|
===[[Elvira Arellano]]===
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
{{/How_to_ask_and_answer|[[WP:RD/S]] or [[WP:RD/SCI]]|Science}}
:{{la|Elvira Arellano}}
Non-notable subject, no different from the millions of other illegal aliens [[User:L0b0t|L0b0t]] 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per my nomination. [[User:L0b0t|L0b0t]] 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Below are transclusions of daily q/a pages; this setup is not in final form yet. See discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Daily_transclusion.3F -->
*'''Keep'''. People who cause governments to act are notable, and the Mexican government asking the US to not deport her is causing a government to act. More sources would be nice, but it doesn't matter. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', Every single action taken by every single government in human history has been caused by people. How does this make one notable? [[User:L0b0t|L0b0t]] 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
= July 24 =
*'''Delete'''. This article does not pass the 100 year test (future speculation) i.e., -- "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Nor does it pass the 100 year test (past speculation) i.e., -- "If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?" See [[WP:BIO]] for notability guidelines. I agree with LObOt, the subject matter of this article is no different from the millions of other illegal alien stories frequently heard about in the news these days. …[[User:Chicaneo|Chicaneo]] 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 24}}
*'''Keep''' current event. Give the article time to develop. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', from the article: "On November 14, 2006, Saulito Arellano appeared before Mexican lawmakers." How many illegal immigrants do you know that have appeared before a national legislature? Plenty of sources written to show notability, and 100-year test is a suggestion, not an actual notability criteria. ''[[User:Hateless|hateless]]'' 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
= July 25 =
::'''Comment''' Testimony before a govt. subcommittee, especially one of a foreign government, does not automatically confer notability. I have to go before the [[United_States_House_Committee_on_Armed_Services|House Armed Services Committee]] several times per year. Should I get an article in the encyclopedia based soley on that? [[User:L0b0t|L0b0t]] 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 25}}
= July 26 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 26}}
= July 27 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 27}}
= July 28 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 28}}
= July 29 =
{{Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 July 29}}
= July 30 =
== What species is a seagull with a gray band around its beak? ==
What kind of [[gull]] has is mostly white with gray on the wings, black tail feathers and a grayish-black band around its beak? I saw it at [[Misquamicut State Beach]] in [[Rhode Island]]. Is it a normal variation on the other gulls in the area (they had a reddish spot on the lower part of the beak; I don't know what kind they were), or a different species? If so, which species? [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Where's KSB when you need him eh?
:You called? :) Check out [[Ring-billed Gull]], especially the third picture in the gallery at the bottom. Look like the fellas you saw? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 00:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Like twins, except that mine has no spots on the head---it's uniformly white. Is it still the same bird? [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 01:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Most probably. The adults of many species of gulls have dark feathers (streaks/spots) on their heads in winter. The all-white head is the breeding plumage. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== Einstein's attempted T.O.E. ==
Hello, and thanks in advance. I know that Einstein worked on a theory of everything, and worked with Rosen on it, and postulated that particles were small worm holes. My question is, what was this theory called? I tried searching, but i wasn't able to find it. Any help will be apreciated. --[[User:AmateurThinker|AmateurThinker]] 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Einstein and Rosen's activity together was not concerning a theory of everything, however what you are looking for is probably at [[Einstein-Rosen bridge]] or their work regarding the [[EPR Paradox]].{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:Einstein's own TOE was simply known as the [[unified field theory]]. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but all I wanted to know was what the postulate of particles being Einstein-Rosen Bridges was called. [[User:AmateurThinker|AmateurThinker]] 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
==Diving fitness requirements==
what are the fitness components for diving inorder of importance
:Please do your own homework. The answer you are looking for probably came from your teacher or textbook. The question is too vague if otherwise. Also, try our [[diving]] article! Thanks,{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
== Gulls - carnivores or omnivores? ==
I've just been reading a few of the [[gull]] articles on Wikipedia (swatting up on my specialist subject - heh). I notice that in some places gulls are described as [[omnivores]], in others [[carnivores]]. Anyone know which one is technically correct? I'd personally lean more towards 'carnivore' as gulls are, by nature meat eaters. They were 'designed' to scavenge from carcasses and prey on small mammals/birds/fish - one look at the beak shape and the observation of a gull's aggressive demenour should tell you that. The fact that they have learned to feast on whatever we throw out, be it animal, vegetable or mineral is neither here nor there IMO. Any thoughts? I think the definition needs to be standardized across the articles... --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:No expert here, but I'd say if an animal will eat both meat and non-meat foods (and can actually digest them) it is an omnivore. So you could turn this around and say that the fact that some gulls only eat meat doesn't necessarily mean they aren't omnivorous. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::(after edit conflict) The fact that ''some'' gulls have learned to eat other stuff does seem relevant, because those that come and finish off a pizza are omnivores, while those who spend their life at sea and eat only fish are carnivores (or ichthyophagists, if you prefer). --[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Is that the same as a [[piscivore]]: [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Piscivore]? [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Blah - fish *is* meat. Don't let those damn veggies convince you otherwise... ;) --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, so are insects, but biologists still insist on treating [[insectivore]]s as distinct from [[carnivore]]s. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Are they really? I think of them more as exo-skeletons full of mucous. Is there really any ''meat'' in them? Maybe in grubs. Mmmmmm, all this talk has made me hungry!--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 20:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::What is the noun for 'mucous'? 'Muck'? You eat muck? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Or catholics. They also eat meat on friday because they claim it is not meat. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Evolutionary relationship between [[skua]]s and [[gull]]s? ==
