Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 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.

October 26

Greg Iles short story

I read on Greg Iles home page that a long short story is being released in e-book form for free or for $0.99 . That it will set up the next Penn Cage book Natchez Burning , that is coming out in May 2014. I have searched but cannot find info please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvw64 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

His new long short story in e-book form that sets up his next book Natchez Burning where can I find info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvw64 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold your horses, buddy. You've asked basically the same question twice in 41 minutes. Give our experts a little time to respond. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You are asking about the e-book that sets up Natchez Burning? Do you have a title of that book, I have found some things on how the author is developing Natchez Burning here and at Examiner. com/article/greg-iles-signs-new-penn-cage-trilogy-deal-with-william-morrow, but not certain if that gives you some further pieces to the puzzle. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've combined these questions. Shadowjams (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

International expert in 7 years

I recently read an infographic which says reading 1 hour per day in one's field for 7 years makes you an international expert. Similarly Shri Arun Shourie recently said that in India standards are so low that in two to three years of study in a particular subject makes one a national expert .How true is that? Sumalsn (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That's all silly. An expert is somebody who knows things and can do things, not somebody who has spent time staring at words on a page. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this depends on the field. In some fields, there is no way to get practical experience, like a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory. So, studying is the way to become an expert there. But I agree that we shouldn't solely look at either time spent studying or, I would add, time spent hands-on, to make somebody an "expert" in their field. Some people will naturally be better at something than others, and therefore some will become experts before others, and yet others can spend their whole lives in a field without ever becoming an "expert". StuRat (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent losing VP candidates, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Or winning ones! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Methinks you missed that one debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MALARKEY! lololol ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds rather like a watered-down version of Malcolm Gladwell's ten-thousand-hour rule (which at an hour a day would take over 27 years). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A friend of mine posted the infographic that I think the OP is referring to to Facebook yesterday. It doesn't provide a source. The infographic reads:

• 33% of high school graduates never read another book the rest of their lives.
• 42% of college grads never read another book after college.
• 57% of new books are never read to completion.
• 70% of US adults have not been in a book store the last five years.
• 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
• The more a child reads, the likelier they are to be able to understand the emotions of others.
• Reading one hour per day in your chosen field will make you an international expert in 7 years.

Some interesting stats, if they're true. Dismas|^(talk) 08:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept all those statements, except the last one. There is no generally accepted definition of an expert, let alone an "international expert". (What is that last thing, anyway? I edit a website that's open to all humans; does that make me an "international editor"?) Given that, I suppose anyone could claim to be an expert (God knows, we have plenty of regular visitors to the ref desks who implicitly suggest they're experts in every field imagineable, as they're always ready to provide unreferenced answers, no matter what the topic may be). But would they be accepted as experts by their peers, or the wider community? Not bloody likely. Not just from having read zillions of words on the subject. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

wikt:imaginable Tevildo (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. See, even internationally recognised spelling experts sometimes make mistakes.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is a perfect example of a regular respondent talking through his hat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like these stats are unreliable. This Pew study says that instead of 80% of American families not reading a book last year, 78% of respondents DID read a book in the previous year. And, unsurprisingly, college-educated people read more than high school graduates, not less.

Something else to add is that some fields require far more experience and training than others. So, if your job is to empty trash cans, you can probably become an expert in that in 1 day, while becoming an expert in brain surgery requires many years. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Lest we forget: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A recent survey has revealed that half of college graduates can't read, half can't write, and the other three quarters can't do arithmetic. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Tevildo, that wouldn't surprise me with the commoditization of "diploma mills", but do you have a link for this? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe re-read what he wrote. Particularly the last phrase. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The word "other" is key. Without it, it's a logical statement. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, maaattthhh. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Or . . . 50% of the time it works . . . Everytime! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A little girl was crying, all by herself in a far corner of the school playground. A teacher saw her and came over. "What's the matter, Mary?" - The others never want to play with me. "Oh, I see. So, when do they never want to play with you?" - Always! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Niiice!Nobody goes there anymore cause it's always crowded! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparative properties of common cooking fats (per 100g)

Hi there.. How can you compare the properties having (per 100g), if you don't have (per 100g each)in all examples? The title implies all examples would have 100g. Butter, Suet, and Vegetable shortening (hydrogenated) have less than 100 grams.

Regards,

Stan- 98.155.38.186 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a question about one of our articles? The tables at Cooking oil and Vegetable oil express the fat content of the various oils as a percentage, not as an amount per 100g. Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well by copy and pasting your title into Google the first hit I got was Comparative properties of common cooking fats (per 100g). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating! The answer to the OP's question is therefore that butter (etc), unlike most of the other items on the list, aren't 100% fat, but contain other components (mainly water and some protein for butter). However, most of the entries on the GourmetBlends list don't add up to 100%, so this may not be the only problem with their table. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well...that table seems to come from Lard in the first place. And that comes from the US Nutrient Database, and those numbers indeed are puzzling: where are the other grams of lipids? Each entry says, for example for soybean oil, 100g lipids, but then the lipid breakdown only adds up to 96.173g. The full reports add a little bit of other stuff, but there's still missing. (Regardless, that table doesn't need to be in Lard.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A-ha! It's explained at Template talk:Comparison of cooking fats. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For butter that has had most of it's non-fat (water and milk proteins) removed, see Ghee. --Jayron32 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)