Miscellaneous desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 2 >

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.

August 1[edit]

Double click vs single click[edit]

Would someone please advise how I can best explain to my 9 year old grandson and 84 years old mother-in-law; who it is that dictates when and why it is necessary to double-click certain icons and weblinks when at other times a single click will suffice, although there are no apparent guidelines available at the point of action, it being a question of trial and error. And for my own erudition, is there a technical necessity for one procedure against the other?. Or is this just a geek thing that mere mortals such as myself are not permitted to understand? And will it ever transpire that an industry-wide protocol might emerge that standardises single or double clicking as the consistent norm? Thanks. Dinosaur.92.10.74.204 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a non-expert, just an end-user: The purpose of single clicking is to highlight an icon without opening its contents. Single-clicking is used for hyperlinks because you don't need to highlight them. Single-clicks generaly turn the mouse pointer into a pointing hand. It's possible to set icons to open on single click; what's your operating system? Vimescarrot (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Windows - that's true. The history of this is rather contorted. The first computer to come with a mouse was the Mac (well - actually, the "Lisa" - which was it's immediate and short-lived predecessor). Apple insisted on shipping it with a single-button mouse (on the grounds that if it only has one button - you can't press the wrong button!) - that meant that if there was more than one reason to point at something and click on it, you had to use single, double - and sometimes triple - clicks to identify which of the things you needed to do. This winds up being pretty stupid - sure, with only one button you can't click the wrong button - but you can certainly click that one button the wrong number of times. Apple later added shift-click, ctrl-click and apple-button-click - and double-clicked versions of that. Now, that decision became kinda 'ingrained' into the psyche of people writing point-n-click user interfaces. Microsoft decided (in their inimitable way) to make matters even worse by having mice with ever increasing numbers of buttons - AND having single and double-clicks AND ctrl/alt/meta clicks. But this is not true of all operating systems - X-window based systems such as Linux and BSD Unix originally made do with only single-clicks and only two button mice. But that too is slipping and ctrl/alt/shift clicks are getting more common in complex software packages. I recall that on the old SunOS operating system, when selecting text, one click selected a letter, two selected a word, three an entire line or sentence and a gargantuan, knuckle-busting quadruple-click would grab an entire paragraph. SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"which was it is immediate and short-lived predecessor" - (rolls eyes at SB's eccentric version of English) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in most browsers in Windows double clicking selects a word, and triple clicking selects a paragraph (quad clicking resets or something similar) Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X has used three-button mice and modifier-clicks at least since the early 1990s when I first used it, and probably from the beginning. The Xerox Alto had a three-button mouse in the 1970s (see this gallery). Lots of old X apps expect a third button and won't work without it. X on PC clones had to get by with two buttons because that's all the Microsoft Mouse had. -- BenRG (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web links are always single-clicked. It annoys me to no end watching people double-click on web pages. --Nricardo (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a browser, you won't have to double-click. Double-clicking is reserved almost exclusively for windows explorer and other areas that are directly a part of windows. opening icons, files, and folders is double-click.

In WinXP you can change a mouse setting so that you only have to single click. I hate double-clicking, its seems like some nerdy idiosyncracy of Mr. Gates that has become frozen into operating systems. I hate computer mice too, but there seems to be no affordable alternative. 78.147.244.14 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

goin mad[edit]