I'm aware that both the skua and gull family are members of order [[Charadriiformes]] - but how closely are they related? Did both have a common ancestor or did one family evolve from the other? I see [[great black-backed gull]]s on a daily basis and I have had the opportunity to observe the [[great skua]] and aside from the colouration, the similarities in size, shape and behaviour are uncanny. To a non-scientist, they seem like very closely-related birds indeed. Then again, compare the skua to the small, timid [[black-headed gull]] and they seem worlds apart. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 00:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:According to the tables in p.9 of the first reference in [[Charadriiformes]], gulls are more closely related to skimmers and terns than to skuas. Skuas, for their part, might be more closely related to auks than gulls, but it's not clear. You might want to also check the refs in [[Lari]]. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::I've never been able to understand those tables - any tips? :) --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Just find the two families you want to compare. Start at one and just sort of walk back along the line until you get to a level from which you can reach the other family. When comparing how close family A is to families B and C, see how far out you have to go to get from A to B, then from A to C. The farther you have to go, the less closely related the two families are (well, the less similar they are in whatever measure is being shown). I'm not sure I explained that totally well... :) [[User:Digfarenough|dig<i>far</i>enough]] ([[User talk:Digfarenough|talk]]) 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
==Yes, but .........==
You release a toy balloon and it flies around frantically. It will do so even in a vacuum (deep space for instance), because the pressure inside the balloon moves it away from the escaping air. If I have that right, then I think the [[Thrust]] article needs to make this clear, because unless you read it carefully it seems to infer/suggest that it is the expelling air that is pushing (on something outside the balloon). Pedants go away please, but would appreciate comment from others. [[User:Rense|Rense]] 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:This should go on [[Talk:Thrust]]. Yes, you're right. Newton was the one who declared this.Nathan Rosen{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
I would have thought that a toy balloon would immediately explode in deep space, and the air would ignore the fact that the neck was open. But if any air did manage to come out of the neck, the balloon would move away so that the centre of mass of all the air was preserved. [[User:G N Frykman|G N Frykman]] 08:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're forgetting the mass of the balloon itself. So the centre of mass of the shreds of the balloon and of the air will move in opposite directions. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== Feasability of man-portable [[minigun]]s... ==
Just trying to refresh my knowledge here. IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong here), a man-portable [[minigun]] would *just* be within the realms of possibility, right? Assuming that the gun itself weighs approx 100lbs and the ammo pack and batteries to spin the thing up were located in a backpack weighing approx 150lbs (I seem to remember those figures from an article on this subject I read years ago) and the soldier in question was selected specifically for his size, strength and endurance, then a minigun could potentially be used as an (albeit impractical in the majority of situations) infantry weapon, right? --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:It sure is. Go out and rent [[Terminator 2: Judgment Day]]. Actually, rent the whole series. It's worth it. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yup, great movies - I've seen [[Predator (film)|Predator]] too. :) I was thinking of the feasability of using a man-portable minigun for [[suppressive fire]] - a couple of 180-degree arcs of fire from a 2000RPM minigun towards a hidden foe (e.g. hiding in the undergrowth) would pretty much clear out everything, wouldn't it? Or at least cause them to retreat. Your own position would of course, have to be well-stocked. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Indeed. I have never really thought about why miniguns are not in more wide deployment. Seems like a good thing to throw in the back of a hummer and get out when you have to hold a position. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::It isn't more widely used because you run out of bullets too fast. Which is mentioned in the article. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 06:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: the logistics of resupplying the soldier in the field would be difficult, as well as the amount of ammunition the soldier would need to carry to make it an effective weapon, given a regular light machine gun firing at around 800 rpm carries upward of 1200 rounds, scaling that up would give an enormous weight. and you have to wonder whether there is any advantage over existing weapons, which i'd doubt. [[User:Xcomradex|Xcomradex]] 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I suppose. To take down an enemy soldier, you'd probably need to hit him with a quick burst from an assault rifle, just to make sure (unless you were a very good shot) - maybe four or five rounds. A direct hit from minigun fire would turn him into a pile of meat, which I guess is overkill and a waste of ammo. Going back to the Terminator movies (thinking of the future scenes), the use of miniguns against advanced robotic/cyborg infantry actually does make a lot of sense, considering the amount of damage that the endoskeletons can take and still function. In this case, tearing the enemy to shreds with a solid wall of fire would not only be advantageous - but entirely necessary. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 11:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:I believe I read under trivia in the Terminator 2 article that Arnold was the only one on the set that could lift the weapon--he had to move it everywhere.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
::Really? You'd think that they could have afforded to hire a couple strong college kids to haul it around the set. And think how cool it'd be to list your last job as "Mini-gun wrangler" on your resume.
== Hookes Law?!?!?!! ==
Helllooo. Can someone tell me the simple idea of what Hookes Law is please. I'v already searched it but I just cannot get the bloody gist of it lol. - Thanks Joel
:You've read [[Hooke's law]], then. Where are you getting stuck? Can you be more specific? If you can't be, I'm afraid you'll probably just get the first paragraph of the article quoted at you. If we had a better way of explaining it, we'd put it there. [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::The more you pull something, the more it will stretch. (As long as it's a relatively "Hookean" material!)--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Or perhaps "the further you pull on something, the harder it pulls back" --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 12:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Yup, to be even more exact, the force you exert of a body is proportional to the extension of the body. Think of a spring. The harder you pull (greater force), the longer the spring becomes (extension from 0). And the relation between the force you exert and the extension is proportional! Ask for any help =]
== Retinitis Pigmentosa Gene Therapy ==
To date, what is the current state of gene therapy clinical trials for Retinitis Pigmentosa? ([[User:4.152.123.249|4.152.123.249]] 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)).
