Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 August 21

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 21

Indonesian names

now at the language desk here[1] Julia Rossi (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Finance

I'm looking for some good personal finance software and I'm a little lost as to what's out there. I've found Quicken but I'm not sure if that's any good. Thanks for any help you can give me. (Oh, and my computer's running Vista.) --Deltacom1515 (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software) may be of use. I don't use any of them so no idea which are good/bad but should be a good place to start for now. ny156uk (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem at the Internet Archive...

I go to the Internet Archive to use the "Wayback Machine"; a web site engine where I can go to previous versions of any site. But there's one problem: in the previous versions of sites that have Flash movies or animations, the Flash movies or animations don't work. I have Adobe Flash Player 9 and the Flash movies/animations don't work in the previous versions, but it works in the current versions of sites. What is this problem and how can I fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably taken off the site server/cache. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the IA guys don't want their server brought to it's knees by people streaming video off their site. There might also be some issue with them getting in trouble for continuing to serve up video content that the original site took down for copyright reasons. SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

disgraceful video

I saw something on YouTube. It something to do with this so-called LumiTaint. The video involved Randolph Mantooth. I know I'd never diss anyone who's a celebrity with that type of thing, being that I was a child of the 1970s. I feel the video is a disgrace. What in the world did someone possibly hope to gain with all of that?72.229.139.13 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect, what in the world did you possibly hope to gain by asking this question? You haven't identified the video, you haven't said why you think it's a disgrace, and even if you had done those things, we can't answer the question anyway because nobody knows another person's inner motives for doing whatever it is they do. The Wikipedia Reference desk is not the place for such questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the video in question. The obvious answer to the question is that someone thought it was funny, and frankly, that's a really obvious answer. I mean, maybe it makes you laugh, maybe it doesn't, but it shouldn't be very hard to figure out what someone hoped to gain with that: giggles. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Confession time: I giggled. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was kinda funny - but they dragged it out far too long. A 10 second clip would have been funnier. A celebrity might do such a thing to promote their ability to do sketch comedy in order to get a job at (say) Saturday Night Live. SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Confession time: I only watched 45 seconds or so of it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - actually, I have to confess that I clicked ahead in about 30 second chunks - I don't think I missed much. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Butt But of course WP has an article! -hydnjo talk 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Countries with eagle emblems

Hello, for my curiosity (mainly to get more experience drawing) I'd like to know some countries that have/had eagle emblems, and what they look like. So far I've got the US' Great Seal, the Reichsadler and the Albanian twin-headed eagle. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 10:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look down through the article Eagle (heraldry). Quite a few examples in there, past and present. Fribbler (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Ad rem, is there any list of national animals of countries? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 11:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of national animals. A lot of countries seeem to have more than one, surprisingly. Fribbler (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, again! One final question, what did the USSR (I heard it was a bear) and imperial Japan have? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 11:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Siberian tiger was the Soviet national animal (Russia now uses the Bear). Japan has never had an official national animal as far as I can tell, so it's hard to track down the de facto animal of Imperial Japan. Fribbler (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou...once again. I will have to look into that myself.

Resolved

Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Speed Glue in Table Tennis

What is the "speed glue" that they are banning from Olmypic competition actually composed of? Is it basically just rubber cement? 71.113.11.240 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this, it also contains certain solvents (see 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph in the "Background" section for details). The ITTF banned speed glues that contain some of these solvents. Speed glue doesn't explicitly state all of this information. Perhaps you can use that article to expand it? :) But that link is quite old and I can't seem to find the specific solvent(s) being banned now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Universal Protectionism

What is Universal Protectionism? 71.113.11.240 (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the religion from Toy Story?: link Fribbler (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you may just mean economic protectionism taken to the extremes of isolation. Fribbler (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there wasn't enough context for me to determine which meaning the author intended. However, the author did capitalize Universal Protectionism. Is the economic version of universal protectionism generally capitalized? 71.113.11.240 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not usually, no. Surely there must be some clue from the context as to whether it is an economic doctrine or an invented religion? Fribbler (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Michigan GED legalities

In Michigan, is getting a GED legally the same as a high school diploma and graduating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.186 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice. However, on a non-legalistic note, you should be aware that, I've heard, GED holders sometimes face employment discrimination. --Random832 (contribs) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bearing out what Random832 says above, I once taught English in Michigan to adults who were earning a high school diploma, a program the district offered for people who did not want to have "just" a GED. — OtherDave (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking about the "strictly legal" standing of the GED, there's this search[2]. To illustrate, in Australia someone with a GED equivalent qualifies to take up an apprenticeship for example. Searching for preference for GED-ers gives this[3] and searching for employers preferring college graduates here[4] shows some support for Random832 and OtherDave's comment. Happy sifting, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1005

At the end of WWII the NAzis tried to hide what they had done by destroying the crematoria at Auschwitz, and other such things such as operation 1005. What I wish to know is are there or were there any death camps that were never discovered? eg documentaion concerning Camp X was found but the acctual location never was? What are the chances that such camps existed? do we have and article related to this of any sort, or any other relavant info would be a great help Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question moved to Humanities WP:RD/H.78.144.168.48 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

plane crash stats

Are there more plane crashes now than there were prior to 9/11. is there a list of how often they occured prior and post. if there is an increase, or not, is it related to Alquaida? (Spelling, but who cares right) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are statistics for scheduled service on U.S. carriers. I do not believe any plane crash since 9/11 has been linked to terrorism. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that Al Queda existed before 9/11. That was not their first attack. The Al Queda article includes a list of attacks attributed to them, included pre-9/11 attacks. APL (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A graph on this page shows no great increase in commercial airline fatalities after 2001. In fact it shows that there were considerably more fatalities before 2001 at some points.

Now whether there has been any real chance since 2001 would require far more subtle analysis. There are all sorts of possibilities. For example, airline security has been changed dramatically since 2001 around the world. Could this have lowered security-based crashes? Additionally, after 9/11 some groups historically associated with airline terrorism lowered their profile considerably in order to avoid getting swept in with the activity against al Qaeda. Could that have affected things? Additionally, airline travel, at least in the US, has been doing pretty poorly since 2001 for a number of reasons (security is one aspect, but rising gas prices is another, etc.). Lowering the total number of planes and people in the air will definitely have a statistical affect. So anyway, my point is that you'd have to be very careful with your data and your causality no matter what the case. It's an extremely complicated constellation of questions—there are a million variables and you are asking about relatively rare and particular events also, so the sample size is low. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While the airline industry has been suffering since 2001, passenger demand has recovered pretty well. Here are some numbers. Passenger counts and passenger ton miles have exceeded their 2000 levels since 2004, and are now 15–20% higher than in 2000. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire point of being a terrorist is to induce terror. If you make a plane crash and do it in such a subtle manner that it looks just exactly like it was mechanical failure/pilot error and carefully don't take credit for it - then you really aren't provoking much terror are you? SteveBaker (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be immensely difficult and require massive infiltration of airline maintenance facilities to make an act of terror look like an accident. It's really, really hard. Wealthy countries have very well-funded air accident investigation societies; poor countries ask for help from wealthy countries (usually Canada for some reason - I suppose they put a lot of money into air investigation during and after SR111 - but sometimes the US or the UK). I suppose middling countries like Nigeria or Indonesia - wealthy enough to have their own investigations branch, but not rich enough to have a top one - could be fooled, but those countries have such a high number of actual accidents that any terrorist attack would be irrelevant. --NellieBly (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling, but who cares right — Language is all that separates us from the animals. It facilitates the conveyance of ideas: the cornerstone underpinning everything that our society holds dear. Communication is king, and it is built upon language. Language, in turn, it built upon spelling. When spelling fails it harms the language, and without language we cannot hope to communicate. Without communication we are doomed to wallow in catatonic ignorance for the rest of eternity. So to answer your question, I care. The group is called Al-Qaeda. Plasticup ^T/C 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange that you should show such certitude, when the very article you link to gives three alternate spellings. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

None of which is Alquaida. But hey, that's why I provided a helpful link. Plasticup ^T/C 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Boris Kipriyanovich

I hope you could have read about a boy, Boris Kipriyanovich (Russia).

Anyone can confirm whether this is true?

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12257_Martian.html

http://ww.shout.net/~bigred/Boriska.html

http://www.projectcamelot.org/boriska.html

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=boriska+russia

--V4vijayakumar (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See theosophy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A precocious child tells a good story. The end.

So what - kids tell detailed stories from their imaginations all the time. This poor kid has been inflicted with so much publicity that even though he's grown out of it, he's now pressured into expanding on it even though he probably lost interest in it years ago. The "Project Camelot" link pretty much backs this up:

"Later, during the interview, Boriska exhibited all the signs of a young boy becoming a teenager, reluctant to express more than was absolutely necessary... waving away the details as things he spoke about in his youth, now his mind was on other things. This life had taken a firm hold and no more did his eyes shine with the memories of his past life on Mars or even Lemuria."

The whole "Indigo child" phenomena is full of new-age pseudo-scientific bullshit. ALL parents see their children as something special - they'll believe almost anything that backs that up...My kid has a purple aura...yeah - right.

