at the behest of specific copyright holders. There is no general copyright police running around looking for infringement, and with good reason: distinguishing between the millions of approved uses of copyright and potentially unapproved ones is basically impossible without knowing, in detail, the wishes of the individual companies. So the only sensible approach is to let the companies allege abuse, and then act.) In the US, copyright is enforced by one party suing another for infringement. So if no one sues, it is not a legal problem. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things operate in the US, but in many countries the police do get involved in monitoring and prosecuting large scale copyright infrigements, without a specific directive of the copyright holders or their representatives. The copyright holders may be able to convince the police to get involved in cases when they wouldn't have otherwise (or perhaps wouldn't have known about) but this doesn't mean the police just stay around waiting for reports. Remember criminal violations are different from civil violations and are generally supposed to help protect wider society not just a single individual or company. In many cases, the situation is fairly clear cut. For example, if someone is selling cheap DVDRs with Windows Vista, Adobe CS4, Microsoft Office, et al, handwritten including crack, it's rather obvious that this is a violation of Microsoft/Adobe's copyright. Similarly if someone receives 10000 Cold Case DVDs from China (Cold Case never having been released on DVD) with corresponding poorly printed labels etc, again a rather obvious violation. The police and/or attorneys responsible for prosecuting the case would get confirmation from the copyright holder at some stage that it is a violation and inform them of their intention to prosecute (or perhaps they will always ask do you want us to prosecute) but this would likely be after the bust. Of course if by some miracle the police/attorneys are wrong, or the rights holder asks for the case not to be prosecuted (perhaps because they reached an agreement with the person to help them get someone higher up the food chain), then the police/prosecutors would surely abide but again, this is not the same thing as the police just waiting for a complaint. As to how they come by these cases, well I think monitoring odd shipments, places where they have reason to believe illegal goods are being sold, or people known to them is a common pratice. Or perhaps they will receive a complaint from a copyright holder but they're not going to ignore software if the complaint comes from the RIAA. Just to emphasise these are usually only large and commercial violations. While in a number of countries including the US even an individual may technically have criminal liability for home use, prosecutions of such cases are generally unheard of. And as I've said below it's almost definitely not even possible when the copyright holder says it's not a violation. So to put it a different way copyright violations do require you to actually be violating copyright, which means using copyrighted works in a manner now allowed by the copyright holder. But that doesn't mean the police only get involved when they received a specific complaint from the copyright holder Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Even in such cases though I imagine that the copyright holders in general must get involved, if only so the police can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate copying. A lot of OEM software reproduction looks pretty similar to copyright infringement if you don't know that it is authorized. --140.247.4.172 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and they may do that in cases of domestic violence for example. Remember the victim is just one of the considerations in prosections, the public/wider society is probably a bigger one. However I think it's clesr that there is no real benefit to prosecuting someone for copyright infringement when the copyright holder does not consider there has been any infrigement so I do think a prosecution is unlikely. Indeed I would say it's not even possible since if the copyright holder say it's not a violation, it's difficult for the prosecutor to argue otherwise. Even more so since as 98 partially indicated, criminal prosecutions for copyright infrigement are rare anyway. Remember that ultimately a copyright violation is when you use someone's copyright's in a way not allowed by the law (since the law usually has exceptions which don't require the permission of the holder) nor allowed by the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has allowed you to use their copyrighted work in that manner, then it's not a violation. The bigger difficulty would be establishing you do have that blanket consent in perpetuity. The word of one probably low level person may but be enough to establish that. In other words if at some stage someone in the UK government decides they are going to enforce their copyright in the US, they could very well be entitled to send us cease and desist orders and we may find it difficult to reject them (the email is probably enough to indemnify us against any current liability though IANAL-HO) Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Selling services online

