Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 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 23

No Edit Button

I can't see the edit button in any of the sections in this page, with the result that I'm unable to add comments to a question I posed earlier. Please help! Is something wrong with my net connection, or browser? I use Google Chrome. 223.177.184.50 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That happens every so often for reasons that are not clear. The easiest way to fix it seems to be by purging the page cache -- you can do it by clicking this link. Looie496 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can do what (following others' previous advice) I've just had to (facing the exact same problem, as happens not infrequently) in order to add this comment! Go right up to the top of the page (of the Refdesk you're on), and you may see that the tab that should say 'Edit' instead says 'View Source'. Click it, click your cursor anywhere in the edit box (no actual edit is necessary), then scroll down and click 'Save Page'. This usually (for me at any rate) returns me to the current version of the RefDesk with all the section edit links. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just do a Cntrl-F5 to refresh the page. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't usually solve this problem for me, as it didn't just now - I just had to go through the routine I described above to add this comment! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can usually fix it by going to the 'history' tab, clicking the most recent version (the top version) on that page, and then the 'edit' buttons are there in that version. 86.164.65.192 (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Insurance question: Proof of theft?

I recently submitted a compensation claim to my insurance company because of the theft of my camera in June. But this got me thinking: While I can supply proof that the camera existed, and belonged to me, is it in any way possible to prove it was stolen? Will the insurance company accept simply that I say so on the claim and write a description of the event? What's stopping someone from falsely reporting something as stolen? JIP | Talk 09:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience you need to have reported such a theft to police, and be able to give the insurance company a copy of the police report. You can lie to the police too of course, but it's generally regarded as less likely. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I reported the theft to the Swedish police only half an hour after it had happened, and the police sent me a copy of the report, which I sent to the insurance company. The report is in Swedish and spells my first name wrong, because I reported the theft on the phone and the police heard my name wrong, but I guess the insurance company won't have a problem with that, because the report does contain my correct contact information. JIP | Talk 09:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They usually reserve the right to conduct Insurance Investigations, but I can't imagine that would be worth their time and effort for anything small like a camera.

In theory if they did do an investigation and discovered evidence that you were making it up you could be in serious trouble. APL (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, it is not "small", it is a complete DSLR camera system that cost me almost 650 € when I first bought it in April 2009. I would never make such things up, but I guess discussion of this is irrelevant here on Wikipedia. I have had insurance from this company since June 2010, and this is my second compensation claim. My first one was for covering the charges for hospital care and physiotherapy when I broke my left hip and my left shoulder in the village of Tulppio, in Savukoski, Lapland (Finland). The insurance company covered the charges but did not cover the loss of income that resulted from three months of sick leave. JIP | Talk 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fraud. Anyway, they can investigate suspicious patterns, like having cameras regularly stolen, or submitting other compensation claims soon after insuring something. Keep in mind too that sometimes you already paid for the camera when the insurance paid it back to you and that the insurance company only wants to know if as a group, it's worth insuring people. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you already paid for the camera when the insurance paid it back to you"? JIP | Talk 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Both filing a false police report and insurance fraud are serious crimes which can involve prison terms, so most people won't risk that. Also note that those who file multiple claims may have future insurance rates go up. The thefts may be fraud, or you may just be careless and leave things unguarded, or may have thieves for friends and family, but the insurance company doesn't care, they need more money to continue to insure you. StuRat (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Insurance companies, in my experience, work "backward" from what you might think. For example, during a terrible thunderstorm, a tree fell on top of my friend's house, making it unlivable in the short term. I contacted a local hotel manager who I was acquainted with, and was able to get my friend a "deep discount" on a temporary hotel room until their roof could be repaired. BUT, when the insurance people got involved, they insisted the manager charge the FULL price for the entire length of the hotel stay, otherwise they would not reimburse my friend (their client) for the expense. And we wonder why our insurance premiums (in the U.S. at least) are so high. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So the insurance company said the would only reimburse the cost of the hotel room if it was full price, not a discount? JIP | Talk 06:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be more likely that they'd reimburse up to a certain amount per day, and, if your hotel room was more than that, you'd be stuck with paying the rest out of pocket. I suspect the number of days they would reimburse would be limited, too. StuRat (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

