Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< November 5 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 7 >
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.


Contents

[edit] November 6

[edit] Arrest in the United States - NOT LEGAL ADVICE

I have broken no laws and don't intend to, this isn't a legal advice question. I'm playing a role-playing game online (as I often do) and I find myself in the position of playing a cop who is about to make an arrest when the other guy gets back online, and for a semblance of realism, wanted to check on how that's actually done, never having been arrested myself. It's a futureistic game, set in 2119, but somehow I suspect the US procedures won't have changed too much (the arrest is taking place in Kansas, too, where I've never lived). My cop has reason to believe that the suspect was involved in a murder - she's discovered that an electronic pulse sent through a VR terminal that killed a crippled girl wasn't an accident but a planned attack (and she also has the wrong guy, but she doesn't know that). So far, however, she can't get conclusive evidence that it was him. She has records of him contacting the girl before her death, and she has found a trail of money being removed from her scholarship funds and from her life insurance payout and being used to purchase things that were shipped to him, so there's probably cause (right? does that count?). He fled the country, so while he was gone she probably got a warrent for his arrest. When he lands, she'll probably give him a little time and then go to his house and knock-and-announce, read him his Miranda rights, put him in cuffs, and... hold him at the police station for interrogation? Take him right to jail? And what when she can't get conclusive evidence from interrogation? Does she continue to hold him on charges of obstruction of justice (he's not been very forthcoming and she has reason to believe he's lying)? Or release him? How does the process work? (if you're wondering, the chick had turned into a computer program and then offed her useless body herself; the shipments were parts for him to build her a robotic body. You understand why the cop would have a hard time believing that.) Kuronue | Talk 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Law may have changed so much by 2119 that it bears no resemblance to current law. Which game are you playing that is this involved? If you are writing a story / novel then you decide the law. Lanfear's Bane | t 00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a text-based game over IRC. I mostly want to know how it's done today so that if I decide to change the rules I know I'm changing them, not just doing it in error. Kuronue | Talk 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Usually, you'd be taken to a police station and interviewed, or held while further investigations are carried out. There's a limit to how long they can hold you (often 24 hours, but it may be shorter or longer depending on circumstances) without charging you with a crime. You would never be taken to a proper jail unless you'd been charged but not bailed.
Of course, since 9/11, all this goes out the window as soon as someone mentions the T word. FiggyBee 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. T? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. FiggyBee 06:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In order to get a warrant for a suspect, you need to swear out an "Warrant of Affidavit", which you would take before a judge. In the affidavit, you will need to provide your probable cause that a crime was commited and your named suspect is the person who committed the crime. In your case; contacting the victim, the money trail, where the trail leads, etc. With that evidence, you have shown he had the opportunity and the means to commit the crime. Now, with the warrant in hand, you go to the airport (or where ever he is landing.) You may want to pose as a cab driver, or some other person you would normally see in an airport, so he would not be able to readily identify what is about to happen to him. Then, wait till he picks up his baggage, because his hands are full, call out his name and immediately arrest him. Whenever you know you are going to arrest a suspect, you should never allow the suspect to have an opportunity to flee or destroy evidence. (Meaning: if you allow him to go home, then knock on the door and arrest him, you run the chance of him fleeing or further tampering with the evidence. You'll need the evidence.) Take him directly to jail and get him booked in. Don't ask him any questions and don't read him his Miranda warning yet. During this time, if he tells you something about the offense, it can still be used against him in court, because you have not asked him about the offense. A peace officer is only required to Mirandize a suspect when the peace officer is asking questions about the offense. While he is in the jail, waiting for his arraignment, you would then take him to an interview room. Now is when you Mirandize him. Your intent is to ask him about the crime itself. In real life, if communication breaks down, it would be a good time to begin talking about a possible trade. He tells you something (Such as: where some evidence is) and you in turn, would promise to bring that piece of cooperation before the arraigning judge, and you may be able to get him a lower bond. In a suspects mind, you are now his only possible avenue for him to get out of jail as quickly as he can. But you have to stand by your promise. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Jello has pretty much the right idea, though here in CA in some ways the arrest warrant (at first) is not needed, if the officer has probable cause to believe that a offense was committed in their presence, or the person to be arrested has committed a felony whether or not in the officers presence, or the officer has probable cause to believe a felony has occurred, even if a felony has not occurred, all under the PC 836, ymmv, it is all based on per case factors really, but just wanted to point that out. Jello is also correct on Miranda, generally we don't mirandize until right before we sit down to talk to them, because if they invoke miranda, we lose a chance for that interview, thats it, until the attorney gets there. Any 'spontaneous statements' made before miranda are admissible. Watching most shows they like to mirandize them right away, that happens very rarely. If you want to really get into it(and if my current case law is as up to date as it should be) you can question a detained suspect(mind you detained, not in custody or arrested), and not even mirandize them, with nothing shady at all going on. In short, if the subject has reason to believe they are free to leave at any time, detained but not incustody, and you aren't doing anything to make them think otherwise(IE blocking the door, sitting in a closed room) you may ask them if they want to talk about whatever it is you are working on, they can still say no, and unless you actually have probable cause to arrest, you're still not going to get anywhere, but anything they do say voluntarily is admissible, mind you this wouldn't/shouldn't happen in any type of major felony type crime, as the person can try to articulate to the court that they did not feel they were free to leave, and there maybe a judge that will suppress the evidence, so it is kind of a moot point, just throwing it out there.Dureo 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Darnit about the Miranda; I had the cop read him his rights immediately upon

