Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 20

= December 20 =

question about mobile phone numbers
what is the longest recorded held mobile phone number used to date, my freind has has his since mobiles first came out over 15 years ago and still uses the same number is this a record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.115 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My mom has had the same mobile phone number since 1992. Mobile phones as we know them today have been around since the early 1980s so I highly doubt 15 years is anywhere close to the record.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Nordic Mobile Telephone network opened in 1981, and in Finland at least, many people have mobile phone numbers that they have kept since those analogue days. So someone may well have had the same mobile number since 1981.--Rallette (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Prince Philip had an early-model car phone in the 50s. No idea what his number was, though. Maybe "1." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Songs"
Hello, I was asking how can you write a treble clef and bass clef and alto into a grand staff and write the time and key signature with it? I'm trying to write sheet music for a song I'm writing and I was wondering how you could wirte like Mozart, five-hundred years before the advent of computers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.175.113 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand your question. Look at any orchestral score - it will have different lines for different instruments.  Some use the treble clef, some the bass, some the alto.  Harps use both treble and bass, as do pianos if there are any in the orchestration.  All the instruments have the same time signature, and the same key signature (except for transposing instruments).  It's not the case that all the treble-clef instruments are at the top, all the bass-clef instruments are at the bottom, and the other-clef instruments are in between - they're more or less all over the place.  It's a lot more orderly when it comes to songs with a guitar or piano accompaniment.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about being able to compose music like Mozart did - which was that he would write all the different parts for each instrument as he went along through the piece? In other words, Mozart would write the notes for a particular measure for the violins, then for the same measure for the violas, then for that same measure again for the cellos, and then again for the bass, and so forth on down the page covering all the instruments. Then he'd start again at the top with the next measure in the piece - writing from top to bottom for each measure. Everyone else in the world writes music so that they would write one instrument at at time. So they'd write the whole piece for the violin, then go back and write the whole piece for the viola, etc. We know Mozart did this because we have some of the manuscripts he used to compose his original works, and we can see by the way the pen was dragged slightly down the page that he was composing in this way - the only person known to be able to do this kind of thing for a full orchestral symphony. WHat is more, he would not go back and edit his music very much - he got it right the first time through. This means that he had inside his head the entire symphony for all the pieces in the orchestra at the same time, and was transcribing onto paper the whole thing all at once. A true genius. -- Saukkomies 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the original questioner, but I can't help asking a secondary question. Wouldn't that sort of vertical writing with few corrections be far more likely to indicate that he was simply copying the music from another source? (perhaps a rough draft?)  I'm sure this has been researched thoroughly, but the way you described it makes it sound naive to assume that he held entire symphonies in his head to the last detail. 72.10.110.107 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If Mozart had done this once or twice, then yes, maybe it would mean he was copying it. However, it's pretty much how he composed, and there are some eyewitness accounts that this is how he did it, too. Sometimes he would play billiards while composing between turns and picking up right where he left off in the middle of a measure. The type of brain that can do something like that is just absolutely amazing. -- Saukkomies 16:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost as amazing as a deaf composer. :-) Pfly (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Formal academic format
In formal academic writing, should the paragraphs be aligned left or justified? As well, how many spaces of indent should there be between subsequent paragraphs and should there be a line space between each paragraph? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It varies. Get a copy of the journal you want to submit to, and see what they do. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Following Trovatore's advice, if you're submitting to a particular journal, each will have its own specifics, and will be supplied by the journal or specified on their website. If it's not for publishing (e.g. for a school assignment) the exactness probably doesn't matter.
 * Justified usually looks better and neater for an assignment, and is more often used, although there are many who prefer a left justification because the varied gaps between words can confuse the brain slightly and reduce reading speed.
 * WRT indent and paragraph spacing, usage also varies, especially by country/region. A smaller indent is better if you're using columns. A line space between paragraphs can help when the last line of the previous paragraph is almost at the end of the line, but also wastes space.
 * It's probably best to ask the person who is going to receive the work. If in doubt, be consistent, and keep a back-up copy so you can make changes if necessary. Steewi (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Better yet, write it in LaTeX -- then you put the entire document into a new style, as needed, just by changing a line or two at the top. --Trovatore (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, that really depends on the discipline. LaTeX is not common in the humanities at all, and I've heard horror stories of trying to get it to do things that are quite common in the humanities (inserting complex images, for example). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As Trovatore says, it varies. If you are submitting a paper to a journal, then find their "guidance for authors". Sometimes they want work to be submitted in one format (eg double spaced) while they will publish in another. If you are wanting to make a piece of text that looks "academic" then find a journal that you want to emulate and follow its format. If you want to write something that looks "professional" to submit as homework, then the journals that I have here use justification, with no extra line between paragraphs, and an indent of about 2 letter widths (.15 inch). SaundersW (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that journals often have very counter-intuitive formatting guidelines (e.g. all text 12 pt, all text double-spaced, including footnotes, etc.), that they standardize both for their own purposes (preferences in reading) but also so that they can reliably estimate what its printed page length would be. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To summarise: write in the style the reader requires. Discover this from observation or from asking. If there really is no preferred style then create one for yourself. But always leave sufficient space between the lines and paras for the reader to annotate. My set-up allows for the style requirements of four different publishers.86.197.21.184 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)petitmichel

this is a question from a Millenium Quiz
Determine from the beginning letters of the following 'phrase' what the answer is for the phrase

