User talk:SteveBaker/archive12

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For your most excellent answer [1] to the Jurassic Park question I award you this barnstar. You are a gentlemen and a scholar in addition to being a credit to your species. mboverload@ 04:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you! Oooh! What a pretty barnstar. I bet the guy who designed that is really proud of it! :-)

I'll carefully carry it over to my display cabinet - I wouldn't want to scratch it or anything.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bredth

Hi Steve, How do you have such a shocking breadth of knowledge? Are you an AI? --mboverload@ 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. There are twelve of me - we were cloned from DNA found in a mosquito....oh...wait, no I disproved that one didn't I.

Um - well - if you really want to know: I love to read science books (and also science fiction) - I've been doing that for 40 years. One book every couple of weeks for forty years is something like 1,000 books. I listen to National Public Radio at work while other people are listening to music. I watch more Science channel and Discovery channel than Fox. I'm 54 years old - and spent my entire career working in science-related fields. I have Asperger's syndrome which means I can concentrate on study much, much better than "normal" people (although it's not without unfortunate side-effects!). I love math and "informal" writing and if it's not a chore but a pleasure then you tend to do a LOT more of it - practice helps. Conveying a little knowledge well makes you seem smarter than people who know a lot but can't communicate it. I'm a computer programmer - and that forces you into the habit of lateral thinking and extreme scepticism of 'pat' answers. Working in Wikipedia is a great mental work-out and having this magic box that contains ALL of human knowledge right here on my desktop is a big help. In researching an answer to one question on the RD, you learn stuff that becomes useful for answering other questions later on - do that for enough years and you soon find that the same questions come up over and over. Ever since I first discovered Wikipedia - three years ago - I've made a habit of clicking "Random article" three times every night before I go to bed - and forcing myself to read whatever is there regardless of whether it interests me or not - that's close to 3,000 articles so far. (There are an AWFUL lot of articles about Japanese Railway Stations!) Easy! SteveBaker (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your long and detailed response. I agree with the Japanese Railway Stations. I am on new page patrol and it seems people are making them 24/7. No clue why but they are formatted correctly so I just hit "patrolled".

If you have any other tips I would love to hear them. I wish I met people like you in RL, I'm stuck in a cubicle farm in a company that routinely has people working there for 40+ years....Not a lot of new faces! --mboverload@ 05:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Are you on IRC any? --mboverload@ 05:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RL?? Oh "Real Life"...I got it.

Well - I too am stuck in a cube-farm. But it has fast internet! I lost my job a few weeks ago (not my fault - they killed our entire project) - so working in one place for 40+ years actually has its attractions right now! SteveBaker (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosophia X Known

If you have such a problem with it, do something about it, or just don't read anything that deals with me. Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) 01:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Earthan Philosopher

That's not the point - why should I have to avoid pages (now including my own Talk page!) where you happen to leave comments when it is YOU who are breaking Wikipedia guidelines? Your suggestion is inconsiderate and utterly inappropriate. I'm quite within my rights to complain and to ask you nicely to please fix it.

If you don't fix it voluntarily, I most certainly WILL do something about it. I'll find an admin to deal with the matter. Since you are clearly breaking the rules - and now I've told you about it, you are KNOWINGLY breaking the rules: there is no doubt of the outcome. However, neither you nor I want that - so please just fix your signature so that it conforms to community guidelines. This would not be the first time I have seen people who refused to fix this kind of "showy" signature in the past. If you continue to refuse, you'll just get into ridiculous amounts of escalating grief with the admins until you either fix it or (ultimately) get kicked off of Wikipedia for good. Please don't do that over such a trivial matter. Just fix it so it obeys the letter and the spirit of the WP:SIG guideline and everything can be happy and harmonious - OK? SteveBaker (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I reacted so crudely, I changed it, but I was wondering, would this font size be okay: Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) or not. Also, I can't say you were very polite about it, in fact, I would say it was rather rude, but I agree to not taking it as an offense if you agreee to work on it with me Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) 05:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)--Earthan Philosopher PS- sorry about the vandalism, that was the first and last time I was going to do that, and the reason, though it really isn't any of your business, but I'm still teling you without you even asking, is that Captain Disdain insulted me by insulting my religion, something I'm very sensitive about.

First, thanks for your message - it took guts to climb down and not many people do that. Easily 90% of the people who get into a mess get into a spiral of problems. They make it worse and worse and end up being kicked off the site. I appreciate what that took. Thank you!

Technically, any increase in signature font size is not allowed. However, the new size/style is quite acceptable to me personally. (That's not to say that someone else won't complain). You should be aware that the font selection probably won't work on many computers that don't happen to have that font installed (Linux and Mac's almost certainly won't - some Windows machines may not - things like cellphones and PDA's certainly won't). There is a reason that experienced editors generally don't mess with that stuff. What matters on Wikipedia is what you say - not the font/style/size/color you say it in. Fancy signatures impress absolutely nobody and merely upset a bunch of people. Notice that I edit with my real name and the default signature style - take a look on my user page and see how many awards and accolades I've collected just by writing good stuff. This isn't FaceBook - we're writing an encyclopedia here - content is king.

As for the vandalism...that's utterly unacceptable behavior...made even worse by your effort to cover it up by logging out when you did it (which is tantamount to sock-puppetry - which is also 'beyond the pale' behavior-wise). Vandalism control is the job of EVERY responsible Wikipedian - when I accidentally discovered what happened, it was my responsibility to inform Captain Distain and place approved notices on your Talk: page. But don't apologize to me - User talk:Captain Disdain would be the right place. If he knowingly insulted you (I have not looked at what preceeded this flare-up) then you had recourse through approved Wikipedia channels (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA describe the guideline and the process to follow if you have a serious complaint). We do require civility between users. However, you've totally blown any chance you had to sort that out when you vandalized his user page using a sock puppet - that's so far beyond the realms of acceptability that pretty much nobody is going to take your side.

If it would help you - I'm a very experienced Wikipedian (3+ years, 12,000+ edits, 2 articles on the front page) - and I've helped many new users through the "Adopt-A-User" program in the past. This is a very informal thing - basically, if you could use help navigating through all of the policies and guidelines, then just say the word and you and I can work together. If someone insults your religion - come to me and I'll explain your options. (Hint: Vandalism won't be one of them!)...I can watch your contributions and look out for signs of trouble before you get into difficulties. You can always come to me for help. Generally this informal "adoption" arrangement lasts for a few months until either I decide that you've "graduated" and don't need my help - or you decide that I'm not making matters worse and tell me where to go! We stick a userbox on your page saying I'm your adopter and people who have 'issues' with you will generally talk to me about it before blowing up in your face. If you don't want me personally to help (and I could understand why not) - you can find another adopter through the WP:ADOPT page.

SteveBaker (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldappreciate I would appreciate it if you would adopt me through wikipedia, thank you.

Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

--Earthan Philosopher

A (hot-and-heavy) heartbeat away...

Allow me to personally thank you for your well-presented remarks on the Palin phenomenon. You'll note I added a particular clarification and I hope readers will take note. All my expat friends are, like me, staunch Democrats and will gladly overseas-vote the ticket, so not much point in my campaigning among the rightwingers who'd probably vote anti-Obama no matter who the GOP put up. I've suddenly realized that I'm about to spend four pre-election weeks visiting my U.S. family, in households with TVs, so I'm in for a heavy dose of Americana. Wish me luck! -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy vio

Any feedback yet? --CyclePat (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent answer

I just wanted to compliment you on your most excellent and thorough answer on the Ref Desk. Kudos! — QuantumEleven 09:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until the regular physics guru's wake up tomorrow - they'll tear it to shreds! The trick in this case was to answer in sufficiently non-technical language for a questioner who clearly doesn't understand a whole lot of basic physics. Hence there are some real problems with my answer - but I hope it gets the basic message across in an understandable manner. SteveBaker (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think "excellent answer" could apply to more than one thing you've said. And I recall seeing a (news broadcast about Dagen H, here in the U.S. (the broadcast, not the Dagan). A whole weekend to lie low and swap road signs around. I'm sure Swedes who'd been driving for 10 years at that point still have the urge to turn the other way. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

H2 injection on diesels

Steve, I forget where I saw this, but it seemed legit and not a violations of fundamental natural laws. And that is: I remember something about diesel big-rigs (perhaps in Canada?) being retrofitted so as to produce hydrogen on board from water, and then inject this along with the fuel or air in order to increase fuel efficiency a tiny bit. Do you know what I'm talking about? Or maybe these rigs carried cylinders of the gas, and so didn't produce it on board. I forget the details, but somehow it seemed feasible. Like the H2 was produced when the engine was producing excess energy (like when idling or coasting, or something) and then burned when more power was needed, like when accelerating. So the H2 production takes advantage of energy that would be otherwise wasted. Anyways, I bring this up only because Oxyhydrogen and perhaps some other articles say, or imply, that it's absolutely impossible to use onboard H2 generation to increase fuel efficiency, and this may not be strictly true. THoughts? Yilloslime (t) 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, actually, it was this article: http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529, which used as a reference in Hydrogen fuel enhancement. And maybe I just need more coffee and then I'll realize that I'm thinking about this wrong, but it seems to me that nothing precludes fuel injection with onboard generated hydrogen from improving fuel efficiency, assuming you are started with an already badly inefficient system. The laws of thermodynamics say your engine has to have an efficiency of <100%. But if you start with an engine that converts fuel and air to work with an efficiency of, lets say, 20%, the laws of nature don't preclude you from improving efficiency a little bit, so long as you don't go "over unity". And you can treat it as a black box--it shouldn't matter whether your improved efficiency comes from tinkering with the compression ratio to the timing, or from using some engine power to generate H2 from water and then using that H2 to improve flame velocity or whatever. Right? Or am I missing something obvious? Yilloslime (t) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained this a million times before - but here is one more try: There are several complicated things going on with the various claims and counterclaims the shysters who are selling these for cars are claiming. I see three different claims and each one contains a tiny grain of truth:

1. It is true that if you added a LOT of hydrogen, your car would gain energy from burning the hydrogen as a fuel. That's how hydrogen powered cars work - and they really do work. However, you can't get that energy from hydrolysis because the laws of thermodynamics demand that you pay back all of the hydrogen-derived energy in recharging the battery that you used to power your electrolysis unit. So if this your claim then you're busted by one of the most fundamental laws of physics there is.
2. It is true that injecting a fine water mist (yes, plain old water - not hydrogen) can improve fuel efficiency in a car engine. BUT the water gets into your exhaust and rusts it out very rapidly - and it gets into your oil and kills it - so your car wears out in no time flat. This is an exceedingly well-known thing - it was discovered maybe 80 years ago...and STILL nobody has figured out a way to do it without wrecking the engine. All of the big car makers have researched it - it's dead. So if this is the claim - it's either bogus or you are wrecking your poor customer's cars for a small MPG improvement near it!
3. It is true that on very large diesel trucks, a tiny, tiny efficiency gain can be had from hydrogen injection. You can't carry enough hydrogen on board - so you electrolyse water and that gets you an even smaller gain because of the energy to electrolyse large quantities of hydrogen. However if you do a bazillion miles and use huge and relatively inefficient engines - there is perhaps enough gain to make it worthwhile. But the jury is out on whether it's worth it - many people claim it's not worth the capital cost for the microscopic savings. However, on teeny-tiny car engines - the savings simply aren't there.

