Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 26

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 26

Hyatt Hotels

What are the differences between a Park Hyatt and a Hyatt Regency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.10.157 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are Hyatt's own descriptions of the difference. http://www.hyatt.com/hyatt/about/our-brands/hyatt-regency.jsp and http://www.hyatt.com/hyatt/about/our-brands/park-hyatt.jsp Shadowjams (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our Hyatt article is not too helpful in that regard. However, two pages on Hyatt's website might clear things up for you: "Our Brands: Park Hyatt" and "Our Brands: Hyatt Regency". Of the two, and although I've not stayed at a Hyatt Regency, I get the impression that Park Hyatt is the more luxurious brand - certainly the Park Hyatt I stayed in was very luxurious. Comparing room rates in Washington DC, rooms at the Park Hyatt seems to cost around twice that of the Hyatt Regency. Astronaut (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so but wasn't entirely sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.185.243 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

True Photo Quality at 72 ppi

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong area, but the mathematics section is a little too advanced for my comfort.

To bring the reader up to speed:

1. A 10 megapixel image would be 3872 pixels x 2592 pixels. (Multiply the two and you get 10.03)
2. The image is 300 pixels per inch
3. How large of a print can you make while retaining "true photo quality" (meaning pixels cannot be seen at a view inches): multiply each dimension by 300
4. 3872/300 = 12.91 and 2592/300 = 8.64. The image can be printed 12.91" x 8.64" and look like a true "film" photograph.

But what if the image were 72 ppi (reduced for web, for example)? 72 divides into each dimension more than 300, obviously. So the result is 53.78" x 36".

This is the information I read on a website. Why on earth would someone print a 72ppi (low resolution) image larger? I understand that it can look "decent" at a greater distance, but my question would be: How large can you print it at 72 ppi and still retain "true photo quality", meaning the image would have to be printed smaller than the 300 ppi image. Is there an inverse equation to use instead? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The pixel count does not change. Your output device will only be able to reproduce a certain number of pixels per inch. So we imagine our laser printer can print up to 300 ppi. What if we change the resolution to 72 ppi and print it out super large? Well we'll get an image that has pixels as big as your thumb print or something along those lines. Technically what you get on the output will still have 300 ppi—it'll just scale your pixels up. (So you won't get a few pixels spread out on the page—you'll get fat pixels.)