providing insight

How do I contribute in a simplified manner with being involved in the technical aspects of citeing sources and such. thus leaving the considerations and expertise to those who take into consideration the use of what is stated and decide how to apply it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglobally (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Something we never have enough of is editors with a good grasp of grammar and spelling, who can use their skills to review articles and fix the things that obviously need fixing, without any need to get into fact checking etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP had several errors in their post ("with" -> "without", "citeing" -> "citing", "." -> ","), used "consideration" redundantly, and I had to read it a few times to understand what it meant. And, if even I find errors, God help you when the "grammar police" arrive on the scene. So, perhaps this isn't the best choice. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the disruptive reference to myself above. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit comments on talk pages to change their meaning. But, since you object, I will leave the reference to you out. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you StuRat for that consideration. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We all amke mitskaes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One nice thing to do is to add links to other articles. Do this by adding double square brackets around words, where that word leads to another Wikipedia article. You do have to check that the article is correct, though, and not something else with the same name, but a different meaning. In some cases, you need to add a fancier link like "Bush's policies led to...". (There the link is written as [[George W. Bush|Bush]]'s.) Of course, only provide links for terms which might need further explanation, not for every other word in each sentence. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

name for the yellow on heavy equipment?

not sure, but I don't think it's high visibility yellow, which i think is fluoro yellow, and a more recent development - it's the utilitarian joyless yellow that's almost universal on earth moving machinery - is there a name for it?

thanks, Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

JCB yellow 87.113.56.103 (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Something is said about it here: http://www.jcbexplore.com/content/info_zone/ask_the_experts/ scroll down. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The fluorescent paint is sometimes called "safety yellow", but sometimes non-fluorescent bright yellow gets called that too. 87.113.56.103 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what brand the tractor is. If its a Caterpillar then its Caterpillar yellow (Caterpillar yellow is probably the one you're thinking of, its like a very light mustard yellow type color, and Caterpillar makes some of the largest tractors know to man), or if its a John Deere its John Deere yellow, and so on. Sumsum2010·T·C 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't John Deere machinery mostly green? As far as I can remember... --Ouro (blah blah) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Their agricultural department is usually green, the construction department is mostly yellow. Sumsum2010·T·C 15:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could it be what is officially called school bus yellow? — Michael J 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I just mostly saw their agricultural machinery then. --Ouro (blah blah) 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just spoken to a friend who is a service engineer for Clancy Docwra, a major UK construction company. All their plant is green and red[1]. CAT and JCB equipment is generally yellow unless requested otherwise, Hitachi favour orange[2]. In the UK there's no legal requirement for a particular colour but you do need a flashing beacon on the roof of the cab. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone; as for School Bus Yellow, i certainly know what you mean, but i'm pretty sure that's not a universal term - job yellow sounded plausible, but there aren't any hits on google. I imagine safety yellow is the most credible candidate... Adambrowne666 (talk)

This page suggests "CAT yellow", "highway yellow" or "Hi-way yellow". this page has more detail. Alansplodge (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again - yes, that's a good list; was also interested to learn, from the link above, that Cat were the first to use yellow.... Adambrowne666 (talk)

Camera, only for pictures for the Web

Click the image 3 times in succession for this image's max zoom.

If you only want to make pictures for the Web, I suppose there is an upper quality threshold for the quality of the camera, that even if surpassed, it won't matter, since the screen cannot depict any quality of pictures. Am I right about that? If yes, what is the upper quality that I need from a camera? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason that's incorrect is that some pictures are big and some are small; and what about zooming in? Most monitors still display 72 dots per inch, so you can use that figure to work out the answer to your desired resolution based on the sizes of the images you're thinking about. On Wikipedia, though, for example, most images are of much higher resolution than you see in the article thumbnails. This mandrill over to the right is supposed to be 200 pixels across, but even if you only wanted to capture images that displayed at that size on the web, it would be silly to buy a camera that captures only 200-pixel-wide images for two reasons: (a) zooming in is nice; and (b) images with higher fidelity may be able to enjoy a higher quality look when they get shrunk to 200 pixels via software whose rescaling algorithm is nice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above about the number of pixels. As for colors, I'd say you want 24-bit color. There are some monitors that provide 32-bit color, but that seems excessive, to me. 24-bit provides for 256 gradients of red, green, and blue, which together provide almost 16.8 million colors. I can't believe anyone can tell two of those adjacent colors apart. 32-bit color increases that to 4.3 billion colors, or 1625 gradients of each primary color. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No monitor has 32 bit color I've ever heard of (32 can't be divided by 3 BTW). Some may have 30 bit, 36 bit or 48 bit however. I think you're getting confused with the 32 bit display option of many video cards/drivers which is 24 bit colour with 8 bit alpha channel (i.e. 8 bit per channel) Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mine has "Color quality" options of 16-bit and 32-bit. By alpha channel, do you mean 8 bits are used for 256 gradients of transparency ? If so, is this also the case for 16-bit color, with only 8 bits used for actual colors (256 total colors). StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes 256 gradients of transparency. AFAIK in a modern system 16 bit usually means 4 bit for each channel including alpha or 12 bit colour, see Color depth#16-bit direct color. However, sometimes it may really be 16 bit colour with one channel probably the green being given an extra bit (see High color and List of monochrome and RGB palettes). Alternative 16 bit may actually be 15 bit with the extra bit unused or used for something else which could be a single bit alpha channel or could be something else completely (this can be true for 32 bit as well but I think most systems would properly list it as 30 bit and since very few displays support more then 8 bit per channel if that, you can be fairly sure 32 bit means 24 bit with 8 bit alpha) Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Any camera on the market is fine, megapixel-wise, for "web size" images. You should buy based on subjective image quality and whatever other features matter to you (size and weight, battery life, macro and telephoto, low-light performance, red-eye avoidance...). You can find reviews and sample images for many cameras at sites like dpreview.com.