"P of BCM" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.18.2 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that would be the Privatisation of British coal mines. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pieces of Big Chocolate Monkeys? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe Propagation of Bible Centred Ministries? Richard Avery (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * More likely that than Publication of "British Chess Magazine", at any rate. I like the chocolate monkeys idea. Grutness...wha?  11:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it had better be Piles of Big Chocolate Monkeys" or there won't be enough to go around! SteveBaker (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you gave us the context, such as an event that occurred in 1994. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I smell King William's College Quiz? SaundersW (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh - the horror! Although not all that different from manning the Ref.Desk on a bad day! Last year's quiz - for those with a few sleepless nights to kill. SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one I could come up with off the top of my head is "the Rock Island Line is a mighty good road". Is there a link to the answers somewhere? --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1997386,00.html#article_continue SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am wrong: the 2007 quiz is here.SaundersW (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Panel of Bean Counting Managers. Edison (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What are Value Addition Norms?
Hi,

Want to know in detail about the Value Addition Norms (Economics) esp in relation to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.7.86.7 (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Phonetic Alphabet Text-to-Speech
Has a text-to-speech application using the International Phonetic Alphabet ever been made (or considered)? It would be pretty easy to make, considering all the sounds are uniform, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apple's PlainTalk synthesizer accepts phonemic input, not exactly IPA though. See http://developer.apple.com/documentation/mac/Sound/Sound-201.html. › mys id (☎∆) 09:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In most (perhaps all) implementations of text-to-speech, the software first translates ordinary English words into phonemes - then in a separate stage converts the phonemes into audio. Those are really completely independent problems.  Breaking that chain in the middle and allowing the direct input of phonemes is easy.  The software I last worked on that did this had a dictionary of special pronunciations that the end-user could edit by entering the English spelling and the corresponding phonetic version - and a way to input phonetic text directly if you wanted to replace their front end with your own or edit the phonetic output before sending it to the phoneme-to-audio section.  But as Mysid points out - the phoneme format wasn't IPA.  The reason for that is that good text-to-speech has to know to do things like inflecting the pitch of a sentence upwards at the end if it's a question - which is something that IPA doesn't attempt to handle. SteveBaker (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

beverage can dimensions
What is the circumference of a typical beverage can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith22793 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to do original research, but the beverage can article doesn't have the information. My Coke can is 10⅛" 8⅛" around. How sad for you to live in a place where there is no Coke and no tape measures. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While the lack of tape measures could be inconvenient, the lack of Coca-Cola would be a boon. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You see - that's the entire problem. Do you do a series of carefully controlled double-blind experiments and use appropriate statistical tools to analyse your results?  No - you just go out and measure a can.  Without references, how can we verify that you measured the can?  Perhaps it was in truth a somewhat atypical can.


 * What you need is MATHEMATICS! Logic dictates that the beverage industry must have picked can dimensions that minimise the amount of materials needed to construct a can of given volume in order to maximise profits.  Hence we may easily deduce the size of a coke can from first principles.  12oz is 355ml, and the minimum area of aluminium sheeting for a can of given volume is when h=2r so it follows that they will have chosen to make the can 7.67cm tall with a diameter of 7.67cm.  Hmmm - sadly, my Diet Coke can is 12.5cm tall with a diameter of 6.3cm...damn!  Stoopid can manufacturers!  Don't they realise they could be using 10% less aluminium?  Bah! SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whereas you could be using 11% fewer letters if you adopted the correct spelling aluminum. --Trovatore (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Aluminium, it's an American\British thing, and Steve is apparently of British origin. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you Americans are easily confused: AluminIum - it's exactly like Platinium. Of course there are exceptions - element 11 for example - we Brits say: Sodum. SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The flat endcaps may have to be thicker than the cylindrical part, in order to withstand the pressure. There may also be a cost-per-unit-length term for the seams connecting the cylinder and endcaps.  At this time, I cannot accept your submission to J. Bev. Contain. Eng., but I hope that you will expand your analysis to include the aforementioned factors. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Can Manufacturers Institute actually has standards: . Note that dimensions use an odd format.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We were having a perfectly good time before you came along and introduced facts into the discussion. The nerve of some people. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's not even Friday here yet. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Coneslayer suggests there may be a cost-per-unit-length for the seam connecting the cylinder and end cap(s). I respectfully submit that there must be such a cost as the seam uses extra material. SaundersW (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The top is indeed thicker, basically because there's no way to make it as thin as the sides and still have the can manufacturable, but several years ago they actually started making the top smaller in diameter just to save a little on the amount of alumin*um involved. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Like any important decision with good engineering logic behind it, the can's dimensions were determined not by engineers, but by the marketing department. anonymous6494 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta have enough room for the logo! I once worked for Philips - one of the things I worked on was the very first CD-ROM.  I'm told that it took longer for the marketting department to decide where to place the little Philips shield logo than it took to design the CD drive! SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A physics teacher might say "First, assume an ideal spherical Coke can." Edison (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (If it's a teacher, they'd have to add "Neglecting friction and air resistance"). SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