Substitute "true photo quality" with 300 ppi—that is all it means. (300ppi is not really "true photo quality." 300 ppi looks pretty good. It is not really as much resolution as a true photograph which can be much higher than that depending on the quality of the negative, paper, image itself. You can definitely tell the difference between a 300 ppi image and a good photographic print if you have good vision or slight magnification.) You can't print something at 72 ppi and have it appear like it is 300 ppi—that is a contradiction in the definition. If you make it output smaller but don't reduce the number of pixels then you are just changing the ppi, nothing more. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the resolution you need also depends on how close people are going to look at it from. A small glossy photograph is viewed from a few 10's of centimeters - so it needs really tiny pixels to make it look good. But a gigantic roadside advertising signboard could have pixels up to maybe an inch across and would look just as good from a hundred meters away. Of course if you were printing a gigantic poster-sized image - that people would walk right up to and examine carefully - then you'd need just as many dots per inch as you had for the photograph - which would mean that you'd need an insanely high megapixel count. SteveBaker (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were to rephrase my question, I think it would be, how small does a 72 ppi image have to be to match the photo quality of the same image at 300 ppi? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The question does not make sense—or betrays your misunderstanding of what ppi means. You know that ppi just means pixels per inch. Let us imagine that the target image is 300 pixels by 300 pixels wide. You could reproduce it at 300 ppi by printing it 1"x1". Or you could reproduce it at 100 ppi at 3"x3"—but the pixels would be fat and visible and blurry. You could reproduce it at 10 ppi at 30"x30" but it would be hopelessly ugly and blurry when viewed up close. You could reproduce it at 600 ppi at .5"x.5". We aren't changing the number of pixels here, just how it is being reproduced. So if you take a 72 ppi and "shrink it"—change its size lower—you are just redefining what the ppi is. So if you reduce a 72 ppi image match the quality of a 300 ppi, you are actually making it 300 ppi. So our 300 pixel by 300 pixel image would be 4.16"x4.16" at 72 ppi, but at 300 ppi it is still 1"x1". In the end, the ppi measurement does not tell you much without knowing the number of pixels—the number of pixels tells you whether it will look good or crappy at a given ppi. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think what you just told me is the same thing I've been reading, and that's what's confusing me. What about this, then: a 72 ppi image would have to be printed 24% smaller than a 300 ppi image, in order to make the 72 ppi image match the quality of the 300 ppi. (72/300)... Would that make sense then? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's one essential point that needs clarification. Specifiying the resolution in _ppi_ (pixels per inch) is only possible when the image is printed out. The only resolution that means anything for the digital image (the file on your computer or camera memory card) is its size in _pixels_. Whether or not a particular image is 75 ppi or 300 ppi or any other value depends on your _printer_, not your _camera_. If you have an image that's (say) 600 x 1200 _pixels_, you can print it at 300 ppi and it'll be 2" by 4", or print it at 75 ppi and it'll be 8" x 16". The "quality" of the printout will just depend on how closely you look at it; it'll contain the same amount of detail in both cases. Tevildo (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... this is frustrating me that I'm not getting it. So I downloaded a 10" x 10" image at 72 ppi. 720 pixels square, easy enough for me to get. I convert the image to 300 ppi, and now there are 3000 pixels square. The image just became larger... there is more information to squeeze into a 10-inch square image. The 300 pixel image would print out larger than a 72 ppi image; so why the math and why everyone else is saying a 72 ppi image would print out larger is just not clicking with me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh. :) The reason you are having trouble, I think, is you're failing to understand that ppi is a measure of print quality, not a measure of image size. A 72ppi print is lower quality than a 300ppi print, by definition. FiggyBee (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So... there's no difference between 72 ppi or 300 ppi, not when you're looking at the image on the computer? Changing the image from 72 to 300 isn't changing any of the image information? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PPI is just "pixels per inch." If you have something that is printed out at 100 pixels per inch, every inch contains the data of 100 pixels. If you then take that same image and print it out at 300 pixels per inch, every inch now contains 3 times as many pixels. In order to do that without just arbitrarily doubling pixels (which is what you've done if you "convert it" so that there are more pixels), then that means that the overall size of the printout has to shrink by 1/3. That assumes the total number of pixels is constant. In Photoshop, when you go to Image > Resize, it allows you to play with values like PPI and size in a way that will resample the image—changing the number of pixels (though generally not the quality, because you are "making pixels" out of nothing, basically, so the computer is just guessing based on existing data what it should look like at a larger size). Your confusion seems to come from you taking PPI to mean something concrete in and of itself—just keep coming back to what it really means, just Pixels Per Inch, and keep focusing on the pixels as the measure of quality. Photoshop's PPI setting is just a suggestion to your printer—it just says, "oh, this guy wants you to print it out at this size, so given how many pixels it has, that makes it 200 ppi" or whatever. The real measurement of how much detail a photo has is in its raw pixels, not its PPI, which is a measure of how those pixels relate to the quality of the size of the image on an output device (printer, monitor, whatever). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the central point of the confusion here is probably the notion of "converting the ppi of an image". Theoretically, there is no such thing as "the ppi of an image". So it doesn't make sense to change it. (Yes, I know, there are programs that have functions that let you. I'll get to those in a minute.)

Let's look at (1) the camera, (2) the computer, and (3) the printer.

