User:Bodnotbod/answers

Bod's Answers
This is the page I store answers to questions I've asked.

Use of quoted passages, especially in entertainment bios.
Thought I'd sound people out on this. A number of my contributions are likely to be biographies of British entertainers. I'm pretty sure that in a paper encyclopedia there would be very little or no quoted passages from the artist themselves giving colour to biographical detail but, as we know, Wiki is not paper (see, in particular, ==no size limits==).

I am particularly interested in comedy performers and I feel that having something from them that contributes to the life story and indicates their sense of humour is a good thing and makes for more interesting reading. However, I can see that traditionalists might baulk at this.

The bio style guide isn't helpful on this point.

I would not be excessive in this regard but I'm trying to guage whether there is an almost complete intolerance to quoted passages (as very distinct from notable quotes, without surrounding context) used in bios.

Opinions?

--bodnotbod 20:19, May 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it would make the articles more interesting. But it's largely a matter of taste, and I'd have to judge based on how it was implemented.  Just be bold, and the rest will work itself out. Yours, Meelar 20:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I want to hear ;o) I have a tendency to ask questions first and then be bold later... if that makes sense.  I'm wary of upsetting people in my first week.  --bodnotbod 01:45, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Cross Wiki Logins
On a related topic. I do not currently have an account with MetaWiki or any of the other projects beyond the 'pedia. I was thinking of setting up an account. Is it a bad idea to use the same username/password for each project? That's what I'd like to do, but I wondered if it would cause a conflict of some sort. Thanks. --bodnotbod 15:02, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Single sign-on is something that's on the development "todo" list (so you'd automatically register for every project in one go, and not have to worry about creating N new accounts). But that's not done, so you do indeed need to register on each individual wikiproject. I think almost everyone keeps the same username (and lets face it, the same password) on each wiki. There's someting to be said for preemptively registering on a bunch of the wikis (such as the other-language ones) so that no-one can go there and register your username (and use it to frame you somehow). It's quite sensible to be registered even for languages which you don't speak, as you can probably figure out interwikis anyway. For those ones I usually leave a message on my user page there saying "I don't speak lower silesian, and I rarely visit this wiki, so if you want to talk to me, do it on 'en'". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Link directly to 'page history'
Is it possible to link directly to a Page history?

I've tried a number of Google searches across the wiki project and can't find an answer. The fact that page history is sometimes referred to as the revision history and edit history isn't helping ;o) --bodnotbod 16:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible. Go to the page history and copy the complete URL.  Then use the same syntax you'd use for making an external link.  Here's an example, linking to this page's history.  The same trick can also be used to make links to difference pages and other pages of the same sort. Isomorphic 16:11, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You can also link to specific versions in a page history, but be aware that these are not permanent as the page IDs change if a page is deleted and then undeleted, or when a page is moved. Angela. 18:49, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Frozen Windows
What are the common causes of a computer running Windows (98 if being specific helps) freezing? That is, no blue screen of death, no reboot, just a complete freeze that leaves you reaching for the power/reset switch?

