Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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.

July 22

what are the duties of a hospital support service liaison?

Did you ask the hospital that is offering the job? They will likely tell you. --Jayron32 02:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, call them or go and visit. Chevy monte carlo 08:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Support services' in hospitals are generally the services that are not clinical, that is to say do not have direct intentional contact with patients/client/users. Examples would be catering workers, cleaners, secretarial staff, patient transport and the like. These services are probably managed by a department separate from the clinical management structure, or might be private sector contracts, and thus would not have any managers in common. It would be necessary therefore to have a person or persons who communicate between the clinical areas and the support services to ensure that problems are identified and solved. It would be essential to make contact with any particular hospital to understand how their support services are provided. Richard Avery (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GSM phone with external antenna port?

I'm in an area with very bad mobile reception and am looking for a GSM phone with an external antenna port. These used to be easy to find but the quest for smaller packages and more crap in the phone seem to have caused most manufacturers to give up on the feature. Are any still made? Thanks. 67.122.211.208 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use an older phone model, if you don't want the hassle of dealing with features you won't use? Any GSM phone, however old, will still work on present-day GSM networks. My first phone was a Bosch 909 Dual S, which was already out of date when I got it, with no memory at all (it could store 12 txts in the simcard), and the only "features" being an alarm and a calculator... but it looks so cool I didn't care. Even after 4 years I still got compliments from randoms on the metro. They are still sold on eBay, and if you need, you can unscrew the antenna from the top and attach a more powerful one. You might find it works without that. I always got good reception and a long battery life. 86.147.153.126 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of Unregistered Wikipedians to Registered Wikipedians

I'm trying to find information on the ratio of unregistered Wikipedians to registered Wikipedians. (I.e., how many casual, unregistered users get around to registering, at some point.) My apologies if there was a better place of asking this question; it didn't quite seem to fit in under science, computing, or the village pump. Katya (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics are tough to nail down. WP:STATS is a good starting point. There are 12 million named-user accounts - but only 130,000 of them actually edited during the last month - only 50,000 edited more than 5 times and just 5,000 edited more than 100 times. So an awful lot of named accounts don't represent what I would personally call "a Wikipedian" (someone who edits at least a handful of times a month). The claim in our stats is that there have been 400,000 unique users editing here in the last month - so on that basis, about one out of every three people who edit Wikipedia have accounts.

I couldn't find any statistics for the number of unregistered users who have edited Wikipedia over all time.

But even that 400,000 'unique users' number isn't right because we only know anonymous users by their IP address. But lots of people have DHCP accounts where they get a different IP address every time they turn on their computers - and other people share IP addresses. With named users, some people forget their passwords or something and create more than one account - but very few people share named user accounts - so the named user numbers could also be a little high.

So we can't really know how many actual people have edited Wikipedia.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, the "established" editor (that is to say editors that are either whitelisted or who are using an established automated tool) ratio tends to be extremely consistent around 82%. In other words, 18% of most edits are done by non-established editors. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Katya (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was about the number of editors - not the number of edits...but I agree about the ratio of edits by signed-in editors. The numbers are heavily skewed by just a few editors though - I like to think I'm pretty active here (22,000 edits over 5 years) - but I'm only the 1,600th most prolific editor! SteveBaker (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you competing against the bots there Steve? Googlemeister (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently! It's hard to believe that Rjwilmsi has manually typed 423,521 edits! SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've run some stats scripts but they all rely on the basic wiki stats API functions. Those functions are confounded by a few things, including deleted pages, rev-deleted edits, and other quirks. But as a general rule, a vast majority of edits are done by a small portion of editors. I know there've been others that have published on this, and my numbers aren't verified by any stretch, but you might try pulling down some wiki stats, recording the time, and then doing so again a few days or weeks later. Those stats should show you some basic trends. Average edits are around 100-180 per minute (with the above caveats) and new user creation is surprisingly high (maybe about 3 per minute). New article creation holds steady (this incorporates page deletion) at around (this is from memory) 1 page per minute... but page creation is much higher (probably largely talk page creation for new users). If you want more details I can try and be specific, but it's pretty straight forward to query the stats API and then do the simple math. Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job Prospects

