Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 February 2

= February 2 =

Is there a unique kind of paper?
Just wondering, is there some kind of paper to write on that is clear and see-through so you can put it on something like a TV screen and trace with a pen or pencil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * yes. Tracing paper.  You can buy it from specialist supply shops for artists, architects and designers.  Check your local yellow pages or ask at a university book shop. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tracing paper is not totally clear, but it's clear enough that you can trace anything with fairly high contrast. If you need something still more transparent, you could use a plastic sheet such as the "foils" for an overhead projector and write on it with a fine-pointed marker. --Anonymous, 02:02:08 UTC, 2008-02-02.


 * Or, for nostalgia or giggle value, use an authentic Winky Dink screen tracing kit. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Waxed paper and a permanent marker may do in a pinch.


 * Atlant (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, man, I had a Winky Dink kit when I was little! :)   Corvus cornix  talk  21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Transparencies? (the paper used for a slide projector). Ilikefood (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the stock market?
If I had a big company, I would never want people having shares and getting money that I could have. What is the purpose of stocks? They pay a tiny ONE-TIME fee and get percentage of the profits for eternity? Insanity.

Also, what determines the stock value of a company? I don't get it. A magical number that changes somehow. And why do people scream a lot in stock exchange places? Sounds like a real mess and exactly the place where I would not want to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.50.29 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stock is used by a company to raise capital. Say you had a company and needed to build a factory. You could issue stock, selling part ownership and rights to future earnings in exchange for capital now. Alternatively you could borrow the money; determining which is the prudent decision is the subject of corporate finance.


 * Paying dividends on stock is not insanity. If you were to offer me $100 today in exchange for a dollar a year for the rest of time, I would certainly take it, since the dollar I pay you 74 years from now is worth very little today (another concept in finance, called an Annuity (financial contracts)).


 * A stock is worth exactly what somebody will pay you for it, just like anything else. That's how the market prices you see in the newspaper or on a financial website are determined. But its value is really the present value of all of the future dividends that stock will pay. Of course this is not known precisely ahead of time, which accounts for stock prices fluctuating.


 * The article on the stock market covers why people are yelling at the stock exchange itself.
 * anonymous6494 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed your link. --Anon, 07:15, 2008-02-02.

What I don't understand about the stock market. The owner must give away control of the company for eternity just so capital can be raised one time only? 66.91.224.203 (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The owner is selling part-shares in his/her company. Selling things tends to be permanent. Algebraist 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The owner isn't selling to make money. The money is supposed to be for the business?  So again how can the owner accept such a high cost of essentially getting financing?  Losing total control of the company forever.  Lotsofissues 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)
 * Look at it this way ... You want to start a factory, but have only half the required money. So you team up with your friend who provides the remaining half, and you both share ownership. It's a win-win situation for both. The end objective is making money. In this case, there would be no factory in the first place had the first person insisted on sole ownership of the factory. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And the answer to Loi's question is that often they don't. Becoming a public company is not appropriate for every business, and there are a lot of companies - including quite big ones - that are not traded on stock exchanges. FiggyBee (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's answer the original poster's questions in order:

1. What is the purpose of stocks?
 * A company sells part ownership of itself to raise money.

2. They pay a tiny ONE-TIME fee and get percentage of the profits for eternity? Insanity.
 * Not really. First of all, stocks don't give investors "percentage of the profits." A minority of stocks provide a dividend to shareholders, which is set ahead of time as a given amount of cash per share. It does not automatically fluctuate based on the company's profits, although a company can lower or eliminate the dividend if it starts losing money. A typical dividend yield nowadays is about 2.5% per year. That's far less than the company would pay if it were to raise money through debt financing like corporate bonds.

3. What determines the stock value of a company?
 * The same thing that determines the value of apples or oil or anything: supply and demand. Sure, there are many methods used to determine the proper valuation of a company. Those methods incorporate things like book value, projected earnings, cash flow, and the like. But some people's idea of what a company should be worth differs from others'. If I think the stock price reflects a valuation that is too low, I'll buy the stock. If enough people do so, the price goes up.

4. And why do people scream in a lot of stock exchange places?
 * Actually, nowadays, most trading is done electronically. The New York Stock Exchange still has a trading floor. Floor trading is basically a form of auctioneering, and people have to yell so they can be heard.