1. The camera. Your 10 megapixel camera is not "300 ppi". If you opened it up, you'd find that all the pixels on its CCD are jammed into an area maybe a quarter of an inch wide, so if anything the camera's pixel density might be more like 12,000 ppi. But this is obviously meaningless also, because you're probably not taking a picture of something 1/4" wide. If you want to talk about the ppi of the picture you took, it obviously depends on how far away you hold the camera, and on the focal length of the lens (as modified by the zoom setting, if any). If the thing you took a picture of was 12.9" wide, there would end up being about 300 pixels per inch of original. (But it was probably bigger, so there are probably fewer than 300 pixels per inch of original.)
2. The computer. At the simplest level, an image as represented on a computer is just a grid of abstract pixels. The image doesn't have a meaningful size (other than perhaps the size of the file on disk, which of course is a different story). Depending on the image file format (GIF/TIFF/JPEG/etc.), and the operating system, and the image manipulation software you're using, there might be a ppi setting lurking in the image's metadata, but this would be advisory only, and we can't say what it means without knowing how it's supposed to be interpreted by your computer and image-manipulation software (and, maybe, your printer).
3. The printer. As others have noted, this is the only place where ppi really makes sense, because now (and only now) are the pixels mapped onto a physical artifact in a fixed, unambiguous way.

Now, if your image manipulation software has a feature to "convert the ppi" of an image, it must be doing some combination of (a) resampling the pixels, and maybe (b) adjusting the "notional ppi" with which the image is tagged. If the resampling reduces the absolute number of pixels, it must be discarding some of them or averaging some of them together, and in any case losing information (which will amount to a less-clear picture). If it's trying to increase the number of pixels, it has no choice but to duplicate them (while perhaps doing some smoothing of the resulting "blocky" edges). Increasing the number of pixels makes the image "bigger", but it can't make it any more clear, because there's obviously no place for the extra clarity (i.e. the extra information) to come from.

What image manipulation program are you using, anyway? Photoshop? Microsoft Word? Something else? Does the "convert ppi" function claim to be trying to preserve the size of the image as printed on the other resolution of printer, or preserve the quality, or what? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... it's beginning to make sense. Mr.98's and Steve Summit's explanations are beginning to click. I always thought PPI was an integral part of the actual image. Thank you everyone for your patience, I was quite struggling here. I'll re-read this entire thing and if I have any further questions, I'll be sure to post here. Steve, I was using Photoshop to convert the PPI and it was not resampling the pixels, incredibly. It did affect the size of a one-inch-square marquee and the Print View of the image, all of which corroborated what you guys were saying above. This whole PPI thing has been bothering me for years and I think it was because I was making it more complex an issue than it really was. I need to work on my photography for a short while with this New World thinking and we'll see how it goes! Again, thanks everyone for their contributions! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) Metadata is probably the best article for you to look at (as well as the discussion). If the image file has a PPI setting, that's metadata which tells the printer the physical size of the image on the paper; so, if the resolution is 720 x 720, and the PPI is 72, that's telling the printer to make the size of the printed image 10" x 10" - if you just change the PPI to 300 without changing the resolution, you're telling the printer to make the size of the image 2.4" x 2.4" instead. But the quality of the image - the amount of detail it contains - is the same, and the PPI setting isn't an integral part of the image. Tevildo (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, no, don't look at the current metadata article, it's dreadful. This version from December is much better.) Tevildo (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Felling Trees

Whiledriving through Northern Poland recently, the person I was with and I got to discussing the trees in the area, my friend pointed out to me that it is illegal to fell trees willy nilly, one cannot just go into the forest and start cutting down a tree, I do not understand why. Is this true, and if so why. I come from south africa, and if I go into the bush there I can do just about whatever I want to a tree, or is this incorrect too? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not legal (in general) in the UK: here's a UK booklet from the Forestry Commission (PDF, but in Google's in-browser preview so a bit friendlier). I assume the situation elsewhere to be loosely similar. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go onto somebody else's land and destroy or take away their property, that is against the law. Almost all land belongs to somebody, and even if it's state-owned, you're still not allowed to steal from it any more than you can steal office supplies from a state-owned office. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you own a forest you often can't just knock it down on a whim. (See the bookles linked above for the laws in UK.) APL (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the land's owned by someone else, or if it's protected land, or even if you own a forest but it's on protected land, you still can't go round felling trees. Of course it depends on the circumstances and country. Chevymontecarlo. 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia

how can i be a member of wikipedia?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.254.93 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You just edited here, so you already are. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be a member; anyone can edit Wikipedia. Start here: Wikipedia:Introduction. If you want to create a user account, go here. (You don't need one, but it has some advantages and is very quick and easy.) If you have more questions about Wikipedia, try asking here: Wikipedia:Help desk --Normansmithy (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So when do I get my membership card? Edison (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No membership card - but if you hang around for a month and contribute 200+ edits, we'll give you a picture of this really handy book. ===>

SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any "membership" process. You can do most things needed to use and edit the encyclopedia without even creating an account here (although there are a few restrictions). However, most serious editors create an account so that people can't figure out who they are from their IP address - and so that they get proper credit for the work they do here. To do that, just click on "Log in/create account" in the top-right corner of each page. Then when it says "Don't have an account? Create one.", click on the words "Create one" and you'll be able to enter a name and password.

Aside from that, if you've been here for a while and done good work, you could apply for the right to become an "Administrator" on the site - that gives you the ability to uphold the Wikipedia rules and guidelines - even the ability to kick offending people off of the site altogether. Beyond that, there is a kind of administrator-of-administrators (which we call a "Bureaucrat") - or you could even stand for nomination onto the Wikipedia "Board of Trustees". There are about 11 million people who have accounts, around 1,700 administrators, 35 bureaucrats and 9 people on the board of trustees. But for all of that, there is no formal concept of "membership".

SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

who is this guy???

My friend challenged me to find out who this is.I have been trying for hours together unsuccessful.This guys image is at File:Unknown.JPG please help.clues i got from him is. he is connected to Ireland and britain and has got something to do with civil engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd iitm (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This: [1] is Woody Allen. Staecker (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

amazing quizzer u r...wow but what has he got to do with civil engineering???

also help me with this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unknown2.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd iitm (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Steve Carell. Obviously these are not photos you took. They are likely fair-use violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)It's Steve Carell, from the film Get Smart. Helped myself with tineye.com, you should try it out. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Steve Carell. Wikipedia is not your personal image host though. WP:NOT. Dismas|^(talk) 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i didnt take these photos. my friend challenged me to identify it. so i put it onwiki after trying it for hours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd iitm (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry guys if i have violated something.

That's alright, no problem. If you hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, rest assured it is not the wikipedia police coming to take you away to the Gulag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be cool if someone were to speedy delete these images, since Gd iitm just admitted they were both in violation. I can't do it because I have CSD curse, no joke. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted them both. Useight (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Man identification

Who is this guy? Thanks.

[2] --Belchman (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John Dillinger. Deor (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it. Any more softball questions out there? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, someone beat me with an Edit Conflict. Again, I suggest using tineye.com TomorrowTime (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. And thank you for suggesting tineye.com, it's awesome :) --Belchman (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystery

Hey, here's a poser - what's the color of this object? [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

According to some, it's white on the outside and Red on the inside. Deor (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tan, if you scratched the surface (not that I suggest for a moment that you attempt the experiment!). When it was built, it was painted white to preserve the porous sandstone. Then it was burned, and demolished except for a bit of the south side, and rebuilt, and repainted white. Edison (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystery

OK, another poser - who's buried in this place? [4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Think of the French Impressionist who wagged his eyebrows, puffed his cigar, and said "Si vous dites le mot sécrète, le canard descenderait et vous donner cinquante dollairs". His French wasn't that good. PhGustaf (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Grant. Woogee (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious answer: Nobody. --Anonymous, 10:03 UTC, February 28, 2010.

