Miscellaneous desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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.

March 15

Prize Crew

What is a "Prize Crew" in naval terms? Jamesino 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you capture another ship during wartime (the prize), you put a crew on board to man it if it is still sailable. The Royal Navy used to pay prize money when it bought the vessel. Obviously you're not a Horatio Hornblower fan, ye landlubber. Clarityfiend 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! Prize money was one of the few attractions of a time when naval life was otherwise governed by 'Rum, Sodomy and the Lash'. Clio the Muse 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some persons,one or all of 'rum,sodomy and the lash' may have been very great attractions... Lemon martini 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the prize crew in the case of the German WWII battleship Bismarck? Since Bismarck was never captured by the Allies, why did it have a prize crew? Jamesino 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the "prize crew" that is mentioned under "Complement" on the Bismarck page ? That was an 80 man complement carried not to crew the Bismarck itself but to crew any prize ships that the Bismarck captured - see here and here for more information. Gandalf61 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prize money was allocated by strictly determined rules, by ship and by rank. To qualify for prize money a ship had to be in sight of the battle. In Hornblower's life he missed prize money on one occasion because he fought to delay the reinforcements, but out of sight of the main British fleet which captured enemy ships. Brutal.86.197.47.172 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)foresterfan[reply]

But of course there was no prize money awarded that time, since the capture took place just before war broke out. Hornblower and Bush got a good laugh out of that. Clarityfiend 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need cheap Merchant account

I'm doing an internet . Where can i find a cheap, reliable merchant account? (preferably from a well-known trustworthy bank)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.1.177 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For most smallish activities, PayPal is pretty usable. SteveBaker 06:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who has ever heard of a "trustworthy" bank?--88.109.116.185 06:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which

Which brand and style is the most popular 80's glasses for men?100110100 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, or for the 80's? 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film Blues Brothers is widely credited with reviving the Ray-Ban brand of sun glasses. Rhinoracer 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History channel

RIGHT NOW, they're discussing BLACK HOLES and the Bermuda Triangle. Can this be placed here ? 65.173.105.125 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a glitch that is causing my sig to be deactivated, as seen here. 65.173.105.125 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The science desk might be a better place to discuss black holes. The Bermuda triangle...hmmm...maybe here, maybe science (maybe religion since there are suggestions of the supernatural being involved). I guess the science desk would be the best place overall. SteveBaker 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure MOVIE!?!?

if there is going to be a movie in production who should play trane, decoy and gabe?? happy suggesting ppl! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.235.99 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The refrerence desk isn't a messageboard, therefore your question doesn't belong here, sorry. →Ed Gl 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle

How thick is the windshield of the space shuttle? Also, what is it made out of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.197.123.198 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They appear to be made of Fused quartz. [1] According to this NASA document:

The outer panes of the windshield serve as a critical part of the thermal protection system, keeping the high heat of reentry away from the manned compartment of the vehicle. The inner panes form part of the pressure vessel where the crew lives. The outer pane, also called the thermal pane, is a .6 inch thick plate of fused silica glass [quartz], approximately 35" x 45". There are six thermal panes in the windshield, two in the overhead windows (observation windows) and one in the side hatch.

- Rockpocket 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Humans

I was just curious to know how vegetarians and vegans and the like can live with the fact that they are made of meat?

Because they're not killing/eating themselves. Vegans, et al, do not have a moral problem with the existence of meat; to suggest so is quite silly. On that note, please do not use the Reference Desk as a soapbox. — Lomn 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

et al is only supposed to replace names on a list of at least six people

1. Not true. According to our own source, depending on which citation style you are using, the term et al. (short for latin phrases meaning either and others or and elsewhere) may be used for a list of as few as three items. Your third term ('and the like') stands for more than one, so I see 'at least three more terms possible.

2. PLEASE sign your edits...so we know who to appreciate for the time and effort here in the reference desk! Jfarber 18:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's claimed they eat each other, in reality they're merely tasting each other... 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And tasty a vegetarian is not! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q

I am sure I am not NT, does this mean I have to have an ASD? Also can someone with HFA get CDD? Finally if someone only almost has AS, would this be called something else?