5. The owner must give away control of the company for eternity just so capital can be raised one time only?
 * A business has to raise money somehow. New businesses may have trouble getting debt financing, such as loans, since they have no track record and may go out of business early. Some companies manage to grow without going public (selling stock on the open market) by raising money from friends, family, venture capitalists and the owners themselves. But the lure of the millions that can be made through an initial public offering can be very strong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mwalcoff for the very clear answers. But I still don't understand why some companies sell stock. Take UPS for instance. It went public years ago when it was already a massive company with probably billions in other forms of financing available to them. Why would they accept loss of total control for ETERNITY for just a ONE-TIME windfall? Lotsofissues 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)


 * This New York Times article about UPS should answer your question about that company. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. So before UPS went public, the stock could only be purchased by employees?   In that case someone could have started a couple of months beforehand, bought a shit ton, and made bundles?  Flaw in the plan?  Cause I'm going to be watching for movements in Cargill Lotsofissues 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)
 * You don't have to change employers to get pre-IPO ownership of a company. One trick some people use is to open an account in a mutually owned savings & loan. If the S&L opts to go public, the account-holders, who are technically the owners of the S&L, get first crack at the IPO and get to buy shares for a low price. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To put the question in another light: Suppose you own 10 % of the stock of a company. Why would you ever sell your (partial) ownership of the company when you could hold on to your shares for eternity? Surely this situation is comparable to that of the founder of the company before the IPO. Some people do hold their shares for a long time but every day millions of people sell their partial ownership of one company of another. The market is free - the seller asks for as much money as they think the share is worth today, and the buyer can either take it or leave it (or vice versa). Perhaps the crux of the issue is the present value of future earnings. Uncertain income far in the future is not worth much today, since few of us can count on living forever. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three reasons to sell shares:


 * 1) You need money.
 * 2) You think the shares are overvalued and may go down in price.
 * 3) Some combination of the two.
 * Holding on to the shares for eternity is pointless unless the company issues dividends to shareholders or you have some kind of personal connection to the company. A share is just a piece of paper; it doesn't get you a dime until you sell it. (Except for dividends, of course.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I put my thoughts on to Wikipedia?
What I meant was could I put some information on to Wikipedia?

Signed, Catapult-1423 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catapult-1423 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can put most anything you want on your user page (although there are limits). I see you've registered a user name, but have not yet created your own user page.  Maybe that's the next step, as the most appropriate repository for your thoughts.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As for actual articles, any relevant information you want to put on must be sourced. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not quite true...it's certainly nice if it's sourced, but it really only needs to be verifiable. -Elmer Clark (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it isn't sourced, it's likely to get a "citation needed" tag and then a deletion down the road.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather harsh. Maybe if it's a controversial claim, but the large majority of information on Wikipedia is unsourced. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin auto-translator
Where is an automatic translator (like AltaVista BabelFish) that can translate English-to-Latin and Latin-to-English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.211.235 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Latin, unlike english, is a heavily inflected language - the form that words take depends a lot on their role in the sentence and other context. So an automatic translator that was anything near accurate would be very difficult to construct.  If you want a general english-latin dictionary, I can recommend William Whitaker's Words, but you'll need some knowledge of latin grammar to be able to make meaningful sentences, or to make sense of translated latin. FiggyBee (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Over at the Latin Wikipedia they have something called a Taberna - a place where Wikipedians hang out of sorts - if you ask nicely they will probably be able to help you. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As la:Vicipaedia:Latinitas says,
 * Cum lingua Latina haud facilis sit, machinae interpretes commentationes aliis ex linguis in Latinam convertere nequeunt.
 * or, "As the Latin language is hardly easy, machine translators cannot translate text from other languages into Latin." —Keenan Pepper 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Russian is also a highly-inflected language, at least as much as Latin, but both Babelfish and Google have English-Russian options. I don't remember enough Russian to know how well they work. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For Latin-English, Babelfish-style translation can be useful, although the output may be a little difficult to understand (you need to fiddle with it to make it sound right). For English to Latin, you have the same problem, except that as an English speaker, you don't know how to fiddle it to make it into good Latin, so it will be, essentially, wrong. So if you want to do Latin to English, I think there are some that will do it, but English to Latin is probably something you would need a human to help with. Steewi (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Babelfish-style translator from Latin to English is exactly what I'm looking for. Is there one out there? 71.220.211.235 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jumping into Sulfuric Acid
Recently, I came across this excerpt from []:

A physician we interviewed recounts the story of a laborer in Africa who worked around vats of sulfuric acid --one of the most caustic forms of acid. The man fell in one day. He quickly leapt out, but was covered in sulfuric acid, which immediately began to burn him chemically. In a panic and excruciating pain, the man ran outside. By the time his coworkers caught up to him, the man had essentially dissolved.