How difficult is it to get a teaching/research assistant while doing a masters or doctoral degree at some of the more prestigious schools? Does the job count as your tuition, or do you have to put in extra money? How much (like percentage-wise)? What is the level of pay compared to other jobs? Is it easy to get a job, such as a research position somewhere, afterwards? 202.45.54.113 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me it was essentially a required part of the degree. I suppose this may not be the case for every school, but we got fellowship money that paid for tuition and living expenses. We had to have a TA or RA job as well, which was technically a real job but in reality it just meant that whatever money we got from that was subtracted from the fellowship money from the university. (If that makes sense.) Not everyone always got an assistantship, but we always had to apply, to at least make the effort. After getting a degree, pretty much everyone gets an academic job of some sort, if they really want one (some people get the degree and disappear back into the real world, of course). But like I said, maybe this is just a peculiarity of my field and my university, I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on the field of study. For some graduate degrees, especially those in the sciences, practical experience is required. If you are in a chemistry PhD program, for example, your degree requires a sizable amount of real laboratory experience. The usual arangement is that you get paid for doing this lab work and some teaching work; generally a tuition reimbursement along with a small stipend to cover basic living expenses. It will vary from place to place how this is handled, but in many fields, if you are accepted into the program it generally comes out cost-neutral for you, the student. In other fields, such as getting a managment degree or an MBA or something like that, the student incurs significant costs, much like an undergraduate degree. These are often (but not always) picked up by the employeer of the student; for example your employer may be grooming you for a management position, and would pay for the required graduate degree and give you time off to take the needed courses. --Jayron32 06:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This varies a lot depending on the institution and the academic department. The more well-endowed universities in the United States (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) tend to offer grants to grad students that cover tuition. (That is, they offer free tuition.) They may offer additional stipends that cover or nearly cover living expenses. Back in my day (now more than 10 years ago), my social science department at UC Berkeley, it was possible for most (but not all) students to cobble together grants that covered tuition. Students then competed for TA and RA jobs to cover living expenses. Most who wanted those jobs got them, but not everyone did. Those who didn't were typically not progressing quickly enough toward their degree goal, not applying aggressively enough for outside grants, (occasionally) out of political favor, or otherwise deficient. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to find out is to look specifically at the few programs you are really interested in and to talk to existing students there (who are used to fielding these kind of questions). They'll be able to tell you, "oh, it's no problem" or "well, it's tough." It varies a lot. Even "well-endowed" schools vary a lot (e.g. Princeton and Harvard have in my experience pretty different policies in this respect).--Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how can i be a space scientist? (Or astronaut)

i'm a person who want to study about space or kinds of space subjects. And, i'm Asian, 15 years old. Well.. actually, i wanna be a space scientist who are work at NASA.. But i know it is a huge dream. So i want to ask about

1. What university, is might be a best way to be a space scientist. (um... i'm not rich so.. you know like MIT Univ. need a lot of money.. so some other Universitys)

2. and what do i have to do to get to the college. ex. how much points do i have to get in TOEFL,or SAT and other things or tests..

