Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 10

= September 10 =

"Re-entering" student...
Ok, here's my story: I graduated from college about 5 years ago with a B.A. in English, convinced I was going to be a teacher. Well, that didn't work out so well (i.e., I hated it), so I ended up doing other stuff. One thing led to another, blah blah blah, and I've come to realize that my interests really lay in Computer Science. My work has sort of been involved with comp sci, but on a more functional rather than technical side. Right now, for example, my job is sort of akin to a business systems analyst (albeit nowhere near as glamorous as that sounds (does it even sound glamorous?))

I've been thinking for a long time about getting more of an education in Computer Science, but I'm really struggling figuring out how to do it. I don't even mean the money or time issues, since I'm prepared to take out loans if I have to and am willing to commit whatever time I have (that isn't sucked up by my 9-5 job to pay the bills). I'm really just talking about how to even go about getting started. I've been looking at local colleges, and of course they offer degrees in Computer Science, but all the information I've seen seems to be geared towards "traditional" undergrad students. One of the local colleges offesr certification programs in specific aspects of comp sci (i.e., certain languages and applications), and I've been considering those as well.

I guess I'm just looking for advice and/or guidance on how to proceed? I imagine it would be a good idea to call the Admissions office, but what do I ask them? I guess that sounds like a dumb question, but I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this, and if anybody out there has had experience with this / knows someone who has / knows where I can find more information, I'd be grateful. I don't really have any friends who are considering or have done something like this, so you faceless masses of the Internets are my next best hope. Thanks in advance for any help. Dgcopter (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Open University specializes in "non-traditional" students. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's start with, which country are you in, and what exactly do you think you want to do if you get a comp sci degree? Business systems analysis, for instance, does not in my experience benefit much from a comp sci degree. In the UK, you might be much better off getting ITIL or PRINCE qualifications, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm actually in the U.S. As for what I was thinking about doing, I guess I was hoping to get more involved in the technical side of things (i.e., programming and design).  Dgcopter (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in a similar boat myself. I have a BA in Film, but I realized that I wanted to do graphic design so I'm returning to school in two weeks to get an Associate's Degree. While I was working my 9 to 5 job (which I've sent left), I started taking night classes at two local community colleges in Photography, Graphic Design and Japanese. They were great because they were very affordable and really offered an education that I felt was as good as a four-year school's programs.


 * I would suggest that you maybe do the same. While you're working, you can get started taking night classes in computer science at a local community college. It sounds like you already have computer science knowledge, so it probably wouldn't be hard to get the basic stuff done while you're still working. If you want to get into your new career, you're probably going to need to leave your job (or work part-time) and attend college on a full-time basis (I believe that many loans require you to attend school at least half-time as well). If you're looking at a specific program, call up that college and tell them that you're interested in a post-baccalaureate program and you're wondering how to go about it. Ask about job placement as well. Ask them what kind of jobs graduates receive when they're done with the program. That will give you an idea of what the program is geared toward. Zepheus &lt;ゼィフィアス&gt; (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You might wish to look at the age distribution of students at the colleges you are considering. If almost all students at a college are attending right out of high school and live in the dorms, you may have trouble fitting in as a peer, which is important both socially and in terms of getting together to work on homework and to study. If, on the other hand, a college has a lot of commuter students, those who are taking evening/weekend classes while they work, veterans who have taken a few years off to do military service, or displaced housewives who are completing their education after getting divorced, you may find you are less of an oddball in the population. Edison (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you might want to think about this - do you actually need a degree in computer science? If you merely had lots of knowledge in the area of computer science - and your teaching degree - wouldn't that be enough to land you a job in that field?  It's certainly possible to teach yourself the programming side of things.  The single biggest factor in how good a programmer you'll be is the number and size of the programs you've written - and if you were to carry on with your present job and become a "self taught" programmer in your spare time - then you'd be no worse off than a fresh-faced graduate straight out of a comp.sci course at college.  If you wanted to - you could even take a couple of course units in your local community college to make sure you're covering the right ground.