Please can we take the answer: running Windows as read? ;o) --bodnotbod 22:51, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, reinstall windows, as it has so many undebuggable failure modalities that only a rebuild is worthwhile. If the system still sticks after that, it's probably hardware:  memory fault, memory corruption, cpu fault, nasty bus interlock snafu (sick PCI device). In practice, a bad hard drive controller (which magically goes away while you're doing pagefile stuff) can also do this. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How often does it freeze? Is the fault replicable? Can you 'cause' it to hang? Mark Richards 23:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I would guess it would be a memory leak - 98 was rather leaky, from my experience w/ it and from what I've heard. Is this during work, or after you've left the computer alone for a while? Dysprosia 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess everybody has their own unique Windows moment of infamy ;) Wierd as it seems, there is another possibility. Check your motherboard and make sure the CPU fan is functioning normally. Overheated processors crank up just like that and everything just freezes like a painted desktop on a painted monitor. Oops, sorry Windows brings poetic nostalgia in me:) Chancemill 13:06, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Other hardware problems like hard disk read failures usually result in some kind of error popups, before going down. A complete freeze (you dont see the mouse move, there is no pixel fade/refresh) almost definitely indicates trouble with your processor/memory assembly and probably nothing with your Windows installation. Chancemill 13:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. Chancemill used the magic word overheated. I had originally phrased the question to include the fact that it was VERY hot and humid in my room that day - but I didn't want to lead the jury and thought it would be interesting to hear all the possibilities. Hmmm... guess I ought to look at the fan, it's probably clogged up with dirt. --bodnotbod 17:28, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Prawn Crackers
I've Googled and it tells me "Real Prawn Crackers are made from Starch, Prawns & Salt". Are there any other snacks that have a purely starch base? I'm assuming prawn crackers are fried, am I right? If so, what does starch look like beforehand? Is it like a flimsy pasta-like substance? Does starch contain gluten? This is a lot of questions, isn't it? --bodnotbod 19:38, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * If 'shrimp chips' are what the Americans call 'em then this recipe may help adamsan 20:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * also this is a similar recepie, however is better written and has photos of the process. Prawn Crackers are also nown as "Har Pang" fthrjack


 * I hazard a guess that all manner of snacks are pure starch: yer regular potato (crisp) is starch. In modern industrial terms, it tends to be granular, shipped around in tankers, and modified seven ways to, umm, whatever, by big wholesalers such as Cerestar (the link is to their glossary, for no good reason). "Cerestar products extend from regular and modified starches through glucose and high fructose syrups to maltodextrins and spray-dried glucose syrups, dextrose, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, xylitol, erythritol, cyclodextrins, wheat gluten, maize oil and animal feed ingredients.". Mmm. I'm licking my lips. How about you? That said, food always was physics: The Thermochemical Joy of Cooking. --Tagishsimon


 * Starch is a white glucose polymer that looks exactly like white flour. In the US you can buy 1 lb boxes of cornstarch cheaply at the grocery for thickening gravy, etc. It has a taste like unsalted saltine crackers melting in your mouth-- not objectionable just not very flavorful. There is no protein and no gluten and there shouldn't even be any fructose in it. It is eaten by the tablespoonful every few hours by people with type 1 glycogen storage disease. Starch is also the major component of (surprise!) "starchy foods" like potatoes, rice, pasta. In the US it has become the new food villain... but that's another story. Alteripse 18:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tagishsimon and Alteripse. Yeah, the gluten thing was part of my curiosity - I'm coeliac.  But I kind of knew they were gluten free since they didn't... well, I'll spare you the details.  But, OK, potatos are starchy... but are you saying that British crisps are gerneally not sliced potato, they're reconstituted, ground down potato? --bodnotbod 23:39, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * British crisps are regular potato slices - you can see the structure of the cut tuber. American crisps come in a comically limited range of flavours (no cheese and onion, no hedgehog, no tomato sauce, no worchester sauce) so who cares what they're made from. Seriously, the few recognisable crisps you'll find there also bear the telltale signs of vegetal imperfection.  Pringles clearly are made from reconstituted potato powder.  Factoid: pringles are moulded in miniaturised versions of machines that make paperboard nappy (diaper) liners, hence that groin-ey shape.  More "advanced" crisps (roysters, mccoys, ruffles, etc.) are also made from a potato paste. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 00:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Spinny disc thing
See This Google search (thanks to User:DrBob

See: http://www.eulersdisk.com/

How do you find out your total number of edits?
Go to contributions, change the number in the URL to start at different points, til you get to a stage where you can count them.