So (1) is cleanly busted. (2) and (3) are debatable. I think we should rule out (2) because the damage it does to the engine is so horrific...but even if we ignore that - we have to understand what gains we might get. To do that, we have to understand how efficient a car engine is - and why.

• Car engines are nowhere near 100% efficient - but that's not because they aren't burning enough of the fuel - it's because (a) they are heat engines - and all heat engines have a fundamental limit of efficiency that they cannot exceed because of those pesky laws of thermodynamics and (b) they suffer from internal friction, heat energy losses and such like that no amount of hydrogen or water injection can possibly help.
• So when you read that a car engine is only 20% efficient (say) - you have to understand that it's a heat engine - and it simply cannot possibly be more than 37% efficient because of the thermodynamics of the thing.
• The internal friction accounts for most of the reduction down to 20%. Badly designed engines or very worn out engines are maybe 18% efficient. So a 20% efficiency engine is probably extracting 99% of the energy from the gasoline and the 18% engine maybe 90% of the energy.
• So, crucially, no matter what you do to the combustion cycle - and even if you extract 100% of the energy from the fuel, you can only possibly make your 18 to 20% engine become 20.2% efficient. That's the limit because at 20.2% you're using 100% of the energy from the gasoline and no magic wand gets you more than 100%.

Some people like to argue about this point - perhaps Steve is wrong and cars really do only extract 20% of the energy from the gasoline - so some really good hydrogen enhancer could easily make it go twice as far on a tank of gas by pushing that to 40% efficiency. Well - I can prove, conclusively that this is not the case.

Ask yourself this: If the full amount of energy is not being extracted from the gasoline - where is the "unused" energy going? It must be coming out of the tailpipe - right? If gasoline is cleanly 100% combusted, you end up with mostly H2O and CO2 - neither of which has any energy left in it. If it's less than 100% combusted then you end up with unburned gasoline and some CO (carbon monoxide) coming out of the tail-pipe. If you have a diesel engine then carbon is another possible output.

But here's the thing: In the USA and Europe (at least), your car has to meet legally enforced emissions standards. What those standards measure is hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and "particulates". Hydrocarbon is just a fancy name for unburned gasoline and the "particulates" is carbon. If your car meets emissions standards in the USA then it has to be producing less than 3.4 grams of CO and less than 0.015 grams of hydrocarbons per mile. That's the MOST unburned stuff you can be producing and still be legal. If you're doing worse than that - then a tune-up will probably fix it - and that's a lot cheaper than $250 for one of these gizmos (even if they did what they claim).

So let's assume your car is in tune and you are meeting the legal maximum for unburned or incompletely burned fuel.

If you're getting 20mpg - then you're burning 1/20th gallon of gasoline per mile - right? Gasoline weighs 6lbs per gallon which is around 2700 grams. So you're consuming about 135 grams of gasoline per mile. But the emissions laws say that you're generating AT MOST 3.415 grams of "wasted energy" byproducts - and most of that is carbon monoxide - which is much less energy efficient per gram than gasoline. So you KNOW for absolute sure that if your 20mpg car meets emissions controls then at least 97% of the gasoline is being burned.

Let's write that down in big letters:

---

If your car is legal then 97% of your gasoline is being burned.

---

That means that the very best, most magical possible system that increases fuel burning efficiency can only conceivably improve your mpg by 3% - it doesn't matter how it works - that's the limit.

So - when they claim 60% - you know who's lying. Now - if you were a big trucking company - even a 1% saving would be worth having - you do huge mileage and your MPG is crap to start with. The capital cost of a really decent machine might be worth it. But a 3% saving at $4 per gallon means that you're saving 12c per gallon (if the machine works the best it can and your car is as far out of tune as is legal). To pay back the $250 these pieces of junk cost, you have to burn 2,000 gallons of gas - at 20mpg, you'll have to do 40,000 miles to get your money back. If you have a decent, fuel-efficient car like mine, it's 80,000 miles. You can actually get VASTLY bigger savings by simply keeping your tire pressures up at the top of the manufacturer specified range.

Then we have to look further. Unless you're risking your car's future with water injection (please don't!) you've got to electrolyse water to make the hydrogen. That takes energy - and it's energy that your car has to make from it's generator that it wouldn't have to have made otherwise. That has got to eat into that 3% saving...there is no place else it can come from. Carefully designed electrolysis machines are 70% efficient - two bolts in a jamjar...? You want to guess?

It's even worse than that - because they don't bother to separate out the oxygen from the hydrogen - if these machines actually worked - they'd be pushing extra oxygen into the intake - which will confuse the car's O2 sensor. That will cause it to alter the mixture going into the engine away from the carefully calculated optimum that the car's computer is trying to achieve - and that alone will almost certainly wipe out any of your remaining 3% savings.

Far from improving your gas milage - if these machines do anything at all - it's going to get worse.

I'd also argue that a couple of bolts stuck into a jamjar full of tap water with a car battery across it isn't going to make much hydrogen...go ahead - try it...it's very unimpressive...and why this setup costs $250 is totally beyond me. There is at most $10 worth of parts and $10 shipping and packaging.

This is a HORRIBLE scam - it's nasty - it's preying on the uninformed and the desperate to save money. The perpetrators are evil lying bastards who belong in jail.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve--thanks for the detailed reply! I think we're 100% on the same page here. Your point #3 is what I was looking for confirmation on. I've never doubted that 2-bolts-and-a-mason-jar "HHO" set-ups were worthless. It's just that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a chemist, and oxyhydrogen currently says, "Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency or to operate a car using water as a fuel. Because the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency," and while practically true, its not technically true. I think I'll take a stab at rewording it such that it's both technically and practically accurate. Yilloslime (t) 04:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made this change[2], which basically side-steps the issue of hydrogen fuel enhancement, but is accurate and doesn't leave the door open to cranks.Yilloslime (t) 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I agree. The article as-is is not a fair criticism of hydrolysis-based hydrogen injection - although quite a few of the scam artists (and quite a few of their defenders here on WP) have definitely claimed that. We had the guy who claimed that the unused capacity in the car's alternator could charge the battery "for free" - hence this free energy could be profitably used to make hydrogen to push some more energy into the cylinders. Clearly that's nonsense too...but some do claim that - and those that do are some justification for what the article currently says.

However, not all of the claims are that. Quite a few of them do say that the hydrogen makes the gasoline burn more evenly - or something like that. That's how water injection works - so it's not entirely impossible.

But we certainly can't say - or even imply: "Yes, these things work as advertised" because that's clearly not true either.

We could say nothing at all - but then the HHO nuts will (correctly) insist that these gadgets are notable.

I've held off trying to fix it because I can't find the right form of words that are either referenceable or sufficiently mainstream science to be "obvious" and therefore not need a reference. Even my L-O-N-G post above is a horrible over-simplification. The problem is that it's JUST possible that this kind of technology really does work in big trucks - and it's even remotely possible that an old car with seriously poor fuel consumption might really get a 1% improvement (well, I doubt it - but it's perhaps possible). If that's all these guys claimed - I'd happily let them take the money from the idiots. But they claim 60% or more mpg improvement - which is simply beyond the realms of the possible.

If your car was failing to burn half of the gasoline because you didn't fit a hydrogen injector - you'd have 1000 gram/mile of pollutants and a steady stream of highly explosive gas coming out of the tailpipe! (Which is about what a 2 stroke leaf-blower motor does!)

Perhaps the best argument of all is that if a jam jar and two bolts could improve your fuel consumption even (say) 10%, every car on the road would have one straight out of the factory - and it would probably be a legal requirement just like a catalytic converter is. GM is a dying company because their big-assed trucks and SUV's are not sufficiently fuel-efficient. If there was any way on earth they could do something as cheap and easy as this - they'd be doing it already!

The difficulty is entirely that cars are already so efficient at burning gasoline that essentially no useful improvement can be made. This is one of those really annoying situations where some elementary science (as above) proves conclusively that these things are scams - but nobody is going to write that in a peer reviewed scientific journal - so you end up with a short piece in "Popular Mechanics" versus a hundred unprincipled shysters putting out crap into 10,000 web sites. This is one of those occasions where WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH form a serious impediment to writing a decent encyclopedia. It's really quite frustrating.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Might this be a place to ignore all rules?Yilloslime (t) 05:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit, having seen this thread. First, don't get the idea that rigs in Canada are using this, but it appears to be a (private) Canadian company promoting it. The main franchisee seems to be a company with the stock symbol HYHY on the OTC board in the US - a board notorious (from what I've seen) for stock-pumping scams.

Producing your own electrolyzed hydrogen is a thermodynamic wasteland, H2 by itself won't cut it. The only possible benefit is to improve the efficiency of combustion of your existing fuel and thus improve the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. I saw two semi-plausible explanations: hotter initial burn from hydrogen and oxygen combustion and hydro-cracking of the long-chain hydrocarbons. A refinery hydrocracker works in the presence of catalyst at >800psi (IIRC), so those conditions are doubtful in a diesel engine. Extra oxygen is always good - that's why they have turbochargers. And there is some evidence that added hydrogen reduces undesirable emissions. In fact, emission reduction emerged as a principal provable benefit from what I read.

The main feature of the stuff I looked at though was an incredible mish-mash of quotes and cites, with no disctinction between the studies to make clear what quantities of hydrogen were being used to obtain the reported results. As Steve says, getting sufficient quantities of H2 from your own engine power to make a difference is a pretty shaky platform. This "invention" has been around for 20 years and got nowhere - and the inventor hasn't yet been assassinated by the global conspiracy of big oil and big auto - that's a bad sign:) Generally if someone has an actual good idea, sooner or later someone will make themselves rich by actually making it work - rather than promoting it as a penny stock. My comments on commercial motives are strictly my own opinion, not backed up by fact.

And that said, there have been some recent practical developments in "infrared solar cells", where harvesting infrared energy (waste heat) may sooner or later become feasible. You might want to wait ten or twenty years for that to happen though... Franamax (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - that's about what I'd heard too. Thanks for the detail though. Sure - it's possible that you can reduce NOx or some of the nastier sulphur compounds by adding hydrogen - but that's not going to make your engine run better because the NOx and SOx are both low energy residues - not high energy products of incomplete combustion. The extra oxygen these things add is pretty useless because it all gets consumed again in burning the hydrogen. Better to use the engine power you're wasting in powering the electrolysis unit to drive a supercharger...all that is is an air pump. Lots of cars do this - but the supercharger doesn't improve MPG - it merely allows you to burn more fuel in each cycle and get a lot more power - but at the (predictable) cost of using more fuel. Great for sportscars - not so good for super-efficient city cars. SteveBaker (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap Steve. Please adapt that into an article somehow, seriously! (also, I got your email, I'm going to poke the waters at a company i know to see if they are still interested) --mboverload@ 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to - but it's just basic science. Unless you can find it published in a journal someplace - this is considered "Original Research" (WP:NOR) or "Synthesis" (WP:SYNTH) - both of which are illegal in article space. SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please publish it yourself. Be a columnist on a medium-sized newspaper. With your crazy-ass knowledge they would be crazy not to consider it. Or become a contributor to the "obvious" section on your favorite engineering/thermodynamics magazine. Srsly. --mboverload@ 07:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, kinda. The problem is that non-peer-reviewed journals/newspapers/magazines are not considered as any more reliable as references than a more or less random website. What we REALLY need is peer-reviewed articles in places like NATURE magazine - or The Journal of Applied Thermodynamics. Getting published in one of those journals is a heavy load...certainly not anything I'd want to undertake "for fun". SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have "RS" that are a lot more slimey than a newspaper article. Your knowledge is a problem for Wikipedia. The knowledge is there, but no one talks about it in a professional forum. --mboverload@ 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Laughing

Thanks for the laughs from your advice that the family that air cons their dogs stays together and tin foil hats not making themselves. That last bit must prove something to someone. ; )) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cutout mini.jpg

Not an expert on cars but could this be replaced with Image:Mini_cross_section.jpg?Geni 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Hell yes! I'll do the switch now. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've replaced the old image with this new one everywhere it occurs. Many thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

minimum size for a planet

Thanks for your response and especially for actually reading the question! I wasn't asking about mass but merely wanted to get a good estimate for the diameter of a true planet that conceivably could exist beyond Neptune. It's interesting to think that an object of 500-1000 km might under the right circumstances be a genuine planet. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No - such an object would not have sufficient gravity to clear out its neighbourhood. That means that such a thing couldn't reasonably be called a planet. SteveBaker (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now we get into mass. I'm still wondering about the minimum size (diameter) of a possible trans-Uranian planet, given the circumstances (e.g., density of matter to be cleared). Can this be determined heuristically? --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably - but I have no idea how. SteveBaker (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalised post on Comp RefDesk

I fixed this. : [3] Just thought you should know. APL (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's amazing. How could you tell it was vandalism? I write like that all the time! Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Hole Explanation

I just wanted to thank you for the explanation on the Reference desk of what a Black Hole is in layman's terms. Even though I wasn't the person who asked the question, I always struggled with understanding the concept and wanted to get a good explanation. You provided that...so thanks and cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing this explanation which is presumably in References Archives, so could you please tell me how to get to it? Myles325a (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmutual moke

Please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Unmutual moke. There seems to have been a misunderstanding with the GFDL release of Image:Unmutual moke2.jpg and Image:Unmutual moke3.jpg. --Para (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk

Space isn't a vacuum. See outer space also I added more details to my answer to the question. Its possible, and hopefully you'll read the supporting comments. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered on the ref desk where your utter humiliation will be more public! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

C)

For the human yes, but not my my micro-robot. A human, I can think of an apparatus, similar to a fan with stringlike rubber "paddles". You can spin them, with a hand-crank and then retract them into a tube-like reservoir and similar to a gyroscope you can "pull" yourself linearly wrt the spinning paddles. Pulling the paddles into the reservoir will cause a human to linearly move toward the apparatus. (the center of mass of the human + apparatus system won't change however). Its hard to describe succinctly, but if you think about creating a gyroscope in space, then pulling on it to create a relative linear monentum of the human, then letting go of the spinning apparatus (while it "sits" in space next to you) then you and the apparatus both doing some independent revolutions and you "grab" the apparatus once you are facing whichever way you like. Sorry to be unable to describe the thing in detail, but its real easy to picture. Just start some gyroscopic motion by "cranking it" and then release it from you with an angular velocity, and you will have an angular velocity (3rd law force pair) and voila! Sentriclecub (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC) The micro-robot wouldnt need this device, it could just flap its arms and morph into a nearly zero-inertial shape with just a few nano-radians per second of angular velocity.

A microrobot (say something about a millimeter on a side) would have a one in a 1000 chance of being close enough to ONE hydrogen atom at any given moment. Even if it managed to interact with it by some bizarre means - then conservation of momentum guarantees that that atom isn't there anymore - it's moving away at some spectacular speed and the chance of the robot being able to reach another atom is now more or less zero. What you are saying is complete nonsense - truly. There is NOWHERE NEAR enough gas density to do anything useful in deep space without carrying some reaction mass - or spinning like the Hubble does using fairly large on-board gyroscopes so that the total momentum of the object can be maintained. Without a material to react against - it doesn't matter a damn what you do with paddles and grabbing and letting go - the conservationlaws apply - so your plans are DOOMED. Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I looked up my book. Plus read the arguments that the other two are making against you. Pseudovector I didn't know if it applies here, but it seems to support that you can create angular velocities in 1 plane, by a certain sequence of moves. I read the source that tango wrote... here it is I'm retying it.

From its initial position, at the top, the book is given two successive 90-degree roations, first about hte (horizontal) x axis and then about the (vertical) y axis. The next example the book is given the same rotations, but in the reverse order.

Read those links that Tango and Edison pointed out. It seems like you can do a specific sequence of moves to create some angular velocity in one plane, which doesn't violate conservation of angular momenta. But its just a "trick" of how to get free spin from an POV of a inertial reference frame. Read those reads, I'm not knoweldgeable enough to interpret them because I just learned this stuff today, so did a quick check on a micro-robot that can "pull its arms in" and reduce its rotational inertia by a factor of 10^5 and revolves at 40,000,000 nano radians per second of angular velocity. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to Tango's and Edison's arguments, as I truly am interested now, since the question has evolved to something being educationally useful. I'm 24 and I guarantee whatever the result of the two things Edison and Tango are trying to point out, makes sense to me, but I'm a math amateur, not a mathematician. Thanks, I look forward to reading your rebuttals to Tango and Edison, I'll refrain from further followups on the ref page, I wont be a distraction, just argue them and I'll learn from it too. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maelin's answer makes perfect sense. We were both wrong, and I'm sorry that I got into this back and forth battle. I truly learn a lot from the science reference desk. Things like today, were extremely interesting and I found the argument process between highly intelligent people very inspiring. Sentriclecub (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong and out of line

Its been several hours now, and I've been learning this stuff up and down. Yesterday was my first day I learned it, and wanted to apologize for the ref desk behavior. I didn't know what I was talking about. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - we all make embarassing boo-boo's from time to time. That's why so many people need to answer each question in order to produce a coherent answer. SteveBaker (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest RD/S troll

Le *sigh*. At least it's not another LightCurrent clone. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And another one today. Good for you for your robust response. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

quite a diatribe

Jack is right, Steve, that is quite the screed at the refdesk. Will you write it up as an essay? You make good points. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Qwerty / Dvorak answer in Computer Desk

Thanks Steve for your detailed and useful reply to my question on the Qwerty / Dvorak topic. I have been preoccupied for the last couple of weeks and haven’t had a chance to look at the Desk again.

This keyboard bizzo is a bit of bugbear of mine, and I really can’t understand why people can’t adopt better systems. They do with everything else.

I’m a 60 wpm touch typist. It took me 2 days to learn to touch type, and that was from one of those old “teach yourself to…” books. There’s really nothing to it. You just learn the 8 home keys, and practice a few exercises with them, then you learn the keys above and below those, and you’re ready to go. After that, you just build up speed. I don’t know why people waste money on going to courses on touch typing. It’s a piece of cake.

On the article in question, people had a whole lot of ideas of putting BOTH Qwerty and Dvorak notation on the keys, or having LCD on the key faces, neither idea being practical. My notion is why can’t you simply UNSCREW the key tops off, and rearrange them to whatever configuration you want?

As for the keyboard itself, it’s a big bloated dinosaur, obviously designed by people who don’t touch type, and who didn’t consult with people who do. Do we really need DUPLICATE Ctrl and Alt keys on BOTH sides of the keyboard, along with the TWO microsoft keys no one uses. Why couldn’t the enter, delete and backspace keys, which are used all the time be given extra spaces there. Hitting the enter key repeatedly (which is a common operation when you want to move down a page) would involve moving the little finger of your right hand to the left and then up and down, which is a most awkward procedure. There should be big fat keys for these operation, easily reached by the thumbs or such.

As for the numerical keypad—what a joke that is? If someone has to do heavy duty numerical data entry, can’t they buy their own damn keypad and attach it. As it is the mouse is moved right away from the rest of the keyboard, meaning you need more desk space, and your hand has to travel further to get to it. You could hardly get a worse design. A lot of operations involve moving the mouse around and then going back to the keyboard, then back to the mouse, especially when you are filling in forms and such. A good design would drastically reduce all such movements. And don’t get me started on the 12 function keys at the top, which no one seems to use, while people are expected instead to cope with absurd double-handed triple somersaults like Ctrl-Alt-Del, and the even worse Ctrl-Shift-Esc for bringing up the Task Manager. What a great idea! Using Esc, which is for terminating programs for precisely the opposite purpose. It’s like the fact that the UNDERSCORE lineletter is on the TOP of the key, and the most often used bracket signs ( ) are Upper case. The list is endless. Myles325a (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can rearrange the keycaps on some keyboards - but these days, most of them are shaped so the keys on each row are curved. Done right - this allows your finger tips to rotate over a constant arc over the four rows of keys using only one finger-joint. Really flat keyboards require two joints in the finger to change position to switch rows - which is slower and a lot more tiring. When the keyboard is ergonomically shaped - you can't rearrange the keys because the keycaps are different shapes on each of the four rows. Hence only crappy keyboards can be Dvorak'ed.

• I can touch-type too - but you can't expect everyone to be able to - there will always be casual users and disabled people with missing fingers, etc, etc. Since computers are often shared - we need labels on the keys. There are also issues with things like games that lay out patterns in the keys (like the diamond patter W,A,S,Z) to make little directional pad types of things. Those programs are almost unusable with Dvorak.

• Good keyboards (like my Goldtouch) do have two sets of Ctrl,Shift and Alt keys. That's a good and useful thing because 10% of the world is lefthanded. I'd like a left-hand Enter key too!

• My beloved Goldtouch doesn't have a number pad - I bought a separate USB number pad (they cost $10 on Amazon.com). Over the last several years - I have never plugged it in. You simply don't need them - and with the trend towards laptops, you need them less and less. Data entry folks should definitely buy $10 USB number pads.

• Many of your complaints about operations are Windows-specific. Linux users don't suffer those bizarre Microsoftian triple-key things EXCEPT Ctrl-Alt-Del which is supposed to be difficult to type because you very definitely don't want to hit it by mistake! Some classes of users DO use the function keys - but I'd certainly be happy to lose them (or at least have FAR fewer of them).

• The biggest change I'd make to keyboards is to remove the Caps-lock key. It's evil. It makes bozo's on the Internet TYPE ENTIRE EMAILS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH IS TOTALLY UNREADABLE AND SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE SHOUTING. And it's too damned easy to hit it by mistake. I pour super-glue into the caps/num/scroll-lock keys on all of my keyboards!

Sadly, the only keyboard I've ever loved (the GoldTouch) is no longer made. When GoldTouch went out of business, I bought five of their keyboards on eBay - which I hope will be enough to see me through to retirement! They are like a laptop keyboard - but with the keyboard sawn in half and the two halves joined with a lockable ball-and socket joint at the back of the keyboard. So you can rotate the two halves to any angle in all three dimensions and then lock them in that position with a big chunky lever. This is a bit like a 'split' keyboard - except that you can adjust the split to suit your own body geometry. The action is good and it's pretty quiet. I've been using computers since 1973 - and until I got the GoldTouch, I had years of RSI pain. Since about three weeks after I got it - I've not had a single day of pain.

I'd still like to see a return of the Microwriter chording keyboard - mounted on top of a mouse-like pointing device. That avoids the HUGE time-waster - moving your hand off the keyboard and onto the mouse...keeping your fingers on the 'home' keys is impossible in a world of GUI-driven software. To my mind, that's the ultimate solution.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Myles325a back here. I have looked up some of the articles on chording and such, and seen your contributions there, as well as here. I bow to your experience and knowledge, which is much greater than mine. Well done. I would make these points, however:

1. Your 1st point re: curved keys. I am touch typing on a standard keyboard now, and all the alpha-numeric keys look the same to me, They have a gentle concave curve to fit the finger, but the lines of keys are all straight and parallel. The only difference is that the f and j keys on the home row have little indentations so that the user can put their index fingers on the correct keys by feel and without looking at the keyboard. We got one of those state-of-the-art "ergonomic" keyboards at my office a while back, and it gathered dust for months, until we threw it out. No one wanted to use, INCLUDING the touch typists, for whom it was designed. I couldn't stand it!

Well, I guess your co-workers don't have RSI (yet). When your fingers have typed in over 3 million lines of computer code in the course of 15 years - they WILL crap out on you if you don't take an abundant amount of care over your choice of keyboard. I've explained to you WHY flat keyboards are a bad idea - and I'm telling you that they work (at least for me). Feel free to ignore this advice - but I reserve the right to say "I TOLD YOU SO" when you live in more or less constant agony. SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2. In typing schools, typists are (or were) taught to touch type the numbers on the first row, but frankly I can’t do that, and I have spoken to professional typists, and THEY look at the keyboard when they have to type numbers. It’s actually quite a finicky operation to type, say, 1867.98 without looking at the keyboard.

Sure - and somehow I have to look at the letter keys when I'm not typing continuous prose or C++ code. If I have to type a Ctrl-F or something - I have to actually LOOK for the 'F' key! It's a weird thing - but there it is. When I type in complete darkness late at night - I can write long posts to Wikipedia - but if I have to type a Ctrl- or Alt- shortcut - I have to go and turn the lights on so I can find the keys! SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3. I really don’t get your point about the desirability of the duplication of the Alt, Ctrl, and MS Windows keys on the bottom row, for the claimed benefit of left handers. Why should that help left-handers? The duplication of the Shift key was not for the benefit of left-handers, but so that when a touch typist has to begin a sentence starting with a capital letter controlled by the little finger of the left hand (like A, Q, Z) then they could depress the shift key using the little finger of the right hand, thus freeing up their other little finger to press aforsaid letters. There is no such rationale for Ctrl, Alt and so on. Keyboard real estate is valuable, and we both agree there is far too much of it wasted on rarely or never-used functions, while other keys, which are used all the time, like Enter, are not given enough prominence, nor placed in the best positions. Remember that the reason the space bar is a BAR and not a key is because it used so often they originally gave it a whole row to itself. It doesn’t need a whole row, but why not have 3 bars there. One for Space, one for enter, and one for delete. The old enter button could then be used for Backspace.

Well - move your mouse over to the left side of your keyboard and try to do a Ctrl-Left-click to select multiple files in the Windows file chooser (or any of a million other things like that). When your left hand is on the mouse - holding down the Ctrl key with your right hand when the only Ctrl key is on the left side of the keyboard is a MAJOR inconvenience! Keyboards are for a lot more than just touch-typing...and right-handed people are completely and utterly blind to the issues of left-handed people. It's a worse form of discrimination than sex or skin-color because you right-handers materially change the world (eg by designing keyboards) in ways that make left-handed people less able to perform. If you were to somehow design a keyboard that only white people could use - you'd be in a lot of trouble...but exclude 10% of the populations because their brains work differently - and that's perfectly OK. You don't even want to THINK about the trouble you people cause us on a daily basis! SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

4. I hadn’t thought about it before because I don’t text, but yes, it would be great if people had chording equipment that they could use to dial numbers and text messages. A lot of text abbreviations are next to useless anyway. Do you really get much of a saving typing 2 for “to”. Unfortunately, people are loathe to learn things where they have to memorise stuff, else we would all be touch typists. But there are great payoffs for those who do. What I have written here, I write at virtually slow talking speed. It would take a lot of other non-touch typists triple the time. That can be a big advantage when you are a student typing essays and the like and being able to concentrate on source documents and largely forget the keyboard and event the screen. And I repeat, I’m no genius but it only takes ONE DAY for a person to learn to touch type. You need only remember the 8 home keys, and then the ones immediately above and below them. For Heaven’s sake, it’s not like playing a piano!

You can learn to chord-key in a day too. When I got my Microwriter, it was faulty. By an amazing coincidence, I lived only 40 miles from their factory - so I took a train into London and visited them to get it fixed. On the hour long train ride back home, I learned how to chord all of the letters and numbers. After a couple of hours at home, I could chord-type faster than I could touch-type...although some of the obscure punctuation and symbols were still slipping my mind a couple of days later (fortunately there was a nice mini-poster you could stick on the wall to remind you!) - I could then type as fast as I could talk! There are very few touchtypists in the world who can do realtime dictation - but I could do it after less than a week with the Microwriter. The thing is nothing short of miraculous - and I miss it horribly! SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

5. I like your idea of a mouse-based chording system that could be used by one hand. Then you could write love letters to your girl with one hand, and keep the other gainfully employed.

:-)

6. I wonder if there are people who can proficiently touch type in two different modes, like Qwerty AND Dvorak. I can't imagine it because I keep thinking you would keep getting mixed up. But then, there are millions of people who are perfectly fluent in multiple langages, and each language is infinitely more complex than the simple business of learning finger positions for letters. Of course, you could be one of the people, Steve, because you can touch type in Qwerty, and you know a chording language.

Chording is a lot different from typing - so I'm not at all surprised that I could do both. It's more like switching between playing a guitar and playing a tuba. They are both "music entry devices" - but they work so completely differently that it's not an issue. But I don't buy your argument about language fluency versus the ability to keep two keyboard layouts in your head at once though...those are very different parts of the brain doing very different processing. Humans have evolved to learn and speak languages - it's what our brains were designed to do...but typing is an entirely learned activity - there is no reason to assume it would work similarly. As another 'data point': My wife (who is French and 100% fluent in English and who also knows a bunch of other languages) has problems with switching languages. When she's been on the phone talking to her family in France for an hour or so, her English slips badly for at least a half hour afterwards. All of the silly word-order differences between French and English start to throw her. She'll say things like "the car red" instead of "the red car" because in French "la voiture rouge" is the correct word order. She's been living in an exclusively English-speaking society - speaking only English at home for more than two thirds of her life - and yet her ability to turn on a dime is still pretty poor. SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Lastly, we have this absurd number pad, which not only wastes desk space and makes it harder to get to the mouse, but is also wasteful in environmental terms. We are supposed to be DECREASING our footprint, not churning out machines that are add ons that no one wants. BUT. BUT. IF we did keep the number pad, couldn’t we AT LEAST make it into a PROPER calculator, complete with trig and other functions? The idea would be that you could calculate stuff on the fly, see the results coming up on a window on the monitor, and then enter the required results wherever you postioned the cursor. And they would do a lot more than +,-,\ and * What say you? Myles325a (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - well, I agree with you there. We don't need them - and the very few who do can just spend $10 on a separate numpad and they'll be more than happy because they can pick it up and put it in their laps if they want to. I don't know about making them into calculators too - but that's just a matter of software - and if it was a useful thing (a) someone would probably have done it already and (b) it would work just as well and just as usefully with a regular keyboard. SteveBaker (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh - incidentally. What text editor do you use? We serious touch-typists like the clunky old 'vi' editor (now called 'vim'). It's claim to fame is that it's not a 'modeless' editor. It has two distinct modes - entering text - and entering commands. This seems like a bad idea - and if you are not a touch-typist, it probably is. But in 'vi', you can literally edit using your touch-typing skills. In most editors (for example) if you need to move the cursor, you have to move your right hand over to the arrow keys - or (worse still) onto the mouse. But in 'vi', you tap the ESC key to enter 'command mode' and the UP/DOWN/LEFT/RIGHT movement commands are mapped onto the H/J/K/L keys - the home row of your right hand. There is no need to hold down CTRL or ALT for as long as you are in command mode. In fact, almost all of the commands in vi are bound to single letters on the keyboard - specifically so you can enter them blindingly quickly with touch-typing skills. You'll probably hate 'vi' (most people do) - but the 'vim' version of it is OpenSourced and runs on every system on the planet in command-line mode. SteveBaker (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

myles325 back.

1. Look, I’m not really any kind of techie, and I just use MSWord whenever I can, because I am used to it, and it is available. In nearly all cases, when I post anything, I write it out in MSWord because I can edit it more carefully. I don’t like shoddily prepared text. You might be able to write in the dark, and you do it well, but there seems to be quite a few users who type in the dark and possibly with mittens on, and who do not achieve anything in the way of a polished effect.

2. I thought about your arguments re: duplicating knowledge of similar processes, and how the human mind would cope with it, and I agree with you. As Naom Chomsky noted, there is a strong hard-wired propensity for children to learn language at astonishing speed. I have Serbian and Hungarian ancestors and my mother can speak both those languages and English with complete fluency. I always found it interesting to see how she moved from one to another. In everyday speech, it was always English, but when the subject was intrinsically more difficult or sensitive, she would move to Serbian, even in the same sentence. I also noted that she correctly used forms of words like “who” and “whom” which hardly anyone does in Australia anymore, even though she learnt English informally. But Serbian, like Russian and Latin, is a language in which verbs and nouns are all declined and parsed with a complexity that would astonish most English speakers. When you are multilingual (and unfortunately I am not) the speaker adopts more than just a formal structure of grammar and vocabulary when they use the language. They adopt a mental attitude, a body orientation, a speech rate and pitch, a mood, and a cultural world-view which provides the substrate for their language behaviour. I believe this is part of the reason why it is easy for people to move back and forth between languages without much mangling and distortion. As my polyglot mother says “How many languages you know, that is how many people you are”.

Your metaphor about the piano player who also plays the tuba. It seems to make eminent sense that the vast difference between the two instruments would preclude any problems with mistakenly using operations designed for one on the other. But is it the case that a piano player would find playing the harpsichord more of chore for that reason. There MUST have a lot of research done on this—essentially a major topic in theory of learning—and it may even be on WP. I do imagine, for myself, that I would NOT be able to learn Dvorak and switch between it and Qwerty effortlessly, because unlike languages, they are too alike, and there is no “cultural world view” to keep you on target. Otoh, I CAN imagine learning chording, which sounds really cool. I also liked you

3. As you are quite a boffin in this area, may I trouble you to ask if you could answer this question for me? I have lots and lots of files in MSWord, devoted to different topics and different activities, and I am typing in one now. But in this file, and in several others, the red spell check and green grammar check underlining has disappeared and I cannot get it back. I have copied text from WP here for editing and referral, so is there something in that layout that disables spelling and grammar checking. I’ve tried copying text elsewhere and nothing seems to work. I did actually ask this question on the Reference Desk, but no one knew the answer. Myles325a (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My wife (who is French) has spend more than 2/3rds of her life in English-speaking countries. What amuses me most is that she can't do arithmetic in English. She translates everything into French - does the arithmetic - and translates it back to English again. When she's adding up a long column of numbers - she speaks the running total out in French and the final answer appears in English. It's very weird - and also somewhat cool!

Anyway - as for your MSWord problem - I really have no idea. I use Linux for almost everything - so OpenOffice is my preferred word-processor (although I find I hardly ever use it these days - I write almost everything in Wiki's of one sort or another - I use Wikipedia for fun - at work, we do all of our documentation in a Wiki - I have a personal Wiki that my son and I use to communicate now that he's away at college - and the car club I run also uses a Wiki for much of it's operation. The spell checker that MediaWiki uses is pretty good...I don't get a grammar check - but that's OK - grammar checkers annoy me for informal communication - they are far too picky. SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Myles325 comments. The so-called “grammar checkers” on these devices are IMHO one of the most potent arguments against the strong AI position. I would estimate that about 10% of their “suggestions” are correct, and frankly I can’t see the situation improving.

On the subject of efficient human – computer interfaces, I came across the article Dasher and largely rewrote it. See my comment on the associated talk page there. How does a man with “locked-in” syndrome—an condition which is very nearly describes the deteriorating state of Stephen Hawking—manage to communicate with the world? In the film of the true story “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”, Frenchman Jean-Dominique Bauby suffers a devestating stroke leaving him paralysed but for his left eye. He is taught to “speak” by the following method: a nurse reads out the alphabet and he blinks when the correct letter is pronounced. In this excruciatingly tortuous way, he builds up words, then phrases, and finally his own autobiography. This was in 1995, and I was astonished that this was the best that French science and medicine could come up with. If a man can blink and move an eyeball then surely camera tracking of his eyeball could allow him to aim a beam of light at a screen and select letters and words by blinking. Dasher seemed to me to be going in the right direction, and it was a pity that the article in its original form, largely neglected its obvious potential to empower such radically handicapped people, and concentrated on its game value. Incidentally, Jean was lucky that the nurses who cared for him were stunners, and he spent considerable time staring down the front of their uniforms as they ceasely recited the French alphabet, but what if they had looked like Madeleine Albright? Then again, what Frenchwoman could look like that? :) Myles325a (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The technology for eye-tracking has improved considerably over the last 13 years. In 1995, the state of the art of the technology was nothing like what it is today - and it was hideously expensive. Nowadays, a $50 camera and some more or less off-the-shelf software could do it - but 10 years ago that would have been the job of a $100,000 dollar SGI minicomputer.

Gotta agree with Bauby on the French Nurses though - my wife used to be a Nurse...and she's French...so I speak from personal experience!  :-O SteveBaker (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I described the satellite style you recommended in my presentation! Thank you! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I carried it very carefully over to pride of place at the top of the showcase on my User: page. SteveBaker (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 12:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Venus and Jupiter's true color

This is siad to be Venus true color is it close to white with faint yellow. If I was orbiting Jupiter will the planet look like a pearl, always playing with color. Seen from Saturn's low magnitude will Saturn still be around blueish silver if I was orbiting planet. If I was far away from the planet, it will look darker, if I was clser to planet, it looks brighter. if I was orbit one foot away from Uranus, it's methane gas will still give glows of violet color since it's magnitude is 5. For Neptune, it would be essentially dim, since the magnitude is 8, I beleive I will still see a dark indigo color when I am orbiting the planet since it have little light far away, for Pluto, and it's other dwarfs, the surface will look black, even if I stad on it--Freewayguy 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you sending ref desk questions to my talk page? SteveBaker (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See if you have answer.--Freewayguy 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Argghh

Hi Steve, thanks a LOT for this answer. I just used up at least an hour of the time I have left on this planet, looking up, down and sideways for a flaw in your story. Differential heating between the kiln-exposed parts of the sphere and the portion in contact with the floor could produce enough stress to crack the glass and there would be weak points in the glass and anisotropies in the spherical shape - aha, you say, it's a perfect sphere and they annealed the glass to iron out the stresses. OK then, it's a perfectly spherical thick-walled pressure vessel, wall stress is 1/2 the axial stress = (0.5*R(i)^2*P/(R(o)^2-R(i)^2))*(1+R(o)^2/R^2), max tensile stress at R = R(i); tensile yield of glass at 10ksi, annealed glass at 24ksi. Normal glass would fail at a single point, so it must be annealed. Failure would occur at 3840 psi, and my steam table ends at 700 deg.F. and 3200 psi. Wait a minute, they anticipated such accidents (since for some reason they put the kiln in the floor where things could roll into it, so someone's undoubtedly dropped stuff in there before, these guys must all have been one-eyed misshapen monsters by now (if a ball can roll in, so can water spilled on the floor)) - so they actually made the sphere with two-inch thick glass. Now we can get up to 8664 psi - but the steam table looks to be exponential, so it looks like failure will occur somewhere just below 900 deg. F.

The other line of attack here is - if they have no tools to lift an object that heavy, how did they get it onto the flimsy wooden frame? You're covered there too, they could roll it up a ramp or make it above it's eventual position and roll it down. As to how they planned to actually deliver the globe, well presumably they had ramps for that too, and a lever to pry it out of the frame and onto the delivery ramp. OK, so they know about ramps and levers, so they should be able to pry the sucker out of the kiln. How much time do they have to do this? Depends on the thermal inertia of the glass globe (and the kiln, since presumably they will be trying to damp the heat - keeping in mind they've already learned about how liquids in a kiln will take your eye out). This is where I resume normal activities - I'm not going to do the heat calculations to see how long it takes to heat a 1" thick x 24" diameter object filled with water to 900 degrees.

Rather it seems more productive to ask you instead: what is the fatal flaw in your story? C'mon, you knew it halfway through typing that response :) You can tell just me, I promise I won't tell anyone... Franamax (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And wouldn't they have had an asbestos blanket to throw over the sphere while they worked on getting it out of the kiln? That would take care of the radiant heat from the kiln walls, wouldn't it? Franamax (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well - I really doubt they has an aspestos anything because this is in the 1600's and widespread use of the stuff didn't happen until the industrial revolution in the 1800's. So that's not an option.

I went out of my way to say that the sphere was a one-off thing - so any experience they may have had - would not be with something of this nature - they probably never saw a properly sealed container full of water before.

The reason (I'm suggesting) that they couldn't get it out of the kiln is because they basically can't get near to the darned thing because of the heat. So whatever tools they might have had for moving it would be really useless to them.

I'll admit that it's a bit unlikely that the kiln would have an opening at ground level - and that's definitely a weak point in my story...but (as I carefully explained) the real problem is that snowglobes weren't invented yet. (Although - I suppose we could argue - for the sake of the fictional story - that since all of the inventors of the snow globe - and the only example of one ever made were all destroyed on that fateful day - perhaps it was merely RE-invented in the 1800's). In the end, this is fiction - so we're allowed a little artistic license.

As for your calculations - you might be right about the time it takes to heat such a big globe - so maybe we go for something a little smaller. But I was thinking of the exploding water-filled fire extinguisher on Mythbusters last week - which seemed to go up after just a couple of minutes in a fire that was nothing like the inside of a kiln in terms of temperature...but then the metal skin of the extinguisher didn't look as strong as a good chunk of glass. Sure - to do this "right" one would have to adjust the size and thickness of the glass so that the water can get up enough pressure to break the glass - yet the glass has to be strong enough to contain the water so that when the pressure IS released, it flash-boils and creates a nice KABOOM!

In the end, this is a work of fiction - so it only has to be good enough to fool 99.9% of readers without access to steam tables and glass annealing data. But (when I last looked) we hadn't come up with any better ideas for our OP...so maybe this is the best we've got. As usual - it would help to have some more background to the story.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna put in something here about how reading your fiction writing is about as interesting as reading steam tables ;) but I couldn't perfect the wording, so:

I hardly ever watch Mythbusters (the Simpsons is probly on at the same time) but I did see that episode. APW extinguishers are 150 psi or so, probably 2 or 3:1 SF, so your premise of the perfect sphere rupturing at much higher pressure is valid.

But these are the readers of the SteveBaker series, so you've got to expect the minute physics will be examined, as well as the plot and character development.

And maybe I did find a flaw - you only put 3 gallons of water in a 3.2 cu.ft. container (~20 gal. in man-size gallons). Now I can work with differential thermal expansion to get a stress-crack in the glass long before the steam pressure becomes significant. At that point, the water runs out into the kiln and flashes externally. This of course is a big problem, but these guys know about it already - they've already learned what happens when a drop of sweat hits that kind of heat, or a dropped flagon of ale runs into that floor-kiln. So they damp the kiln with ash and tell people not to try making snow-globes until wooden support-frame technology has developed sufficiently, which doesn't happen 'til the 1800's. Meanwhile the apprentice spends his life investigating the problem and marries a beautiful maiden who is impressed with the way his voice sounds when he reads steam tables to her. Now that's good writing! :)

And the court of Charlemagne had asbestos tablecloths, at the end of feasts they threw them into the fire to clean them (read that in SciAm long ago, I did) - which is why I mentioned it. Asbestos technology was certainly known before the 1600's, although it's possible the practitioners were killed developing the early Norman phaser, or possibly died of a mysterious lung disease. :) Franamax (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Subversion

Hi Steve,

Your recommendation of Subversion on the refdesk caught my interest. I've used cvs in the past but don't anymore, and need a versioning system for managing a lot of bits of code that I start writing, and often don't finish, but which still may contain elements that I might want to reuse later. As I commented on the refdesk, I downloaded subversion on my linux box, and TortoiseSVN on my Xp box. It was easy-to-use, and the repository browser of the windows explorer plug-in appeared to be able to manage the projects in my repository in a hierarchical way (something I never got working properly with cvs). When I looked at the actual files in the repository from the linux box, however, I got confused, because they had no resemblance to the files on the PC. With cvs, I used to be able to figure out what was going on. Here's what it looks like on the linux box: Link to dump, didn't want to fill all of your talkpage :-)

Where did my files go? There are two projects here, each consisting of several files, and there are two large files in directory db/revs:

./db/revs:
totalt 5708
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root     115 2008-11-04 22:34 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root 1599246 2008-11-04 23:40 1 /* <= One of the projects? */
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root     440 2008-11-04 23:47 2 
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root    1532 2008-11-04 23:47 3
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root     308 2008-11-04 23:48 4
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root     508 2008-11-04 23:48 5 
-rw-r--r-- 1 NorwegianBlue root 4214294 2008-11-04 23:49 6 /* <= The other project? */

One of the projects is called TuneProg. Ok, lets try to find it:

NorwegianBlue@atlas:/data/Subversion$ cd db/revs
NorwegianBlue@atlas:/data/Subversion/db/revs$ grep TuneProg *
5:cpath: /Music/TuneProg
5:TuneProg
5:_0.0.t4-1 add false false /Music/TuneProg
Binary file 6 matches
NorwegianBlue@atlas:/data/Subversion/db/revs$

Hmmm?

The questions that I would very much appreciate your answer to, are:

• Where is my data hidden? In the (binary) files "1" and "6"? Or has TortoiseSVN created a second repository on the windows box as well, that I'm using unknowingly?
• Do you create a repository for each project (as some of the links that google came up with recommended), or do you keep everything in one big repository?
• Is it possible/sensible to manipulate the files in the repository directly?
• How do you backup and restore the repository?

Thanks, and thanks for your numerous contributions on the refdesks. I read just about every one of them, and am deeply impressed by your knowledge, and ability to explain things in an accessible way. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

• As a mere user of SVN, I have no clue how things are stored in the repository - you shouldn't care either. Don't touch the repository - don't even bother looking at it. It's basically none of your business! In CVS it was occasionally necessary to look at the repository and dink with it (eg, that was the only way you could delete a directory) - but with almost every other version control system, that's an utter "no-no".
• I create separate repositories for most projects, yes. But my entire home directory (under Linux) is in one horrifyingly large repository. (I start other projects outside of my home tree...eg /home/steve is my home directory - but my "tuxkart" project is under /home/projects/tuxkart). So when I start some new piece of work (which, like you - I'm statistically unlikely to ever finish!) - I start it under my home directory and don't bother creating a repository. When something reaches the point where it's likely to be pushed a long way down the development path (like if I maybe spend more than a week on it) - then I copy the files out of /home/steve/myNewThing and into /home/projects/myNewThing and start a new repository for the new work there. This (sadly) means that the early development history of myNewThing is not present in it's /home/projects/myNewThing repository but since that's typically only a week of my early floundering around - it's no great loss...and if I really DO need it - the (now deleted) directory in /home/steve/myNewThing is still (inconveniently) in that repository. But I like to have my ENTIRE home directory in a repository so that I can check out all of my current state of activity when (for example) I move from my deskside computer at home to my laptop for going on a trip or something. The ability to merge changes from two trees into the repository is invaluable when you have two PC's and no way to conveniently share their hard drives.
• It's certainly not sensible to manipulate the files in the repository directly. Whether it's possible is hard to say and would require deep guru knowledge of subversion that no mere mortal could be entrusted with!
• You backup the repository just like any other set of files. But for chrissakes don't consider restoring it piecemeal. It's an all-or-nothing kind of thing!

Treat the repository as a big black box - don't open the box!

SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I have a couple of more questions, just to make sure I understand:

• From your description of sharing files between your laptop and desktop, I conclude that you have a server (where the repository is located), a desktop (possibly the same machine as the server), and a laptop, and that before going on a trip you check the files in from the desktop, and then check them out on the laptop, i.e. no moving of the repository itself, right?
• If I want to migrate the repository from one machine to another, is all that is needed to copy everything in the directory to the new location, on a machine where subversion is installed, and start using it? Or do I have to do something administrative to make subversion on the new machine aware of the the directory I just copied?
• Conversely, if I decide to abandon a project and see no need for keeping the files, is it sufficient to delete the repository, or should I do something administrative to tell subversion that the directory is gone?
• And finally, I take your point about not messing with the contents of the box, and I'm not seeking subversion guru-level knowledge. Still I am a little curious about what's going on. After some experimenting, I concluded that subversion creates a new file in the repository each time I make a transaction, and that he names of the files are simply the sequence numbers of each transaction. When I commit a bunch of files, I get one big new numbered file, and when I do something trivial with one file, I get a small one. Thus, I would predict that the db/revs directory of the repository corresponding to your home directory contains a zillion of numbered files, of varying sizes, and no subdirectores. Could you please take a look and see if this is the case, just to satisfy my curiosity? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah - you don't want to be moving the repository if you can POSSIBLY avoid it! Because it contains not just all the files you currently have - but also all the files you've EVER had - and all of the old versions of all of the files you've ever had - it can become quite big - many gigabytes for a large, active project with lots of binary files that need to be maintained. Moving it across the Internet is painful. I have a web-hosting service where I leave my repository (and where my web site and Wiki is hosted) - they have terabytes of disk space 'assigned' to me (although I'm not using much of that). So when I do a 'checkout' or 'commit' - all that's happening is that the files that have changed or been created are transmitted over the net - so everything goes fast. It doesn't matter that I'm in outer-mongolia and my laptop blew up so I had to buy a new one...I just run 'svn' and do a check-out from my web host - and pretty soon my computer is "back to normal". It's very cool. For a while I had a static IP address on my home computer network and I ran an SVN server on an ancient computer with a big disk drive. That gave me much faster access between computers at home (because I was connecting via 1Gbit/sec Ethernet) - but dog-slow access to the repository from the outside world because DSL is very slow from home to network. Hence, when my family was temporarily split over two cities - and my son went to college - I shifted the repository over to my web hosting service so we get somewhat slower access from home - but vastly faster access from anywhere else on the planet.

• Migrating the respository is just a matter of copying the entire repository directory. There might be a problem in moving the repository between (say) a Linux box and a Windows machine - I've never tried that - but from like-to-like, it works just fine...although (as I said) it can be a HUGE set of files.

• If you don't need the repository anymore - then yes, you can just delete it. That kinda defeats the object of having it for me - so I never do that. Disk space is ridiculously cheap.

• I have no interest in how Subversion does it's thing - but it's an OpenSource project - you can go to their website and read whatever documentation they have. If you're REALLY curious - you can sign up to their mailing list (or forum or Wiki or whatever they use)...they may even have an IRC channel. Then you're talking to the guys who actually wrote the thing - and so long as you're nice to them and don't get annoying - they'll be able to satisfy your every question.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers. The idea of using a version control system for backing up ordinary user files never occurred to me, and is really elegant. I'll do some more experimenting, and will probably follow your example. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I dislike having two systems that do the same thing. Backing up files (incrementally) and restoring them again comes with it's own entire set of tools and commands - but version control does everything that incremental backups does for you - PLUS it gives you the ability to insert tags, make branches, make changes to the files on two copies of the original data - then merge them back together again, check the differences between two different backups...all of those kinds of things. The only real distinction is that backups are typically run at the same time every night - where (usually) I only do a 'check in' when I've changed something significant. That means that my backup interval is under my control - I don't have to back up for a month if I don't happen to be doing any work - or I can back up ("check in") just before I do something major so that if I screw up, I can get back to the earlier setup easily. I'm altogether sold on the idea. Of course, you still have the problem of doing a backup of the repository itself - but that can be done in a fairly mindless way (or - as in my case, I pay a web hosting service $9.99 a month and let them worry about that!).

I've toyed with the idea of putting some system directories under subversion as well - the '/etc/' directory on a Linux machine and the registry file on a Windows machine are obvious candidates. The problem is that I probably wouldn't remember to check it in at appropriate times - and the same /etc directory won't work on my laptop and my desktop machines (or any of a dozen other computers I occasionally use) - so I'd have to use 'branches' for each machine - and that really makes life complicated and doesn't help me a whole lot...so that's not happening and I still have to back up the system areas of my hard drive periodically...but I only do that a couple of times a year...it's not fatal if it gets trashed.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Life Lessons

You're so right. With your years of experience you've seen through my obvious failings, and really picked me apart. It's just,Wikipedia just means so much to me, I can't help but get angry at blantant lies, and then if I get blocked becasue of the childish comments that I intended to make and infact supported after coming back, I'll just be so angry I don't know what I'll do. You've really shown me the light. It's ok to be a lieing waste of space, just don't take the piss out of the kind of people who actually think a block bothers people. Oh, and I'm sorry about your father. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, with that sarcasm over, User:Account created to post on Reference Desk has convinced me to play along. So, I did a quick read of this WP:CIVIL policy, and apparently, though I'm sure you were already aware, lieing is actually considered uncivil, though I know people don't jump to it so quickly, as is Harassment, and there's even a special little place on the page discussing demanding apologies, It's like a marriage of both of our actions, such a beautiful thing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So now you are accusing me of lying? I can assure you that I did not do so. It's possible that I'm wrong - (that's hardly unknown - everyone is occasionally wrong) - but you are accusing me of deliberately lying on the WP:RD? That's a very nasty accusation - that's not an apology at all - I most certainly have not been uncivil at any point. The way to approach a situation like this is:

• Assume good faith - this is a core Wikipedia principle. If you think I wrote something that's untrue - you should assume that I wrote it in good faith (which indeed, I did) - so you should NOT automatically assume that I lied - you should assume that I made an honest mistake (which I don't think I did - but it's possible). When you approach things with this assumption - life will be smoother for you. The principle behind this principle is that online, you don't know the person you're talking to - you can't judge their character from a few lines of text without the emotional and body language cues you get in the real world - so it's very easy to assume you are facing a lying idiot than someone who made an honest mistake. Hence you have to assume good faith until it's proven otherwise. (Like if they start being blatently rude to you).