Suppose the vat of sulfuric acid is 100% concentrated, how long really does it take sulfuric acid to kill and completely dissolve a human? I'm guessing it would take hours or days, but the article seems to imply that it is instant. Is it correct? Acceptable (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about how fast you would die, but from my understanding, sulphuric acid will do two things to you: denature the proteins in your body, making the damage irreparable, and react with the water in your body to create very, very severe burns and dehydration. I doubt the veracity of the story, but needless to say, falling into sulphuric acid will definitely screw you up big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I must point to WP:BEANS here-we do not take responsibility if you decide to jump into a vat of sulfuric acid to see what happens and dissolve.We may award you an honorary Darwin Award Barnstar though... Lemon martini (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Save your self the trouble of experimenting; watch the end of Robocop where Emil (Paul McCrane) drives the van into the vat of "hazardous waste" and then dissolves before our eyes. Extrapolate from that. It's probably close enough.


 * Atlant (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A dental materials company I worked for had vats of acid (Type unknown) As were were young and stupid it was a challenge to dip your finger in. Method. Dip in tip, withdraw, wave around wipe on rag. Feel tough but stupid. The acid was slightly gelled and by being quick with the rage we didnt feel burning. Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes me think of the people who like to dip their hands in molten lead. -- BenRG (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I literate ?
why does art and design student study literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.50.206 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. Ah, so your words will impress clients in the same way your beautiful designs will. It's weird but how well you write or express yourself gets respect... or not. The more reading and writing you do, the better you can communicate and that counts in the final product. Just my opinion (and experience) ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomenclature and an ability to express and explain the complexity of the theory of your study is of course important. Do you study art and design yourself, 218? 81.93.102.185 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, 218.111. Words are the prime tool we all use in conscious communication, listening and talking.  You may be able to function quite efficiently, even if you had never heard of Mozart or Leonardo, of Christo or the Bauhaus.
 * If, however, your language skills are inadequate, then your cognitive skills of analysis and synthesis will be affected as, after all, you partly think in words and you certainly mainly speak  in - and listen to - words.
 * A designer - be it architecture, stage, automotive or advertising - will have to translate his or her concepts into natural language to communicate, to sell these design ideas better. If you feel strongly about an avant-gardish design (the Sydney Opera House, the Guggenheim in Bilbao or the stunning oevre of Calatrava come to mind) then the realisation of such a project may stand (or fall) with your verbal skills in the presentation of your plans.
 * Also bear in mind, that in the course of your studies you may have to analyse the design work of the great masters of the past. If you write an assignment on, say, the Wassily Chair, you will work with the single tool of language to "paint" the image of this item of furniture in the imagination of the reader.  Ideally, the reader, knowing nothing of Breuer, will "see" what this object looks like and what it says.
 * Literature is a process to encode concepts into a long string of small black letters which reproduce these concepts in the mind of the reader. Design is a process to embed these same concepts in concrete or steel or glass or music or oils and pigment or whatever.    As a designer, you will have to "speak" this language of shapes, of light and shadow, of texture and proportions, of materials and harmony.
 * The only difference to literature is the language chosen.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another thought is that writing is a skill, and expression is a skill and studying literature helps with these but the other thing is, study of literature exposes the design student to a world of references they'll use in creating solutions to design projects. It really gives the student a range of symbols, quotes, cultural knowledge and content. When you look at ads, a lot of them refer to things people know about already. Literature can get you connected to this material and much more. Studying other creatives and thinkers only helps you develop in your field. You can be a designer, but knowledge of literature raises the standard and the scope for you. For what it's worth, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hay
How many square bales of hay can you get of an acre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