But this is an interesting question in the abstract. Typical computer monitor resolutions range from 800×600 to maybe 1920×1080, giving a range of 0.5 to 2 million RGB pixels. However, each of those pixels includes all three colors, whereas camera advertising counts each color separately, so that's 1.5 to 6 megapixels in camera terms. Cheap camera sensors tend to be very noisy, and the camera makers work around this with software noise reduction, which reduces the spatial resolution somewhat. The fact that the same pixels that are used for brightness also encode color information reduces the spatial resolution as well, but presumably by about the same factor for both camera and display, so it can be ignored. Putting this together, one could argue that a large computer display has a resolution comparable to a point-and-shoot camera of 10 megapixels or more. For a 640×480 image, 2 megapixels is plenty. -- BenRG (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And then there's the issue of the scam digital zoom, which basically amounts to just cropping off the rest of the image. So, if you intend to use a 10x digital zoom, if that means zooming in to 1/10th the width and 1/10th the height (versus 1/10th the area), you'd need 100X the resolution, or 600 megapixels, in the worst case. Good luck finding that ! Go with optical zoom instead. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

US food label confusion

In the US, food ingredients must be listed in order of descending quantity. My chocolate bar says it contains 65% cacao, and lists the ingredients like so:

DARK CHOCOLATE (SUGAR, CHOCOLATE, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLIN).

So, does this mean both chocolate and cocoa butter contain cacao, and together they total 65% ? Even then, it would have to be almost exactly 1/3 sugar, 1/3 chocolate, and 1/3 coca butter, with both chocolate and cocoa butter being almost 100% cacao, for the numbers to work. Or is there some difference between percentage by volume and weight that's confusing matters ? StuRat (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The cacao percentage is of the total amount of the weight that is devoted both to cacao fats (cocoa butter) and cacao solids in the chocolate. So the answer is "both". This article has a nice breakdown of what goes into those numbers. Cocoa butter and the chocolate ingredient probably are almost pure cacao — the "chocolate" is probably cacao solids and the butter are cacao fats. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) %'s are usually by weight. As far as what 65% cacao means, this page should explain it. The cocoa butter is counted in the cacao percent, so your bar could be something like 35% sugar, 33% cocoa solids and 32% cocoa butter. That would give you the 65%. The other two ingredients likely make up less than 1% of the total weight, since neither needs to be present in large amount to do their job. Soy lecithin is an emulsifier and its job is to keep the fat soluble parts and water soluble parts from seperating. Vanillin is the pure form of the primary flavor compound in vanila, and is likely there to take some of the bitter "edge" off of the chocolate. --Jayron32 16:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why tax returns are necessary?

