Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 10

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.

April 10

Course Management Software use in high schools

What percentage of high schools use course management software?

Any help on this is greatly appreciated. I'm having significant difficulty locating any data on this topic. Vendors such as Blackboard and Edline tend to keep a tight hold on their data, while open source projects like Moodle provide inflated values. Does anyone have any keen ideas on where to find information on this topic? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.69 (talk • contribs)

this article suggests one in five college/university courses used course management software, and about 80% were provided with the software.

As for High School: it'll probably be difficult to get specific numbers on course management software because it's pretty narrowly defined (and kinda obscure), and if blackboard doesn't want the information out, it'll be pretty hard. If you broaden your question to technology in the classroom you'll probably have more success, albeit less meaningful. This article suggests "about half of U.S. teachers use technology in classroom instruction." And This article notes that 40% of teachers don't use technology at all. While not related to your question, this article had some very interesting numbers.--Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 03:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too close to the issue, professionally speaking, but I don't think the question is too narrowly defined at all. I would agree, though, that statistics may be difficult to compile or obtain, for two reasons:

1. As a public school teacher, I can assure you that neither the state nor the federal government have been gathering data on this subject, and

2. What counts as "course management software" is both pretty broad and often hard to pin down. For example, | First Class has many of the qualities of a course management software, and it's being touted by those selling (and buying) it as addressing most of the course management needs of a district, but it isn't technically course management by many standards. Plenty of districts use it; do we count it, or not? And the Massachusetts DOE provides | MassOne, which is pretty much a course management web-based system, albeit not "software", is provided free of charge to all teachers and students in the state; though anecdotally I can report that only a small handful of teachers are using it as if it were course management potential, many more use it for virtual storage and professional development -- does this count? Should it? Jfarber 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

yes

I was just watching the movie Jesus Camp, and noticed something a bit strange. Many of the children (and some of the adults) have extremely dilated pupils, like they were on MDMA or something like that. One of my friends recently became a born again christian, and I noticed the same thing happening to him... huge dilated pupils. When people feel this way, I'm thinking it must be the body releasing endorphins that make them feel that way, which allows them to feel like jesus is inside of them, and that leads to the dilated pupils. Has anyone else noticed this, or have any thoughts on it? 128.61.52.213 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This question (worded exactly the same) was asked on the Science ref desk 2 days ago. JackofOz 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Girls Gone Wild - Producer Going to Jail

Just heard on FOX News that the producer will surrender to US Marshals real shortly. Question: Can that be placed in that article ? Martial Law 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, does it fit? I'd say from a quick glance that it doesn't and isn't relevant. It's not big enough to deserve a sub-category like Katrina has, and at the same time it isn't relevant enough to be put in as another line. However, my opinion isn't the only one here; possibly asking this question on the article talk page would get a more relevant and focused response. JoshHolloway 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

aids

okay its like this me n my galfriend dont actully hve sex.is it posible thet her vagina is too small or sumthin.we have heard sex only once she is 19 and has never had sex with another person. 2.instead she stimulates her clitoris with the head of my cock.can i get an std thru this method.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.92.68 (talk • contribs)

See Sexually transmitted disease. The short answer is that it is possible for STDs to be transmitted in such a manner, due to contact with bodily fluids. It is also possible to contract some STDs without sexual contact, and those could then be passed from one partner to another during unprotected sex. Often, a person can carry and transmit an STD before symptoms develop. This means that even if you both honestly believe you are STD-free, you could still infect (or be infected by) your partner if you practice unsafe sex. 152.16.63.230 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The other short answer is Wikipedia does not give medical advice. jnestorius^(talk) 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Man skrew you..hes not asking you to diagnose aids or anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.53.181.63 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Don't be an ass, 209. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the proper term is "dick". V-Man - ^T/_C 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Is there anyway to view deleted articles? DBZROCKS 12:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you are an admin. That's kind of the point of deleting them. Questions such as this are aimed at the help Desk, by the way. Adrian M. H. 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article was deleted as libel aginst a living person or unless there are other legal obstacles or violations of Wikipedia policies, usually an administrator will copy a deleted article to a subpage of your userpage on request. You might ask any admin for this service. One reason would be to improve a deleted article by adding good references which satisfy WP:ATT or to rewrite it to eliminate excessive point of view statements, or to create a new version which is not copied and pasted from a publication or website violating copyright protection. Even if the subject was way too trivial for Wikipedia, a user might wish to adapt it for some other wiki. Edison 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

how many cookbooks are published in a year

How many cookbooks are published in the United States every year? Regards, MPCookbook

<

You already asked this! Look up. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Storage of Millings/Grindings

I am finding out ways for the government to be more efficient in repaving highways. One of the costs that I can not find anywhere is how much it costs to store all of the millings or grindings that there tear up off the road they are repaving. I know this is an abstract question, but I can not find the information anywhere.

To explain a little further, when aphalt is being ripped up, they save what they rip up and it is called millings/grindings, and re-use ut as subbase. They have to store these millions of tons of millings/grindings somewhere, and I am trying to find the cost associated with this storage.

Any help is appreciated!! Thanks

64.222.191.58 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst not millings storage this...(http://www.fao.org/docrep/U8770E/U8770E08.htm) may help. I suspect that storage is minimized wherever possible at is often an expensive (not to mention unprofitable) part of the business. Hope this helps, if not fully answers the question. ny156uk 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the cost of storing, such as rental for the land, fencing and access roads, environmental permits, record keeping, administration, watchman to make sure no one steals it or dumps other trash onsite. Then there is the cost of transporting it to/from the storage site. State highway authorities doubtless have this info in files, and it might be public records, but they may be less than helpful since they might assume you are looking for scandals and corruption, sweetheart land deals, payroll padding, illicit sales of the material, etc. There are probably specialized books on highway engineering and magazines which might have specialized articles with relevant information. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads which includes dozens of Wikipedians who are very interested in roads. While the project is devoted to creating and improving articles about all roads in the U.S., you might find some member there who had access to the info you seek. Edison 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

passport

what was the number of passports issued in 2003 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.97.83.193 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

In what country? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

question

1.plse help me get this quote'girls and college..thats their monday night football' av googled it nuthin cums up.only clue i have is that she is a jewish celeb. 2.who helped michael jackson fight drug addiction.they met during a dinner party.on researchin i got elton john.but am not sure.please answering this questions will be of great great great help.thanks

I have a vague recollection that this might be Elizabeth Taylor, but am not free to confirm this at present. Just a suggestion; hope that helps. (sorry; I'd misunderstood the question) -- Deborahjay 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

External shock

What is an external shock? Speaking in economic terms.

An External Shock is an unexpected outside influence on an economy. For instance this article Economic shock of Tsunami discusses the economic shock that was the result of the giant Tsunami that occured in the Indian ocean in 2004. -Czmtzc 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And external shocks can come from the economies of other nations. For example, the Great Depression, precipitated by a 1929 US stock market crash, also caused economic crises in other nations. StuRat 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stevia

Hi I read the article about Stevia on Wikipedia and it mentioned that the FDA only approved it as a diet supplement not an actual food additive. I am a bit confused by this. Does that mean if you wanted to make a cookie for example and sell it in the mass market and you wanted to use Stevia instead of sugar that you could do that if it was marked as a diet cookie or you can't do that? How does that work precisely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.225.24 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

According to the Dietary supplement article, in the US a dietary supplement must be "intended for ingestion in pill, capsule, tablet, powder or liquid form", and "not represented for use as a conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or diet". So you couldn't sell cookies containing stevia, because cookies are food. You can only sell stevia as a powder or a pill. FiggyBee 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Since my response includes speculation, I've included it here: [1]. StuRat 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Folding@Home

Can anyone discern any value or meaning of the folding@home application on the PS3. Also how are you meant to "play" it? And what element is in the corner of the screen? And why is it jiggling?!

It is not a game to be played, it is a distributed computing application; processor cycles that would otherwise be unused are employed so that your PS3 or home computer essentially becomes part of a large supercomputer. There is a section about the client on the PS3 within the Folding@home article. Can't help with the jiggling thing, sorry. --LarryMac 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'folding' part relates to a complicated mathematical problem of calculating how the shape of a protein is determined by it's chemical composition. In medicine (or biological systems in general), how a protein works is determined more by it's three dimensional shape (how the molecule is "folded") than by it's strict composition. If we understood how to make a protein with some particular shape just by choosing the right chemical formula then we would have a much better handle on how to cure a large range of diseases. The problem is that calculating the shape of a folded protein is a VASTLY complicated calculation that no computer on the planet could solve in any reasonable amount of time. So the plan is to use all of the spare time on computers that are sitting there in people's houses and on their desks but not doing any useful work to do the work. Ordinarily, you have to volunteer to donate your computer's spare time to doing this (it doesn't cost you anything because the software automatically shuts off as soon as you want to use the machine for something else). I presume that SONY pre-installed the 'folding@home' on PS3's as a generally useful thing for the world. Many other projects work the same way 'SETI@home' is another one where you donate your spare computer time to searching signals from radio telescopes for messages from alien civilisations. There are others you could potentially choose to donate to. So this is utterly harmless behavior - it shuts off as soon as you want to use your PS3 and it means that you can feel good about doing the world some good when you forget to turn off your PS3. SteveBaker 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a Religion become Officially Recognized?

How does a religion become officially recognized by the government of the United States? 206.188.56.88 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States government as official policy does not recognize religions. The closest thing they do is grant specific religious organizations (church bodies etc.) religious tax-exempt status. It is not very hard to get such status, no matter what your group's beliefs may be, so long as you financially adhere to the appropriate tax policies.--Pharos 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.S government certainly has recognized certain religions in preferance to others. For instance, the federal government will not approve a Wiccan symbol on the tombstone of a soldier killed in action in the Global War On Terror. A state government went ahead and allowed it in one case. See [2], [3] and [4]. The federal government does recognize 38 other images as "Approved Religions," including Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and several others while rejecting Wiccan symbols for the tombstones of dead soldiers. Edison 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a very particular circumstance, and has no significance outside of veteran's cemeteries. Those are not "approved religions", they're approved tombstone symbols. My understanding is that the objection was to the pentacle symbol, not Wicca. Which is not to say that the list of military tombstone symbols shouldn't be expanded (or indeed, that it shouldn't be done away with altogether). But for all legal purposes, Wicca organizations (and indeed, organizations of even smaller religious groups) have full equality as religious groups under American law.--Pharos 06:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax exemption is indeed the main practical respect in which religious organizations seek some kind of imprimatur from the U.S. government. See Scientology#Scientology as a state-recognized religion for an account of the long-running dispute between the Scientologists and the IRS on that score.

There are other issues, however:

• Universal Life Church#Controversy, criticism, lawsuits, and taxes refers to the ULC's dispute with the State of Utah over whether ULC-ordained ministers would be permitted to officiate at marriages.
• There are also issues arising from a claimed religious exemption from laws banning the use of peyote; see Peyote#USA. The problem in brief: If some people's religious beliefs call for the use of peyote, then prohibiting it arguably violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If the government exempts adherents of legitimate religious that use peyote, however, then what does it do when people hastily form new religions and claim that use of peyote (or LSD or heroin or whatever) is, in their view, commanded by God? I think that, as a matter of practice, there is some "official recognition" going on, so that laws can accommodate legitimate religious beliefs while not opening loopholes for scam artists. It's a troublesome area because a governmental decision that some religions are legitimate and some aren't is difficult to reconcile with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• Before the termination of Conscription in the United States in 1973, the U.S. government had to determine who was entitled to conscientious objector status. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) ([5]), that the test of a qualifying belief "is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption." I don't think the Selective Service System maintained a central list of "recognized" religions. CO applications were probably treated on a more case-by-case basis, probably with some inconsistent results in different parts of the country.

Is there a more specific context for your question? JamesMLane t c 09:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article about the specific section of the US Tax Code: 501(c)#501(c)(3).

Atlant 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Motor oil

Is it safe to burn motor oil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.125.242 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

You mean like when a little bit slips past the compression rings in your engine and combusts along with the vapourised petrol fumes that have been drawn into the combustion chamber ready for the combustion stroke?