a company's duty (true or false)
What with Christmas around the corner and the rampant commercialism praying on my mind, I was wondering whether it's true that (one of) a company's duty(s) is to turn a profit. I wondered if this was to the exclusion of everything else, and also started to wonder if there was room in business for 'nice' people. thanks 83.104.131.135 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that maximising the value of the company to shareholders is a requirement for publically traded companies - they could probably be sued by their shareholders if they didn't. But a privately owned company can presumably do whatever the heck it likes. SteveBaker (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, within the applicable laws that govern them, of course.


 * Atlant (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, see our articles on non-profit organizations, not-for-profit corporations and cooperatives. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This was the subject of a book called 'The Corporation' by Joel Bakan, probably one of the most disingenuous books i've read (save for some of Michael Moore's work). There is a requirement to run a business for the interest of the shareholders, this is because they own the company - not the people who work for it (of course some staff are stockholders too). This doesn't mean there is any requirement to do anything except for act in their interests. Anybody with an ounce of credibility would acknowlwedge that there are many ways to make more profit for a company. Some are (on paper) terrible - things like under paying of staff, reduced spending on safety at work, sacking workforce while paying top bonuses. Some are (on paper) wonderful things - provide competitive wage, provide benefit packages, offer above regulatory requirements safety features, treat workers with respect, give workers stability/opportunity to develop etc. ALL these things CAN be seen as 'wasting' of shareholder value if you want to look at them that way. They can also be seen as factors that create more wealth for shareholders through improved staff-morale, increased quality of staff hired, dedicated staff etc. The actual 'requirement' is 100% ammoral. It neither requires good or bad behaviour to occur. The implementation of pursuing profit is where issues can occur. A desire to make money can lead people to do many things, but the simple fact remains that the company is ran for the interest of its owners, and when shareholders don't operate in the company the people they employ are duty bound to act in their interests.


 * A private company can lose money/not turn a profit as long as it has the funds to operate. There are non-profit companies and there are mutual companys, yet most of these 'retain' money for future years of trading. Neither is morally better than any other. ny156uk (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Body Shop is an example of a company that mixes social activism with its pursuit of profit. Most people, I think would suggest Anita Roddick was a person who was both successful in business and "nice" in the sense she promoted ethical consumerism. Rockpock  e  t  18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course this could be debated until the end of time. For example a huge number of the products quite simply don't work or are placebo's or things designed to appear 'nice' and at the very least are decietful. Its a shop that makes people want stuff that has no benefit to them what so ever, quite unehtical from this point of view.--Dacium (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Niceness" and ethics are always a value judgment. But that The Body Shop, at least under her stewardship, had objectives beyond turning a profit are beyond debate. Whether one agrees with those objectives or, question her motivation, is of course another matter. Rockpock  e  t  06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

USA serial killer list
I don't have enough information to contribute, but I do know that John Norman Collins (Michigan)is one of the first serial killers in the U.S. and is not on the list. Also, Timothy Spencer (Richmond, Virginia), the first serial killer convicted on DNA evidence in the U.S., is not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.193.106 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the list the OP is referencing. -- Saukkomies 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you obviously know how to edit, so why not contribute yourself. I think we would be more then happy to see you add it Bones Brigade  00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs)


 * Dang, dude, what was in your cup of coffee this morning? Just because I added the link does not mean I know the answer to the OP's question. Get a grip. -- Saukkomies 11:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Women
Where can women be found who are okay with (faithful) polygamous marriages?

EDIT: Faithful as in no extramarital affairs, not as in religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.25.175 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the subculture, but the practice of having multiple dedicated, long-term lovers is called polyamory. The article forms of nonmonogamy has a list of other similar terms and variations. I don't know where such women can be found per se, but I know at least one personally, and there are probably websites or something similar designed specially for this purpose. --Masamage ♫ 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There usually are swinging groups in every town/state, you should try a google search. -Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What does swinging have to do with polygamy? Dismas |(talk) 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You get to have sex with more than one person? I doubt it works for the OP anyway, as he seems interested in getting some gals to share him, but not get shared with other guys. Good luck, buddy! :) Matt Deres (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we try focusing on answering the question that the OP has posed, which is about POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE, not polyandry or swinging. If you want to get technical, what the OP is asking about is Polygyny. There actually are some sites that are like the standard online dating services you see advertised a lot, except for Polygamists. Now, mostly these are geared for religious types. But there are non-religious sites out there, for instance this one. -- Saukkomies 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)