WTF? Dismas|^(talk) 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBS BBQ. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: I am sure I am not Neurotypical, does this mean I have to have an Autism Spectrum Disorder? Also can someone with High-functioning autism get Childhood disintegrative disorder? Finally if someone only almost has Asperger syndrome, would this be called something else? --Tagishsimon (talk)

WDNOMA. Sorry, couldn't resist. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WDNOMA? What is that supposed to mean? "We Don't Need O? More Abbreviations"? Google suggests I might mean "woman"... 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We(or Wikipedia) do not offer medical advice." Thought it might not apply to this question fully. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THX! ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wakuran (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is a continuous spectrum from 'normality' through mere 'geekiness' to Aspergers and into 'high functioning' Autism through to people who are totally shut off from the world and cannot function on any level in society. It's very hard to pin a firm label on someone - and utterly impossible to pin it on yourself because the names for these conditions are totally arbitary and the means for determining which label applies are pretty vague. It's not like there is a blood test to say whether you are Aspergers or are merely Geeky - they use a set of diagnostic criteria - which you can read about in the articles already referenced here. There are an enormous number of people who believe they have Aspergers who are in truth pretty normal geeks - there are a lamentable number of people who are close to the Autistic end of the spectrum who are not getting the help they need because they have been labelled as 'merely' Asperger cases. If it matters to you which label you should have - then by all means seek out medical advice (which is hard if you are (like me) in the Aspergers "range" - because that's precisely the kind of contact we shy away from). Personally, I found it to be something of a relief to get a firm diagnosis - but in truth it doesn't change who I am - so in the end the label doesn't matter. The good thing is that unless you are firmly at the Autistic end of the spectrum, the benefits that accrue from this syndrome are more valuable to most 'victims' than the (definite) downsides - if there was a pill you could take to 'cure' Aspergers, I wouldn't take it. If you want to just talk about this, you can find my email address on my home-page which is linked from User:SteveBaker - but if you seek a diagnosis, find a doctor. Good luck! SteveBaker 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a doctor if you want a real diagnosis. People tend to overdo it when self-diagnosing themselves, such as nowadays with geeks and Aspergers. Just being introverted, socially incompetent, and having freakishly good hearing in the high ranges, does not mean you actually have "Aspergers". If it did, it would mean that a person with a sad day every once in a while and a happy day every once in a while was "bipolar". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why was my comment deleted :( All I said was thet they shouyld be themselves and that a doctor might try to fit them into a specific category, instead of treating them as an individual :( HS7 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Patterson

Hi! I was reading on Important people on the Republic of Panama. I am the grandson of a very importat Panamanian person. His name is Guillermo Patterson. You can find information on him on google. However, I would like to add him up here. At the same time I (Fidel Guillermo Ponce Patterson) would like to add an external link of my webpages www.panamacruise.com.pa for tourism and www.panamahotrealestate.com if possible as well. Do you think is is possible? Best, Fidel G. Ponce P.

Although Wikipedia is free and open for anybody to edit, in cases like this you have to be very careful about conflicts of interest that could end up creating biased, non-neutral articles. I'd suggest that you add your grandfather to the list of requested articles and leave it up to somebody else to actually create it, so that we can make sure that it's neutral. You can also suggest it to the group that takes care of Panama articles and maybe somebody there will be interested in creating the article. As far as your links go, in order to get them posted here they'd have to be proven to be pretty notable and topical to an article here, since Wikipedia isn't meant as a medium for free advertising. --Maelwys 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we have to be exceedingly careful about bias in such cases. If your grandfather is indeed a 'notable' person (and Wikipedia has some pretty specific guidelines about that) then the best thing would be to find an editor (perhaps someone who has written about other notable Panamanians) and ask if they would create an article for you - based on a more neutral point of view than you would be able to provide yourself. I'm sure that such a person would be interested in any source material you might have or know of (especially any mentions of your ancestor in books and magazines) because these kinds of primary sources can be hard to find. However, referencing your two business websites is quite definitely out of the question - that's 100% contrary to all of our rules here. If I discovered those links in the context of an article about a this person, I would be obliged to delete them immediately and put some kind of a 'this guy is an evil spammer' tag on your user page - so please don't do that! SteveBaker 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional energy markets in the United States

How can I find information about differences between the electricity markets in the south versus in the west? Specifically, information about the operations or organization differences between those markets? Thank you. 66.150.60.2 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this information is available on Wikipedia, and the best analyses of this question are unlikely to be available online. The best way to research this would be to go to a business library, for example the library of a university business school, that subscribes to academic and professional journals that cover those questions. Some such libraries are open to the public, and large cities often have a business library as part of their public library system. The reference librarian at such a library should be able to help you find relevant articles. You seem to be in Georgia, so you might try the University of Georgia library. Marco polo 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start of a Day

My question is :Where does the "Day" start? ie: Chita Siberia, Russia, appears to have a 15 hour jump ahead of Billings Montanan, USA, yet, the Greenwich Prime Meridian appears to be East of the USA, and West of Russia. I am curious, where would the hour "0" be in a case like this. It seems the sun comes up on USA 'before' it does on Russia, yet they are into Friday, whereas we are into Thursday.

Thank you,

Russell A.Palmer <email redacted> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.145.75.91 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

At the core, you have to remember that any discrete point of "east" or "west" is completely arbitrary. You can only travel north so far, and then you have to go south, but you can go west indefinitely. Just as you note that the sun seems to come up on the US before Russia, what if you start somewhere else on the globe? It rises on England before the US. It rises on Russia before England. So on, and so forth. The Prime Meridian is just an arbitrary point of definition (and note how that reference has varied by time and culture). — Lomn 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he is going for is where the day changes first. Today is March 15th, where on earth will it be March 16th first?--ChesterMarcol 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would normally be on the west side (that is, the Eastern Hemisphere) of the International Date Line -- except, of course, for the various jogs in where the IDL is drawn. I think Kiribati is furthest "east", and therefore the first to see the sunrise of a given day, in the GMT+14 timezone. — Lomn 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, the easternmost of three time zones in Kiribati. Historically the all-time best answer was the easternmost point of the Alaska Panhandle (either near Hyder or along the water border south of there, I'm not sure which) when Alaska was a Russian possession (so the date changed as you crossed the border with British territory, now Canada) and had not yet adopted zone time. At longitude 130°W, the local time there would have been +15:20. Before part of Kiribati adopted time zone +14, this zone existed in eastern Russia during daylight saving time, but according to the tz database, it's not used there any more. --Anonymous, March 15, 2007, 23:48 (UTC).

As best I can tell, the piece of land where the sun rises first on a given date would be Flint Island in Kiribati. Marco polo 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you want to talk about sunrise ("day" as in daytime) rather than midnight ("day" as in 24 hours with the same calendar date), you have to consider the effect of latitude. The day may start an hour later in eastern Russia (during daylight saving time) than in eastern Kiribati, but the 24-hour day can include 24 hours of daylight, so the first daylight on a particular calendar date could be in Russia. Of course, that's only at certain times of year. At other times there might be bases in Antarctica that would be first -- I'm not sure offhand what time zones they all keep -- or maybe Chatham Island, which is considerably farther south than Kiribati and has its own time zone +12:45. Near the solstices, though, Kiribati would certainly be first. --Anon, March 17, 01:51 (UTC).

Maybe if you were on a really tall mountain, such as Hawaii, you might see the sun around the side of the earth :) HS7 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

equiptment

HOW CAN I PURCHASE CD OR DVD MULTIPLE REPLICATION/DUPLICATION EQUIPTMENT WITH PROGRAM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Styles777 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC). IF ANY INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT AT (e-mail address removed).[reply]

Removed the email address. anonymous6494 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a CD/DVD burner? If so, any computing shop should sell them. As for software, I imagine most burners come with their own software. Otherwise you can download one of the web, a popular one for Windows is Nero. - Akamad 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hes talking about equipment that can mass produce pirated material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.159.75 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

youtubes as sources.

i was wondering if youtube videos (or videos in general, actually) can be used as sources.