What are the best sites to sell freelance services online? I know elance, guru, craigslist. The first two are perhaps too web-development oriented. --80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What sort of freelance services? Livewireo (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For example, business research, debt collection, accountants, law advice, business consulting...--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of those services require licenses in most countries. The website of the local professional association might work. Local Chamber of Commerce sites might also work. Ask around what sites the graduate classes of your local universities frequent most. It also depends a lot on scope. One person outfits with the proverbial "chicken sandwich" advertising budget has fewer options and other markets than an established partnership with mostly upscale clients or a bridgehead start-up under the wings of a big corporate group. First find out what precisely you want to offer and who your clients would be. Finding an appropriate way of contacting them then pretty much becomes apparent. (BTW: People who design websites for companies are often surprised by how little their clients can tell them about what exactly they want to achieve with their site :-) 76.111.32.140 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I currently work as a freelance chemistry tutor. Craigslist has been one of my best sources of advertising. I generally spend about $50 per semester in advertising by hardcopy (mostly printed fliers) that I hang at bulletin boards at local colleges, but Craigslist probably provides me with 40-50% of my business. I probably couldn't subsist solely on Craigslist, but I also couldn't run my business without it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossing the English Channel

Can you cross the English Channel for free? Imagine that you are on a tour-bike through Europe.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swimming is free. --217.227.68.197 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about the bicicle? The question is, if someone goes over the Channel in a ferry with his car, does he has to pay for every passenger or does he pay only for the car? In the latter case, the person will have no problem taking a couple of travelers with him.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody transferring you accross the channel is going to incur expenses in doing so. I would expect it to be perfectly reasonable to pass a fair share of those expenses on to you. I don't expect any such service to be free as a matter of course. Whether or not you could convince someone to pay your way is entirely a different story. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

About 15 years ago, I met people who had hitchiked the Channel on commercial trucks (apparently the truck drivers were allowed to carry a "backup driver"?) Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You could take your bike through the tunnel without incurring anyone any expenses. The only difficulty is convincing the tunnel owners to allow you to do this. I think I recall long-distance walkers being allowed to use the tunnel, but I can't find a source. Algebraist 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is who I was thinking of. He hopes to be able to walk the tunnel but has not yet received permission. Algebraist 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've often thought there ought to be a thriller movie in which the hero eludes his pursuers by ducking into the Transbay Tube on foot. —Tamfang (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another off-beat, but slightly more realistic way would be to hitch a ride on a ship. Ask around at shipping line operators and fishing vessel owners. Getting a job for a crossing as galley help or scrubbing the deck doesn't happen quite as frequent as romantic narratives would have one believe, but is not unheard of. Ads in sailing magazines are also sometimes looking for crews for boat deliveries. (Warning: Not something to consider if you have a queasy stomach.) Basic sailing knowledge is a must. Radio operation, weather and navigation skills will get you a much friendlier welcome. All absolutely require long term advance planning and exact dates. 76.111.32.140 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You won't be able to "work your passage" on a commercial ship. Modern seafarers are required by law to hold certain qualifications (mostly safety related) and in any case ships' crews are organised by their management companies and not by picking up random bodies off the docks. Passage crew on a yacht is a possibility, but seems a little unlikely for a simple channel crossing. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time the channel froze over? 8000 BC? More recently? Edison (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to get across the English Channel for free, legally. Border controls are tight, and there is a large camp outside Calais that is full of people who want to get to the UK. Penalties for carrying a stragre are high, and deportation is automatic - after a considerable spell in internment while one's case is heard. Better to pay the small fare.90.0.4.66 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)DT

It doesn't cost money to carry a valid passport (although it costs money to get one). --Tango (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the biggest problems for hitchhikers planning to cross the channel. Most drivers will be wary about driving a possibly illegal immigrant to the UK. --Mr.K. (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is easier to go the other direction? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wii Dance Teacher

I just bought a wii-fit setup for my wife and she loves it to bits as it is helping her to regain her balance after knee-replacement surgery. So I thought it might be a good way to learn ballroom and latin american dancing but all the wii dance products I can find seem to be stand alone disco stuff that our kids would like but no-use to us oldies. Anyone out there able to advise please? Thanks. 92.22.3.167 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the dance games (which are all descended from Dance dance revolution) use a 'Dance pad' like the one in this picture. They can only detect which of the nine squares have pressure on them (actually, some only have seven squares that work). The fairly subtle movements required for ballroom dancing are far too small for the pad to resolve. In fact, they can't even measure people's performance at 'real' disco dancing - the dance styles they use are pretty much unlike any kind of real dance you've ever seen. Worse still, when using these pads, you can't travel around the room - you have to stay within the boundaries of that little 4' x 4' pad. That's OK for the style they use in the game - but hopeless for a dance where you physically move all around the room.