Nothing to see here - move along. SteveBaker (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi V4vijayakumar, you might find Reincarnation interesting -- out there, but rather earthbound by comparison. As a marketing angle that stops at nothing to attribute eccentric behaviour in children to higher things, "indigo children" has been superceded by other spurious categories such as "crystal children" etc. Re ET's and ESP, there are always reports and claims floating around but no scientifically legitimated proofs. See also parapsychology and paranormal for background. Not only Russians have a history of playing with this stuff, so does the US. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in earth, using all amazing gadgets and other stuffs. If I go to Mars then I can not build all these from nothing. This doesn't mean that I am not from earth. Still, it should be possible to ask simple questions to this kid, to get something useful for mankind, or prove he is telling stories. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Higher SPF Sunscreen

When trying to protect the skin from the various UV rays of the Sun, are there any disadvantages, aside from potential cost, to using, for example, an SPF 60 sunscreen over an SPF 30 sunscreen? For example, will an SPF 30 sunscreen last longer than an SPF 60 sunscreen from the same company, etc... Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well any SPF over 50 is just marketing—after 50 there is no advantage to getting more. See Sunscreen#Sun_protection_factor. I'm fairly sure SPF is totally independent of how long a sunscreen will last. If I understand correct SPF is just a measurement of how the exact chemical cocktail in the sunscreen scatters the harmful rays. Two sunscreens could have SPF 50 and have totally different compositions. How long any given sunscreen will last will depend on a lot of factors specific to the ingredients of that given sunscreen. In other words, SPF doesn't measure anything other than what it measures, if that makes sense. There are other variables too. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, higher factor sunscreens can be harder and less pleasant to apply. Lower factors are absorbed easier. It depends greatly on specifically which sunscreen you are using, of course. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider this: The SPF is a measure of how much more time it gives you in the sun before burning. If you could normally be out in the sun without any sunscreen at all for 6 minutes without burning - then an SPF 10 will give you protection for 6x10=60 minutes and SPF 60 protects you for 6x60=360 minutes - or 6 hours. But most people can stand the sun for at least 10 minutes. So an SPF 60 will theoretically protect you for 10 hours! But the sun isn't up high enough for 10 hours unless you live somewhere north of Alaska - so anything much above SPF 40 or so might as well say "All Day" unless you have super-sensitive skin. What's more, there aren't any sunscreens (that I'm aware of) that will actually last for anything like 10 hours without having to be reapplied. So once you get much above SPF 50 or so, the additional screening effect is unimportant. SteveBaker (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the SPF is a measure of how much more time it gives in a laboratory, under laboratory conditions, when applied in a thick, controlled way without being rubbed in. SPF was never meant to be a consumer thing, it was a quantifiable way of knowing whether one sunscreen was better than another and by how much. The SPF is fairly meaningless when applied to how people actually use the sunscreen, except for telling you whether it is 'useless', 'light', 'medium' or 'heavy'. Hint: Less than 15 is useless the way real people actual use them in real conditions. Some of us are quite capable of burning in an hour with factor 30 on certain days, so it's all relative :) 217.42.157.143 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Senator McCain under attack

Just got word on FOX News, other news orgs that someone has sent threatening messages and a white powder to Senator McCain's Campaign offices. Its on the news RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.146.233 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia reference desk. Do you have a question? Algebraist 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. I was going to put this on the John McCain article, but it is protected. So far, two letters of a threatening nature have been found, as well as a white powder, which is suspected of being Anthrax or some other bio-agent. Can someone place this in that article? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a cable/Satellite system, and it has all manner of news outlets, incl. FOX News, CNN. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've already found Talk:John McCain. That's the place for this discussion, not here. You may want to create an account so that in future you'll be able to do this sort of thing yourself. Algebraist 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Found two links (See Talk:Senator John McCain), but one does not work on here, that one is the Aljazeera link. Google "Senator John McCain's Campaign Offices Attacked","Someone Attacks John McCain's Campaign Offices". Done that, found those links. Can someone handle this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.146.233 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: this is not the place for this. Talk:John McCain is the place for this. Algebraist 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And just to note, it turned out there wasn't white powder, that it wasn't dangerous, etc. Which highlights the reason why we don't put TV news into articles the second it happens. If it's something notable it'll be notable four hours later. But TV news, esp. Fox News, is notoriously bad about getting its facts straight on the first go. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally they have no facts on the first go, just like newspaper and radio reporters, it's just that TV news people don't mind covering the event in the absence of facts, unlike newspaper and radio reporters. --Sean 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, there is no deadline! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth underlining that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. (Think long rows of dusty old books!) We can afford to sit back for a week, two weeks - a month even - before we have to write something about this and we'll still be a year or two ahead of Encyclopedia Britannica! We have a sister project "Wikinews" that is set up to handle exactly this kind of thing. So by all means discuss it on the McCain Talk: page - but try to take the long view - this may be a storm in a teacup - it may end up being so non-notable that it won't be in the encyclopedia AT ALL - or it might be a major part of the McCain story that's right up there at the top of the article. We simply don't know yet. If you have an urgent story to tell - Wikinews is definitely your first port of call. SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)