: Hello. I'm not an expert in the field, bit i had the pleasure of meeting a certain Professor Robin Ali, of the Institute of Ophthalmology, London, not so long ago and discussed his very impressive work. He is very much leading the way in gene therapy for retinal disorders. An overview of his work can be read [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioo/research/ali.htm here], some of his scholarly papers on animal models [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15660111&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16872907&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14750603&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum]. This source [http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/moorfieldsplans.pdf] (pdf) suggests that human trials are underway or planned for retinal diseases, but not RP specifically. This source [http://www.amrc.org.uk/index.asp?id=2878] seems to suggest that human gene therapy for RP will be (or has been) tested. There is also more impressive work in dog models of Leber congenital amaurosis, according to these sources [http://www.fightblindness.org/content.asp?id=251] [http://www.visionconnection.org/Content/ForProfessionals/News/genetherapyforretinaldiseaesadvanceswithnewviralandcapsulemechanismstoplacegenesdirectlyineye.htm?cookie%5Ftest=1] human clinical trials for RPE65 gene therapy were targeted to begin in 2006. It is probably a bit early to know how successful these have been. '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== How many calories?? ==
Ive been reading the [[Calorie]] page and also reading up on [[Atwater system]] to calculate food energy values. But im wondering, is there a way or a formula to see how much a certain body mass (a person) is burning calories just by its normal functions, sleeping, breathing, pumping blood, other. So a person that weighs x kilos and its height is y cm, burns z calories during a 24 hour period. - [[User_talk:Avalean|Avalean]] - 30th July
:There are things like that on the net, but they're not very accurate, because basal metabolism (resting metabolism) has many other variables besides body size. For instance, men and women of the same mass usually differ; people with higher fat percentages or higher muscle percentages; hormonal imbalances can change a person's metabolism. I've seen charts on the net but I hesitate to find them for you because I don't think they'd really be accurate. That having been said, we have an article on [[Basal metabolism]] that probably answers your question, although the article is tagged for needing cleanup, and the main formula mentioned says something about surface area of the body (sq m.) when I'd think it should be cubic metres, but what do I know? I just skimmed it anyway. But I noticed the article has some external links. Happy reading.--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Anchoress is correct in stating that any simple height/weight/sex/age formula is going to have poor accuracy (I'd guess +/- 20% for people in the "normal" ranges of activity, size, etc.). You could try the [http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~spon/picu/calc/beecalc.htm Harris-Benedict Equation], it's a classic. -- [[User:Scientizzle|Scientizzle]] 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::The reclusive lady is right, I think. Mass (which is related more to volume than BSA) matters more than body surface area. The BSA theory stuck as gospel following some heavy abstract theorising in the 19th century, and Harris-Benedict sort of preached on, without questioning the basic tenets. It seems as if general biologists these days don't even consider BSA as a real factor, but doctors and dieticians and bodybuilding product sellers carry on regardless. I see on the [[Basal metabolic rate]] article talk that it gets 5th place on Google searches at times, but to me it is pretty dense and confusing - not comparable to what I see in academic literature on the subject. I suggest Avalean should look to one of the recent mass related formulas, ignore height, and remember that an individual is not a statistic, so that just a table of values by age and weight is probably as good/bad as any formula. --[[User:Seejyb|Seejyb]] 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall a method of calculating calories burnt by measuring the exact amount of heat given off by a person at rest, which should be directly proportional to the number of calories burnt. This test, of course, requires a laboratory and the proper equipment. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - [[User_talk:Avalean|Avalean]] - 31th July
== Stomach ==
Is it possible to live life without a stomach?--[[User:68.79.234.100|68.79.234.100]] 03:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Actually certain people do it to [[Gastric bypass|some degree]] all the time. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not just to some degree (gastric bypass) but also [http://www.azstarnet.com/news/134206 entirely] (prevention of stomach cancer). The surgeons fashion a small pouch out of the esophagus and intestine. People without stomachs have to eat many small meals throughout the day, and avoid foods that the intestine can't digest by itself. --[[User:Amcbride|Allen]] 06:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::A person can actually live quite a long life without the use of a gut on [[total parenteral nutrition]]. Essentially, the individual is "fed" a nutrient solution intravenously. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Info about unexplained undersea sound ==
I recall reading a piece online (probably here at Wikipedia, actually, but not sure) about a very unusual sound that was recorded somewhere off the southern coast of South America. IIRC, it was called a burp or a belch or something of that nature. The article mentioned that some people think it may be the vocalization of some enormous creature. Can someone provide more info? I've searched Google and Wikipedia, but I don't recall a lot of specifics, which makes searching pretty difficult. ISTR that there was a site online that provided a .WAV of the sound as well. TIA. [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] 04:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:The article is [[Bloop]]. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 06:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Matt Deres|Matt Deres]] 23:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::[[Bleep]]!!{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
== Electricity ==
Who is the father of electricity?
:Of [[Electricity#History|electricity]], you say? I haven't the foggiest. But good luck with your homework, in any case. [[User:Grendelkhan|grendel]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|khan]] 08:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Thats subjective... [[Gerolamo Cardano]], [[William Gilbert]], [[Otto von Guericke]], [[C.F. du Fay]], [[William Watson (scientist)|William Watson]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Ebenezer Kinnersley]], [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]], [[Volta]], [[André-Marie Ampère|Ampère]] and [[Georg Ohm|Ohm]] could all have claims on that title. Such is the way the scietific method works; [[Electricity#History|Take your pick]]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
: (edit conflict x2) If you ask Google you get four different answers in the first 10 results: [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[William Gilbert]], [[Thomas Edison]], and [[Ernst Werner von Siemens]]. The fact that there are only 364 hits for "father of electricity" suggests that '''no one''' is uniformly recognized by that title. Our own [[List of people known as father or mother of something]], which should be fairly reliable, does not list anyone.
:If you're trying to come up with your own answer, one starting point is [[Electricity#History]]. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Lightning? And the mother would then be the 'ground' (mother Earth)? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:But [[:Category:Thunder gods]] has 43 entries... [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 09:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Strangely, this doesn't seem to be in our article [[List of people known as father or mother of something]]. If you find out, please add it.-[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]] 09:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:[[Nikola Tesla]] should be on the list too, if not as a father, then at least a great-Uncle or something.
::I think Franklin and Tesla are the only ones that I have heard as "father of electricity."{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
::: Whoever it was, he was one bright spark. *gets coat* '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Guglielmo Marconi]] was the father of Maria '''''Elettra''''' Elena Anna Marconi. -- <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::And the father of [[Electra]] was Agamemnon. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== InputStreamReader ==
--[[User:Tulika 99|Tulika 99]] 11:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
halow!!
i wud like 2 ask what statement shud b used after
InputStreamReader reader=new InputStreamReader(System.in);
BufferedReader buf=new BufferedReader(reader);
after this v usually use
V1=input.readLine();
int a=Integer.parseInt(v1);
but its not gettin compiled.
can u plzz suggest another statement.
thnk u!!
:A few possible problems (I assume this is java):
* You have not declared the string V1
* "input" doesn't exist - that line should be
V1 = buf.readLine();
* you may need to handle the IO exception from the readline statement
* java is case sensitive, so v1 is not the same as V1
:fix one or more of those and you may be good to go. Here's what I think it should look like instead:
:Add the phrase "throws IOException" after the argument parenthesis in the method head
InputStreamReader reader = new InputStreamReader(System.in);
BufferedReader buf = new BufferedReader(reader);
String V1 = buf.readLine();
int a = Integer.parseInt(V1);
:You can also use a try/catch block, if you know how. Good luck --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thnk u soo much Bmk !!!!!!!!!