coat of arms

i was asking about this.http://www.tineye.com/search/b6f919fd71c78c5a1622103b38c351cc2e2bf606 whose is this coat of arms??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.48.67 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: this is the same question as What flag is this? above. Marnanel (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Tineye searched 1,352 million pictures. I have searched Wikipaedia for heraldic symbols with boat/ships and lighthouses etc, etc. Without some information/context about this logo/symbol, our chances of finding more about it seem poor. IMHO. Sorry OP(Original Poster-180.149.48.67). 220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks more like a modern logo than a coat of arms. Could be a port authority of somekind, or something else completely. It's very corrupt for a coat of arms (and undoubtably not registered).- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be a football/rugby club badge...hotclaws 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of UK schools have shield-shaped emblems like this to wear on their blazers. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The description posted at What flag is this? reminds me of the arms of the City of Bristol, see File:Bristol city coa.png, except that we have a castle instead of a lighthouse. Could one building have been mistaken for the other? The details of these arms have varied down the years (type of ship, treatment of water, style of castle, etc.), and the Great Western Railway "borrowed" one version to make up the right hand side of their emblem (the left-hand side is the arms of the City of London), see File:GWR coat of arms.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not likely to be able to solve this one without some more information. If the person who asked this question can tell us where the original image was found - or literally any other piece of information that relates to the question (like why do you need to know the answer) - we'd stand a much better chance of getting an answer. SteveBaker (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for repost-didn't realize we'd moved down here

Possibly a flag of one of the British colonies? OP doesn't mention if it had a Union Jack in the corner,but the blue blackground and shield shape are covered-and something to do with Britain/Ireland. It seems very likely a colony would have a sailing ship on water and a lighthouse-now we just need to find the right one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Helena has the sailing ship,but no lighthouse.Aden has the three wavy lines and sailing ship-but no lighthouse.The Falkland Islands has the ship and the three wavy lines,but no lighthouse(it's a sheep,and I don't think the OP's eyesight is that bad). I thought the Antarctic or Indian Ocean Territory flags,but they don't quite match.The hunt goes on... Lemon martini (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OP has provided a link. http://www.tineye.com/search/b6f919fd71c78c5a1622103b38c351cc2e2bf606 Definitely not a sheep! : )) —220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bu@@ar, the image has been 'discarded', ie. no longer at this link!. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Stocks

Is there an age limit to trade stocks? Any website suggestions for people who are completely ignorant to stock buying but are interested in doing so? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Brokerage firms generally require you to be of the age of majority in your jurisdiction (typically 18, but sometimes 21, in the United States). If you are buying as a form of investment, I would suggest you start with mutual funds, which will give you the advantage of professional management. If you want to buy stocks for amusement or educational purposes, there are many online discount brokerages and educational websites. Yahoo Finance is a popular starting point. John M Baker (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Buying managed funds of any kind is almost always a bad idea. There is almost no fund able to beat the market. And for betting for the market, you could simple bet on the index. --ProteanEd (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would classify the above comment as somewhat extreme opinion rather than fact. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. "Beating the market" may be the appropriate strategy for ProteanEd, but it almost certainly isn't appropriate for most investors. Such views are why I advocate "We don't answer finance / investment questions here." DOR (HK) (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. 89.242.83.202 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you believe firmly in a strong version of the efficient markets hypothesis, there is a lot of room left for professional money management. You should have an investment program that reflects your personal needs, not just rely on the assumption that whatever you buy will automatically be priced correctly. For one thing, professional money management will help you achieve an appropriate level of diversification, which is essential to any investment program. For another, if you invest on your own you may have a far riskier investment portfolio than you want, or conversely you may be in an overly conservative investment portfolio that will not grow to meet your needs. Also, it is impossible to invest directly in an index, although you can invest in an index fund that uses professional money managers to attempt to replicate an index's performance. John M Baker (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you a "money manager" or related occupation by any chance? 78.149.201.215 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a securities lawyer, so I know a bit about this stuff. If I were a money manager, I would probably be giving arguments against the efficient markets hypothesis. John M Baker (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The site Investopedia has lots and lots of basic information. The "instant x-ray" function at Morningstar's site allows you to find out how well-diversified a group of stocks (a potential portfolio) is, with respect to average distribution in the S&P 500 and average statistics such as P/E, ROA, ROE, etc., as well as maturity/risk in bond funds, and geographical distribution. Google "lazy portfolio" to find out how to set up extremely simple portfolios that have good track records. For example, the etfs (exchange traded funds) VTI and AGG capture (respectively) the U.S. stock and bond markets fairly well, so a portfolio that's 70% VTI and 30% AGG wouldn't be too bad in the long run. ETFs are definitely fruitful to research, because they demonstrate almost all the ways the market can be sliced and diced, and include commodities and real estate as well as the standard stocks and bonds. So to repeat: the Investopedia site; the Morningstar site's x-ray feature; surf around to find out about the variety of ETFs (just to know the universe of asset classes that's out there); and google "lazy portfolio." 63.17.87.170 (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the trade in Stocks has been suffering something of a recession for the last several centuries. Tomato, anyone? --Dweller (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Something equivalent to large peat pots for gardening?