Can you just go completely raving mad overnight, or do you work up to it over some time. i am not mad, just interested if it could happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.68.48 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but there would most likely be a pre-existing condition and a trigger event. A deeply traumatic experience will cause PTSD and other conditions to otherwise perfectly healthy people though. Some conditions related to bi-polar disorders do not manifest until the person is in their twenties, but likely not overnight. But will someone just one day wake up and become a lunatic, no, likely not. Taggart.BBS (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can to go mad overnight. Just go and do something you would never normally do, buy that round the world ticket, buy those expensive shoes, get drunk and have sex with a complete stranger, or some other "insane" thing. As for the medical condition, Taggart's answer above seems to cover the main points. Astronaut (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the above and say yes you can. See the above PTSD, Fugue state, Psychosis. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a brain tumor reaching a threshhold point of some kind, and maybe various other kinds of head trauma, might trigger "madness" or at least significant alteration in behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a medical condition is necessary, I guess it depends on the character of a person, the psychological side (I know people will argue that the psychological side is dependent on the physical side). If you are one with a history of excessive emotional responses, rapid mood swings and the like, I suppose one can't rule it out that you could just plain freak out when something breaks, when you reach a tipping point. IMHO. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worthless non-expert impression, but I think that some drugs (e.g. hallucinogens) and some techniques of inquisitors, interrogators and torturers can induce psychosis, hallucinations and other severe mental distortions rather quickly. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding drugs and suchlike there normally is some signs that people can point out afterwards, but it is perfectly possible for a person to be considered to be okay one day and to be talking to parking meters the next. Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of activity has the original questioner found to bring one proximal to madness? Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing wikipedia could do it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were still thinking? Obviously the treatment hasn't lasted long enough. (Rx: unblock this user for another two months.) ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible to go mad in the middle of a walrus Juliankaufman (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining worthless currency[edit]

I was reading some articles on hyperinflation and wondered a couple things. First of all, what happens to all the worthless money when it's replaced? Is it just thrown away, or is it sitting somewhere? If so, how would I go about obtaining some (I live in the US)? I think having a few million old Zimbabwean dollars would be cool. Z S 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The currency quite literally isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Generally, worthless currency usually becomes kindling or asswipe or housing insulation or some other marginally useful product, since you can't actuall spend it. You can buy the stuff on ebay. (I tried to print a link here, but the spam filter kicked it back). Do a search for "Zimbabwe $100 trillion" and there are dozens of sellers of the stuff. The going rate seems to be about one dollar per bill, that is usually sets of ten bills for ten bucks, which seems to me to be MUCH more than the stuff would be worth in spending cash in Zimbabwe. But if you got ten bucks to spend and want to have a unique collectors item, ebay has it for you! --Jayron32 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. eBay has a "$100 trillion Zimbabwean dollar note" starting at GBP 3.00. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Back in 2001, I was given a 10,000,000 Turkish Lira by a Turkish friend of mine. And the guy I sat next to at work last year, had a friend who worked in the company's Johannesburg office (or maybe the Harare office). He was constantly reminding this friend to send him a promised 10,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars note. By the time the friend eventually got around to it, I think he sent a Z$ 10,000,000,000 note instead! As to getting such large denomination notes, I think you would need a friend who is there. Alternatively try eBay. Astronaut (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps are also interesting from hyperinflationary periods - I've got some from 1924 Germany, which had to be overstamped twice before they made it to people (to up the price/value). They're collectible since they're "special". I'm sure you can find them online. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 08:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that such currency might have some value as a collectible, but that's about it. Confederate money would be a good example. So would razzbuckniks, if you can find any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to one of the other question, the German government burned (supposedly) all the old currency. Of course, some survived, but the idea was to ensure no-one continued to use the old currency; in order for the new one to work, there had to be no alternative. I don't know exactly how they got hold of the currency, but I'm guessing they were swapped at banks, like with other currency changes. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 08:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would people use worthless currency? Was the danger that someone might be fool enough to accept an old zillion-mark note as if it were worth a zillion new marks? —Tamfang (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jayron isn't being rhetorical with his comments above; see this Freakonomics bit on how far the Zim dollar fell. — Lomn 12:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When my aunt was a girl, in the 1930s, she collected stamps from around the world. She had a couple of German stamps issued by the Weimar government. They had overstamped the value of the stamps, so that old 4 Mark stamps would now read 4,000,000 Marks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago I was in Romania after they'd transitioned from the old Lei to the new Lei (just knocked 4 zero's off), and both notes were in circulation. So I'd pay for something that cost 15RON with, maybe, a 5RON bill and a 100,000ROL bill. That made getting change a lot of fun. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a 1 Zim$ coin from before the plunge. Pretty cool actually, even if it is only worth as much as the aluminum it is made with. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese/Large Cat Cross[edit]

Hi Guys,

Is it possible for someone to breed a burmese with an other large cat, Something like a Maine Coon or a Norweigan Forest cat? I'm not currently aware of any breeds which combine the Burmese Affection for humans and just the large size.