arrest so that she could tape their "casual conversation" on the ride over, since he's known for being a friendly guy and she was posing as the good cop who reluctantly had to arrest him. Well, he pretty well self-incriminated anyway, and also made himself look quite insane, so I've got some good stuff to go off. Fascinating. Kuronue | Talk 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rechargable Batteries - Best Practices

I have a number of devices which use rechargable batteries (mostly NiMH, some NiCd). What is the best practice for charging them to maintain the longest usable lifespan? Should I try to keep them fully charged at all times, or is it better to "exercise" them by running them down most of the way before charging? Should I be compulsive about removing them from the charger when full, or is it better to keep them plugged in? I've seen some suggestions, but they don't usually specify which types of batteries they are applicable to, and are fuzzy on the distinction between maintaining capacity, and prolonging lifespan. (In most cases, I'd prefer 4 years at 75% capacity to only one year at 100%). There's a bunch of folk wisdom running around, so reliable sources would be appreciated. Thanks. -- 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NiCads should only be recharged from fully empty or they will develop the memory effect. NiMH doesn't suffer from that but both types have a limited number of charges in them so to optimise you should only really charge when fully depleted. Rechargeables are best stored fully charged, but be aware that both types self-discharge over time. ---- WebHamster 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. A 1% discharge cycle does not consume nearly as much of the battery's life as a 100% discharge cycle, so for all battery types except NiCd, you should definitely keep the battery as fully-charged as possible. Even for NiCds, this is generally true but at least once in a while you need to deep-discharge the battery.
Atlant 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guinness Yeast Extract

When and why was Guinness Yeast Extract discontinued? NeonMerlin 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

After having read that article, all I can say is, "Ew". Corvus cornix 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like good stuff! DuncanHill 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note the "See Also" - Vegemite is very similar, and very popular in Australia (although it's not my cup of tea, so to speak). Steewi 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sucking cocaine?