 * If you think that's a viable route to the job you want then I would do this:
 * Pick up the most basic introductory book on "Java" that you can find.
 * Download the free software package "Eclipse" - which is a Java "IDE" (Integrated Development Environment)...which is how you enter your programs, run them, find and fix bugs.
 * Go through the book from cover to cover - work all of the examples. Surf the web for other Java stuff that seems interesting (there is an enormous amount of stuff out there).
 * Practice, practice, practice. Think of a project - something that interests you - maybe something that would be useful at work...write it - get it working nicely.
 * Once you have Java down pat - you could perhaps finagle your way into teaching it someplace. That would look great on your resume later.
 * Once Java is easy for you - switch to another programming language "C++" - do the same thing - get a book - work through it step by step. Initially, you'll find this a LOT easier than learning Java - most programming languages are kinda similar.  However, you'll encounter a lot of new stuff.
 * Sign up to help out with an "OpenSource" project of some kind - teams of programmers from all around the world get together on the 'net to write software that they give away for nothing. This will expose you to a lot more code - a lot more practical issues (like finding bugs in other people's code) and will (again) look very good on your resume.
 * I think this process would take maybe about the same amount of time as a formal college course - but you'd be able to work while you're doing it - and it'll be a lot more self-paced.
 * ...but then - maybe college would work better for you - I can't tell! SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The real question is whether you want to study Computer Science, or become a software developer. It's true that the two are related, but they're really, really, really not the same thing.
 * > "One of the local colleges offesr certification programs in specific aspects of comp sci (i.e., certain languages and applications)"
 * If a course is about specific languages and applications, it's not computer science. (OK, a course taught in Lisp or Haskell probably is CS, but I'd still argue that that's a course in functional programming taught in Haskell as opposed to a course in Haskell per se.) 81.187.153.189 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer 81...'s question, I guess I didn't realize there was a way to be a software developer without having obtained a degree in Computer Science. That being the case, I would clarify that my interest in comp sci is related specifically to the area of software development.  In that vein, Steve's suggestions seem especially helpful.  I'm going to take a trip down to the bookstore and see if I can't find a Java book like he mentioned.  I've often considered teaching myself programming languages -- in fact, I have a little experience in that area, having taught myself QBASIC back in the day (but then again, what geek born in the '80s didn't? :-)), and having taken a class in C++ in college.  I guess I just wasn't sure how to go about it.  Thanks to all for your very helpful suggestions!Dgcopter (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes 81's point is very valid. There is a lot more to Comp.Sci than programming.  However, there is also a lot less than programming too!  But if you want to become a software developer - and presuming you already have a degree of some kind - then I think you can at least consider being self-taught as an option...especially if you're prepared to take the time to do it properly.  Compared to doing a degree for three years - an agressive self-help program spanning three years is cheaper, probably just as interesting - and maybe doesn't have a huge impact on your ability to get a job at the end of it.  What's important is to be able to show that you've written a heck of a lot of code.  If you can point to the fact that you've learned Java to the point where you've been teaching it in highschool for a year or more - and that you can show off some OpenSource package that you wrote - and that you were able to operate in a "team setting" by collaborating with people on the 'net - then I think you'll be able to get the same kind of entry-level programming job that a Comp.Sci graduate could get.  You might want to get some serious career advice on that point before you launch into it on the basis of what I say alone...but I've been a working programmer since 1977 - I've hired a lot of people and I know I would be just as happy to employ someone with that kind of background as I would a Comp.Sci graduate.


 * I wouldn't give that advice to someone who didn't already have a degree though.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As to which languages to learn: I strongly recommend Java - then C++ - IN THAT ORDER!! I'd have said that a course in Lisp or Haskell pretty much had to be a more theoretical-type CS course - the number of commercial programs written in either of those two languages is so small as to be effectively zero!  The vast majority of jobs are in Java/JavaScript/PHP - and in C++/C#.  Java is easier to learn than C++ and the things you learn when picking up Java are not wasted if you want to go the C++ route later.  JavaScript and PHP are pretty trivial to pick up if you know at least one other language.  C# is still pretty new and it's not entirely clear what it's ultimate commercial niche might be - a lot of people like it for programs which have heavyweight user-interface requirements and which will only ever need to run under some flavor of MS Windows.  Right now, most web-based stuff is Java/JavaScript/PHP and almost 100% of high performance and embedded applications are in C++ (or C which is a limited subset of C++).


 * Programmers are like linguists - once you've learned a couple of languages, you can pick up more of them very easily because you're really only learning the differences between the new language and some other that you already know. I learned both PHP and JavaScript over one weekend.  After 30 years of that - I honestly don't know how many languages I know...there are too many to count.  But you'll always be finding new languages you need for a particular job.  Python, Ruby, Perl, HLSL/Cg, Lua (and yes, Lisp and Haskell)...those are all things you may trip over along the way for some particular specialist need - but once you have C++ and Java - they won't be a problem for you.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with most of what's been said. By way of example, I happen to work at a large software development lab, and there are plenty of people here with non-CS degrees. True, among people who joined relatively recently it's probably the most common (and is what I did) but the combined number of mathematicians, physicists and engineers is probably similar, maybe greater. English is going to be a little more unusual, but if you had the right sort of experience noone would find it remarkable. My current team-leader studied agricultural chemistry, specialising in the breakdown of sewage, and there's rumoured to be someone lurking around the lab with a qualification in crustacean pharmacology - the prescription of drugs to lobsters!
 * In practice, software development is only really learned by doing it. A relevant degree can give you a head start, but I learned far more about developing software by working with some very skilled peers than I ever did on the formal courses. A good hiring manager should be aware of this, and weight good solid experience appropriately. I would note that just dabbling in a language at home doesn't count as "good solid experience" though - and even doing lots of programming on your own is not great because "development" is a lot more than just "programming". Also, there are some commercial realities that you can really only learn in a commercial environment, but since your aim is to get that job it's rather like opening the box with the crowbar that's inside it :-) . If you could show at interview that you'd made significant contributions to an open-source project that people have heard of, I think that would reassure almost anyone that you were competent.
 * One more thing - don't rule out the formal course. Hopefully we've convinced you that learning by experience can be as good (or better, frankly) but that's not the same thing as telling you "don't do the course, it's a bad idea." And either way - best of luck!81.187.153.189 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I can always fall back on Fortran IV, Basic, Pascal, and PDP-8 assembly language. Edison (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good ol' Fortran IV. Once you were done larding up your program with assigned GOTO's, weren't no-one would dare fire you! Franamax (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

God Being An Angel
In His Dark Materials, God, the Authority, is false, fake and fraud, not really God or a god but actually an angel. Once, in one question, I asked someone if it was possible that God could be false, fake and fraud, not really God or a god but actually an angel in reality, in the real world, in real life.

Christians claim to have a lot of proof or evidence for Christianity to be the one true religion. For example, they claim to have proof or evidence that the Bible was inspired by God and that Jesus was God and the son of God (see Christological argument). For example, they claim that the Bible has many fulfilled prophecies and that there is proof that Jesus rose from the dead. They claim to have a lot of miracles which prove Christianity to be true (see argument from miracles).

If God was false, fake and fraud, not really God or a god but actually an angel in reality, in the real world, in real life, then what would it mean for all the proofs and evidences that Christians claim for Christianity to be the one true religion? For example, what would it mean for all the miracles that Christians claim prove Christianity to be the one true religion, the argument from miracles? What would it mean for the Christological argument for the existence of God?

One thing about proofs and evidences is that they can be faked. For example, a photograph used as evidence for something can be faked.