I have bought some plants I would like to put in large peat pots before planting later on. I can only find quite small peat pots. Does anyone know how to make something equivalent, out of newpaper perhaps? I'm looking for something eight or more inches in diameter, similarly deep. Thanks 78.146.242.196 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrap several sheets of wet newspaper around a terracotta or plastic pot of the size desired (or a bucket would do), allow to dry and remove. This will give you newspaper pots. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Into the wilderness

I've just watched the film Into the wild about Christopher McCandless' journey of self discovery in the Alaskan wilderness. It got me wondering, where in the world could you go and be truly alone and furthest away from other evidence of human civilization, yet still survive by living off the land (so that rules out Antarctica and Greenland)? Astronaut (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a hard one, although it'd be cool to find out. I'd say they'd probably be more than one place where you could go. Try googling it, maybe someone's written a blog post or article about it. Chevymontecarlo. 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Kerguelen Islands are very isolated and one could probably survive there for a long time, and there are no towns but there is a French science station there that usually has people, so that probably would not qualify? Googlemeister (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A more pragmatic approach would be to consider your local environment. I don't know about you, but it takes about an hour's walk to start getting lonely, and even then there's plenty of homes around. And having read Into the Wild, I would call it more a quest of self-annihilation than self-discovery. Vranak (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vranak is on the point. Do not underestimate the psychological impact of being alone in the wild and be realistic about your abilities. The real McCandless - someone different from the McCandless of the film - made both mistakes and paid with his life.--ProteanEd (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Historically, a number of hunter-gatherer societies have had a ritual for teenage males that involved spending a period of time (often 2–4 weeks) alone in the bush. Successful completion of that period alone qualified a initiate for recognition as an adult male. Sometimes he would also have to bring back a proof of his hunting skill, such as the skin of a local animal moderately difficult to hunt. In a sense, this was the equivalent of a school-leaving examination, such as the baccalauréat or A level examination in Western societies. A young person would begin learning what we might call "primitive skills" as soon as he was able to walk and talk. Instead of attending school, young people were trained in survival and foraging skills almost every day of their lives until they reached adulthood. These young people had years to study and practice these skills. Only after a male teenager had studied and practiced these skills for 14 years or more would he venture into the bush on his own for an extended period of time. How many of us who post or answer questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk have studied and practiced wilderness survival and foraging skills for 14 years or more? As McCandless learned, "living off the land" is no easy or simple matter. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the film, McCandless did appear to be more on a voyage of self discovery; but I appreciate that the real McCandless was probably different from Emile Hirsch's portrayal. Where I live near London, I would have to walk for many hours, if not days, to get more than an a few miles from civilization. Be assured that, while life in the wilderness does have its attractions to me (and I have visited some vast low-population places like the far north of Scotland, Death Valley, outback Australia and the like), I am in truth far to attached to 21st century living to consider it a realistic possibility for anything other than a brief visit. I was just curious if it was possible to get more remote than McCandless did, about 40 km west of Healy, Alaska, and still live off the land. Astronaut (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. My brother and I both read the novel, then he rented the movie. It just did not ring at all true to me so I didn't watch more than a few minutes. It basically amounts to exploitation of his death. Which the book is too, but it's far more honest in going about it. Vranak (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The movie was ... enjoyable enough, and the book was a lot better (yup). But I prefer the story of Richard Proenneke, whose film Alone in the Wilderness was incredible to me. You can check it out here. Inspiring and not depressing, unlike Into the Wild. Believe it or not, I'm actually moving to an undisclosed mountainous region in a few days for this very reason. I despise life in traffic, and if it means giving up my career, so be it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that many of the more abundant places where you can live off the land have been settled, so all that's left is the marginal areas. There might be some areas in tropical South America or the African Bush where you could make a go at it, but it certainly wouldn't be an easy life. Buddy431 (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but going out of your way is insane because a) getting there is too much trouble, and getting home doubly so, and b) your body is not going to be used to exotic environments, and you may come down with all sorts of horrible tropical conditions unless you are in tip-top condition. It's best not to thrust yourself into a whole new environment if you're gunning for survival. Vranak (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in England you could get out of sight of civilisation by buying a home or small-holding in a forest, or having some other screen around yourself. There are many small unihabited Scottish islands on the west coast which due to the North Atlantic Drift should be warm enough to have a farm or croft on, and I think similarly in Ireland. Some monks used to live in minature houses with gardens, both surrounded by thick high walls so that they were alone although physically near others. I wish it was customary for house gardens to be surrounded by high walls, as I think it is in some middle-eastern or african countries, rather than the open prairie type garden that most neighbours seem to insist on. It would be nice not to have to look at your neighbours scruffy gardens, and be able to walk around outdoors au naturel if you wanted to, and without any traffic noise. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many uninhabited islands around the world. See desert island and castaway. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A person tends to get island fever after only two or three weeks on Hawaii so I don't know if isolating yourself in this way is all that smart. Vranak (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely, but you could get a small yacht so you'd have mobility as well, and use it to sail there. Some people live on yachts - your cost of living is very low. Take a woman with you, as described in the non-fiction book and film-of-the-book called Castaway. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