Just purely out of curiosity; most users who abuse powdered cocaine snort it through their nose to allow their lungs to absorb the powder. Can't they just suck it in through a straw with their lungs instead? Or does snorting it deliver a higher efficiency? Thanks. Acceptable 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to even look for references, but I don't think the cocaine goes to the lungs, I think it is absorbed within the nasal passages. Oh wait, it's there in the cocaine article. --LarryMac | Talk 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Having a numb nose is one side effect of snorting cocaine. I suppose it is possible that the lining of the mouth could also be used for absorption, but (a) cocaine tastes terrible (or so I am told) and (b) it would make your whole mouth, including your tongue, numb, and that could be an added danger. Bielle 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Alot of cocaine user rub their finger, with cocaine on it, over their teeth. Not sure why, but that is why their teeth are usually black. Crack-cocaine is not water soluble, therefore, it can be stored under the tounge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 07:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the object is to rub the cocaine over the gums, not the teeth. Tooth enamel has no sensation (unless cracked, of course) and cannot transmit anything anywhere, Users of cocaine can become hypersenstitive to all sorts of sensations, including pain that is not in an area numbed by the drug. Someone with tooth problems, or sensitive gums, might find the "numb gum" feeling attractive then. It could also be (and usually was, I am told), that if you get cocaine on your hands, it picks up the body's moisture and, even if it doesn't stick to them, it will not be easily snorted. Wipe your finger over anything that has had cocaine resudue on it, and then rub your finger over your gums. Not only will they go nicely numb, but the gum tissue will also transmit the drug to the bloodstream. It does have that minor defect, though. I don't know anyone who finds black teeth attractive; do you? Bielle 08:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, pre-Meiji Japanese women often blackened their teeth as a beauty thing. It was considered poor taste for a woman to show her teeth, so blackening them avoided accidental exposure. Steewi 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed to get it on their gums. Snorting is preferred as in large quantities orally can numb your entire mouth and throat preventing you from swallowing effectively and can cause you to cough and splutter. The taste is rather chemically but is not exactly terrible, an acquired taste. It can also burn the back of your throat when you sniff and the powder is sucked into your mouth. It can also strip away the lining of your nose and may leave you with that feeling of burning that you get when you eat a lot of mints and breathe in cold air sharply. All this is however dependant on the quality of the product and the amount you take. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that inhaling cocaine through a straw would not have the desired effect of distributing the powder deep in the lungs. Larger, heavier particles (like powdered cocaine) would tend to settle and stick along the throat. To deliver particles deep into the alveoli – where the blood vessels are right against the surface – would require very fine particles: on the order of 2.5 micrometers or less. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
When people snort cocaine it is not going into their lungs (snorting powder into your lungs would feel awful). It goes up into their sinuses and dribbles down the back of their throat as a numbing, base-tasting liquid. It is not the most direct way to get cocaine (which would be to shoot it, obviously), but it offers a good compromise between getting a bunch of it quickly while letting it moderate itself down your throat a bit at a time. Inhaling it with a straw would have the powder still be very powdery (imagine sucking in baking powder, which is about the same in terms of texture) and cause you to cough, etc. Going through the nose allows it to mix with the mucus up the nose and became a runny liquid. It's more than a bit gross but of course when you are doing the drug you don't think about that too much. --24.147.86.187 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chatting with Christopher Maleki

Where do I go if I want to chat with Christopher Maleki about my soap operas and the characters that are in them? Ericthebrainiac 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he has a myspace - there's a link on the Christopher Maleki article. You could also try writing to him care of the producers of Passions. However, he's a busy guy and you'll probably end up talking to a publicist rather than Christopher himself. FiggyBee 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be rather surprised if he actually had much to do with the MySpace page. Most celebrities leave that to their publicists. It's generally rather hard to get to speak to any of those people in private. In terms of ideas you might have for stories and characters, you'll find that these people are EXTREMELY resistant to hearing outsider's ideas. The reason is a simple one - generally, the ideas outsiders have are just not that original and it's very possible that whatever the idea is, it (or something very similar to it) is already planned for a future episode - perhaps one they've even filmed already. If they patiently listen to your idea - then discover it's something they already have 'in the can' then much legal ugliness will ensue because you'll immediately assume they stole your idea. Since they generally aren't short of ideas, they'd rather simply avoid any semblance of impropriety by just refusing to listen to you. I've seen similar problems in the past when I worked in a research lab where we were instructed to refuse to read ideas sent in by the public in case we were already working on something similar. In truth, in most creative endeavors, ideas are cheap and plentiful and all of the work is in sifting through them to find the good ones and turning them into something useful - getting yet more ideas doesn't really help. SteveBaker 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs heard on Dame Chocolate

What were the songs heard on Dame Chocolate? Ericthebrainiac 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donator's messages

What's the deal with the public message from people that have donated to wikimedia? Do all messages get equal airtime, or are they censored first? I've seen some several times - like "For tripling the number of elephants in Africa". How did wikipedia triple the number of elephants? Is there a list of these messages, or a list of noteworthy (ie. funny) ones? Aaadddaaammm 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The elephants were already asked about - see the archives. You can see the complete list somewhere, but I forget how to get to it right now... here. FiggyBee 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! The one question I have left is: are all quotes shown in the banner at the top of the page, or is there some censorship going on? Aaadddaaammm 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a false dichotomy. — Lomn 14:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Lomn, what a helpful reply! Please enlighten me as to what a third option may be, and what the answer to my question actually is. Aaadddaaammm 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
They may be hand-selected, but I wouldn't call it censorship. FiggyBee 01:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300

How many yards is 300 meters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to Google and type this into the search box: 300 meters in yards
--Anonymous, 06:34 UTC, November 6, 2007.

[edit] The Heart

I really need you guys to find me a way to build a model of the heart?(also I know you are gonna say this question was already answered above but I've tried all the links and there nothing but GARBAGE!!!!! No offence intended.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this help? Corvus cornix 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] types of research

notes on the following. a)correlational vs explanatory research b)descriptive vs exploratory research c)applied vs fundamental research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.83.236 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be far better if you had said "please help" and explained what the info is needed for.86.197.169.208 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

We have articles on most of those topics:
correlational research vs explanatory research
descriptive research vs exploratory research
applied research vs fundamental research
If, after reading those articles, you have more specific questions, we'd be glad to help. -- 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Alcoholic Beer

whats' the difference in making process of the non-alcoholic beer (lower than 5%)and free-alcoholic beer(0%)?Flakture 11:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people have very low tolerance for alcohol, and may want to enjoy the taste. Some people/religous groups eg. Islam forbid alcohol. Non-alcoholic beers are sold in Saudia Arabia, where alcohol is illegal. Hope this helps.Cuban Cigar 12:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The question wasn't why it's manufactured, it was how is it manufactured. Dismas|(talk) 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this the process is the same until the end then the alcohol is removed by vacuum evaporation. Which works due to different boiling points. Here is our article on the low/no alcohol beer Low alcohol beer - Dureo 12:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Dureo, the alcohol can be removed by vacuum distillation at moderate temperatures. Another method is to extract the bulk of the alcohol and water from the beverage by reverse osmosis (using high pressure to force the small alcohol and water molecules through a membrane), leaving a beverage concentrate behind. The alcohol can be removed from this mix by conventional hot distillation, and the remaining liquid used to top the concentrate back up. (more information.) Home brewers of beer can produce low-alcohol beer by omitting corn sugar (if any) from their recipe and heating the product to alcohol's boiling point to drive off most of the alcohol (instructions). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that link Ten, was looking for the Good Eats beer episode instructions, I thought he made low alcohol beer but i cannot find it, but remember use quality malt. Dureo 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You can also remove much of the alcohol by Freeze distillation - whilst it's not a simple matter to get rid of all of the alcohol this way - reducing the amount is relatively easy. However, vacuum distillation is cheaper on an industrial scale. SteveBaker 19:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that freeze distillation is often used to increase the alcohol content of a beverage (see applejack and ice beer), but I'm having a little trouble seeing how it would be used to decrease the alcohol content. The stuff that freezes out first is (mostly) water ice; the alcohol stays with the rest of the stuff (sugars and esters and acids and whatnot) that gives the beverage its flavour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It just depends what you do with it- if you remove the part that didn't freeze, you're lowering alcohol content. If you remove some stuff that DID freeze, you're raising it. Friday (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you remove the part that didn't freeze, then you're removing all the stuff that actually had flavour in it, as well.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In which methods you mentioned the amount of alcohol become completely 0% ?Flakture 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Roman Empire

I have searched wikipedia throughly and have not found any current information on the Holy Roman Empire or 21st century German monarchy. Specifically I am looking to research the following individual:

PRESIDENT & CHANCELLOR

His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Karl Friedrich of Germany, Duke of Swabia, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg, Prince of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen-Rudolstadt de jure Emperor Charles VIII I.R.

www.almanachdechivalry.com/

All I know is that Pope Benedict XVI reinstated the Holy Roman Empire in 2002, and the Empress' name is Maria. This has huge political consequences but information is very challenging to acquire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.102.5 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you TotoBaggins for the clarification found other sources the individual in question reinstated Christian chivarly et al. To Corvus cornix I was looking for additional info not a nasty lecture. If I could answer your questions I wouldn't be researching the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.102.5 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the questioner claimed to be the de jure emperor. -- JackofOz 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it look like a lecture. I completely misread your question. Corvus cornix 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Historians' joke (ie not very funny) - the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman nor, strictly speaking, an Empire. Laugh now please. Almost as funny as the Diet of Worms. Excuse me while I hold my sides. --Dweller 08:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internet connection

what is the fastest internet connection that is currently available for downloading????? I heard that FIOs is pretty fast right now, but i'm not sure that it is the fastest one around right now.--Dlo2012 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Off of the top of my head, either OC192 or 10 Gigabit Ethernet (both at 10 Gbit/s). If you meant available for business or residential connections from an ISP then those providing VDSL and VDSL2 offer maximums of 50-250 Mbit/s speeds. 86.21.74.40 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i meant for people at home, not really businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

that answer is complicated and depends on the area you live in. i kan reed 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Shoes

New shoes always give me blisters and sores, as I'm sure they do most people to lesser and greater degrees.

This occurs till the shoes are "worn in". Presumably either the leather gets softer due to wear or the shoes "molds" to the shape of the foot.

Is there anything I can do to speed up this process? Caffm8 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - I don't get blisters or sores from new shoes, but I buy them for comfort and utility, not for looks. DuncanHill 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My my, aren't you just that much better than us then. Thank you for sharing! --24.147.86.187 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You could try wearing and walking around your new shoes at home for a bit. Take them off as soon as they start hurting. Maybe 20 minutes a day for a couple of days until they feel okay. It doesn't really speed up the "breaking in", but it divides the process into manageable segments. You won't find yourself stuck downtown with miles to go in painful shoes. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I suffer from the same thing. It is very hard for me to predict how my feet will react to new shoes as the experience in the store is often very different from how they will behave in the long run. I've never found a good way to speed it up, though I've found that alternating between my old and new shoes helps my feet heal up. I suspect a lot of the breaking in is accomplished very early on, but if you persist with foot injuries then they won't heal to the point that you will notice (and take benefit from) they are broken in until much later. But I could be totally wrong about that; it is a purely anecdotal observation. --24.147.86.187 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You might try buying shoe trees which are adjustable, and put them into the new shoes, expanding them just a bit to make the shoes stretch. Of course, only when you're not wearing them.  :) Corvus cornix 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You could do that by hand, massaging and *gently* stretching the areas where the shoes are tightest or rubbing. This could be done while watching TV or a movie, but does kind of waste time. Steewi 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There's some more possible suggestions here; personally I can't recommend any myself as the only I've come close to trying is wearing them for a short period each day for a few days, or wearing when I won't be doing much walking, etc. --jjron 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For all-leather hiking boots, the technique I've heard about is to walk in a lake or river until the boots soak through, then continue walking around in them until they dry. This does not work with synthetic materials, and would probably damage dress shoes. --Carnildo 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question about using an universal AC to DC adapter

Hi, Sorry, this is going to sound extremely naive. I am a little bit clueless about electronics and hence the following questions... Let us say that a camera uses 3.2 volts, but the adapter can give either 3 volts or 3.5 volts. which of the voltage is least harmful?. Current needed by the camera is not given, so too much of current (say 2900mA) will damage the camera? Current less than specified is not harmful to the camera? lastly, do most electronic goods these days have protection if one accidently changes the polarity of the power supply?. Thank you 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)clueless

A lower voltage is always better than a higher voltage, since it's much less likely to damage it, and I think it should work since it's just 0.2V. If current rating is more than the amount it draws its fine, since I = V/R and if you maintain V and R, I won't go anywhere, but if is less than the amount it draws, then it will overheat and generally not good. Usually there's a protection diode somewhere in the circuit but I'm not quite sure if every one of them has one. --antilivedT | C | G 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Yep. It's very unlikely that you'd harm the camera on 3v so I'd definitely try that first - if it works, you're OK. If not, then crank it up to 3.5v, that's still pretty unlikely to harm it - but more likely to make it work. Most battery-operated gadgets can cope with a range of voltages because rechargable batteries tend to provide less voltage than the throw-away kind...so try 3v first - then crank it up to 3.5v if it doesn't work at 3v.
The current cannot damage the camera. The camera will take as much or as little current as it needs and no more - if that is more than the adapter can provide (unlikely) then the adapter will get hot and possibly fry itself. But anything like a camera that runs on a handful of AA or AAA batteries will run off of one of those universal adaptors just fine. It's when you try to run something big like a laptop off of it that the trouble will start - but even then, the laptop is safe - it's the adaptor you'd need to worry about.
Oh - polarity - yeah. That's a much bigger concern. If you look carefully where the power plugs into the camera, you may see a little diagram that shows which is positive, the 'tip' or 'ring'. Most universal adaptors have a way to switch the polarity and you DEFINITELY want to get that right. If you have the original charger for the camera (maybe it stopped working or something?) that might help - failing that, look in the manual for the camera. SteveBaker 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I had one of those multi-voltage power supplies and accidentally plugged it into a digital camera when it was set to 12V rather than the required 3V, the camera never worked again :( It won't harm it using a voltage LESS than required but be careful not to use a higher voltage! GaryReggae 19:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SteveBaker and Garyreggae: Thank you very much for your answers. The camera did not have an adaptor at all. This adapter is not stabilized. Should I buy a stabilized adapter?. Which is better, switching mode adapter or the other one (I don't know the name)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.40 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether it's a switched-mode power supply or the other kind. Switched-mode supplies are generally smaller for the amount of current they can produce - but otherwise it's no big deal. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you talk about a 'stabilized' adapter. My best guess is that it means that they'll continue to produce the voltage they claim no matter the amount of current you drain from them (within limits of course). However, I can't imagine any power supply intended to be used to power different kinds of devices not being stabilised in that way. How do you know that the one you have now isn't stabilised? Is it just because it doesn't say that it is? If so - don't worry about it. Incidentally - I strongly agree with GaryReggae about being super-careful not to accidentally switch your power supply up to a higher voltage. If you plan to use this supply only for the camera then once you have it all working, I'd tape the voltage switch in position with some electrical tape so it doesn't accidentally get switched to too many volts in the future. If the camera didn't come with an adaptor, they'll almost certainly tell you in the instructions exactly what the supply has to be able to deliver. They'll also (probably) have some kind of protection in the event you get it wrong since they know you'll be buying your own supply rather than using one that came with it. If you don't have the instructions anymore, the odds are very good that you'll be able to download the manual from the manufacturer's web site. SteveBaker 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banking

Impact of Rupee appriciation on Banking Industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.224.250 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Currency appreciation usually leads to reduced foreign investment and lower interest rates. Of course, it is driven by high growth expectations, which is generally associated with high/rising interest rates. As for the effect on banks, you will need to be more specific. When? Where? What effects? Plasticup T/C 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availablity of business loans for ex-convicts from the U.S. Government

I've been told that small business loans are available to ex-cons from the U.S. Government, but have not been able to locate any information. (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.152.155 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Email address removed — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 20:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glowin' in the dark

Phosphorescence, photoluminescence, fluorescence, oh my poor brain...

My local toy store sells glow-in-the dark plastic stars, not entirely unlike these. I was thinking of getting some for my niece and nephew ...and steal a few out of the pack for me when they aren't looking... But do those things last? I've had glowsticks but they are disappointing because they run out of oomph so quickly. I'm hoping maybe the stars use completely different physics and won't die in a couple of days? Any experiences? Weregerbil 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Without providing all the technical details, the stars won't be like the glowsticks. The stars are "recharged" so to speak by light (both "charging" and dimming relatively rapidly). Glowsticks are a separate one-and-done chemical reaction. — Lomn 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I had glowing stars as a kid and they lasted for years. Note that the coolest glowing plastic star stickers are the very tiny ones, not the huge ones you had on that page (if you go to page 2 of that site, the "microstars" are probably what I am talking about). Tiny ones actually look reasonably like real stars when you are lying in your bed, which is awesome when you are a kid. Big ones look cartoonish and stupid, even to kids. In my experience when I was a kid, anyway. My sister had big ugly stars and I always thought they were lame. --24.147.86.187 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I bought a house that already has these things all over the "master bedroom" ceiling. I gather they are getting pretty old because they are more yellow than anything else during the day. They still stay "lit up" at night for several hours and I've owned the house for over 2 years now. Hope this helps, Garrie 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's have a shot at defining those three terms (none of which apply to your glow sticks!):
  • Photoluminescence: Both phosphorescence and fluorescence are forms of photoluminescence. In both cases, light comes in, gets absorbed and re-radiated - that's photoluminescence.
  • Fluorescence: the light is re-radiated at a different frequency than the light that came in. So (to pick a common example) when you shine UV light on cloth washed with certain kinds of washing powder, the energy from the UV light is re-emitted as blue light (this is how they truthfully claim "your whites will be whiter than white"). Since we can't see UV light, it looks like the cloth is glowing in the dark but in daylight, it looks like the cloth is reflecting much more incident light than a pure white surface would.
  • Phosphorescence is actually the same kind of thing except there is a delay between the light being absorbed and re-radiated. That's what's happening with your ceiling stars.
Neither of those are what is happening in those glow sticks though. There are other effects that get confused with all of this:
  • Watch dials used to be painted with radium to create Radioluminescence where radioactive particles from the radium hit another material such as zinc sulphide which then glowed by fluorescence - the radioactivity was actually fairly dangerous - so we don't do that anymore!
  • Chemiluminescence is when light is emitted as a result of a chemical reaction. When you 'snap' one of those glow sticks, a chemical inside the glass tube mixes with the other chemicals inside the bendy plastic tube and the combination produces light.
  • Triboluminescence in which crushing certain crystals produces light(!).
  • Sonoluminescence where bursting bubbles in a liquid that's being excited with sound waves emits light.
  • Electroluminescence where light is produced by electricity being passed through a material (like an LED).
  • Incandescence where things glow because they are hot (like a regular light bulb).
There are still others - but I think they are all variations on one or other of those above. (eg Bioluminescence is just chemiluminescence that happens inside an animal or plant.)
SteveBaker 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Bioluminescence! That is the emission of light by a living organism as the result of a chemical reaction. I guess that is a form of Chemiluminescence... Plasticup T/C 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The ones I put up in my bedroom nearly 20 years ago are still glowing as brightly as when I first put them there (although I don't live in that bedroom any more). Their natural colour was an off-white, yellowy sort of colour. Steewi 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions About Magneto (band)

Did Magneto (band) break up forever? Ericthebrainiac 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that I love Magneto (band), but what if I download every song they have sung on LimeWire? Ericthebrainiac 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer the question about whether the breakup is permanent, but downloading their music on Limewire is very likely to be illegal copyright infringement. Do so at your own risk. Exxolon 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phrases and Rome

Why is Rome used for the following phrases? "When in Rome" and "Rome wasn't built in day" I mean, Of course Rome wasn't built in a day. We could also say "Paris wasn't built in a day" or "When in Paris"