:No problem. Enjoy java - it's my favorite. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Is a seagull a 'vulture'? ==
:''Moved from Humanities.''
I mean it acts like a vulture (circles, eats caracsses and carrion). If the vulture had been discovered before the seagull, do you think that explorers would've named the various breeds of seagull 'sea vultures' or something? New world vultures are not real vultures either but they're called that because they act like vultures and the name stuck over the years. What do you think?
:Eh - seagulls do a fair amount of hunting and foraging - they kill and eat crabs and shellfish (see [[seagull]]). I don't think they eat enough carrion to qualify them as a vulture-type bird. Whoa - I'm surprised there are any gull species links that don't exist given the number of gull fanatics on the desks! --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 12:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:[[Vulture]] is a whole seperate few families. I think I'll move this to [[WP:RD/s|Science]].{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
::The point I was (badly) trying to make is that the biggest seagulls fill the same niche in Northern Europe as 'vultures' do in Africa and 'vultures' do in N.America. The 'vultures' in N.America are only called 'vultures' because the first western people to see them thought they looked like the vultures they already knew about. If we define a 'vulture' as a "scavenging bird, feeding mostly on the carcasses of dead animals." as the vulture article does, then why are seagulls not classified as 'vultures' when they clearly fit the critera (in their natural habitat)? I reckon it's only because seagulls were discovered before vultures - if they didn't already have a name, they'd have been devined as 'vultures', I think. --[[User:84.67.154.51|84.67.154.51]] 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:: By that rationale, on discovery vultures could, or should, have been named as a type of gull! Historically animals would be named by their lay-discoverers after animals they already knew about, usually based on single, or groups of, defining characteristics. This may have been because they actually thought they were closely related to these animals, or simply as a way of identifying them with some meaning. These days were know that [[convergent evolution]] can lead to highly divergent animal species (in terms of evolutionary relationship) appearing very much alike as they fulfil a similar niche. Since we continue to refer to most animals by their traditional names, it can get confusing. However scholarly studies use scientific names for animals, which better reflect their [[phylogeny]]. Old and new world vultures are a good example of this. Old World vultures (''Accipitridae'') are of the genera: ''Gypaetus, Gyps, Torgos, Aegypius, Neophron, Gypohierax'' and ''Necrosyrtes'' while new world vultures (''Cathartidae'') are of ''Cathartes, Coragyps'' and ''Sarcorhamphus''. Seagulls are from a completely different order (''Charadriiformes'') Thus, scientifically, there is no confusion between them. Consider also the [[aardvark]] (''earthpig'') and [[Killer Whale]]. '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::They were really running out of ideas when it came to the [[wildebeest]], weren't they? "Hmmmm - a wild beast. What should we call it?" :) --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 21:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: I guess with all the good names already gone, they had to think up a [[gnu]] one.... '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 23:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Not aganother g-nu joke. Please come back, [[Flanders and Swann|Michael and Donald]]. :--) [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
==Reoccuring question topics on ''Science''==
It seems like we get a lot of seagull and masturbation questions on here. Anybody else notice this, or is it some illusion I have fallen for?{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:If 15% ("72% of statistics are made up on the spot") of article edits are vandalism why wouldn't 15% of questions be from kids who think, "let's see if we can make grown-ups talk about flying rats and wanking". Don't mind it, just answer; even if the person asking doesn't learn anything from the answer the rest of us will. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::I've noticed it as well, but why ''seagulls''? If a kid wants to ask a silly question then giggle at the serious answers, why would he choose seagulls? Spanking the monkey, sure, but seagulls? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:To be fair, most of the seagull questions are posted by one particular user. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Yeah, I agree with you on that. But, I think some of the other users cured him. ;-) [[User:Jayant412|Jayant,]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">17 Years,</font>]][[User_talk:Jayant412|<font color="red"> India</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jayant412|contribs]] 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Particularly funny is when there are a spate of very similar questions, often utilitising the word 'discuss', and you just know that some teacher has set a Wikipedia-savvy (well, savvy enough to know about it, but not enough to disguise homeword) class a particular problem. --[[User: Sam Pointon|Sam Pointon]] 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In answer to all the above, what can I say? I'm a gull fanatic. :) I spend a lot of time observing my locals birds and I've decided that I want to know as much as it's humanly possible to know about them (much of the literature tells me about what gulls *look like* or where gulls can *be found*, but very little about the lives of the actual birds themselves). I've raised baby gulls almost from the egg to re-release into the wild - I think that they're amazing birds, with a strange charm that I don't think anyone else could possibly understand unless they'd done the same thing themselves. I know a fair bit about gulls already but my head is filled with questions, which some of the guys here seem able to answer for me (it's much appreciated - this desk seems to be one of the more knowledgable gatherings of human beings on the internet). I assure you that I'm not asking silly questions for the sake of asking silly questions, or for kicks and giggles. I have no idea who keeps bringing up masturbation - I can't say that I've noticed that many threads about it recently. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::You need to go to [[Wikibooks]] and write a book on seagulls to get them out of your system, since the elctroshock therapy has failed to do so. :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Your gull questions aren't silly though. Hmm... did you ask the unsigned gull question just above this one? If not, gull-mania must be catching on. [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not guilty, sir. Maybe I'm starting a movement... :) --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone (or at least make them go blind) by posting questions on the masturbation practices of seagulls ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I only find one google hit for "masturbating seagull". --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::There's over 55000 for ''seagull + masturbation'' though. [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
===Can Seagulls Masturbate?===
Can Seagulls Masturbate? The answer is 42.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
== In small arms ballistics, how is "effective range" defined? ==
What does it mean for a rifle to have an effective range of 400m? Obviously a rifle bullet carries a dangerous amount of kinetic energy way beyond its effective range. And the probability that a target at a given range is hit in a single shot depends on many factors (e.g. marksmanship of the shooter, power of the scope, weather, size of the target). So, is there a standard definition for "effective range"?