Any Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.138.157 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All domestic house cats are members of the same species; Felis catus and are fully able to interbreed. Unlike dogs, where physical size difference may prevent successful mating and/or gestation, cats are all roughly the same size; that is the really big ones aren't 20 times the size of the really little ones like dogs. So there is no real barrier to mating a Burmese with a Maine Coon. I am not sure, however, what traits you will get. You may end up with a large, hairy, friendly cat; but you could also end up with one that has all of the Maine Coon's surliness and none of the Burmese's affection. But yeah, there is no actual barrier to mixing those two breeds. --Jayron32 14:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly when you cross two kinds of animal, you might get the best of the two original animals - but you might also get the worst. But it may be more complicated than that:

Perhaps, the reason that the smaller cat is more affectionate is that it is in greater need of you (as a VERY large animal) to support them. The larger animal, being less needy of help might be surly as a result. That's just an example - but there could be any number of other genetic connections that might completely prevent you ever getting a large-but-friendly cat by simple inter-breeding.
Perhaps the gene for "largeness" and the gene for "surliness" could end up being the exact same gene.
It's also possible that the genetics of "largeness" and "friendliness" are both very complicated interactions of hundreds of genes. That would perhaps result in a merely medium-sized cat that's only moderately friendly...or it might result in there being only a vanishingly small probability of the offspring having all of the friendliness genes - so you could wind up with a bunch of small, unfriendly cats - and never get anything else!

The bottom line is that it might be possible - or it might be impossible. Unless you could find someone who'd actually succeeded already - we really have no way to know without doing either a lot of hit-and-miss breeding efforts or a truly insanely difficult scientific study that would likely cost far more than it's results could ever warrant. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw steak on a Black Eye[edit]

How did this remedy get started? I can't find any info about it other than it doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.3.244 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw steak from the fridge is cold and flexible, so it will tend to keep the swelling down like an icepack. Similar home remedies involve using a bag of frozen peas or frozen corn. My understanding anyways. --Jayron32 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And given that the current remedy is a cold pack, I don't think a cold, raw steak is really the worst thing you could use in a pre-cold pack era. It maintains its temperature fairly well. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And once it thaws you can heat-and-it. Not recommended for a modern cold-pack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using raw steak started long before fridges,I can remember it being mentioned by Dickens.The blood supposedly "drew" the blood out which sounds like sympathetic magic to me,...hotclaws 01:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been right for the wrong reason. It's been known to happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovy Ducks[edit]

any ideas about the muscovy ducks, my daughter wants one for a pet. do people actually have these types of pets? any info on how to take care of the baby ones? User:Jaimeandjustin

Note - this was entered into article space in error - transferred here Exxolon (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Muscovy duck. If you have sufficient space they make a tolerable pet. If you search the web there is plenty of information on caring for young ducks.86.4.181.14 (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should get a book on keeping ducks. A single duck won't be happy. --Sean 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General examinations for wannabe grads[edit]

Besides the GRE, what general (not only for law or medicine) examinations are there for graduates? --Quest09 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - we have a list! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound and Laptop[edit]

When I plug in the headphones the sound continues to come out of the speakers and not through the headsets? Do I have the settings incorrect or is it my soundcard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.244.184 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a faulty headphone socket or faulty headphones. When the circuit is completed by plugging in your headphones your speakers should cut out and the headphones produce sound. Exxolon (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the type of headphones, there might be other reasons. I use USB headphones which have a rather temperamental relationship with some software. Algebraist 20:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question sounds familiar somehow (yes, it's a continuation of "headphones in Laptop" from July 31. Try the headphones with another device. Then you'll know if it's the headphones or the device that's malfunctioning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using USB headphones, you may find that the software you currently have running and playing sounds will start to do so through the headphones if you exit and restart the application in question. That's how it works with my headphones, although I'm not quite sure why. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]