Miscellaneous desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

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 24

Uh...thank you?

It seemed to me(allegedly without documentation - :D ) - that it was incredibly difficult and Byzantine to write a small thank you to whomever wrote a specific page - public, private, text box - uh I could have missed it but LOLOL

So, thanks to all who wrote the following entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Bremen_in_World_War_II

just read about the battle as a brief part of a history book on world war ii and thought "I think I will look that up"

Wikipedia - my regular first choice - I say - why not start there and if you need proof? - compare it with a whole bunch of other web sites on the topic. make your own judgement

for those not interested (grin), It is hard to explain the detail and coordination of data that these men/women - one guy?? - put into this subject the bombing of Bremen the pulling of directly related data from 3 or 4 different references that did not compare them but each had a piece there was a part where all the data was there but had not been put into percentages - and I'm thinking - nah, I'll never do that 1 or 2 hours work lol

- this is way better than I needed - I was curious - this is an f'in MAP of words of the Bremen bombing campaign

So, Thanks Bevan Audstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.252.160 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan, we appreciate your acknowledgement. The people who wrote the article (I'm sure there'd be more than one author) would appreciate it too, and the best place for that is the talk page of the article itself. Just click on Talk:Bombing of Bremen in World War II and go to town. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really the heart of the problem..."Who wrote this article?" - or even "Who wrote this sentence?" can be quite difficult to answer because most articles are edited by many, many people - with each sentence getting reworded and moved around multiple times. You can address thanks to everyone who worked on the article by giving it on the "Talk:" page - but strictly speaking, those pages are for people to discuss improvments to the article. Perhaps a better way is to look into the HISTORY tab and see which editors have been doing most of the work - there is a link there to their individual talk pages, where direct thanks is entirely appropriate.

No matter where you choose to offer your thanks, Wikipedians have a wealth of ways to express this kind of appreciation - the most popular of which is to award a "Barnstar" - you might like to read Wikipedia:Barnstars which explains the custom and offers a L-O-N-G list of awards to choose from. (Hmmm - as long as that list is, it doesn't include the reference desk barnstar!) SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, Steve, under "Wikipedia-space barnstars". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only definition of "squameus" I can find is "scaly". What am I missing? Or have I accidentally stumbled into an alternate universe wherein the Lizardmen (and women) rule supreme? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...scaly. We wanted to indicate that good ref desk denizens are thick-skinned and able to put up with a lot of nonsense. "Scaly" seemed to fit. Omniscient and benevolent are also desirable characteristics. Check back through the talk page archives and you'll find where we debated it. SteveBaker (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, the motto is a clever rip-off of a line from Rupert Brooke's delightful poem, "Heaven." Textorus (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and the star is a brittle star Macrophiothrix capillaris as illustrated in the 1904 book Kunstformen der Natur. You can read the thread where we came up with the image and motto here. SteveBaker (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the "history" link at the top-right of the page you will get a list of the last 50 edits to the page. Scroll down to the bottom and click on the "500" link to get more. It appears that Jayron32 (who's active on some of these desks), and PBS are the main editors. There's also WikiProject Military history if you want to give thanks to all the editors. CS Miller (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this book's title

I remember a couple of years back, I read this novel with an image of an Oreo biscuit on the front cover. If I remember correctly, it revolves around this fat boy who has mini Oreos for lunch everyday. Then one fine day, his Oreos get stolen. Not sure whether that's the main plot or not, but that's all I remember. Anyone knows? Thanks. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "book oreo stole" finds "Slob" by Ellen Potter, is that it? 88.112.41.6 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And searching for that book in Amazon.com produces a cover picture with the word "SLOB" and the "O" is replaced with an oreo cookie...so this fits our OP's description quite well. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Numerical Order

"Traditional" numerical order would place the following numbers in the order as written:

165, 210, 1003, 1081, 1258, 2004, 10049 etc.

However, in computer applications one may find them ordered:

1003, 10049, 1081, 1258, 165, 2004, 210, etc (actual example [with omissions] from a workplace Excel spreadsheet whose ordering I may not modify).