Why are tax payers in most countries required to file tax returns. Why cant the governments figure out the information themselves without bothering for information declarations from individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmus estavius (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all payments are automatically reported to the tax authorities. Only legal employment and interest paid on savings within the country get reported by those making the payments. Tax payers are expected to be honest in declaring income from all sources, including overseas. The tax authority doesn't have time to do extensive investigations for all tax-payers, but might do so if dishonesty is suspected. (Mileage may vary by country.) Dbfirs 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A government can calculate one's tax if banks, employers, insurance companies, stockbrokers, etc. are all required by law to report your dealings with them. That is the case in Norway where the tax authority sends you what they think will be your tax calculation. Norwegians signal that they agree with the information simply by not filing any return, and that is legal to do. However the government cannot keep track of such things as money you receive from abroad or your profits from selling things, so one is required to file information if these represent significant amounts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a valid question, especially since some countries don't require this (New Zealand is one, I believe). To me, the question comes down to whether the annoyance, time, effort, and money spent on filing tax returns justifies the possible increased precision it allows, versus just having the government keep the with-holding taxes. Governments with excessively complex taxes seem to need such forms, and, indeed, such forms may result in overly complex taxes, which would not work without them. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also the question of deductions. Even if the government theoretically knew all your income from all possible sources down to the last cent, they wouldn't know what you can validly claim as rebates and deductions, depending on how the tax system operates. Some countries automatically allow a certain deduction for certain types of expenses, which is built in to the tax rates, and you only need claim (and are only able to claim) if your actual expenses exceed that threshold, and then only for the amount by which your expenses exceed the threshold. Australia does this with health-related expenses, for example (including medical, hospital, dental, mental health, physio, podiatry, optical, chiropractic, and all other forms of allied health expenses). To be able to claim, you have to have receipts, and you have to submit a tax return. But we have to submit one anyway, unless our income is below a certain figure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, deductions fall into the "unnecessary complexity" category, IMHO. They could just charge a lower rate and drop the deductions, for example. Or, they could base the withholding on the deductions, and still skip the return. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But StuRat, how would people with legions of accountants and lawyers be able to get away with paying nothing or almost nothing without their cherished deductions? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading a few months back that the United States wanted to move to a system where all of the income reports (e.g. W-2s, 1099s) would be available electronically from the IRS at the time of your submission, so you would know exactly what had been reported and wouldn't need to reenter it. You'd still have to enter any income not otherwise reported, as well as various deductions, etc., but it would be a step up from today. 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In the UK most people are on Pay as you earn and don't fill in a detailed form. People whose finances are more complicated do have to submit a self-declaration. That all seems to work OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this. It gives you a choice, if you make a small charitable donation which is not covered by Gift Aidor have a small expense you can claim a deduction or you might decide that for the amount you get back its not worth the effort. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tax returns are needed in the US at least, largely because there is a lot of vested interest (from accounting and law firms mostly) to make taxes as complicated as possible to ensure the revenue stream for those companies who have strong government lobby groups. Googlemeister (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Filling out a 1040EZ form involves copying two numbers from your W2. Looking one number up in a table. And then performing a subtraction and writing down the result. Besides that, all you have to fill in is your name and address, and IIRC they send you one with that part already filled in. You can be done in five minutes.

Granted, if your situation is more complicated, you may be able to save money by filling out the longer form, but for a lot of people it isn't. APL (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comfy Cat

It is routinely above 105 during the day here in Texas. What temperature should I set my air conditioning at to keep my cat safe and comfortable. I have been setting it at 83, but that is getting expensive. Would 85 or even 90 be okay? Schyler (one language) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a question for your vet. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Most books and stuff talk about making sure that your cat has plenty of water and shade during hot weather, but not a maximum temperature they can handle. Most sources agree that cats are comfortable at warmer temperatures than humans are.

I'm not vet, but this actually makes sense to me, considering where they came from. If they can live wild in the African Savanna and the Middle East, then they're probably pretty comfortable in an air conditioned Texas home. APL (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I notice that many websites (example:[3]) say that cats with breathing problems are unusually susceptible to heat stroke. If that describes your cat, you should probably ask your vet about where to set your A/C. APL (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been in the mid to high 90s here in VT for the last few days. We have no air conditioning and have been able to keep the house in the mid 80s by keeping the drapes and windows closed. One of our cats is allowed outside and the heat hasn't stopped her from wanting to be outside or staying outside all day when she has the option to come inside. Asking your vet about your specific situation is probably best though. Dismas|^(talk) 01:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cats are experts at finding the coolest and warmest spots in the house, when appropriate, for their naps. Therefore, you don't have to cool the entire house, but just a spot big enough for your cat. If you don't have a window A/C unit, which would allow you to only cool a single room, you might consider getting one. This could be far cheaper than cooling the entire house all day. Leave the door propped open just enough so the cat can get out to it's food, water, and litter box, or you could even put those all into that room. The smallest room with a window would be a good choice, say a bathroom. Or, if you have a basement, that's probably already cooler, so only minimal A/C would be needed there. (And, if your central air ever dies, I bet you will appreciate having the window unit as a back-up, until the main unit can be repaired.) StuRat (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the genealogical explanation APL has given. I will take it into consideration and test the increase in my cat's water intake with the increase in A/C temperature. Thanks all for your help. Schyler (one language) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved