Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 1

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.

November 1

laptops

Do laptops give off any kind of radiation? that is, is it bad if i sit with my laptop in my lap all of the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.151 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They give off electromagnetic radiation of varying frequencies. So far there is some controversy about the danger from electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies. For example, people worry about the radiation from cell phones so close to the brain when people are speaking on them. I might also wonder about the effect on your testes if the laptop is very warm and you are male. --Filll 01:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a study done a few years ago about the testes issue, in fact, and it noted that men who kept laptops on their laps all day long had significantly lower sperm counts than those who did not, and a significantly higher chance of infertility. (As someone who will not ever be reproducing, that doesn't bother me much.) In that case, if I recall, the problem was the heat specifically. (Also, while laptops give off radiations of sorts, like all light-emitting things, they are not radioactive in the nuclear physics sense). --24.147.86.187 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exposing the testes to heat does indeed tend to reduce sperm count and motility. Regular hot baths will do it, too: [1]. Of course, there can be more severe symptoms as well. Some laptops run hot enough to cause burns to the lap if air circulates poorly around them: Ouch. I can't comment on EM radiation, other than to say that I'm not aware of any studies supporting a link between non-heat radiation from laptops and health problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Heat is the problem - it's bad for you - and it's bad for the laptop (because your lap is a good insulator and it needs to get rid of that heat). If you could put the laptop on a tray or something so that there is a natural air gap between the underside of the laptop and the tray (because the little rubber feet keep them separated) - then that would be better for you and for the laptop. There is absolutely no evidence that the radiation computers give off is harmful - it's very low intensity and no different from regular radio waves. SteveBaker 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Monitors bad for the eyes

Is it true that staring at a computer monitor and watching TV is made for one's eyes? If so, does the type (CRT, LCD, etc...) of monitor play a role? Thanks. Acceptable 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well ever since i got into the computer about since when i joined wikipedia my eyesight has gotten worse. Conicnident i THINK NOT Jack The Pumpkin King 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, if we're going on meaningless anecdotal evidence, I look at computer displays for many hours a day on average, and I still have better-than-average vision, as I always have. This isn't medical advice, but how can looking at something damage your eyes? That's what they're made for. Light can only damage your eyes if it's extremely bright or contains higher-energy radiation like ultraviolet. The best thing you can do to protect your eyes is wear sunglasses outdoors, and wear safety goggles when you should. —Keenan Pepper 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't scientific or medical advice either, but in relation to the question "..how can looking at something damage your eyes?", my doctor once told me that it's possible eyes can be damaged because the image on a monitor or TV screen is not fixed, it only appears that way; our brain actually detects the minute movements and tries to keep pace with them. But then, a rock isn't fixed either, it only appears that way - it's composed of trillions of atomic particles that are in constant motion too. So I'm not sure my doctor's theory was all that sound. -- JackofOz 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The more you state at a screen the less sensitive the center of your eyes become. To test this go into a dark room and turn a CRT TV on. Turn it off and see if you can see the screen glowing (you probably wont be able to see it). Now look so that the TV is only in the very corner of your eyes, you should see it glowing. Now compare with someone who has never used computers etc, they can probably see the glow while looking right at it.--Dacium 04:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My mum used to say don't read when it is dim, which I now also believe to be bollocks. Vespine 05:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be bollocks in the sense that it won't necessarily harm your eyes (although I'm not entirely sure about that, depending on how dim it is), but it's certainly not bollocks in the sense that the greater the illumination (up to the point of glare), the easier it is to read, the less chance you have of misreading the text, the more generally pleasant an experience it is, and the greater the likelihood you'll read something else. Which is very good advice from any Mum to her kid. -- JackofOz 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My doctor said it was glare not the monitor that f'd the eyes up when I asked last Monday. William Ortiz 08:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My many years of toiling long in front of monitors leads me to the conclusion--non-medical & otherwise uninformed opinion--that the most important factor is ensuring that there is only slight contrast between the monitor and the background around it. I rationalise the mechanism as being that the iris does less contraction & dilation as my eye moves from the monitor to the desk to the background surrounding the monitor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe one way TVs and computer monitors can damage vision is by preventing us from exercising the focus mechanism in our eyes. Without this exercise, which we would get if looking at near and far objects in the real world, our ability to change focus can deteriorate. StuRat 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat (and so did the Ergonomics guy at my last job). If you hold your arm up in the air in one position for a long time it gets tiring. Keeping your eye focussed at the same distance for a long time is tiring for the same reason. Reading books and spending hours in front of the computer both suffer from this problem. I don't think it does any kind of permenant damage - but tired focus muscles mean that your vision can become blurry until you give them a nice long rest to recover. The answer is to take a break about every 20 minutes - stare off into the distance - look out of the window - whatever. Give your eyes a chance to look out at far distant things. I put my computer screen at home so that it backs onto a window - then it's an easy matter to look off into the distance once in a while. Taking a break of a few minutes every 20 minutes is good for your hands too - too much typing is bad. I bought one of those kitchen timers that you can set for 30 minutes - when I start work, I wind it up - and I reset it to zero when I take a break. If it goes "bing!" then I know it's been too long and I need to stop for a bit. SteveBaker 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link from the American Optometric association ( http://www.aoa.org/x5380.xml ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What about fine print? I've heard rumours that reading really small font can damage your eyes too. Again, will it only tire out the focusing muscles of your eye and not cause any real damage? Acceptable 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And don't you normally tire a muscle to exercise it, not damage it? Vespine 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Except in RSI. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the UK employers by law are required to pay for regular eyetests for employees who work with screens. Is this something you do for work? Exxolon 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertical Scroll problem with VHS

I just received a VHS I ordered online, the Godfather Epic to be specific, but when I attempted to play the first video the picture would scroll and wrap vertically, with a black bar following. At first I thought it was an issue with tracking, but adjusting that did not help at all, and some of the audio seemed distorted. I put another video into the VCR and it played without issue. I took the Godfather video and put it in another VCR, and once more the picture scrolled. I attempted to play the second video as well, and it had the same problem.

The first VCR did not have any visible brand name, purchased in the 1980's, and the second was a Sylvania. Just in case this is relevant.

Is there anything I can do to fix the issue, or was I sent bad tapes? -Genuspecies 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to examine the tape reel itself and make sure it not obviously damaged. You can expose it by pushing a pencil tip into the large hole in between the two white spindles towards the side of the VHS with the latch on it. I used to work at a video rental store and that was an easy "first thing" to check when tapes were acting strange. --24.147.86.187 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean the heads. You may well have a bad tape, but both VCRs might have heads just dirty enough to keep an iffy tape from working. It's worth a shot. The head cleaning cassettes you can buy are better than nothing. You might have to clean it more than once. --Milkbreath 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be that the video is in the "Long Play" format, look for info on the video jacket, specifically how many hours of video are on it. More than 4 hours then it might well be LP.Polypipe Wrangler 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the tape for damage, but see none. I cleaned both VCR's several times, which also did nothing. I've tried to play it in longplay format, but on one VCR whenever I change the speed it resets when I attempt to play the video. The other doesn't seem to have any way to adjust speeds...there is a 'speed' button on the remote controlling it, but whenever it's pressed nothing happens. Any more ideas? -Genuspecies 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You might see no vertical sync if a tape is a copy of a copy-protected tape, or is itself an imperfectly made copy-protected tape. Try to get a new tape from the company. By the way, a VCR reads the speed from the tape it's playing, sort of; you can only control the speed when you record. --Milkbreath 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just tried playing the tapes on a third VCR in poor condition, and they worked fine...and once more there was vertical desyncing on the other two. While it would make sense, I know it's not an issue of the two vcr's being unable to play S-Videos, as the tapes are from the early 80's. Does this make the problem easier to identify? -Genuspecies 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Polypipe Wrangler asked about the tape duration. What is the running time printed on the tape? --Milkbreath 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The tapes don't have a running time on their label...however, I know that the combined length is 434 minutes and there are 3 tapes...so roughly 144 minutes per. -Genuspecies 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From a purely troubleshooting standpoint, I'm at the end of my flowchart: bad tapes. They should play, and they don't. It's always nice to know exactly what was wrong, but sometimes we end up just fixing the problem. --Milkbreath 02:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The first VCR I had back in the stone age had two speed settings: SP and LP (Standard play and long play, I assume). I could buy an extended length VCR tape and on SP it would record for 2 hours, and on LP it would record for 4 hours. The next VCR I bought (still in the stone age) had three speed settings: SP, LP, and SLP (SLP=Super long play?) I could use those same tapes from before, and on SP it would still be 2 hours, LP would still be 4 hours, but SLP would record for 6 hours. Subsequent VCRs I owned only had settings for SP and EP (same speed setting as SLP), but dropped off the LP as I'm guessing it wasn't used very often. It could be that the two VCRs you used don't have the ability to play at LP speeds any more, yet the third one was old enough that it still had LP capability. Just a guess triggered by some of the conversation above. I've also seen similar results when someone tries to duplicate a copy-protected VHS tape. Sonic Craze 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

I've been experiencing headaches. Can I sue myself for this? —Nricardo 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you could donate some money to a lawyer instead, which would be equivalent (it doesn't matter if you win or lose, because you keep part of the money either way, and the lawyer keeps the other part). —Keenan Pepper 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice and legal advice in the same question. Clever. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea? Well I've been experiencing mental illness and so has my cat. Can the two of us sue a lawyer for this?69.95.50.15 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got schizophrenia.Can all my personalities launch a class suit for damages? :)

(...and before I get poked with a sharp Wikiobject I do actually have very mild schizophrenia) Lemon martini 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No you don't Lemon martini 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespine (talk • contribs)

Oh yes I do Lemon martini 10:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You might not,but we do Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And we deny all rumours that we are multiple personalities Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Lemon martini 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricket - why is the long room called the long room?

A number of cricket grounds (e.g. Lord's, the Melbourne Cricket Ground) have long rooms and I was wondering why they are given this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.137.5 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was just simply a long room at Lords. Other stadiums copied the idea. The name doesn't mean anything, its just a long room. Usually now it means a long room with view of the field on one side and famous painting/picture etc. on the other.--Dacium 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be related to the Long gallery found in many country houses, an attempt at recreating the kind of surroundings and ambience that the members would have been used to. KTo288 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Labor Laws in Alabama

I was recently sick and off 2 days from my job, and went to the Doctor, got an excuse, and returned to work, 2 days later I was fired from my position. I had worked my complete schedule, plus an extra day. I was on salary, and had a Doctors Excuse, AM I SUPPOSED TO GET PAID MY COMPLETE SALARY OR NOT. I HAVE BEEN CHEATED ON MY CHECK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.223.50 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the bit at the top of the page where it says "Do not request regulated professional advice". If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. FiggyBee 07:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the USA have the equivalent of the UK Citizens Advice Bureau? If so they may able to assist in the event you cannot afford an attorney. Exxolon 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Death statistics by army classifications

I am interested in collecting data on which US army soldier ranks are most likely to suffer casualties (in OIF and OEF). Can you help me in this? Can I have information regarding the proportion of privates being killed or wounded versus other ranks? In other words, which army ranks have the highest chance of casualties, and which lowest? My hypothesis is that lower ranking soldiers have a higher chance of suffering casualties, but I would like to see the rate of decrease of the chance of suffering casualties.

Also, I would like information regarding the military occupational specialty of soldiers as well, in a similar fashion. Which specialties have the highest rates of casualties (such as riflemen, artillery, tank drivers, linguists, medics, etc.), and which the lowest?

Thanks.--Goon Noot 06:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Many lists of fatalities will list the soldiers ranks but I don't know of any publicly released list of all the casualties. Rmhermen 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In a sniper situation any trained sniper will pick off a higher ranking member then a lower one. Im guessing most casultys are at random due to the nature or combat. Jack The Pumpkin King 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information so far. Okay but how does it go for army occupation? What's the casualty rates among army chefs, doctors, etc.?--Goon Noot 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Infantry,convoy, and tankers most likely have the highest casulty rates. If you dont leave the base the causity is most likely low. Im guessing normal doctors and chefs caustlties are very rare. Jack The Pumpkin King 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstanciated rumor has it that in WW2 the job of scout had high mortality.Polypipe Wrangler 06:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search and didn't find anywhere that has that information already calculated. There might be a website with that information, but it didn't jump out at me. As Jack pointed out, certain MOS's have higher death rates than others, and this should have a much greater impact on survivability than a soldier's rank. Google "life expectancy in combat" to find mentions of several jobs where life expectancy in combat is measured in seconds. The more likely your job is to place you in direct combat, the worse your odds of survival are. Within those specialties, the lower ranks probably have more overall casualties but you must remember that there are more lower ranking soldiers than higher ranking. It probably evens out so that nearly the same percentage of sergeants die as do corporals or privates. 152.16.16.75 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Circulatory System

Where in the body is the Circulatory System? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everywhere. See our article on Circulatory system. FiggyBee 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmong New Year Celebration

When should I celebrate the Hmong New Year in Grinnell, Iowa?

132.161.141.253 07:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This year, I mean. I know from the article that it's an annual event, and from the web-site that it happens on different days in different cities, but I can't find anywhere that will let me find out when it should be celebrated for a particular location on a particular year. It's not like there's this huge Hmong population here I could go ask, either. 132.161.141.253 07:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Heart

Could you guys find me a way to build a model of a heart? (it doesn't necessarily have to be working.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Google, for a change, comes up with the goods. Search for working model of the heart or model of the heart and there seem to be excellent links to pages such as The Human Heart - Make a Display and a Working Model or Model Science – The Heart. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS3 Online

I have recently purchased a ps3 but i realy canot figure out how 2 get it set up online...I believe it came with the cable i need i just dont know how 2 actualy connect it 2 the internet. I have a virgin media internet and tv package do i need 2 plug the cable from my ps3 into my comoputer or where?? sorry but i could rely do with help on this 1 thanx x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For computer connectivity issues like this, you might do better to post to the computer Ref Desk. StuRat 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that you attach the PS3 the same way you attach the computer to the network. Find the network cable on your computer, then follow it to the other end. Wherever that is is where the PS3's network cable needs to go. This will hopefully be a residential gateway (commonly known as a router), and if you don't have one, you'll probably need to get one. Yes, there are workarounds where you run things through another computer, but I've always found them inferior to a dedicated box. — Lomn 12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Investment

How would i go about investing money in the chinease stock market???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If mutual funds are acceptable, many emerging markets funds exist, and some specialize in Asia. StuRat 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

frogs and salamanders

what sort of brightly colored non-toxic frogs and salamanders could I get to live in the same habitat? --MKnight9989 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A) get a real pet or B) get another tank so as to ensure harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a cat and my mom has a cat. Thanks for the helpful response.--MKnight9989 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of frogs, "non-toxic" and "brightly colored" are things that don't go well together. Normally, a frog wants to be dull in colour so it can hide from predators and generally be nicely camoflaged. The only brightly coloured ones are the ones who want predators to know "Don't Eat Me - I'm horribly toxic!!", So right there, I think you have a problem. I suspect salamanders are the same deal. Generally, brightly coloured animals look like that in order to indicate toxicity to predators - or to attract mates. Frogs do the latter with vocalizations. SteveBaker 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a mimic poison frog, shown and discussed here. --Milkbreath 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest steve that's answer I expected. OH well. Worth a try. I'm going for kind of a 'trippy' look, so to speak. Any ideas? --MKnight9989 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On the tv show Dead Like Me, the main character had a bright yellow-ish frog, but I was unsuccessful in searching out any details about what type of frog it was. Heck, it may have been spray-painted by the props department for all I know. --LarryMac | Talk 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelson-morley experiment

After reading the above mentioned article, I stumbled upon the following peice of information: Each year, the Earth travels a tremendous distance in its orbit around the sun, at a speed of around 30 km/second or over 108,000 km per hour. The sun itself is traveling about the galactic center at even greater speeds, and there are other motions at higher levels of the structure of the universe.

What I wish to know is, 1 at what speed is the sun moving, 2 what is it moving around, 3 what makes it move, and if it is in orbit, much like the planets of our solar system, Neptune and Mars both move around the sun, 4 does our sun have a partner or many? 5 If the sun is moving at X speed, and the earths speed is measure at 30km/second, is this the speed of the earth around the sun or the speed of the earth through space, or to clarify, is the earth moving at 30km/s or 30km/s + X. Thanks guys and girls. :-)12.191.136.2 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Earth's speed is generally given relative to the Sun. (Averaging at 29.783 km/s) The sun's motion is generally described relative to the core of the Milky Way. (Averaging about 2.17×105 m/s) If you needed to find the Earth's speed relative to the Milky Way simply adding the two speeds would not be sufficient. You'd need to know the velocity vectors. (For example, What if this time of year the earth is moving against the sun's movement?) But in practice, the sun's velocity is so much greater than the Earth's velocity, that rather than try to add the two, it'd be easier and nearly as accurate to use the larger number. finally, Keep in mind that the Milky Way itself is also moving rather quickly. 69.95.50.15 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For some of the stuff that may have not been answered:

3) Gravity and the conservation of momentum result in the sun orbiting the Milky Way. The sun's orbit of the galaxy is quite similar in principle to the planets' orbits of the sun, though I'm not entirely sure if this is what you're asking by referencing Neptune.

4) The sun is not part of a binary star system (or any higher number of stars).

— Lomn 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For part (5) of the question, we have to be V-E-R-Y careful here. There is no absolute 'space' to measure our speed against. We can only say "the speed of <something> relative to <something-else>". So we talk about the speed of the earth as being 30km/s relative to the sun - and the speed of the sun as 200km/s relative to the core of the Milky Way galaxy. We could also talk about the speed of our galaxy relative to some other galaxies. But there is no "absolute" speed - that's what that nice Mr Einstein was banging on about with his relativity stuff. So in answer to part (5), the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun is 30km/s - and when it is orbiting in the same general direction as the sun is heading around the galaxy, you can add their speeds 200km/s + 30km/s and say that the earth is moving at 230km/s relative to the galactic core. Six months later - when we are orbiting the sun in the opposite direction to the way the sun is moving relative to the galaxy - then you'd have to subtract the speeds and now the earth is only moving at 170km/s relative to the galactic core. But you can't somehow arrive at "the speed of the earth through space" - it has been considered a meaningless concept for almost 100 years now. SteveBaker 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but this then beggs the question, is the Milky way moving, and if so, around what, with what, and at what speed? thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there ya' go again: You weren't being V-E-R-Y careful like I told you to! You cannot meaningfully ask "is the Milky way moving" - you have to ask "is the Milky way moving RELATIVE TO <some thing>" - and the answer depends on what '<something>' you choose. All of the galaxies are moving around relative to each other - but you can't ask whether something is just "moving" - it's a meaningless concept. The Large and the Small Magellanic Cloud dwarf-galaxies and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy are all orbiting around our (much larger) Milky way galaxy. SteveBaker 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. See Milky Way#Velocity for more info on this. Meanwhile, arguably the most concise rendering of all of this is found in the Galaxy Song --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You can ask if something is moving if it is changing velocity in terms of direction or magnitude. To clarify: we are being accelerated when we move in an orbit, and since this action is what's called "noninertial", which basically means it's not going in a straight line, then we measure a centripetal force, which is a very real effect. So speed is not meaningless if we're accelerating or moving in a circle (relative to the geometry of space). There do not seem to be any local masses significant enough that the Milky Way can orbit around them, with the possible exception of the Andromeda Galaxy. In general, there is no biased "center of the universe" or "universal orbit", although the universe as a whole is expanding, and accelerating while doing so, all without a center of expansion (a little trick of geometry - see Metric expansion of space). SamuelRiv 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual Calendar

I have an Omega "Constellation" watch that has the current day of the month displayed, like in the pictures.

I have had this watch for several years and never have I had to advance the day except once on 29th February on a Leap Year. The watch has no "Month" and no way to set the month, so how come I never have to set date correct on months with less than 31 days? This appears to be magical. 195.195.128.48 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The watch has a month setting, it's just not displayed to the wearer. Presumably this is factory-set with the assumption that you won't run around scrolling through 3 months' worth of dates while adjusting for leap years. — Lomn 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. population near Canadian border

We always see the numbers that 3/4 of Canada's population lives within 90 miles of the U.S. border. For comparison purposes my question is "how many Americans live within 90 miles of the Canadian border"? Both absolute numbers and percent of U.S. population. Thank you.

(email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.228.127 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First estimate, somewhere around 20%. Based on 10% of U.S. population living in the Great Lakes basin[2] (including many of the large populations near Canada) and guessing for the rest (low populations in northern Maine, northwestern Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, etc., higher in Washington State) Rmhermen 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There were approximately 24.2 million Americans living within 90 miles of the Canadian border based on U.S. Census 2006 population estimates. This amounted to just over 8% of the U.S. population in 2006. (Incidentally, this number would represent about 74% of Canada's 2006 population and was probably fairly close to the population living within 90 miles of the border in Canada.)

I obtained this number by determining on maps which U.S. counties lie within a 90-mile radius of the border and adding the 2006 estimates of their populations. I included all counties that lie within 90 miles in a straight line (not 90 miles by road) of any border, including the water borders that have been drawn through the Great Lakes. As a result, I included cities such as Syracuse, NY, and Cleveland, OH, that are more than 90 miles from any land border or river crossing. I included the entire county population of counties whose main population center lies within this radius but excluded the populations of counties if their population centers were outside the radius. In the case of Spokane County, Washington, the 90-mile radius cuts right through the center of the county and its largest city, so I took half of the population of that county. Rmhermen's estimate is too high, because while urban areas such as Chicago and Milwaukee are in the Great Lakes basin, they are over 100 miles from the nearest Canadian border. Also, apart from western Washington state, eastern Michigan, northern Ohio, and western New York state, most areas near the Canadian border are thinly populated. Marco polo 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! That's really going the extra mile, times 90. Clarityfiend 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your devotion to analyzing and answering a problem totally made my day. Simply awesome. Sappysap 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang!! --Sean 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mission Impossible 3 - The sentence Cruise's character makes the villian say?

At one point in the movie, Tom Cruise is trying to become the main villian, and he pins him down in the bathroom and makes him read along sentence (I guess so he can use speech synthesis). I have a few questions...

1. What was the sentence
2. Would this really work to synthesise (sp) someone else's voice?
3. If so, is it in use?

Thanks. 96.225.64.203 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the sentence is, but it is theoretically possible to use a recording of someone's voice to as a substitute for the real thing for getting past many (although not necessarily all) voice activated locks (assuming that the recording is of the required phrase). If you want to use the recording to accurately synthesise a different phrase, sentence, or a speech, it would require a much larger database of the person's voice, and it would probably not be entirely convincing to a human audience. Chances are the voice would still sound synthesised. To trick humans, it is better to have someone imitate the voice, whereas to trick a computer, an *extremely* high quality synthesised voice *may* substitute. Steewi 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see the movie Sneakers for a similar use of recordings and voice synthesis, although not in a realistic way. Steewi 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Janmashtmi in 1926?

what was the date on Janmashtmi in 1926? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.16.200 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Krishna Janmashtami is the spelling used for our article. It says

Krishna Janmashtami is observed on the eighth day of the dark half (Krishna Paksha) of the month of Shraavana in the Hindu calendar, when the Rohini Nakshatram is ascendent. The Hindu calendar being lunar, these two events [the day being the eighth of the waning moon (Krishna-paksha Ashtami) and the Rohini Nakshatram being ascendent] may overlap for only a few hours. In such an event, the festival may be celebrated on different (but successive) days by different people, depending on their local or family traditions. The festival falls sometime in the months of August/September of the Gregorian calendar.

Messy! You'll need a lunar calendar for 1926 for starters. SteveBaker 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Like the one at StarDate Online. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan Hardrives

Anybody know where in Manhattan I could pick up a Toshiba MK2004GAL hardrive for my ipod?

Thanks! --Cacofonie 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from anywhere in Manhattan with internet access, you can order an MK2004GAL hard drive from Amazon.com[3] or any of a number of other online retailers. MrRedact 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Cacofonie has access to a credit card. Corvus cornix 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

dB meter

What is the best way to measure decibels with my computer? The cheaper, the better. I am looking for a max decibel level. Thanks --Omnipotence407 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work. The problem is one of calibration, as the sound hardware for different PCs, sound cards and microphones is going to vary drastically. You would probably be better off buying a low-end meter from Radio Shack or the like. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had a linear microphone, you could connect it to your computer sound card input. Then if you had a program such as Cool Edit that would give you the relative level in dBs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.55.77 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Audacity or Cakewalk Music Creator? I have those already. It doesn't need to be exact. --Omnipotence407 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whell, if either of those give you a display of amplitude in dB, you have it solved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.55.77 (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Audacity will serve as a measure of dB in the way that 88.111 mentioned, but it will only suffice to a certain level (i.e. the maximum of the microphone) and will not necessarily be completely accurate. It will depend on the requirements of what you want to do. Steewi 03:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to judge how loud the audience gets, impartially. --Omnipotence407 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha! In that case, you don't need an accurate measure of dB's - you just need to know if one round of applause is louder than the other. The meter in Audacity should be fine for that - providing it isn't over-driven. If the sound is so loud that the meter goes off into the red - then you won't know. What you'll need to do is to start the event by asking the audience to applaud and hoot and holler as loud as they can - while they do that, you can nudge the volume adjustment in audacity or the OS sound mixer levels until you are only just barely below the 'red line' on the meter. Ideally you need whoever is introducing the event to do this entertainingly as a part of the audience 'warm-up' before your acts come on. Once you've gotten it set up - DON'T TOUCH THE VOLUME CONTROL OR MOVE THE MIC! After that, you don't care what the true dB's are - you just need to know if one act gets louder applause than the next - and I'd expect the audacity meter to be plenty good enough for that. SteveBaker 15:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I recorded it, instead of just watching the meter, and then clicked analyze, what would I be looking for/under? --Omnipotence407 13:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

runing

what muscle's are used the most when runing and wat exercises are there for those muscles that dont include any gym equipment.thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.215.141 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wild guess, but leg muscles, and, wait, running... Sorry. that's probably being a smart ass, but look at all the top runners in the world and what do they do mostly for training? You guessed it, run a lot. Vespine 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on if you're doing long, short, or middle distance. For long and middle, you need endurance training which can only be done through long, continuous exercise - hence running, or swimming or cycling if you have an injury. For all distances, strong leg muscles help, so certain "rituals" such as "high-knees", "butt-kicks", "lunges", "jumpees", and "squats" are all useful. For short distances (I'm not a sprinter), you'll want to build your core and upper body as well, so sit-ups and various ab exercises for the core and maybe push-ups, pull-ups, and handstand push-ups for the upper body would be good. SamuelRiv 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)