Please answer me properly.. I really want to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choyj0423 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to any good university and study either mathematics, physics, engineering or a combination of the above. Universities like MIT usually have scholarship schemes to help people that couldn't afford to go otherwise, so if you have the grades for somewhere like that don't rule it out. --Tango (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somewhere that a relatively large portion of astronauts went to Stanford for a degree, but I don't remember any specifics. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles Astronaut, especially Astronaut#Training and Commercial astronaut. At present you must be a citizen of the US to be a NASA astronaut. Some qualifications for astronauts are outstanding physical health, university education and similar abilities to a pilot. You could direct your ambition towards civil or military aviation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed some unnecessary spaces from the OP's original formatting to improve legibility - no visible characters altered.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that step one is definitely to get a degree in a science or math-related subject - but at some point you're going to have to think about what you mean by a "space scientist" - someone who an astronomer, perhaps - who studies planets, stars and galaxies - or a cosmologist who thinks about problems like "how did the universe begin?" and "what is dark matter?". You might be a rocket designer - or a 'materials scientist' who might be working on ways to have spacecraft re-enter the earth's atmosphere without burning up. Maybe a biologist who is concerned about how humans adapt to space? Robotics, electronics - almost every field of science is involved in "space" in some way. At some point, you'll need to specialize in one of those narrower fields - and it's worth starting to think about which one. But yeah - get a science degree! SteveBaker (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a pre-requisite to have undergone pilot training to become an astronaut. Many non-pilots have flown aboard the Shuttle/Soyuz to the International Space Station. Astronaut (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pilot a spacecraft then you need to be an aircraft pilot first, but you can be a "mission specialist" without any pilot training. I'm not some about commanders of spacecraft - I think they usually start of as pilots too (and often have some piloting responsibilities even as commander). --Tango (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also need to hurry up! America's last spaceship launches in February! APL (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP is age 15, I think the best chance is to get in on the next launch vehicle to be developed. Googlemeister (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By far the cheapest way to become a pilot is to join the Air Force, and flying fast jets would put you in a great position for transferring to NASA later on. When you get to university, look out for recruiters during the freshers week. I'm not sure how it works in the US, but here in the UK there are cadet squadrons at many universities, and promising students can often get a Forces scholarship in return for a service commitment after graduation. 86.149.219.207 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other point - all the replies have basically assumed you're a United States citizen, but you didn't say you are. If not, you would have to immigrate to the US and become a citizen before NASA will consider you. See the selection requirements. 86.149.219.207 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check this article, Space tourism and categories such as these, Category:Space tourism and Category:Space programs. The way I figure it, you need lots of money, lots of luck, or make it so that someone with big bucks wouldn't mind spending big bucks to get you into space. Good luck.:-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCALES INCREASE WEIGHT BY JUMPING = TITLE

Lets say I'm standing still on some scales, and they read 8 stone (because I'm not fat yo!) and now I decided to jump off the scales into the air. At the point where I lift off from the scales, they are reading MORE than 8 stone. Why? How have I increased weight just by jumping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1995THEYEAR (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to exert force to jump. When we say that a scale measures weight, we're really saying that the scale measures the force exerted on it. It just happens that, when you're standing still, the force you exert on the scale is the force exerted by gravity on your mass (that is, weight). However, when you jump, you're exerting additional force so that you can overcome the force of gravity. At this point, the scale is measuring both the force of your jump and the force of your mass, making the value on the scale rise. This is not, though, the same as saying that your weight changed -- merely that the value on the scale changed. — Lomn 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Second Law of motion F = ma gives the extra downward force F that you exerted to give your mass m an upward acceleration a. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more technically correct to say their weight did momentarily change, but their mass did not change? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent that the gravitational acceleration on the OP would be lower as he moves further away from the Earth. But that's not what's going on here. His weight and mass didn't change - the scale can't accurately measure his weight when he's jumping about. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided that phrasing because our article, at least, defines weight as "the force exerted by gravity on mass". Once we accept that the mass doesn't change, then clearly the weight doesn't change here, either (at least not per this definition). That's why I instead noted that "a scale measures weight" is the misleading part. It measures force, and under normal conditions that force happens to be weight. — Lomn 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard University undergraduate programs

The article for Harvard College (part of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences) states that Harvard College is "is one of two schools within Harvard University granting undergraduate degrees". The article does not specify what the other school is that offers undergraduate degrees. Thus, if I may ask, what is the second school of Harvard University that offers undergraduate degrees?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkApollo (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 July 2010

This is the wrong Wikipedia:Reference Desk, but isn't it Radcliffe College?—msh210℠ 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess not. Scratch that. But according to the article Harvard Division of Continuing Education, it's the Extension School.—msh210℠ 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, the Harvard Extension School, though they are "nontraditional" degrees for "nontraditional" students. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 July 22

Contents