:It apparently depends on who is giving the value; it is not standardized. See [http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/archives/000057.html this article on it], which I found by Googling "maximum effect range definition". --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Would also depend on the effect you're after, I'd say. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: in military terms, the effective range couples both the stopping power of the round, the velocity at that distance and the chance of hitting a target at that range. for example, in the [[NZDF]], the effective range of the [[Steyr AUG]] was quoted as 300m, while that of the c9 lsw (a version of the [[FN Minimi]]) was quoted as much further, off the top of my head at least 600m. yet both fire the same round (5.56mm ss-109), but the c9 in normal use pumps out more rounds. [[User:Xcomradex|Xcomradex]] 11:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Railroads: Where are the breaks on a freight car? ==
In the past the breaking force and break shoes on a railroad freight car were applied to the wheel rim to slow or stop the car. I don't see that on today's (USA)rail freight cars. Where is the breaking force applied and what's the mechanism that stops the wheel from rotating?
:The, um, BRAKES on a railroad freight car are part of the truck assembly. [http://www.sctco.com/pdf/Section1.pdf This document] has a really nice exploded diagram of a railcar truck on the third page. The brake shoe contacts the tread of the steel wheel. There is one shoe per wheel, four per truck.
::[[tread]]??
Yes, technically the shiny part of a railroad car's wheel is the tread. If you look at [http://www.brakes.ca/images/wheelgrippers/wg_5s.jpg this picture] the shiny part of the wheel that contacts the track, that part is the tread. The raised rim on the inner edge of the wheel is the 'flange'.
== Hall Effect ==
cant we use hall effect in producing electricity ? high voltage supply cables on their way could b made 2 pass through
tubes containing magnetic field.hence by hall effect potential difference would exist.
but i doubt the high voltage cable would get weaker in voltage after passing through the tube.
plz if anyone can explain it relating to conservation of energy and other phenomenons involved
----
[[Image:Hall_effect.png|thumb]]
Legend:
1. Electrons (not conventional current!)
2. Hall element, or Hall sensor
3. Magnets
4. Magnetic field
5. Power source
In drawing "A", the Hall element takes on a negative charge at the top edge (symbolised by the blue color) and positive at the lower edge (red color). In "B" and "C", either the electric current or the magnetic field is reversed, causing the polarization to reverse. Reversing both current and magnetic field (drawing "D") causes the Hall element to again assume a negative charge at the upper edge.
I would suggest checking the article too. [[Hall effect]]
{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
----
:Since a violation of the law of conservation of energy isn't possible (unless mass was converted into energy, which doesn't happen here), the energy passing thru the tube must be reduced to a level to match any increase outside the tube. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:I didn't read the entire post, but I saw this in it "but i doubt the high voltage cable would get weaker in voltage...." don't be so doubting. If that cable transfered any energy (via hall effect, or any other way) then yes, it would become weaker. By EXACTLY the amount that was transfered. [[User:71.199.123.24|71.199.123.24]] 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Fear of losing possessions? ==
What is a correct -phobia term for fear of losing possessions (assuming that one is NOT afraid forgetting, meaning it's not Athazagoraphobia). [[User:Bayerischermann|Bayerischermann]] 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:There's a [[list of phobias]]. Have you checked there?--[[User:Frenchman113|Frenchman113 ]] [[User talk:Frenchman113|on wheels!]] 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== Help ==
The [[tornado]] section does not have the "three [[catagory|categories]] of tornadoes."
I am asked this by several people who dont know the awnser so I come here to Know the awnser and it is not here.
Please help!!!!!
--<font color=" #B22222">[[User:Qho|'''''Qho''''']]</font>·<sup>[[User talk:Qho|(talk)]]</sup>·<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Qho|(contribs)]]</sub> 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:What three categories of tornados? I am not aware.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:Do you mean shape? There is funnel (think triangle), wedge (think fat kind), and multi-vortex. If so, that's in the article.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:Possibly there is some confusion with the [[Fujita scale]] or even the [[Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]]? [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== regulation of psychotherapy ==
When did the state of New Jersey started regulating psychotherapy? I found this online:1945 "The state of Connecticut passed licensure legislation for psychologists, becoming the first state to recognize psychology as a protected practice oriented profession." ([http://allpsych.com/timeline.html source]).<BR>--[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like it was around 1968. [http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/psy/psyreg.pdf .pdf file of New Jersey law] - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. Is it safe to assume that before ~1968 the [http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/bme/board/history.htm New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners] would have been involved in State regulation of psychologists and anyone practicing psychotherapy or was psychotherapy basically not regulated by the State? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 05:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think the Board of Medical Examiners played any role, as the practice of psychotherapy seems to have been unregulated before that time. The NJBME would have (still does) regulated psychiatrists, of course, but that was the practice of medicine. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia articles about [[scientology]] heavily cite the website of [[Operation Clambake]]. One page at their website says, "[http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI/fbi-149.html In 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners filed charges against HDRF for teaching a branch of medicine without a license]". I'm trying to figure out if this makes sense. The idea that a "Board of Medical Examiners filed charges" seems odd. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::The NJSBME certainly ''brings'' charges against those who practice medicine without a license. They list the names of those deemed guilty monthly. "Filed" wouldn't be my verb choice, but it's pretty much synonymous. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 06:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help. This is starting to make sense. I found [http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/elizabeth-foundation-011551.htm this] which suggests that the attorney general brought the case to court. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:No problem. Perhaps the board only handles civil penalties, and the attorney general handles cases referred from the Board for criminal prosecution. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 06:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Name for a class of chemical reactions ==
Is there a general name for a reaction in which a large molecule is split by the addition of a small molecule? It's the reverse of [[condensation reaction|condensation]], and [[hydrolysis]] is a special case. [[Solvolysis]] isn't it because the small molecule that's added isn't necessarily the solvent. Any ideas? —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 07:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
: "cleavage" is used a bit in the literature, i can't think of anything more scientific, but i might be forgetting something obvious. [[User:Xcomradex|Xcomradex]] 11:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::I like cleavage.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:::Don't all men ? :-) [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Depends on the [[Buttock cleavage|cleavage]] and the men. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:: In nuclear reactions, a large '''nucleus''' is split into two smaller atoms by collision with a small nucleus (or neutron). This is called '''[[nuclear fission]]''' but I doubt it is what you are looking for. Perhaps, '''decomposition'''? [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::He asked about molecules, not atoms. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== black hole and parital black body ==
s black hole a partial black body?? if no please explain how--[[User:59.178.4.239|59.178.4.239]] 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:No. A blackbody (usually written as one word) is an object which reflects absolutely no electromagnetic radiation that falls on it. A black hole is a perfect blackbody.