if you stack them on top of each other, id imagine you could get alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.138 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The amount of hay produced on an acre of land will depend on a number of variables including environmental conditions. Additionally, the number of bales will depend on the type of hay baler - the size of each bale, it's compaction etc. will vary depending on the make of the baler. The article on balers suggests that a square baler will produce bales weighing 20-25 kg (although this type of baler is less common than the rectangular baler, which may come in different sizes). A quick Google search suggests that 2 tonnes of dry hay per acre would be reasonable, which would make around 80 25kg bales. If you're interested in calculating a more exact figure, there is an equation which may help. -- Kateshort forbob  01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slaughterhouses
In what way do they kill animals in a slaughterhouses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It varies, but according to slaughterhouse a knockout electric shock followed by exsanguination is typical. Algebraist 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) You may find our article on Slaughterhouses informative. Cattle are usually stunned/knocked unconscious/have their brains scrambled by a Captive bolt pistol and are then bled to death. It is assumed that the animal feels no pain as it isn't conscious. Chickens and other birds are stunned by hanging them upside down and then either putting an electrode in their mouth to knock them unconscious or by dipping them in a trough of water with a current running through it (in mechanised slaughterhouses). They are then either bled from the mouth using a scalpel or (in mechanised) decapitated to bleed out. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eww. Bellum et Pax (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's better than this very disgusting PETA propaganda video. I'm glad that's not how animals are usually slaughtered. NOTE: Don't watch the video if you have a weak stomach, don't have Quick Time installed, or very much like eating steak. The video is small though so at least one isn't exposed to the full details. --Emery (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or Meet your Meat, another very disgusting PETA propaganda video. I'd like to apologize for posting links to those two videos. --Emery (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of balance here is something anti PETA [](warning bad language). Cryo921 (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My father and grandfather were licensed slaughtermen in Winchester, England. Until the 1920s the standard method for beef was to encourage the animal into a chute, then drop a trap across its neck. Then using a pollaxe the slaughterman hit the animal between the eyes, killing instantly. The axe had like a tube an inch across on one side to kill and a standard blade on the other to cut up the carcass. (Awful, wasn't it!) The animals, I am told, sensed death and the whole process was grusome and cruel by our standards. In the 1920s the axe was replaced by a "humane killer" - a type of gun that shot a bolt into the animal's forehead. Rabbits and chickens were killed by being held by the hind feet and then their necks stretched and broken by the other hand.90.4.247.4 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)petitmichel
 * Speaking as a conscientious meat-eater: my impression of factory farming is that the actual killing is the least cruel part (no doubt since it gets the most press). I don't think it matters much what an animal's last moments are like as compared to depriving it of any natural experiences for its whole existence.  I think it would be much kinder to give an animal a lifetime of fresh air, sunshine, and some dirt to root in and then "cruelly" kill it with a frightful poleaxe than to keep it on concrete and corn rations with a later immaculately "humane" death.  --Sean 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

World Tour
hello,

basically if i were to do a 'world tour' (eg go everywere!, see everything etc) for many years where should i go...any suggestions, are there any websites for this sort of thing, anyone done a similar thing,

thanks, --The world tour (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that would depend on a lot of factors. But generally you'd like to stick to places where your genre of music is popular, and play in major cities (to draw the biggest crowds which leads to bigger profits) of industrialized countries. You probably won't be touring much in third world countries (unless you're doing humanitarian work for good publicity) or countries such as Saudia Arabia and North Korea. You'll get better responses from smarter people in a while; I just gave you a quick response. Cheers --Emery (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Misread the question. xD --Emery (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I read this as more of a holiday-tour question rather than music world-tour. If i'm right then sites like (http://www.thetravellerslounge.co.uk/planning/) and http://www.travel-nation.co.uk/roundtheworld/planning/ and http://www.gapyear.com/rtw/ or http://www.travel-library.com/rtw/html/faq.html. Hope you have fun. The places i'd suggest as 'vital' to see on such a tour would be... Tokyo, Sydney, New York, Rio De Janeiro, Paris, Rome and London. ny156uk (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Baltimore, Maryland Greatest city in the world. Bones Brigade  18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1,000 Places to See Before You Die? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You could travel and travel and still you wouldn't be able to see everything that's worth seeing. So start now. I'm starting soon. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dogs
Has Ivan Basso still got his dog Birillo? -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spike Lester vs. Chuck Palumbo
How are Spike Lester and Chuck Palumbo similar and different from each other? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop. --Ouzo (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read both articles and compare for yourself. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hand powered railway thingie
In films of a certain age, you would often see a couple of people propelling themselves on a railway track on a strange thing thus:

o--.--o ^  O    O

where each person would push up and down on the handles.

My question: Did these things exist outside of the realms of silent movies, and if so, was this really an efficient way of moving along the tracks?

Sorry for the ascii picture, but you wouldn't want to see my mspaint attempt at this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Situationist (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ````


 * See Handcar. Dismas |(talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know the name and couldn't find it in search Situationist (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always known them as jiggers. Finding no referenced to this at jigger, a dictionary search has confirmed that is a dialect thing (mainly NZ English).  Interestingly, the OED has no reference to "pump trolley", which handcar states is the UK term, but states "hand car" is  North American English.  So what are they called elswhere in the English-speaking world?  Gwinva (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry nothing! I'm nominating you for Best Use of ASCII Art in a Reference Desk Question!  --Sean 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I love how in this picture you see that the white guys get to control the brakes, no doubt after some locals did the obvious thing with the local imperialists. :) --Sean 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The songs featured in Dame Chocolate
What were the songs used that were featured on Dame Chocolate? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)