Miscellaneous desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 24[edit]

Changing Text Size[edit]

How is it possible to change text size on the firefox browser. Normally it would be in the edit menu but i do not see it.--logger (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View/zoom, or CTRL+/CTRL-. Algebraist 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or View/TextSize --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exist in 3.0.l. Algebraist 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.0: View > Zoom and check zoom text size only, then zoom in/out. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder that I'm on a locked down machine right now ;) * :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CTRL+ CTRL- does the trick thank you.--logger (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Ctrl + scroll mouse wheel. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012[edit]

Will the end if the world be in 2012? 66.53.216.132 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do predictions. Groups which have in the past predicted the end of the world for dates which have now passed have all been wrong. There's no reason to suppose any current group will buck that trend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you a million dollars it doesn't end. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "current group" that said it would end in 2012. See Mayan Long Count calendar for more info. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is puzzlingly titled Mesoamerican Long Count calendar but just 'Mayan long count' finds it. Another metaphysical mystery. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "current group" that is interpreting the MLCC and ascribing their contemporary belief to past generations. I refer the honorable wikipedian to my previous answer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their calendar rolled over in 2012, but there is no evidence that they thought the world would end. Any Mayan scholar will tell you that that "prediction" has been falsely attributed by... well, by idiots. Plasticup ^T/C 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... probably sometime in the mid to late 2030s. The millennarists were close with their idea of Jesus coming back after a couple of thousand years, but forgot that he didn't leave Earth until the mid-30s AD. Of course, this is simply my theory. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nope, it ends next month when they turn on the large hadron collider. Those darn stranglets are going to kill us all. haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.139.77 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's spelled strangelet. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing a redirect can't fix... -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and added {{R from misspelling}} to your redir. Stranglet sounds like something from a true-crime story. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Panic, Isaac Newton showed that the world will end no earlier than 2060. Algebraist 07:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it's just an Olympics year, oh and Euro 2012 is in Poland, and i'll be 30 that year :-( 08:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Everyone knows the world will end in 2017 or 2112 at the latest. —D. Monack ^talk 01:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We recently had a discussion about this over on the science desk. I'm still not sure why. -LambaJan (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the world does indeed end in 2012,you may feel free to put an article in Wikipedia about it.And yet some people think that we will be here for a good while yet Lemon martini (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to end in 2012. That's just the date that the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar completes one cycle and starts again. For some reason some have interpreted this as the end of the world. Has made for some good music though.Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimos[edit]

What is the name given to a female eskimo?

If a female indian is a squaw etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.243.106 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Squaw for why you might not actually be looking for such a word. You might instead be looking for "female Alaskan", "Canadian lady", "Inuit woman", "Eskimo girl" or some such. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Eskimo for why you might not actually be looking for such a word. Both "Eskimo" and "squaw" are considered pejorative by some people.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arnaq" ("woman") in Inuktuit. OtherDave (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Inuit? Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I just misspelled Inuktitut. OtherDave (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible lines across the skies[edit]

I've noticed that if I put my cell phone under my computer screen, it flickers when receiving incoming information (i.e., a text, call, or confirmation that someone received a text I sent). It's actually pretty cool because it notifies me of stuff a couple seconds before the phone does and makes me feel all special (it's like I'm psychic). My question is this: will this kind of interference damage the screen? And could it hinder the cell phone's performance? Unlikely, methinks, but the stupid thing is prone to bouts of rebellion where it randomly sends messages an hour after it was supposed to, confusing everyone (including myself), and then laughs at me by vibrating in my pocket whenever it feels the need to and staying still when I get calls.

Also, although it in no way helps answer my question, I find it interesting that the severity of the flicker changes depending on what exactly is being received: a confirmation that someone has received a message (that is, the "message received at [time]" portion of sent messages) only makes it wiggle for a split second; a text message itself looks like an earthquake. And maybe I'm just imagining it, but I could swear that the longer the text, the bigger the jolt. Weird, eh?

Technical stuff (I doubt it means anything, but what the heck):

- Phone: 'tis a generic Motorola Wsomething... It's the new stock phone. You know, the one that you can get for free and that makes all the uptight phone aficionados cringe in horror? Yeah, that's the one.

- Screen: a Dell... Thingie... That came with my computer. It's not a flat screen, so I'm not actually sure what you'd call it... A fat screen? It's big and ugly, anyway. About four years old, I'd say.

Thanks in advance. I like to think that what the above lacks in conciseness it makes up for in humor, but maybe that's just me. :P --69.146.230.243 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I foolishly put my mobile phone on top of my laptop overnight and it wiped out the phone. From that point on I have kept them well apart from each other.--Artjo (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a police officer and when the cell phone is next to the siren, before it rings, the siren speaker will buzzzzzzzzzzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of cell phone interference, the reason why you're not supposed to use cell phones in hospitals and aircraft. (Whether it's actually dangerous in those circumstances is a subject of much debate, but that's a different story.) There's a Howstuffworks article on the topic, though it's not particularly in-depth. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) When the phone receives a call or a text message, it communicates with the cell using electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range. At close range, that is quite enough to induce current in nearby electrical circuits, and cause the effects of which you speak. And yes, the longer the message being received, the more it has to communicate back to the cell (it'll typically be saying "yes, I'm here & listening", "yes, I've got that bit, thanks", "yes, I've got that bit, thanks" &c). And yes, when the cell makes contact with it to say "here's an incoming call for you", it will respond with a "yes, I'm listening" type response ... that handshaking, which is picked up by the external devices being interfered with, happens in advance of he phone deciding it is time to alert the user to the situation by beeping at you. And yes, I think it's pretty cool too (except when I'm wearing headphones, when the periodic "hello, I'm still here" callouts from the phone are a bit vexing. Bose: why are your headphones not better shielded?