I just mean if I take some motor oil and light it on fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.125.242 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Define "safe". It's probably not a good idea to inhale the fumes, or to set it alight somewhere where the fire could spread. FiggyBee 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about burning used motor oil as a means of disposal, please don't. It accumulates all sorts of nasty sludge that is quite unhealthy, if it enters the atmosphere as smoke or soot. You can probably turn it in at your local garage, which has a facility for storing it until it can be recycled. StuRat 03:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you are but here in the U.S. there are many auto parts stores that will take used motor oil in. They normally have a large drum in the back of the store that they pour it into and then have that recycled every few days/weeks. Dismas|^(talk) 09:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. (Weren't there ads in the back of Popular Science that used to tell you how you could convert your home heating system to burn used motor oil? Google will probably still find those kinds of ads.) As mentioned above, the biggest problem is probably the metallic particles from normal engine wear, but if your engine is in good shape and you're changing the oil frequently, there shouldn't be that much of that stuff. Burning it as fuel is certainly better than dumping it on the ground or down a drain, but may not be better than turning it in (although a lot of turned-in oil is then burned as fuel anyway, and you provided the fuel free).

Atlant 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it matters whether it's synthetic oil or 'dead dinosaur oil'? But anyway - engine oil has a deliberately high flash point (because engine fires are considered to be "A Very Bad Thing") - so it might be kinda hard to get it lit. Some of the additives they put into the stuff might easily be toxic if burned. Engine oil contains PTFE which (according to our article) produces combustion byproducts that are toxic to birds and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans. ZDDP is another nasty ingredient in oil that could maybe cause health risks if released as smoke into the air. Modern motor oils are stuffed full of all kinds of lubricants, pH balencers and corrosion inhibitors. I'm nervous about suggesting that you could burn it safely. Recycle the stuff - let the experts deal with it. SteveBaker 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Gas Guzzling SUV's

How high do gas prices have to go until GM and Ford stop producing these giant SUV's?

The big three are already feeling the burn of increased petroleum prices as of late. Seen any new Excursions lately? -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T23:33Z

They'll keep producing them until people stop buying them. FiggyBee 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that when prices are as high as they are in some parts of Europe ($6 to $8 per gallon versus $2 to $3 in the USA), people adapt their car buying habits accordingly. However, those prices are vastly higher than the price of oil justifies - the way they are kept that way is with a ton of taxation. People in the USA (at least) are strongly resistant to new and large taxes - a political party that ran for election on the ticket of reducing pollution and global warming by tripling the price of gasoline wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. SteveBaker 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I like FiggyBee's answer. It is short, to the point, and accurate. The car companies will answer the demmand of the market economy.

I am not sure about mattb's answer. Our article on the Ford Excursion states that there were other factors at work in terms of consumer preference. According to our article, Ford just needed the plant to churn out more giant pick-up trucks, which are not exactly fuel efficient. Also, the Lincoln Navigator cruises on. Therefore, I don't think fuel costs were the main reason for the demise of the Excursion.

As SteveBaker says, gas prices are much higher in Europe than the US as a result of high taxation.

However, It is fair to question how much impact even $6 or $8 a gallon prices would have on the US demmand for these vehicles. Let's do a little simple math:

Let's assume a family drives their Lincoln Navigator 12,000 miles per year and they get 15 miles per gallon.

That equates to 800 gallons of gasoline used.

At $3 a gallon, that is $2,400 in fuel used.

At $6 a gallon, that is $4,800 in fuel.

The different is $2,400.

I don't know if that will make much difference to a family that can buy a Lincoln Navigator at $50,000. Let's assume they also have $1,000 a year of maintenance costs and $1,000 a year of insurance either way. Let's also just run the numbers with no inflation for simplicity.

Even if they keep that vehicle for 10 years, the difference in cost is

$50,000 + $24,000 + $10,000 + $10,000 = $94,000 on the one hand vs.

$50,000 + $48,000 + $10,000 + $10,000 = $118,000 on the other hand.