@Vranak: Rather than a question of whether or not it is actually a good idea, I was hoping that this question would be considered more of a question of geography. Astronaut (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering at a tangent to the OP, there is the example of the newly married Thor Heyerdahl; he and his wife ran away to the South Seas (their phrase) in the 1930s, an adventure which reached print as Fatu Hiva (book). They built a thatched house in an uninhabited valley, and at first it was idyllic, but not for long. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Shows like Survivorman and Man vs. Wild have no trouble finding places for this sort of challenge. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I never turn off my filters for plausibility Astro. :) Vranak (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Around Scotland, St Kilda and North Rona are both remote island locations which have previously supported a permanent population which was largely self-sufficient, but are now uninhabited. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice acting

Who is the voice actor in this trailer? [5] --77.126.230.55 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. I found a couple of voiceover talent who listed NBC on their resumes by Googling "NBC voiceover work" and it was fun to recognize them both. But not the LOST guy. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost airs on ABC, not NBC. The voice sounds like Brian Cummings. Hear some of his work here. —D. Monack ^talk 06:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Help about ships

I was wondering if I just don't know what it means, or if it's actually wrong. But I've noticed on a lot of pages for ships in the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II that it shows a date for when the ship is struck and then a date for when the ship is sunk. What I don't understand is why almost every single ship has a sink date before the stuck date. For example, on the page for the Japanese destroyer Kasumi, the struck date is 10 May 1945, while the sink date is 7 April 1945. If that's correct in the way that it was struck by something on 10 May 1945 and then sunk on 7 April 1945, it doesn't make sense. I'm thinking (and hoping that I'm not just too stupid to understand this), that there is some other meaning for the word "Struck".

--ABickerstaff 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABickerstaff (talk • contribs)

Please don't post questions to multiple reference desks. Your question was just answered over at the Humanities desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)