thx, aeymxq 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine we could if the video stayed there for a good long time. But.... Any video with a notable person probably is copyrighted by some company like NBC, Viacom, MTV, etc. and by using that video as a source you're basically encouraging the copyright violation that the video represents. Dismas|^(talk) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked before. The answer is "depends on what it is, and what you are using it as a source for." You have the same source reliability problems with YouTube than you do with anything else. As a further note, not every video on YouTube is copyright infringement. For example, I don't see a problem with a YouTube clip of the 1902 science fiction film by Georges Melies, Le Voyage Dans La Lune. Furthermore, one would not expect to be "encouraging copyright violation" by making use of a lonelygirl15 clip, whether you were using it as a reference for an article about lonelygirl15 or not-- it was deliberately distributed using YouTube, there is no copyright violation involved. Similarly, I wouldn't see a copyright problem with using this clip, which arguably might be used as a reference for Slide guitar. Or this clip of the Electric Slide which I understand was posted by the guy who claims he invented & copyrighted the dance. Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the prevalence of infringing materials on YouTube and other social video spaces puts the onus on the viewer to make sure that you only cite legitimate materials...and note, further, that the potential for illegitimacy inherent in socially constructed content spaces casts a potential pall of illegitimacy on ALL such mentions of the site in a bibliography for some professors -- often those same professors who would frown upon use of Wikipedia for a source, for related reasons. But I also think Crypticfirefly's point that much (most?) of YouTube is perfectly legitimate is a good one, though of course the academic relevance of much of the world of YouTube is questionable, unless you're cybersocial scientist Danah Boyd.

But I disagree with Dismas' first point above -- how long the video sticks around on YouTube should have no bearing on whether or not it can or should be used as a source. There is plenty of precedence in academia for citation of esoteric material, from live interviews to speeches to chats and other non-recorded events, and most citation handbooks acknowledge this by providing formats for citing such things. If you experienced it, and can cite it, you MAY use it as a source, period.

That said: many videos on youtube were not posted by their creator, and give no credit to that creator; you may NOT cite the poster unless you are sure they made the video! But without an author to cite, the only info you have left to cite about most youtube videos is the title of the video, and when and where YOU accessed it -- not much of a citation, and much like saying "Hey, I saw this thing called "Skateboard rollerz wow!" yesterday." As above, the less information one can find for a citation, the less trust will be extended to your source (and therefore your information) by your readers. In short, then: you CAN use most YouTube videos...but should you?

As for the more general question (can you use videos as a source at all?) the answer is an absolute "yes" -- in general, you can cite anything that exists, with the above caveats about perceptions of legitimacy; it's on YOU to decide if the source is reliable, but of course you CAN use it if you like, and many videos are solid, wonderfully illuminating sources for may types of work. TheMLA web site has more on this... Jfarber 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say most of YouTube is in fact material that violates copyright. I'm not denying the existance of some material put up either by or with the permission of the copyright owners but it's my experience that most of the material is not. It's important to remember that just because the copyright owner makes no attempt to remove the material doesn't mean it's been put up there legitimate. There is a lot of news material, stuff from TV, music videos etc that have never been removed but in many cases, it's unclear or unlikely that the copyright owner has given permission for it to be there. Obviously there is a fair amount of user created material and stuff like lonelygirl, music videos put up there by the creators etc but I would say it's a definite minority. (Perhaps more importantly, a lot of the stuff which isn't infringing copyright is probably of questionable use as a source. Some of it may be suitable as an external link.) BTW when it comes to wikipedia, in case of public domain material, it's preferble to upload the material directly to wikipedia then link to youtube. Nil Einne 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clairify my point, I don't think that whether or not a particular video on YouTube constitutes copyright infringement is Wikipedia's problem if all you are doing is citing the video as a reference any more than it is your problem if a book you consulted in the library turned out to be an unauthorized, fake copy. When you find out it is a pirated copy you can worry that they didn't copy all of the pages or left out a key sentence, but the thing you are citing is the original. If I wanted to use a television program as a reference, as in your example, I'd cite the news program as broadcast. (Wall $treet Week, original air date June 24, 2005 or whatever is the right way to do it. Not that I think it is likely that someone will upload episodes of THAT show to YouTube. But imagine for the sake of argument that I saw it there.) Most of the things you are going to find on YouTube that actually have YouTube as the "source" that you would cite are going to be things that are more likely to be non-infringing: self-made instructional videos, videoblogs, home videos, "viral marketing" campaigns, and the like. But I agree, it is more likely that things on YouTube will be suitible only as external links providing additional information rather than being a cited source for a piece of information. Crypticfirefly 07:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper citation requires that you cite WHERE you referenced a/v media from for a reason, and most YouTube videos are "clips", rather than whole shows. Citing Wall Street Week as if you had seen it on TV when you did not is both academically dishonest and, potentially, a good way to get things wrong, since any person posting a video can edit it before posting it, and since you have no way of knowing what else happened before and afterwards on the original show even if it has not been changed. No, if you wanted to use a television program as a reference, you must watch the television program itself, not a potentially edited or truncated version, and not on youtube. If, on the other hand, you see something on youtube and want to cite it, every citation format I've ever seen requires you to explicitly cite your source as youtube, so that your readers can decide for themselves if they want to go to the source, and experience exactly what you did, in making their own conclusions. Jfarber 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jfarber, I think we are basically in agreement, I just didn't explain myself clearly. By saying I'd cite the program as broadcast, I meant I'd cite the program in question rather than merely citing "YouTube clip of Alan Greenspan posted by user GreenspanFan." (Thank you for clarifying that the cite should also provide the source.) The point I was trying to make, and perhaps I am putting too fine a point on it, is that I wouldn't consider citing the program to be "citing YouTube" but rather "citing a specific television show that the citer happened to access via YouTube." Crypticfirefly 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subquestion: any data on "most" youtube videos?