• Attack the content not the person. This is a core part of No Personal Attacks - which is another core Wikipedia principle. So by all means find things that I said that you believe are incorrect - and write about why they are incorrect - and what the truth is.

• Don't be a dick. Yeah - that's a core principle too. You attacked me, personally. That's a really bloody obvious breach of Wikipedias' civility guidelines - and that's not allowed either. Look at the reputation I have here. Hundreds and hundreds of people tell me how much they love my posts to the RD. I have a stack of barnstars from happy consumers of my work. I've made 12,000 contributions - with almost zero reversions, no blocks, no bans. I have a couple of featured articles. People have begged me to become an Admin (urgh...I don't think so). Why on earth would you assume that I was going to post a bunch of lies? People work by reputation - in cyberspace, that's all you've got. Your reputation (as is obvious from your talk page) is that you pull this kind of crap on people all the time - and you're always skating right on the edge of a ban. If you want to make a stand-up fight of it - do you REALLY think you stand a chance? Just think about that for a moment!

• Fight untruth with references. In article space, you need to back up such things with solid references - because any fact which is likely to be challenged is REQUIRED to be backed up that way. However, on the WP:RD, things are not required to be backed up that way - and a link to one of our articles is more than enough.

So it's clear what went wrong here. You first assumed I was lying (evidently you still do assume that) - you didn't assume good faith. Then you attacked me, personally, instead of pointing out precisely what I said that was untrue. Then, when I insisted that what I said WAS true - you fought back with more insults and general bullshit - when you should have been finding precise links to the facts that would show that I was wrong.

But no matter what - that degree of rudeness and general obnoxiousness that came out in your posts (and I'm still seeing in your posts here) is not acceptable. Those policies and guidelines (WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) are what makes Wikipedia work. When you breach those rules - repeatedly and without any evident compunction in doing so - you WILL get into deep trouble here. Sooner or later (and I've seen it happen dozens of times) you'll end up either climbing down and issuing profuse apologies (and without those oh-so-hilarious double-negatives that you evidently think will confuse the weak-minded)...or, like so many others, you'll be kicked off the site and EVERYONE around you will feel much better for it. The longer you leave it to make amends - the harder it will be to do it convincingly - and the more distrust you'll leave behind for the next time you flip out like this. As things were yesterday - you could have made a simple "Sorry - my bad" and it would have all been over. Now, you've dug yourself in a little deeper - it's going to be harder for you to climb down - and it's going to take more convincing words to get everyone off your back. Keep this up for a little longer and you'll be heading down that steep path that leads to you not being a problem anymore because you won't be here.

I don't really care which you do. The fewer obnoxious people there are here - the better. We're not short of contributors - so no matter what you provide our community on the plus side - we can afford to lose you in order to eliminate the stuff you seem to be so great at putting onto the minus side.

From your personal perspective - you might want to think about this - when I applied for my last job, my prospective employer did a Google search - since I edit under my own name (Yes, I really am "Stephen J Baker" - "Steve Baker" to his friends) - he found my Wikipedia pages. Since I'm not being a dick - and I do take the time to at least try to help people like you to climb down from positions like this - I impressed the heck out of him and got the job. What do you think will happen when you try to apply for a job and your potential employer finds your Wikipedia pages? He's going to see you lashing out and randomly insulting people. He's going to see reasonable people trying to get you to behave well - and you throwing that effort back in their faces. He's going to see very few valuable contributions. Do you think you'll get that job? Social networking sites (which Wikipedia is - despite all efforts to the contrary) - have real world consequences. Wikipedia is ESPECIALLY serious in this regard because nothing ever goes away. Even if you delete everything off your Talk page - it'll still be there in your history for the next hundred years.

So PLEASE - just drop it - go do something else for a while. You'll be happier if you do.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bowei Huang

Hi Steve, you're right, they could be a teacher. Problem is this user has bouts of repeating questions about religion on the desks and goes 'way back. BH "has the reputation for reposting questions many times" [4]. I'm getting jaded on this one. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand - I merely point out that it's possible for an adult to be using a computer at a school.

Actually - we've been having rather a spate of annoyingly repetitive questions - the guy who keeps asking about the color/temperature of distant planets (I think we're up to the fourth or fifth almost identical question. Perhaps it's time to take it to the RD talk page and discuss what we should do about them. SteveBaker (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re pay check

Damn, I should never have even mentioned it. Any royalties forthcoming I shall send on. Signed-Tich Tucker. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

{{British Leyland}}

Would you mind popping over to the template's talk page where there is a discussion about renaming the template. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've gotta oppose renaming the template because it's content has 'drifted'. The correct response to content-drift is to not let the content drift! SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. The proposal is procedural and may well have catalysed the right answer anyway. I'm neutral on this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My search ends here

Thanks for the Theseus paradox Steve. Was looking for it everywhere, =) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be more familiar to you as "George Washington's axe" - which is said to have had it's handle replaced three times - and its blade replaced twice - yet it's still the same axe. Somehow that's more pleasing as a "paradox" since it's much simpler than a ship and only has two parts to be replaced.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies

Your participation at the reference desk ist much appreciated, but this was really unwarranted. Questions about caloric theory are legitimate, even if they are worded a bit clumsily. I hope you didn't shoo away that new editor. — Sebastian 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I make no apologies. We answered that guy's question (to the degree possible) the first time around - we also pointed out that demanding a specifically non-scientific answer on the science desk was inappropriate. Then he comes back and asks essentially the exact same question again on the exact same desk. He's a troll - no question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in. I think Steve's response was harsh, but not over the line. We shouldn't bend over backward to accommodate stupid questions. It's more productive to spend time on useful questions. Personally, I hope he did shoo away that editor. I don't believe that this editor is definitely a troll- he could easily be a kook instead. Wikipedia does not benefit from us encouraging kooks to participate. Friday (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe you (Friday) are right about him - or her. (I didn't read that discussion thoroughly since I don't enjoy reading name calling where I expect science.) It seems that they eventually saw the connection to caloric theory and marked the article as resolved. Now, do you think that was because of the oversized troll sign, or because of the link to caloric theory? I, for one, am certain that most people are better helped with on-topic links than with personal attacks. I am not asking for an apology; I'm only asking you (Steve) to calm down your emotions a bit in situations like this. Please consider taking an example from user:APL, who tackled the question, not the person. That's what I think is the purpose of a Help Desk.

Maybe I should also put this in context: When I mention Wikipedia to people around me - reasonable people, mind you - it is not uncommon to hear something along the lines of "Oh, Wikipedia - I once made an edit and the reaction was not encouraging, so I decided it was not the best use of my time." I have personally witnessed many confrontations here between regular Wikipedians and subject matter experts, and it's usually the subject matter expert who ends up ceding the ground. — Sebastian 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that happens is because 'experts' expect to be able to write "the truth" into articles because they are experts. What most often upsets them is that their stuff gets removed because it's generally not well referenced. Wikipedia doesn't technically need experts - it needs people who are prepared to go and look things up in dusty old journals. Well, of course you do need SOME expertise in order to be able to understand what you're reading...but this approach often upsets the real 'experts' in a subject.

As for the troll - if you didn't read the preceeding question from the same person - then you most definitely are not in a position to complain about my remarks. What APL answered was interesting (about caloric theory and such - but it DIDN'T answer what the questioner is demanding. This person has an idea in their head that heat IS a liquid and wants people on a science reference desk to back up his/her crazy theory. When we refuse to do that - things get ugly fast. But unless you've patiently traced back the history of this questioner through several accounts and problems on a number of article-space pages - you won't know that - which makes it easier to just accuse me of an irrational response...which it wasn't. SteveBaker (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have brought the "experts" part - it was only to give you my motivation. But I realize it only distracts from the case at hand.

As for the case I was writing about: You write "you most definitely are not in a position to complain about my remarks". I disagree. I am one of the many readers of WP:RD/S, who prefer to read about science there. When we find personal name calling or oversized troll pictures there, it affects all of us; it makes it less desirable for reasonable people to hang out there. Why can't you just take APL's example, react reasonably and help making this a better place for everybody? — Sebastian 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dell Inspiron 1300

I went with your suggestion and installed OpenSuSE 11.0 on DVD. Just a quick follow up question. In your reply you said "...and come back MANY hours later to find it all done." but it only took about an hour to do it. Because it was a laptop I was able to set it next to the desktop and follow along with the online guide and I didn't appear to miss anything. Is there anything you can think of that I might have missed. Looks good so far, just need to get the wireless connection running. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you install just the 'default' stuff? I tend to want pick almost everything (hard drive space is cheap!). (It's easy to install more later - stick the DVD back in the drive, log in as 'root' and run 'yast2' - then you can install more stuff). Another thing is that I select the 'online update' option - so it's got to go to the website and pull more 'stuff' - maybe the site was overloaded at the time. Also, probably you have a faster DVD drive than me - mine was a relatively old laptop. There are a lot of variables. Anyway - I'm glad it went well for you! Enjoy your SuSE box. SteveBaker (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give that a try later/tomorrow. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Crazy amounts of precision.

Hello. I actually do state a source for the orbital periods. For an article such as 17081 Jaytee, there is a reference at the end of the first sentence. It leads to [5] where the orbital period is stated. Thank you for your concern. Captain panda 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is fine with me if you want to reduce the digits of the period. I am not an astronomy expert or even a scientist. If you want, I can reduce the digits on the articles myself as it was I who gave the rather ridiculous precision. How many digits should it actually be? Captain panda 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Three significant figures. Thanks. :) Captain panda 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Heat conduction

I don't mind being told that I am wrong when I am, but it is rather rude/silly to go out of your way to call me wrong when I am not.

Heat conduction governed by Newton's Law of Cooling is a linear process proportional to the temperature difference.

If you want to maintain a temperature difference X% larger you need to provide X% more heat. Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, from looking at "Newton's law of cooling", it appears to me that Dragon's flight and Lowellian are correct. Do you imply that the equation is wrong? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No - it looks like I had a "bad memory" day! I think Dragon's flight is correct - my apologies. SteveBaker (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Networking for Dummies

Steve, thanks for your practical knowledge on router hardware. As it happened, I wandered into a Radio Shack store over Thanksgiving weekend, where they had a $79 wireless router on sale for $29 -- and only one left. So, I took it; do you have an opinion on NetGear? They have a Most Excellent installation package, and I was up and running in about 30 minutes (longer than their own estimates but I tell you, I read everything as it went by!)