:Unless you believe in [[Hawking radiation]].... [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Hawking radiation is emitted from (as opposed to reflected by) black holes. Blackbodies may emit radiation (stars are almost perfect blackbodies) they just don't reflect any.
== Physics - alfoil ==
Why doesn't aluminium foil get hot in the oven? I know it is an insulator and effective in reflecting heat, but why? Would other metals (say copper) have a similar effect? [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:It does get hot, but because it is so thin and has a large surface area compared to its mass, it loses most of its heat almost as soon as it comes out of the oven.--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 09:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: It is important to note the difference between [[Temperature]] and [[Heat]]. Though the temperature may rise, there is not much heat energy stored in the foil because it is so low-mass. Also, although it reflects heat, I believe Aluminum would usually be classified as a conductor. This has a double-effect: the heat is easily conducted away whether it is warming up or cooling off! [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I'll note in response to Nimur's comment that while aluminum is a pretty good ''conductor'' of heat, it does an excellent job of blocking ''radiant'' heat (infrared radiation). Also, since the foil traps the air around the wrapped-up food, it reduces the ''convective'' cooling. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Well spoken, Ten. Maybe we should link to '''[[Convection]]''', '''[[Heat conduction|Conduction]]''', and '''[[Thermal radiation|Radiation]]''' - which are the three mechanisms of [[heat transfer]]. Understanding the interplay between these will help the original questioner get a sense of the way food actually gets warm inside an oven. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I understand why food gets hot in an oven... So why are metals good at reflecting radiant heat? I assume it has something to do with the delocalization of electrons, which makes it hard for them to be pushed into an excited state...? [[User:BenC7|BenC7]] 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Acceleration/Deceleration ==
I began thinking about this while driving down the road one day. Say I'm accelerating at a rate of 5 mph/sec and I come to a hill which drops my rate of acceleration to 2 mph/sec. While my rate of acceleration is decreasing, am I decelerating or still accelerating? Or both?
:I suppose that you mean to say that you are travelling at a velocity of 5 mph and when you encouner a hill, your velocity drops to 2 mph. That means that you have decelerated. If your velocity is still decreasing while you are climbing uphill, then you are still decelerating. We can say that the deceleration is constant if the rate of decrease in velocity is constant (say the velocity drops by 1 mph every second).
:If this is not the answer you are looking for, you may need to reframe the question.--[[User:Wikicheng|Wikicheng]] 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:You are still accelerating because your acceleration is still greater than 0. You just accelerate more slowly when you are on the hill. --[[User:Yanwen|Yanwen]] 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yanwen is right. Your ''rate of acceleration'' is decreasing, but your ''velocity'' is still increasing. As an aside, as you get to the hill, and your rate of acceleration drops, your [[jerk]] is decreasing - jerk is another word for "rate of acceleration". All these quantities should become blissfully clear if you take a basic calculus course - all these quantities are different [[derivative|derivatives]] of your position. Your position is the "zeroth" derivative of position, your velocity is the first derivative of position, acceleration is the second derivative of position, jerk is the third, etc. And consequently acceleration is the first derivative of velocity, and jerk is the second, etc etc. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::That's close, but not perfect. If the hill is ideal and encountering it is instantaneous, the acceleration drops instantly to 2 mph/s, so there is infinite jerk for 0 time at that point and no jerk elsewhere (the jerk has the form of a [[Dirac delta function]]). Part of what's confusing is the phrase "rate of acceleration" which can be interpreted as "rate of velocity change (a.k.a. acceleration)" or "rate of [change of] acceleration, a.k.a. jerk". The second interpretation is a bit odd, but there's confusion nonetheless (with "rate of speed" and such too). I'd recommend using "amount" or "rate of change of" (as appropriate) instead of "rate" where there are already speed-like variables and time-derivatives everywhere. --[[User:Tardis|Tardis]] 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Other possibility: if the 2 mph/s value is at the top of the hill, to the entirety of which the reduction in acceleration is attributed, then there has been a negative jerk during the trip up the hill (although we can't say anything about the precise nature or distribution of the jerk without more detailed information). But this isn't what a hill would really do (given constant driving power); it would be closer to the instant change I suggested a minute ago, where when on the hill the acceleration had one constant value and when off the hill it had another, also constant, value. In other words, with a different (odd) interpretation, we can have a negative jerk, but nothing has indicated a ''decreasing'' jerk as Bmk suggested. --[[User:Tardis|Tardis]] 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Good point - that wasn't what I meant to say - I meant to say the jerk is negative, not decreasing. Thanks --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:mph/s? Is that unit actually used? If so, it might deserve a mention (and conversion) in the [[acceleration]] article. It isn't as weird as kWh/yr, though, because that mixes up three units of time, second, hour and year (the second is in the watt, which is J/s). [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== sun ==
What is the most visible part of the sun? a)Corona, b)Chromosphere, c)photosphere, d) prominence
:If you read our article on the [[sun]] (<== click on the link), you will quickly find out that the most visible part of the sun is the....aack! (*#&$#@$#( Gasp.... the gods of the reference desk are smiting me for almost answering a homework question! I'm sure you'll find the answer pretty quickly. (PS: I would suggest using your browser's text search function and search for "visible" once you get to the sun article) --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::This does sound rather like a homework question. The answer should be pretty obvious if you paid attention to the different layers of the Sun.
:::...or paid attention in class. - [[User:Cybergoth|Cybergoth]] 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:The outside part? --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:The shiny bits. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:The surface? --[[User:Bowlhover|Bowlhover]] 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
: [[Page Three girl|Page 3]]? -- '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:You could also take a hint from the word [[photon]]. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== star ==
Is the North Star the major reference point in the celestial sphere?