Bowei Huang (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The religion has been debunked dozens of times and it hasn't slowed them down one bit. Cognitive dissonance is the answer you are looking for.  Plasticup  T / C  07:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, Plasticup. You have the complete answer to everything in the universe. If only we'd realised that sooner it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come now, even the Pope agrees that you have to ignore the facts and take it on faith. They have made rejection of logic one of the core underpinnings of the Church. If that's doesn't lead to cognitive dissonance then I don't know what will. Please don't take offense; I am not making a normative argument that this is better or worse than a life based on logic.  Plasticup  T / C  16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, one must take something on faith - that you're not actually a brain in a vat (The Matrix et al.), that what you see is real (Plato et al.) and hey, even a less strenuous idea - that "reality" is three (or four) dimensional - is up for debate. When you wind it back to the first instant of time, why did it explode? Just cuz? Sounds like an article of faith to me. More fitting to Occam's Razor, to be sure, but that is precisely an edge case where all things are not equal. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That same argument was once applied to lightning, rain, and the sunrise. The current trend suggests that your mysteries will be resolved in time. Science is pushing back the boundaries and bringing the illumination of knowledge to that which previously required faith. It requires less and less, while religion requires more and more.  Plasticup  T / C  05:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You speculate on what the implications would be for Christianity if it could be proven that God was in fact an angel, à la His Dark Materials, instead of a god. Since there is currently not a speck or shred of solid, reproducible, scientific evidence that the beliefs of Christians are any more rooted in fact than those of any other group of religious believers, and since the definition of "angel" and "god" vary enormously depending on who you talk to and what you read (and in what language), I submit to you that Christians' delight in producing a tangible, indisputable God would probably overcome any dissatisfaction with the fine detail of the exact nature of him (or her).  Ka renjc 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While trying to avoid the snarkiness, Karen raises an interesting point. What's the significance of replacing Supernatural Creature A with Supernatural Creature B if B is able to do the same stuff A did?  This is, of course, the duck test.  A far better question is "what would happen if the miracles were disproved in a manner accepted by Christians?" Of course, since the "proofs" of skeptics and the "proofs" of believers, neither of which generally constitute actual proofs, fly right past each other to no effect, this situation is highly unlikely. &mdash; Lomn 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it can make a difference if the issue is one of deception, e.g. worshipping a "false god" and then the "real god" punishes you for it. The little thought experiment I've always put out there is, "What if the Bible was written by Satan, and the Satan of the Bible is really God, and vice versa, and the values are actually swapped from what they should be?" People who believe recoil from the notion and usually claim that they'd somehow know the difference but I don't really see why that would be the case. The fact is that at the core of it all religions depend on the acceptance of a few core tenets and if you don't accept those then it's not even worth getting into a discussion with such people about said things. Could the Christian God be a false god and the real god be, say, the Hindu gods, etc.? Sure, just as the converse is believed to be true by most Christians. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For some background on the treatment of God in His Dark Materials, the original poster may want to look at Gnosticism. Deor (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - per Lomm's post, I intended no snarkiness, just an answer to the practical implications of the original post. If God is proved to be an angel rather than this just being another suggestion of the theologians, then God's existence must inevitably have been proved too. Do believers bemoan the fact that their God was "false, fake and a fraud" and abandon him because he wasn't exactly what they expected? Do they celebrate the fact that they were pretty much on the right track but were not in possession of all the facts?  Robert Heinlein's novel Job: A Comedy of Justice is quite fun on the concept of God-as-just-another-angel, and there are also parallels between the Pullman "Authority" and the god of the Gaea Trilogy of John Varley.  But surely any quibbles over the nature of any definitively revealed God would be wholly swallowed up in the excitement of the revelation?  Ka renjc 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are of course some Christians who do proselytise and evangelise and try to prove to others that what they believe in is true. As there are with other religions.  