So, add me to the list of people you've guided through a problem. Much appreciated. --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wooohoo! Congratulations - a wireless router for the price of a dumb router! That's a real bargain! I haven't used NetGear (I went with Linksys) so I don't have a personal opinion - but they have a good reputation so you'll do just fine with it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Electric MINI

Hi Steve, hope you are well - still keeping up the good work on the refdesks I see. Just noticed this on the BBC and thought of you [6]. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - about a month ago, MINI USA sent me a press release and an invitation to lease one of the new cars for a year. I replied telling them that I was definitely interested - but then they decided they were only running the consumer testing in the LA and NY areas...so no electric MINI's in Texas. The machine is very interesting though - they are taking 500 standard MINI's off the production line just before they drop the engine in - and shipping them to a factory in Italy where they take out the back seats and fit the electric drive train. 100 miles on a single charge - top speeds, handling and performances comparable to a stock MINI - better acceleration than any MINI in current production. Pretty cool...but not in Texas :-(

Interestingly, they are leasing the cars for a strictly limited 1 year lease - after which the cars must be returned to the factory and disassembled to examine them for wear and faults. This oddly mirrors the General Motors EV1 - which was also leased for a year and recalled - much to the upset of people who had loved the cars and were horrified that they had to give them back (god knows why - their leases clearly stated that this is what would happen).

SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Water Spheres,

Greetings, Steve. Just a minor point of curiosity I thought you might be interested in. Remember the great mystery of the water marbles? I went ahead and bought some of those plant potting balls and they're exactly like the water balls user Reywas92 was describing. (Suprise!) I've described them in a little more detail on his talk page. APL (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! The forces of sanity and rationality win! Woohoo! Thanks for the update. SteveBaker (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my query sumal (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer^cneverforget is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reference Desk Answer About Graphics

I just happened to stumble across your answer in response to the question about DirectX and OpenGL, and I thought it was very informative. However, after reading it, I still had two questions. Isn't there more published and online material behind DirectX than OpenGL; especially, for beginners? Also, isn't OpenGL 2.0-2.1 only available on newer graphics cards? I mean when did graphic cards start becoming compatible with OpenGL 2.0-2.1 (not being sarcastic; don't know)? I was under the assumption that if you wanted more backwards compatibility (for Windows) you would chose to develop for DirectX 9.0c so that pretty much anything running XP can run your program. I still admit though that OpenGL 2.1 is much more compatible (for Windows) than DirectX 10.

Anyway, thanks for the helpful information! Nkot (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. There is more stuff published about both API's than you'll ever have time to read. Which has more - I have no clue.
2. OpenGL 2.x runs on everything with shader support - I forget which level of DirectX that corresponds to. Supporting cards that can't run shaders is an immense amount of hassle and is not really worth the development cost for games with significant graphical content (which is most of them these days). People who are not willing to upgrade to a reasonably capable card are too cheap to buy $40 games - so they aren't an interesting demographic for most companies.
3. It's worth making variations of the code to support both DX9 and DX10 cards because people owning them tend to be in our demographic - they buy a lot of games. Also, you need to support a DX9-ish level of graphics to run on Xbox and Playstation - neither of which is up to the DX10 standard - so you're going to be doing that anyway. What's annoying is that there are a TON of people with DX10-capable graphics cards who are running them at DX9 levels of performance because they don't want to upgrade to Vista. Microsoft are pig-headedly refusing to support DX10 under XP because they want people to upgrade to Vista...millions of people are getting about half of what their hardware is capable of because of a stoopid Microsoft marketting decision! Aargh!

Another thing that annoys me is that Microsoft roll a whole lot of change into one revision. There are plenty of cards out there in the world that can't support Geometry shaders - but have no problem with texture arrays. But if you can't run geometry shaders - you can't run DX10 and DX9 doesn't support texture arrays - so once again, there is all of this capability that Microsoft won't let you get at. OpenGL's extension mechanism lets you test for each feature independently - so you have Texture array extensions on cards that don't support Geometry shaders (AND that means that you can have Texture arrays on Windows XP - which actually matters quite a lot for the game I'm working on right now where texture arrays would make something I'm trying to do a LOT simpler!)

It's a matter of market and demographics - not hardware capability....argh!

SteveBaker (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

html/PHP question

Hi SteveBaker

Thanks for your answer to my RefDesk HTML question. I guess I'm still a little confused. You said that a site like the one I reference was probably CREATED with PHP, but I don't notice any PHP directly in the page source. There's no real fancy javascripting in there, its just maybe two dozen specific html folders. Is it PHP that creates those?

Thanks

-Jacko- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.123.215.145 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - exactly.

PHP doesn't run on the client computer - it runs on the server. So MY computer took a page with PHP code in it - ran the PHP - which generated some HTML+JavaScript that appears on your computer. Then the JavaScript runs to present the image onto the screen. When you do a "Show Source" in your browser, you can't see the PHP code because it was never sent to you - all you see is the HTML+JavaScript that it produced.

That's why there are TWO separate programming languages involved here. PHP on the server and JavaScript on the client. You need JavaScript to allow users to interact with the page - but there are some steps of the process which are just more easily done on the server. In the case of my gallery software - there is actually a third language (C++) which I use to automatically generate lists of photos for the PHP code to deal with. So I run the C++ program whenever I add new photos, the Apache web server runs the PHP program whenever you visit the page and your browser runs the JavaScript continuously as you move and click with the mouse. It's a horrible mess really - but that's how the web has evolved.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian Copperfish

If you want to continue your investigations of the Brazilian copperfish hoaxer, I'd be happy to restore the article and move it to your userspace. Just let me know. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If I could see the edit history and do diffs - that would be useful. I've found over the years that there is rarely just one offense with such an elaborate hoax. The contributions list of our hoaxer doesn't tell us much - but there were a lot of other edits to the Copperfish article - and it's hard to believe that all of those people believed it was real. Hence, I strongly suspect that we have some socks here - so I was trying to see if any of the other article contributors had actually added new information to the article (which would only be possible if you were 'in' on the hoax...and therefore a sock. Also there was that one other website (MyValantine.com) that mentioned that CopperFish were caught and eaten in Rio - using a very similar turn of phrase. We may deduce that someone on the MyValantine site is our hoaxer - so perhaps I start looking at other articles on their site and see if any other Wikipedia articles have odd resonances.

Vandals annoy the heck out of me - a bit of detective work to track them down is always worth the effort.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm about to resurrect the corpse and move it to User:SteveBaker/Brazilian copperfish. You probably should remove the deletion template, so people don't get confused. Drop me a note on my talk page when you're done with it and I'll be happy to drive a stake through its heart. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Many thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Want To Get Blocked?

You can get blocked for incivility. If that wasn't clear to you before - let me tell you it now.96.53.149.117 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on Wikipedia for close to four years - I've never once been blocked in all that time - I've been nominated for (and turned down) Adminship several times - I think I know what the rules are. What I said was true - and (IMHO) in no way incivil (it certainly wasn't intended to be). If you feel you need to try to get me blocked - go ahead - that's your business - but I think you're wasting your time. SteveBaker (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Per SteveBaker. Always nice to see anonymous editors tossing around the threats. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Franamax. Thank you so much for sticking your nose in other people's business.96.53.149.117 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you don't want to listen to what I'm telling you about RD etiquette - and you're not going to listen to anyone else either? SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to believe Steve here. Please also note what happens on Wikipedia is everyone's business. We could use this information for whatever purpose we wish. If I so much as cared, I could make a database that specifically targets all your edits and make a psychological breakdown of your habits. In fact, if I was so kean, I could probably do a WHOIS and IP search, hire a private investigator to follow you, gather a bunch of personal information and then publish a book regarding your actions. ie.: I know where you live and I know what you do with your time, editing from work. And then, publish all your edits into a journal called "(Your real name), owner of the IP address 96.54.149.117"... and sell it!!! Now of course don't quote me on this, but I think I could even make a movie on this... so long as I acknowlege Wikipedia's GFDL. This can be done with any information on Wikipedia which is all free. For example, one University has been using cellular telephone interactions and loggin the information for a social science study on human communications. Cheers. --CyclePat (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually that would be harassment... Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information But hell yeah, I'm going with Steve here. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note what CyclePat is saying though. As long as they don't bring the information onto Wikipedia, it's not harassment, it's documentary reporting. In fact, the WikiScanner resulted in a lot of this type of reportage. And more to the point, yes, if it's on this site, it's everyone's business - and every editor in good standing is free to comment as and when they wish. It's a wiki!! :) Franamax (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what, your comment was inflammatory, and I am giving you a warning. I you want to continue to harass me, I would love to give you hell.96.53.149.117 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Business

Hi Steve, was just checking up on old business of ours regarding the copyright violation of Water-fuelled car. The discussion ended sometime in August 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water-fuelled_car#Copyright_infringement. Have we received anymore feedback regarding the illegal wosting of our copyrighted material? --CyclePat (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually - I confess I completely forgot about it. Are they still in violation? SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know anymore. I must admit... it seems like so long ago. I've moved on to other things. Like that guy that makes the Fox 40 whistle. Ron was his name, I think. Anyways, I met him once at a seminar here in Ottawa and he told everyone about his story. 2 whistles under his pillow case worth 150 000$... (There first prototypes)... Anyways, one of his lessons was that you might come up with the best idea, start building it, and selling but eventually you'll have people that will try to copy you (and jump on the bandwagon)... and they will. In short! It's not worth your while to hunt them down and sew them. Better yet! Simply work on making your name better know, your brand and quality out there!... (pause. eyes rolling up to the right) Okay! Well I may look into seeing if it's still the same article. But that kind of goes against Mr. Fox's idea. Meuh! Anyways,... I look into seeing if the copy via has changed. However, as I read in diagonal yesterday, I fear this may not be the case. --CyclePat (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling awards

Might I suggest putting the awards/achievements/about on your userpage into a scrolling thingy? They are kinda long, and it would conserve space... flaminglawyer^c 07:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Brazillian copper fish

Perhaps it is not a hoax because many fish exist in the Amazon rainforest that are often not documented in western fish encyclopedias such as FishBase and some have not even been scientifically classified as species, also i found one travel website that mentions the Brazilian copperfish as the local delicacy of the city Rio de Janeiro and an additional website that says the Brazilian copperfish is the official food of the Brazilian national team. --Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been pretty conclusively shown that this is a fake. Several other sites are reporting the faked information as if it were true - but they almost certainly read about it in Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my Band Planet question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, I notice you were the who created the Reference Desk barnstar, so thanks for that too!)

Thank you! I shall carry it very carefully over to my User: page and put it in the showcase! SteveBaker (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)