:Depends where you live. Not in Australia. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yup. See [[North Star]] and [[Pole Star]].--[[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Nope. Polaris is 44 minutes (0.74 degrees) away from the celestial north pole, so it can't be used to pinpoint exactly where the celestial north pole is. The "first point of Aries" is the reference point for [[right ascension]]: it's the point in the sky (relative to the stars) where the Sun appears to be, at the March equinox. (To be more specific: at some point during March, the Sun will appear to be directly overhead at some point along Earth's equator. The position of the Sun at this moment, relative to the stars, is right ascension 0.) As for [[declination]], the declination of a star is simply the latitude at which the star appears to be at a 90-degree [[altitude (astronomy)|altitude]]. (Of course the star can't be directly overhead along the entire line of latitude, but it will appear overhead at some ___location along the latitude line.) --[[User:Bowlhover|Bowlhover]] 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:The North Star is [[Polaris]].{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
::It hasn't always been, and it will not always be. And Polaris is not a perfect "north star". --[[User:Bowlhover|Bowlhover]] 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:[[Satellite navigation system|GPS]]? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Sulfuric Acid ==
I'm confused. You say that both Jabir ibn Hayya and al-Razi discovered sulfuric acid. Which one was it?
:I'm not sure who "you" is, but the wikipedia article on [[Sulfuric Acid]] states that [[Jabir ibn Hayyan]] is credited with the discovery, but [[al-Razi]] studied its properties and production. I don't see a contradiction - hope that clears things up. And btw, it's usually helpful to link to articles that you are referring to so everyone knows what you mean - do this by enclosing an article name in double square brackets. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Quoting from the article on [[al-Razi]]: "Razi is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid". --[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]][[User talk:Lambiam|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah - thanks. That seems like a difficult contradiction to resolve - probably will take someone more familiar with the topic and the sources. There may be no good answer, but the articles should at least agree with each other. --[[User:Bmk|Bmk]] 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== [[Intersexual]] or [[Hermaphrodite]]? ==
What is the correct term for a person who is neither male nor female? One one hand, Wikipedia's articles state that "hermaphrodite" and "pseudo-hermaphrodite" are antiquated and offensive, and have been replaced by "intersexual." On the other hand, I have seen numerous uses of these words in the media. Including [http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-92/features/turningaman62/ the article by Jared Diamond] in Discover magazine. [[User:JianLi|JianLi]] 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Hermaphrodite would mean ''both'' male and female, neither would be asexual. Hermaphrodite is only somewhat offensive to humans, but the term is used in biology all the time. I have never heard intersexual. Is that like transexual?{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:According to the relevant articles, [[asexuality]] refers to the condition of having no sexual interests or desires, while [[intersexuality]] describes the condition of having ambiguous genitalia. The latter sounds like what the questioner was asking. [[Intersexuality]] notes that advocates for intersexual people do not like the terms ''hermaphrodite'' and ''pseudohermaphrodite'', which suggests they should be restricted to describing non-human animals. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Of course asexuals have no sexual desire! They can't have sex! Asexually reproducing biota include [[bacteria]], [[sponges]], and [[cnidarian]]s.{{User:Mac_Davis/Sig}}
:::There are two meanings of the word; one refers to organisms that reproduce asexually, the other to humans who don't feel sexual desire (see [[Asexuality]]). --[[User:Amcbride|Allen]] 04:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Digital cameras and battery life? ==
I'm considering buying myself a new digital camera, as my old one seems to have finally died on me. Quick question - are the newer ones still as battery-hungry? My previous camera (bought about seven years ago) would go through 4xAA batteries in a couple of hours, less with rechargables - I hardly ever used it because it was so damn impractical. --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know about cameras being less power hungry, but in my experience modern [[NiMH]] rechargeables should easily outlast ordinary disposable [[AA cell]]s. Mind you, the highest-capacity ones tend to be costly, and the capacity ratings are usually "ideal" ones: a "2400 mAh" battery does ''not'' usually last 1.5 times as long as a "1600 mAh" one in practice, and will usually cost more than 1.5 times as much. Still, even the low-end ones often outperform disposable cells in camera use, since they deliver a more stable voltage over time. A good [[battery charger]] is also important — it doesn't have to be an expensive brand-name one, but it should be ΔV-controlled ("intelligent") and should have independent charging circuits for each cell. I've had good personal experiences with the cheap store-branded [http://www.biltema.fi/osteri/osteri.cgi?sivu=skriptisivut/index_kauppa.htm&linkki=38241.htm&tuote=38241 "Rapid Charger"] and cells from [http://www.biltema.com/ Biltema]; similar products, or possibly even the exact same ones modulo branding, can probably be found in local stores elsewhere. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::I have a German brand, Concord 5345z (5 Megapixels), which comes with a recharger for it's two rechargeable AA Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries. I would call it a battery hog, yes, as the two batteries only last about a day if you are taking pics constantly. However, as long as I remember to recharge them every night, a one day charge seems workable. One bad side, though, is that uploading the pics to my laptop also depletes the charge. I've learned not to dawdle when doing so. I used to upload one pic, then edit it, then do the next, etc., which ran my batteries down. If I just upload them all at once, then turn off my camera and recharge the batteries while I edit the pics, it works out much better. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know if power consumption has changed, but the major factor here is the display. A bigger one will (I assume) consume more power, but more importantly the display is the big power drain. If you are likely to run out of juice, turn it off when you don't need it. That way you'll still have the camera standing by without having to worry too much about the battery running down. Also, whatever the power consumption might be, it is always good to have two batteries, so you can use one while the other one is being loaded. Or better still, you don't need to worry about when to load because if you take two batteries and the one in the camera runs down you can use the other. You're unlikely to go through more than one battery in one day, so in the evening you ca charge the one that ran down.