In the majority of circumstances, the phone does not pose a lasting hazard to your other equipment; nor your other equipment to the phone. However there are probably regions of greater and regions of lessor incoming signal strength, depending on where you place the phone. I have no knowledge of whether the stray EMF from a CRT monitor will attenuate an incoming signal - I've never noticed such an effect. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I actually managed to piss my sister off not long ago by putting a cell phone near her computer screen. See, I'd noticed that it made pretty colors, presumably because it has magnets and all inside it and the monitor uses magnets to paint the screen. Anyway, the colors stuck. Pressing the degauss button fixed it, though, so no harm done. Black Carrot (talk)

Mmm, very interesting... Thanks, all. I suppose that there's not any reason to really worry about it unless my screen explodes or something, and that seems pretty unlikely. --69.146.230.243 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life insurance for people living dangerously[edit]

If I know someone who is living dangerously (taking drugs, DUI, practicing extreme sports), can I contract a life insurance for him and choose me as the police holder?Mr.K. (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you can't buy insurance on someone else's life. The conflict of interest there is just staggering. Secondly, hard drugs, regular DUI, and extreme sports mean that no insurance company is going to cover your friend or, if they do, his premium will be absurdly high. Plasticup ^T/C 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Life_insurance#Parties_to_contract. Wal-Mart was in the news for buying life insurance policies against a large number of their workers (not just upper management) without their knowledge. (Wal-Mart's insurable interest in such cases was questionable; Mr.K's insurable interest, as far as I can tell, is non-existent.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As coneslayer notes it is down to insurable interest. Businesses regularly cover their key employees and many insurance firms offer 'keyman' policies. You couldn't take cover on a friend unless you had a financial interest in their continued existance (say you share a business or a loan with each other). Also any individual that takes part in dangerous pursuits would be rated according to their risk by the underwriting department of the firm and thus premiums would be higher to offset the additional risk. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Defragmentation[edit]

I've taken the liberty of mooving your question to the computing reference desk, where it is more likely to get a helpful response. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use a cattle-prod? ;-) -LambaJan (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, a whip, a club, and an alsatian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

666[edit]

Are there any cultures, religions, and/or governments that do not use the number 666 as in accordance with the old testament, eg they are counting how many fields of grain in thier area or comunity and count thus, 664, 665, 667, 668. And if so, how is this rectified. Also, if stick religion organizations do not do this, how do they account for thier disobedience to the old testament. I think this rule was in judges, or in the early book with all the rules on how to live.

Since the number of the Beast doesn't possess specific biblical relevance until the Book of Revelation, no, it has no presence whatsoever in Old Testament law. Note also that even the specific translation of "666" is disputed. — Lomn 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, 666 does make an appearance in the O.T., though - something connected to the amount of gold raised to build Solomon's Temple, though I cannot remember the exact reference. If so, it raises a few interesting possible theories as to what is being referred to by the number... Grutness...wha? 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. 1 Kings 10 14: Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aah - thanks for the reference - I'll have to remember that one :) Grutness...wha? 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

666 is a lucky number in China: 6 sounds like the word for luck ('liu' if my crappy Mandarin lessons hold true). I am under the impression myself that the number of the beast was actually 616 due to a mistranslationAvnas Ishtaroth (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terminology in the United States[edit]

I am reading a newspaper article about a man who has been arrested in LA, and the legal terminology is somewhat unclear to me. Apparently he has been charged with:

Rape
A lewd act with a 15-year-old child
Sexual battery by fraud
Sexual exploition

In a legal context, what exactly do these terms mean? The man is a doctor, so do any of them refer to the abuse of trust? Plasticup ^T/C 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the California Penal Code here I found the following definition for "sexual exploitation:"

"311.3. (a) A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a child if he or she knowingly develops, duplicates, prints, or exchanges any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip that depicts a person under the age of 18 years engaged in an act of sexual conduct."

I can't find anything just yet about the sexual battery by fraud charge. Laenir (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CA Penal Code 234.4(c): "Any person who touches an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose, is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000)." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first WP article?[edit]

i think most of the early content was migrated from NuPedia, but was there a first created article (perhaps other than the main page)? where is that page i used to know about wikipedia milestones in article numbers and so on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.92.47 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was WP:UuU, with this edit. See history of Wikipedia for more. Algebraist 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the other way. Wikipedia was expected to supply articles to Nupedia. And the Nupedia authors were less than enthusiastic about any of their material ending up in Wikipedia. Nupedia never developed any large number of articles anyway. Main Page was originally Home Page, by the way. Rmhermen (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been looking for Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles, History of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Statistics. Rmhermen (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Nupedia states that Nupedia reached about 100 articles, at the most. That's one twenty-fifth-thousandth, or forty millionths, of the English Wikipedia alone, and although I don't know the exact magnitude, I guess it's only a few millionths of the articles in all Wikipedias. I guess mandatory peer review was entirely the wrong idea. JIP | Talk 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh International Airport[edit]

Have they dismantled the ends of A and B concourses. 71.240.2.138 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]