So to make the game you have in mind would require an entirely new foot-sensing technology - something the Wii does not yet have. I suppose you could come up with a couple of elasticated ankle-bands with pockets to fit a couple of Wiimotes into - but the ability of the console to track the Wiimote is actually a lot more limited than you might think - and I rather doubt you could make a convincing Waltz-waltz-revolution that way!

SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to get it to work by using specially designed ankle-bands that can communicate with each other so the Wii always knows the relative positions of your feet. That is generally more important in dancing that your absolute position on the dance floor. If you put some accelerometers in there too you could keep track of movement across the floor as well (not by using the accelerometers to measure the movement, they probably wouldn't be precise enough, but you could use them to tell which foot is stationary and which is moving and you can then you can turn the relative movement into absolute movement). Hmmm... I should probably patent this before posting it on the ref desk, but oh well, it's not like I'll ever bring it to market! --Tango (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the new motion sensor enhancement would allow enough resolution to pair with the ankle-strap idea? Wii Fit already uses a much rougher version of this technique -- wiimote in a pants pocket to act as a pedometer. — Lomn 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would be possible to come up with some kind of sensor arrangement that would work for a ballroom dancing game - but the problem is that such development is costly - and only economies of scale would bring the price within reach. The question is whether there would be sufficient market for such a game to warrant the cost of developing it. The actual software is easy to imagine - and ought to be pretty simple to write. Most of the hassle with writing games like DDR and Guitar Hero is the cost of licensing the music. But for ballroom dancing, you'd be able to use a lot of classical music and other out-of-copyright stuff. If the market were there, it would be very do-able...but convincing a large enough game company to invest in the specialized controllers for such a completely unknown market - that would be a tough sell. A small company might take the risk - but the investment in the controller manufacturing would kill them. So I doubt this will happen...but we've seen stranger ideas, so it's not impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the basic Wii any less of a risky investment? These ankle bracelets wouldn't useful for just ballroom dancing, I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of games using them. Think how much better Wii boxing would be if you could actually move around (you need to concentrate on games that would require just a few steps unless you want to target some market that plays elsewhere than their living room, also, my design only works if people walk - if you run it will all go horribly wrong). --Tango (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wii was actually pretty low risk - the console itself was a small technological step from their previous GameCube - it would have sold in reasonable numbers without the fancy controllers. They had 'cute' games "in the can" that they KNEW would appeal to a wide audience - and to Nintendo's core market. But the market for a ballroom dancing game is quite utterly unknown - and almost certainly tiny. Even if a simple pair of ankle bracelets would work, technologically (I have my doubts) there is still the matter of manufacturing enough of them with the risk of selling few. A video game actually only costs about $0.50 to manufacture - the disk, the case and the paper inserts - everything. The cost is all in the up-front software development. When you add even the simplest hardware to that, you can EASILY multiply the manufacturing costs by a factor of five. If adding that hardware helps you sell enough more of them - that's worthwhile because it helps to spread the outrageous cost of writing the game in the first place. But if there is any risk at all of the game being a flop - the cost of manufacturing hundreds of thousands of $2 ankle bracelets (only to find them in landfill) would utterly kill you! But like I said - I don't believe simple elasticated ankle bracelets would actually work - and to design and build an entire new controller for this would cost millions.

It's possible there might be mileage in your idea of a boxing game or something else that would be a stronger reason to create the controller hardware and push it out into the market. Once the controllers are out there in large numbers then there is every chance that a ballroom dancing game might be something a small company could take a risk on.

I work in the games industry (I'm a game programmer) and I can tell you that risk-taking certainly isn't one of our strong points!

SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The big thing about the Wii isn't the console or the fancy controllers, it's the shift of focus from hardcore gamers to normal people (eg. Final Fantasy MMIX vs WiiFit). How certain do you think they were that that would work out? When they were developing all these games for normal people (which, as you say, is far more expensive than building fancy controllers), I think they were taking a big risk. The fact that they were willing to take that risk (and that it paid off) is why Nintendo are now leading the way in console sales by a significant margin. You have to be really clever to make massive profits without taking significant risks, in any line of business. --Tango (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to control the stiffness of a spring ??

Q moved to Science desk

Washing machines

Hello! Every so often, I get unlucky and my washing machine leaves a white streak along the shoulder line of one of my colored shirts, as if there was some leftover bleach in the machine. The strange thing is this has happened in three different washing machines and only on one shirt out of the load and in the same place every time (along the shoulder line). Even though it happens very infrequently, I was wondering if anyone would know what's causing it to happen. FWIW, I hardly ever use bleach anyway. Thanks!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it is the machine? Do you use any products that have benzoyl peroxide in them to wash your face? Those can bleach as well if you accidentally get them on clothes, though the bleaching is not instantaneous at all (so if you wore a shirt, spilled it on, and then later put the shirt in your hamper, you might not notice until it got washed). Just a thought (as someone who has accidentally bleached a lot of shirts.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OR: Do you hang them on a hanger or fold them in a drawer? Check where you store them. Also check your luggage. As the contributor above said the bleaching effect might not show immediately. Since it's the shoulder seam it might also be that the fabric there gets damaged (e.g. seat belt, leather jacket seam or wooden drawer side rubbing against it? Zippers or rivets in the other laundry items scraping it?). The bleach contained in your detergent (check label) then has better access to the color of the fibers of that part. A couple more laundry tips: Always turn T-shirts inside out before throwing them in the hamper and laundry machine/dryer. Use detergent labeled for "color". Use a mesh laundry bag. (I wash all our stuff in them. Makes presorting easier, too. I started doing that after a couple of laundry machines returned our clothes with holes in them because they had gotten caught at the rim or the drum.) BTW I'd stay away from the ones with zippers and use the drawstring type, because the zipper parts can get snagged and cause damage. 76.111.32.140 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for my Bosch washing machine recommend running a hot wash - empty of clothes - about every couple of months to get rid of any residue. Maybe worth a try? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

STUFFING

WHY IS STUFFING SO DELICIOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Umami? I don't know, is there really an answer other than "because it is awesome"? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because you enjoy the Taste and Texture? Because it is made up of ingredients that are largely standard fare in your culture? I tend to find that things with 'strong' flavours are more likely to be disliked than things with a more mellow flavour. Similarly the mainstream foods in a given culture seem to be less likely to be disliked than the 'exotic' foods of other cultures (I.e. in England i'd expect to find more people who dislike say a traditional indian curry than I would to dislike oh I don't know fish & chips.) ny156uk (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Human taste allows people to detect basic things, such as sweetness, sourness, etc.. Everyone has different things they like or dislike.

Without knowing what the contents are of the stuffing you are talking about, it could also be something etched in your memory that causes you to enjoy the texture/taste so much. It may not even be conscious, but merely a genertalized memory such as (for Americans) Thanksgiving with the family. Perhaps a favorite family member introduced you to it, then or at some other time.

After all, if the stuffing contained something you really like (like the raisins my aunt puts in one stuffing), you would probably be able to say, "Yeah, that's why that's so good" if you like raisins, for instance.Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many kinds of stuffing (chestnut etc) but my favourite is the traditional Sage and Onion stuff (heh heh) that my Mum used for stuffing the Christmas Fowl. I guess it's just a lovely combination of flavours, but I make it nowadays without waiting for either Christmas or the Fowl. Mix it to a thick paste with water and bake it on a greased baking sheet until it has a crusty top on it and then cut it into slices and serve it with most meat-based-dishes. MMmmm. 92.23.160.69 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)