76.230.227.91America's American —Preceding comment was added at 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically Rome has been an important city as much in European culture as in history for many years. People studied works of classical literature as an integral part of education until quite recently. Hence any "smart" proverbs are likely to have used it if a city was required to make those coining them sound well-read. 83.147.140.199 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For others tho, all roads lead to Paris.—eric 23:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And all roads lead to Rome. All three idioms predate the modern English language ("When in Rome" is attributed to Ambrose, "Rome wasn't built in a day" is recorded at least as early as the 12th century), so it's not a case of "smart" people trying to sound classical - they genuinely are classical sayings, and date from a time when Rome was the only real city in Western Europe. FiggyBee 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Some more background on the origins of the two phrases: "When in Rome" and "Rome wasn't built in day". I'd go with 83.147's answer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of these were literally true. In ancient times, all major roads literally did lead to Rome because it was a time when the Romans were the only people making roads and their major purpose was the movement of armies between Rome and it's colonies. Even after Rome fell and lost it's power the roads were still used. Many modern roads in Europe still follow the exact course of Roman roads because those roads never fell out of use - they were just gradually repaired and improved to what they are today. SteveBaker 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
see: Road#Historical road construction dating to 4000 BC.—eric 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Anon above is on the right lines. Rome's pre-eminence in Western culture is easily forgotten today. For thousands of years, Rome dominated the thinking of leaders, both clerical and temporal. First, of course, was the Roman Empire, based in, yup, Rome. Overlapping this, and following St Paul, Rome became the centre of Christendom (don't forget that Protestantism didn't arise until this was well-set, and the split that arose between western and eastern churches was thought for many centuries to be something that could be overcome). So, there was political and religious reasons for it. And then add to this a cultural element. The Renaissance had a strong Italian impetus behind it (appropriate, since it was seen as a return to Roman standards) and while other cities had arguably stronger roles to play (eg Florence) once more Rome shone with their reflected glories. The Grand Tour made Rome an essential stop-over for the young "will-be"s of fashionable Europe. All in all, Rome dominated European thinking for so long in so many ways, it would be surprising if there weren't so many euphemisms and expressions that referred to it... many others have probably dropped out of usage. --Dweller 08:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NB Contrast this with the (even more faded memory) of Jerusalem's centrality... cf Hip Hip Hooray. --Dweller 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sny mndsk

Is there any logical way a well-travelled and well-used (by a British theatre company) Sony minidisk player can develop a fault of playing tracks at an increased speed?

We have never noticed the problem of the track speed varying during songs, but I swear sometimes it has played a disc at too high a tempo. Theediscerning 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a very unlikely failure to me; the circuitry in the minidisk player is all controlled by a very precise crystal oscillator.
Atlant 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laptop batteries

Is there any reason why a new battery needs to be "drained" before going on to use a laptop? I've been told it was like that with the older ones but not now. My friend insists it's still a problem if you don't, ie the battery doesn't last as long or some such. I hear the same talk abut mobile phone batteries too. I'm doubtful but does it make sense? Julia Rossi 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the Memory effect. I'm not up on which batteries have the problem & which don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nowadays, it's not the memory effect but the fact that the very sophisticated charge controller integrated circuits used with lithium-ion batteries need to be "trained"; they don't know exactly how much electricity the battery holds until you've used it all up once. After that, they can much better estimate exactly how much energy remains in your battery.
Atlant 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You made my day. Thanks for that. PS Can you "re-train" one you've been using? or will I have to wait until I get a new batt to do the right thing. Julia Rossi 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. If the laptop is not estimating the remaining battery capacity ("remaining runtime") very well,you can re-train batteries as the batteries age and their capacity diminishes. Usually (with the laptops I'm familiar with) one discharge that's deep enough to put the laptop into automatic sleep is enough to re-train the batteries, but you should check your owner's manual. As I mentioned elsewhere, deep discharging isn't good for the batteries so you don't want to do this too often, though, if you can avoid it. And as SteveBaker points out below, this doesn't affect the actual capacity of the battery, it simply allows the laptop to make better "remaining capacity" estimations.
Atlant 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Some people claim you can get back some of the power capacity you've lost - others say No. When I was into radio controlled model planes (where NiCd batteries were commonly used and you really didn't want to fly your plane until the batteries went dead!) - you could buy a 'NiCd cycler' that would repeatedly charge and discharge the battery in some special pattern that was claimed to improve batteries that had a severe case of 'memory effect'. I don't know whether they really worked or not. Anyway - even if they do work, unless you can find one specifically for a laptop battery, it's unlikely that you could repeat this special charge/discharge pattern enough times and with just the right recharge and discharge rates. So I think the answer is "No" in practice and "Maybe" in theory. SteveBaker 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
On my Panasonic Toughbook there is a setting in BIOS to retrain it which involves the laptop executing a full charge/discharge/charge cycle. Whether it restores the battery to full operating capacity I don't know. 86.21.74.40 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

All good. I'll try it and see. Thanks all, Julia Rossi 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)