Smoke rings

 * How do they hold together, even if only briefly?
 * And why should smoke emanating from your mouth come out in the shape of your lips?
 * Shouldn't it more or less congregate towards your upper lip and just come out looking rubbish?
 * Could you make a really big smoke ring and keep it stable in some kind of wind tunnel? --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 22:45, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * The smoke in a smoke ring is trapped in a toroidal vortex of air leaving your mouth. The vortex starts with the air in the centre of the stream moving faster than the air in contact with your lips. I guess this is more influenced by the shape you hold you mouth, rather than friction against the lips.
 * Could you make a really big smoke ring and keep it stable  - I imagine a reasonably stable ring could be made if you set up a wind tunnel to blow a central core of air against a larger ring being blown the opposite way. In the mean time you could try a Zero Blaster. -- Solipsist 23:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Cor. That's a lovely pair of articles.  Thanks very much.  It's exciting my brain trying to merge the two articles into the one happenstance, which is just what I need. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod  »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 01:25, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Some probability questions...
1. I have a bag with 6 balls numbered one to six inside. What is the probability that I will pull the balls out in numerical order?

2. What is the probability if I do that again but this time I label the first ball as 1st (so ball marked "1" is correct) but placed sixth (so ball marked "6" is also correct); the second ball as 2nd (so ball marked "2" is correct) and placed fifth (so ball "5" is also correct)? And so on (3rd ball out must be either no.3 or number 4; 4th ball out must be either ball no.4 or no.3... etc to the end)

3. What is the probability for exercises 1 and 2 if I increase the number of balls to 7?

In case I am accused of asking a homework question, I'll tell you why I ask. I watch poker on TV and there is usually either 6 or 7 players at the table. Just for fun I try to predict the order in which people will be knocked out of the game. I used to do this by just writing down their placing. But lately I have been trying to "double" my chances (though I'm sure that isn't the truth in practice) by allowing myself to be correct using the two labels rather than just the one. I sense I may not have asked this question entirely clearly so please ask if you need me to clarify. -- 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For question 1, there are 720 permutations of the 6 balls and only one of them will satisfy the requirement, so the probability of getting that permutation (based on usual assumptions about drawing randomly) is 1/720. I don't understand question 2.  In a given hand of poker, seat position has a real effect in one's winning chances--you can't assume independent draws. 75.62.0.233 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer to question 1. That is much lower probability of success than I would have expected.


 * To clarify question 2, I am bringing out the numbers again but this time they can be in this order:


 * 1st ball can be either ball 1 or 6
 * 2nd ball can be either ball 2 or 5
 * 3rd ball can be either ball 3 or 4
 * 4th ball can be either ball 4 or 3
 * 5th ball can be either ball 5 or 2
 * 6th ball can be either ball 6 or 1


 * So given that there are now two correct balls at each stage what are my chances of succeeding at bringing them out in an order that is correct? 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The chance of the 1st ball being right is 2/6=1/3. If that ball is right, the chance of the 2nd being right is 2/5. If that is right the chance for the 3rd is 2/4=1/2. After that only one of the options will be possible since the other will have already been used, so the chances for the 4th, 5th and 6th balls are 1/3, 1/2 and 1. To get the chance of them all being right we multiply those together. That gives us 2/180=1/90. That is quite a lot more likely than the 1/720 we had before (in fact, it is 8 times likely, that is 23 since the first 3 balls are twice as likely to be right). --Tango (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is right. Once you know the value of the first ball, there is only one ball left out of the five remaining that can follow it. So we'd get the same probabilities as before, except for the first ball, which would be twice as likely to be correct. So the probablility of getting one of those sequences is 1/360 (or 2/720 - note there are 720 permutations and only two are correct). Readro (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it would only be two permutations if the series had to be either 1,2,3,4,5,6 OR 6,5,4,3,2,1, however this allows for more permutations than that, such as 6,2,4,3,5,1 etc. --79.72.61.252 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, therefore, if there were seven balls, the chance of pulling them out in the correct order is 1 in 7! = 5040. The chance of the numbers being correct according to the second system is 1 in 5040/8 = 630.  More generally, where N is the number of balls, the odds are 1 in N! and 1 in N!/[2^INT(N/2)]. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)