Are there recognised names distinguishing these two (and other?) different numerical orders? I've already checked our article Collation which seems to be the most applicable, without success. (Incidentally, I thought about putting this query on the Computing or Mathematics RDs, but opted for Miscellaneous as I rarely visit those in my usual role of lurking occasional answerer!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could call the latter alphabetical order. That is how Excel is treating them in this instance. Our article has a paragraph about the treatment of numerals.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second example is called lexicographic order. It is the order that the numbers would be placed in if they were treated as strings of characters and then ordered in the same way a dictionary orders words. So 10049 appears before 2004 because it begins with a 1, whereas 2004 begins with a 2; 1258 appears before 165 because it begins with 12 whereas 165 begins with 16 etc. If you ask Excel to sort a range of cells, it will sort them in lexicographic order if it thinks (or has been told) that the values in the cells are text rather than numbers. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I've edited that section of the alphabetical order article to make this clear.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lexicographical order" – excellent. Now I'll know what to say when I whinge about it (which will probably do no good as the s/s in question is generated from an in-house database system which is flaky enough that we daren't risk trying to modify it further without dire need).

Thanks for your responses: I won't mark the query as resolved in case anyone else has pertinent comments to make. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that database storing numbers as character strings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some experience with flaky database systems, so I can empathize. I presume you're getting this stuff into Excel using some kind of query? If so, you should be able to change the cell formatting without doing any harm to the DB providing the numbers. Making sure they're formatted as numbers should be enough to make the change you need (though it won't work fully if there's anything weird in the dataset, like letters appended to the numbers or poorly OCR'd characters or something). Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in cases like this you'll find there are space characters before or after the numbers and that's why they're acting like character strings rather than numbers, you'll need to import the data in a way that doesn't stick those in. You can see if you have any extra spaces by moving your cursor to the beginning and end of a value in the formula bar. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space characters? Good thought, Dmcq, but not in this case. Is the database storing (these particular) numbers (which are Cell Site Reference numbers - we're in the business of fixing mobile/cell phone antenna equipment) as character strings? Haven't a clue, the programming-fu to find out, or the access and authority to do anything about it, Bugs. As for the spreadsheet formatting, Matt, the relevant cells are formatted as 'general', but again, the spreadsheets (2 separate ones produced twice a month) are generated by others in the way you suggest – I just have to fill in some of the text and value entries (we're talking about spreadsheets with 40-ish columns and 50–300 rows) on the front sheet (3 other complex sheets 'host' downloaded data, and tables of values used by formulae), which I do by cut-and paste from "my" spreadsheets (which use the "correct" numerical order) of data I compile daily from emails, reports and invoices on databases, etc.

Of course, much of this could in principle be further automated, but doing so might eliminate the need to employ me! I can, however, now proffer the suggestion that the spreadsheets in question be generated in numerical, not lexicographical, order and see if anyone bites.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "ASCIIbetical order".—Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which brings me to another pet peeve, Microsoft's odd decision to have recent versions of windows sort filenames in directories by numerical order rather than lexicographical, so that file 1a7v8a9b7.txt will be nowhere near 17897avab.txt. While that makes fine sense for a series of files such as 1.txt, 2.txt, etc., it makes very little sense for an operating system which insists on generating random file names where numbers and letters are just treated as interchangable characters. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beer question

I have thought about this for quite a while. Sometimes when I come home from work, I buy two or three cans of beer to drink in the evening. The cans stay in the fridge for a couple of hours before I drink them. Every single time, the first can of beer foams a lot in the glass when poured. It takes me twenty to thirty minutes to drink it. After that, subsequent cans don't foam nearly as much. What could be causing this? They've all been subject to the same amount of movement. Subsequent cans have had more time to cool in the fridge, but that is a relatively small amount. JIP | Talk 18:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use lip-balm (or lip-stick) ? Eating, whilst one is drinking, can also add grease to the glass. Grease (of any kind getting on the glass), kills the head on beer or larger. Try drinking it through a straw. Or try my Swedish method of laying on one's back on the bar floor whilst one's friends (any who are still sober enough to stand) pour it straight into one's mouth. Synchronizing swallowing and breathing is a must. Less fun, is washing the glass or using a fresh one each time. --Aspro (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pour a finger of 80-proof liquor in the glass first, and pour the beer slowly down the side so the surface is not agitated. You will get almost no foam whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who wants to down a draught of beer with no head? I certainly don't.--Aspro (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the carbonation in the drink, not a flat drink with three inches of foam on top. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that does not address the OP's question. He does not appear to be talking about Pepsi et.al., in any way or form.--Aspro (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the head is caused by carbonation coming out of solution, what exactly do you think causes it? Beer fairies? What I have suggested works perfectly, the only objection would be if one doesn't like boilermakers. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I I say that is NOT caused by carbonation coming out of solution,? The OP's question is about the stability (or in his case lack of) of Beer head in subsequent nipples.--Aspro (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be damned if I understand what you just said, Aspro. In any case, pouring beer into hard liquor helps reduce the head. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how many people are in the room, you might get head while laying on your back. But most people seem to prefer separating their drinking from their sex life. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see how huvud as in " is, kall, öl, Skummande, huvud, mot, svart, bakgrund "[1] has any sexual connotations whats so ever. However, please wait a-few-months, until spring comes and I sober up once more. Maybe my youth was wasted making too many Swedish snowballs? But then again.. How can one possible make tooo many snowball? Aspro (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better ask Aspro about the sex thing - oh, that's you. Anyway, I would never lie to you. Not even while lying on my back. But many lies have been uttered while laying on one's back: "Oh, darling, you're the best", for example. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

They've all been subject to the same amount of movement, but they haven't all been subject to the same amount of time to settle from that movement. If it takes you 30 minutes to open the second can, the movement during transit isn't likely to be an issue. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a "British head" is what you're after (i.e. about a centimetre of foam), just pour very slowly down the tilted side of the glass. If you want a European head, crack open the beer and pour as quickly as possible down the middle. Most of the time this will be a disaster. Europeans, particularly Belgians and Dutch will pour beer from the tap with a large head and "cut" the top off with a knife. You'll get a 2/3rds beer, 1/3 head result. And you'll pay 3/2 more than you would in England... Interestingly, no matter when I get a beer out of the fridge, I always gently tap the top of it about a dozen times. It never gets too excited after that for some reason..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the OP's issue, its the dying head. “Signs of a not-so-beer-clean glass: Quickly dissipating foam head after a vigorous pour - oil residue kills foam structure. If you’ve ever seen someone stir their Solo Cup of Natty Ice with their pinky to break down the keg foam then you get my point”.[2] Yes, just your little little finger or lips etceteras. Its the grease.Aspro (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination of both. The beer in the fridge has had an extra half an hour to chill out and settle, and the glass has been contaminated. Hence the chilled out second beer syndrome... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't think so. There is not a lot in it – look [3]Aspro (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "chill", I meant "relax". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take all my beer drinking tips from people who drink Natty Ice out of Solo cups and think that sticking their fingers in it helps. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Onorem♠Dil (Thinks to myself... Ah! There but for the grace of God go I) ;¬)20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I worked as a bartender for nine years around the world when I was much younger, and one trick that we showed to punters was to rub your nose first, then dip your finger in the beer. This would get rid of the head within seconds. The reason is that certain oils can break down the acidity in the beer, reducing the head. If you are eating some snack like chips or nuts, then that will cause the same effect. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KageTora. That is what I stated at the out set. Can the OP please come back and confirm that this question is now {{Resolved}} to his satisfaction?--Aspro (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, I was going to post almost the exact same question a couple weeks ago, and talked myself out of it. Not much of a beer drinker, but a Coke drinker, and I noticed that after opening a new can or bottle of Coke, if I pour in a little bit (to get that foam), then drink that (coating one side of the glass), I can pour the rest of the Coke into the glass with almost no overflow of foam. I just discovered it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something I have noticed as well (both with beer and carbonated soft drinks). Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that while pouring the first drink the glass is room temperature, but when pouring the following ones it has been cooled down by the drink? I have no idea which scientific processes would apply here, but it is at least one of the few variables in the scenario. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may also have something to do with the liquid in the glass dissolving small bits of dirt on the side of the glass, which would act as nucleation sites on the first pouring. That's mostly speculation though. MChesterMC (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how fast you drink. Cold drinks usually cool the glass for a short time, after which they become close to room temperature. A new cold drink poured into the glass will cool it down again, but will warm up in the same way. This has nothing to do with the temperature of the glass, or even the drink when it is poured. They will both warm up sooner or later. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is has "nothing to do with the temperature of the glass" seems a bit too categorical, since you yourself notes that it very much depends on how fast you drink, the temperature of the beverage and the nature of the glass. It is perfectly possible for a glass to stay cool for some time after the drink has been imbibed, especially if it is a glass with a heavy bottom and/or sides which can absorb and store the coolness for a longer period of time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A glass that is now not as cool as it was after the liquid was poured into it, will not make a remarkable difference to a liquid newly poured into it. Oil and salts do, however, make a remarkable difference to the actual bubble effect, and this is what we are talking about. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just drink it straight out of the can! Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just deport this question to the Science desk, where it always belonged. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite television receiver (USA)

I hate going to a company's website looking for answers and all they want to do is sell you stuff. Anyway, I figured someone here might know the answer. ... I recently moved into an apartment that has Dish Network service. My old TV is cable ready, but not equipped for satellite service. I could by a converter box, but I am wondering - Does someone make a television that can be used with Dish Network without a separate converter box (i.e., with the converter built right into the TV)? If so, what should I look for when shopping for one? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea, for several reasons:

1) If either the TV portion or the converter box portion fails, now you must replace the entire system, versus just the bad component. (You could always try to have it repaired, but that is rarely cost justified.)

2) If you want to upgrade either component alone, you can't.

3) Let's say your system only works with the Dish network, and later you want to switch to another satellite network. Again, you'd have to replace the works. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase to look for is Integrated digital television (our article is only a stub, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the DISH Support Forum post "Is a Set Top Required ??" (Feb 19, 2013), a Social Media Representative says yes a set top is required.

I've previously gotten the impression that in the United States, satellite providers are considered different from cable providers in terms of requiring access with out a provider set top box.

For digital cable providers, the terms you'd want to research are QAM and CableCARD. But my understanding is satellite providers don't use QAM (or at least not unencrypted QAM) and aren't required to offer CableCARDs.

For example, in FCC.gov's Evolution of Cable Television, the section What is Cable Television? says "Programming delivered without a wire via satellite or other facilities is not 'cable television' under the Commission's definitions." The section Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Equipment is an introduction to CableCARDs, but I've had difficulty finding information that confirms or disproves satellite providers have the same requirements. --Bavi H (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dish Network provides the equipment. They'll also push free installation, but that locks you into a 2 year contract. By paying a $99 installation fee, you can avoid the contract. Base equipment will be free. Higher-end equipment such as DVRs or extra receivers will come with a monthly fee, but in some cases they will void the fee if you sign up for a higher-level programming package. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theater shootings history?

Besides the recent Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings, what other shootings/bombings/mass murders have taken place in movie theaters in the USA? Was hoping Wikipedia had a list? --Navstar (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something you could research as well as anyone here, and write an article about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nah, way too many for a list. Search for "Movie theatre shootings -Colorado" and you'll find them all over the place: San Antonio[4], Philadelphia (for talking during the movie[5]), two on the same day in San Diego for Pete's sake[6]. This is the US of NRA we're talking about. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the studio premieres (or maybe including) I've attended in NYC, a showing without a shooting or at least a gun drawn is a boring night out. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in other violence involving movie theaters. John Dillinger was killed as he left one: John Dillinger#Biograph_Theater_and_death, while Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended in one, after he assassinated JFK. See Lee Harvey Oswald#Capture.StuRat (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the assassination of Abraham Lincoln occurred in a theater. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not a movie theater. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, was assassinated while walking home from a cinema. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting data point... but when you consider that in the U.S. alone there are (according to some MPAA stat I found) 1.47 billion admissions each year, each one lasts for say... 90 minutes, that's a lot of man hours. I wonder how those incident rates compare to other common activities. Shadowjams (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you Google "UK cinema shooting" or "England cinema shooting" or "London cinema shooting" you only get results about Colorado or colleges offering courses on cinematography. Mercifully, nobody here seems to take a gun with them to watch a film. Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real subtle. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair, I'm sure the vast majority of Americans don't either. The ones Medeis goes to may be the exception. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]