The difference ($24,000) is just a 26% increase ($24,000/$94,000) in the their total cost of owning and operating that vehicle for those 10 years. Even $8 a gallon may not be enough. ($8 a gallon would be a 43% cost of ownership increase - I'll leave the math to the reader.)

Will it matter enough that they no longer drive Timmy and his friends to Boy Scouts or Jenny and her friends to soccer?

Keep in mind that there are more differences between the US and Europe than just the gase prices. For instance:

In general, European cities have mass transit systems that are considered by most of the populace to be an acceptable form of transportation. Many US cities either lack effective mass transit and/or it is not considered safe or socially acceptable for use by the middle class and above.

In general, European cities have smaller streets, and less public parking of a size to accomodate this type of vehicle.

In general, if you live in Europe you are less likely to have a garage to store the vehicle in at your house.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" also plays a part. In the US, a big shiny vehicle like this is more likely to be seen as a status symbol than it is in Europe. In Europe, social pressure to conform is more likely to to work in the opposite direction. At least as societal moods stand now. No one really knows for sure if society's mood might change and how.

In short, higher gas prices may or may not make a big difference in the near to mid-term. But it is really a phsychological question about what choices people will end up making, and behavior is difficult to predict. Johntex\^talk 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent answer that corresponds to what we came up with in an energy study 30 odd years ago. Modest changes in the price of gas would have negligible effect on the choice of automobiles, because of the small change ion the overall cost of ownership. Edison 04:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the cost of gas is nowhere near the largest expense in owning a car - for most brands that prize goes to depreciation. However, most people are not math whizzes and they don't work these things out carefully. With my car, I've crunched the numbers and I spend significantly more on replacing tyres than I do on gasoline - and I have on occasion spent more on car washes and car cleaning products than on gasoline! (But I *love* my car and it's gotta be clean! Check out at the top-right corner of MINI (BMW)!) - but who is complaining about the price of rubber? Nobody. People are sold (big-time!) on features like run-flat tyres - which currently cost THREE TIMES what regular tyres cost and with new US governemt regulations will soon cost FIVE TIMES the regular amount - but the idea of having to change a tyre on the side of the road is so deeply worrying that people are blind to that cost. Be honest - how many times in your life have you actually had to do that? I've lost more radiator hoses than catastrophic tyre failures. But people don't think rationally. They pay for the depreciation once every several years - they pay for tyres once a year - but gasoline is something they buy twice a week - they see the prices going up - there is a continual reminder that this is money they are losing. Where are the big headlines in the news about the increasing depreciation cost of modern cars? Why doesn't the price of tyres figure in the evening news? But if gas goes up 10% it's a major news story and the president will be out there telling everyone what he's going to do about it. A sudden spike in gas prices DOES make people look at more fuel efficient cars. You only have to spend 10 minutes on a Texas freeway - then 10 minutes on a British Motorway to see that paying $8 a gallon instead of $2.50 kills the sale of SUV's and trucks and encourages MINI Coopers and other sub-compacts. The difference is spectacular because people are not as rational as you might hope and they simply don't do math. SteveBaker 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that people are not rational or mathmatically inclined about these things. If they were rational, they would change all sorts of behaviors. For instance, they should double the price of a Big Mac Happy Meal to account for the damage that it does to their health. I tried to make this point in my calculations. People will decide things for personal reasons. For any individual person that could be "I think my big SUV is cool!" or "I think I'm helping the planet with my little eco-car".

However, I think you then go on to draw the wrong assumption. Again, there are lots more things going on to explain the differences in taste between Europe and the US. The ammount of taxation on gas is just part of it. There is still the small parking spaces, etc that I mention above. No one can say for sure how much, if any, of the effect is due to the price of gasoline.

In short, people buy for personal reasons. Why choose an iPod over other equally capable and cheaper MPS players? Why own a pet rock? Why dance disco? Why shun disco a few years later? It is a psychology experiment to try to predict their behavior. Johntex\^talk 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools

Are there any Gracie Jiu Jitsu schools anywhere from Beaumont to Houston, TX? I would be willing to drive up to an hour away to go there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.191.114.194 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

From this Google search, it seems that there are many. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)