:So in the price of the camera you should include the price of two batteries - they differ quyite a lot, especially if there are (decent) alternatives by other manufacturers (such as [http://www.hama.co.uk/portal Hama] (if you buy two of those you'll have Hamas :) )) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Reflection and Radiation mutually exclusive? ==
Lets say I take a shiny metal object, one that is polished and reflects light well, and heat it until it glows red-hot. Does the object continue to reflect light while it is glowing, (I assume the intensity of the radiated light would be many times greater than that of the reflected light, obscuring the latter), or are radiation and reflection mutually exclusive behaviors? Assume that the shiny metal is heated in an oxygen-poor environtment to avoid tarnishing oxidation. I was unable to find the answer in [[blackbody]] or associated articles.[[User:Tuckerekcut|Tuckerekcut]] 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, it will continue to reflect light. And if you could build a precise-enough instrument to measure the intensity of light, (or any other part of the EM spectrum), you would be able to see that the two processes add linearly. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, this isn't really correct. If the object is hot enough to be visibly glowing, then the spectrum of excitations responsible for that glow will also make it receptive to absorbing visible light, at which point the light shined on to it would be partially contributing to heating the object. Since energy must be conserved, the total emitted light would still be expected to vary linearly with the light shined on it (neglecting other modes of energy dissipation), but the spectrum would be changed and not have the wavelength preserving qualities normally associated with reflections. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: in the same vein as the previous post, if the light being reflected is of a high enough frequency to be out of the blackbody radiation for the objects temperature, then it will reflect. think about a regular mirror at 298K, it is still pumping out black body radiation, yet it still reflects light, because visible light is of a much higher frequency than the blackbody radiation at room temperature. [[User:Xcomradex|Xcomradex]] 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== String Theory as a T.O.E. ==
Hello. How does string theory solve the renormalization problem of gravity? And if it doesn't, why is it considered a possible T.O.E?[[User:AmateurThinker|AmateurThinker]] 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
== Sleep deprivation induced cogntive impairments ==
Several articles I've read have mentioned such impairments, but did not mention whether they were reversible upon receiving an adequate amount of sleep, or whether such impairments were residual. Anyone?
:I hope not, because I'm really tired right now :) actually I'm pretty sure not. However check the article on [[Sleep debt]]. [[User:71.199.123.24|71.199.123.24]] 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== What disorder? ==
What is the name of the disorder/allergy where red skin is induced by scratching?
:[[Dermatographism]], as seen in [[Darier's sign]] which is seen in diseases such as [[mastocytoma]]. [[User:InvictaHOG|InvictaHOG]] 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:[[Hives]] and/or [[contact dermatitis]]. It's not mentioned in wikipedia, but there is a form when rubbing/scratching the skin rasies red welts (bump). I saw a picture where someone wrote the word hello on someones back, just by lightly scratching them! Also see [[Eczema]], and maybe general [[Dermatitis]]. [[User:71.199.123.24|71.199.123.24]] 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== The evolutionary value of doing calculus? ==
Human beings evolved to survive, but why did we evolve the ability to do calculus?
I do not understand why humans can do so many clever things that are quite unnecessary for survival. Surely evolution is parsimonious and abilities that are of no value to surviving in the savannah environment should never have been developed? --[[User:62.253.44.34|62.253.44.34]] 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:[[Human evolution#Use of tools]]? [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a gene for being able to calculus. Rather, doing calculus comes naturally (with some training) to any human with a firm grasp on [[symbol]]s, the concept of reducing complex problems to tiny steps, and a few other basic skills that definitely have evolutionary value. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:I think the questioner was trying to ask why intelligence evolved in humans, and used calculus as an example. --[[User:Bowlhover|Bowlhover]] 03:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::[[Intelligence]] is a major advantage! It allows humans to solve difficult problems, use tools (as noted by Melchoir), comunicate effectively, resolve conflicts nonviolently, waste time on the computer :), and many other things. The ability to do calculus is just an extension of the ability to do arithmetic and count, albeit a pretty big extension. [[User:Emmett5|Emmett5]] 04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::There's actually a stub at [[Evolution of intelligence]] that needs work, if people here are interested. --[[User:Amcbride|Allen]] 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== [[Donna Nook]] ==
As the [[Donna Nook]] fire range has been used by [[A-10 Thunderbolt]]s for cannon practice and the A-10s have a GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun, which indeed fires [[depleted uranium]] armor-piercing shells, is there any publicly available information on the health risks associated with the place? Does anyone know whether the Freedom of Information Act could be used to request information from the MoD or is it not applicable? Thanks, [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E '''''</font>]][[User:Asterion|<font color="Blue">'''Asterion'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Asterion|<font color="Green">'''u talking to me?'''</font>]]</small></sup> 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Basic Burn Question ==
I looked on web md, but they skirted the question. I just got a minor burn by grabbing a hot pan. It's been two or three days and the small burn has turned into a small raised blister that doesn't hurt at all unless put under particularly hot water. The raised blister's really irritating me, and i was wondering if after three days, the skin has formed underneath the scab sufficiently for me to pop it, let the liquid out, and peel off the scab to let the new skin heal over. If not, when, if ever, is this a good idea? Should I never pull the scab off, because it seems to me that that scab is not what's going to become my new top skin layer. Thanks. [[User:Sashafklein|Sashafklein]] 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:My understanding is that as long as there's fluid in the blister, the flesh beneath is vulnerable. All the literature I've read says never to pop blisters, so I ice them, which decreases the fluid pressure and makes them less irritating. Technically you're not supposed to apply ice directly to burns, but you're not actually applying it to the burn, you're applying it to the blister. Also, even after several days the application of cool can have anti-inflammatory benefits. Also, cover the blister with a bandaid or a loose dressing to keep it from bursting or being bumped.--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 07:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Should it just eventually deflate or peel off?
[[User:Sashafklein|Sashafklein]] 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== Diff. b/w university and college ==
my question is wat is the difference b/w university/college..and university/ institute or college/institute??
:The common-usage meaning and specific definition varies somewhat with country. [[College]] would be a good start. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] 07:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:: If you tell us which country you are from, we might be able to be more specific regarding the use of the words ''[[college]]'' and ''[[university]]''. However, academic [[institute]]s tend to be research orientated, while colleges and universities will offer teaching as well as research. '''[[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]]''' 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
== ADHESIVES ==
WHAT IS THE BEST ADHESIVE TO BE USED BETWEEN RUBBER AND POLYURETHANE, TO PREVENT PRESSURIZED WATER TO COME BETWEEN. WALEED KHAMIS
== Communication equipment ==
I'm doing research on Euipment used in Communication.please help!!--[[User:198.54.202.146|198.54.202.146]] 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Sizwe—
:Does [[Telecommunication]] or [[:Category:Telecommunications]] help? [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 09:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
| 