We have a difference of opinion here that matters to the OP's question, I think, folks. Can anyone answer the subquestion: Are most videos on youtube legal or illegal, copyright-wise? The only "proof" I have is a knowledge of US fair use laws and a quick skim of the most recent hundred videos or so...but that's not proof, and I'd like to know. Jfarber 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the terms of use, specifically #4 and #5. These should help clear up some of your questions (or raise more questions...) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...it's good to see the official policies. Unfortunately, as we know, youtube only deletes copyrighted information at the request of the copyright holder...and most copyright holders don't know enough to ask. As such, though the policy may reinforce the relevance of the question herein, AFAIK, it doesn't actually answer the question of whether more information than not currently on youtube breaks that policy...and I don't think the policy itself allows us to assume that information on youtube is within that policy until we are demonstrated otherwise -- in other words, a statement of good faith legalese from the web site itself doesn't lend a good faith assumption to the content, I fear. Jfarber 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question would be very hard to answer because there is no way that I know of to systematically browse every video on YouTube. But in case it helps, I did take a look at the top 20 most viewed videos for today and came up with the following breakdown: Nine videos obviously uploaded by the copyright holder (e.g. CBS, lonelygirl15, etc.). Three videos which might have been uploaded by the copyright holder, but I was less sure. (Example: a Swedish uploader of a very pixelated video, titled in Japanese, of blond women in bikinis. It *looked* like an advertisement posted by some kind of erotic video seller, but I wasn't sure.) There was a clip from Jeopardy, which is presumably infringement. Three clips from what appeared to be British comedy shows, presumably infringing. One from what appears to be a British news program, presumably infringing. Finally, there were three clips of the exact same video (plus or minus a few seconds at either end) of a World Cup cricket game involving the South African team, again, presumably infringing. Next, I looked at the 20 most recently uploaded videos. Of these, every single one was clearly uploaded by the creator (many of them apparently recorded with cell phones). The only possible copyright infringement was the classical music recording used as background music for a slideshow of pictures from a birthday party (but for all I know the musical recording itself is PD), and the music used as the background for a twelve-second clip of a guy on a skateboard. Crypticfirefly 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's roughly the survey I tried, too, Cryptic. I worry, however, that those who would upload copyrighted content blatantly might do so in batches -- in other words, I wonder if using the most recent 20 posted videos offers a statistically significant estimate, or could be WAY off from a true average. Maybe there's no way to find such an average. Hmm. Jfarber 18:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]