But the bulk of Christians don't do this.  They just believe what they believe, and the question of proof is a matter of supreme indifference to them.  That's actually the point of religious faith - there's a very good reason why the word "faith" is used.  If there were proof, there would be no place for faith or belief.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is of course a vital survival trait of any religion. If you firmly believe that your god is a creature who lives in that tree over there - then you're pretty much screwed if someone cuts the tree down and there is no sign of it.  Proper religions have evolved over the centuries to carefully weed out anything that might be disprovable.  Hence, maybe once god lived in heaven up above the clouds...oh - so you climbed up that mountain and looked down on the clouds?  Well, by that we meant WAY above the clouds...you have planes now?....actually, well outside of the stratosphere...er, beyond orbit really...probably in a parallel plane of existance or something...WELL LOOK - YOU JUST CAN'T GET THERE WITHOUT ACTUALLY DYING - OK?  When all falsifiable avenues have been carefully shut off - the only thing adherents have left is "faith" because any actual provable aspect of the belief might one day bring the entire exercise down by disproving that thing.  If they were being honest - proponents would have to admit that with a god that has literally unlimited powers, you can't really trust your faith either because god might actually be some awful evil bad guy who merely twists your mind to make you think you have faith - and I don't see how that's any more or less likely than the version they believe in.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be the purpose of a single omnipotent being who created the universe, who turns out to be an awful evil bad guy? That would suggest he only created all his creations in order to eventually screw them, which seems the ultimate waste of time to me.  That of course would only be awful, evil and bad from a human perspective, and the human perspective on the divine is fundamentally limited.  I think there are 4 approaches to the divine:  (1) refuse to accept it exists; (2) accept it exists and rail against it and blame all your woes on it; (3) accept it exists and attribute all wonderful and marvellous things to it and believe that the less than wonderful things happen for a higher purpose; or (4) accept it exists but also accept you will never understand it so there's little point in ascribing human characteristics to it, because it is by definition beyond mere humanity.  I'm somewhere between 3 and 4.  But, for the sake of argument, if god really were what we in the 21st century call "awful, evil and bad", then either those words would mean the opposite of what they mean today; or we'd call those traits by other, more positive names.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think your word choice for #1 supposes the [other] conclusion. For what it's worth, the first three suggestions I had all felt the same way. And SteveBaker, let's take your (to me) most interesting hypothesis - which I shall dub the Divine Jerk. Suppose, for a moment, the Judeo-Christian mythology that the Jerk laid down ten rules - either he's going to reward you for following in his Jerkish endeavor, or he was going to jerk you around anyway. A jerkish variant on Pascal's Gambit, to be sure, but it fits. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Divine Jerk? Randolph Churchill put it better after trying to read the Bible for a bet - "God! God's a shit!". DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 98.169, can you explain what you mean by "the [other] conclusion" and "the first three suggestions I had". --  JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The article you might be looking for is Protestant Reformation. At its nicest, it was a polite but adamant disagreement over how to properly worship God. At its most rancorous, groups such as the Puritans viewed the Roman Catholic church as being irredeemably corrupted by Satan (an angel, by the way). Even today, there are Protestant groups which view Catholic priests as the devil's henchmen. For their part, the Catholic church tended to view the ordeal as Lucifer corrupting suggestible minds, and luring them from the one, true path. -- 99.153.134.31 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And Bowei, you have been asked to desist dozens of times and it hasn't stopped you from intitiating these debates either. Is there a link? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I enjoyed witnessing this feeding. Stanstaple (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet, I feel that Elohim may be a useful reference anyway. For what it's worth, as a bona fide Roman Catholic, if God were a "super-angel", that would only cause one tiny problem - as far as I'm aware, we allege that He created them, so we have a Prime Mover who Moves Himself. But ignoring what an axiom is by definition, and supposing God were actually an Angel, or a Hippo, or a Turtle in no way substantively challenges any article of faith - the closest that come to mind are the beliefs that Jesus is His Son, but hey, if you are an all powerful Turtle (and presumably not of the mutant, ninja, or even teenaged variety) you could have a human son - that sort of thing was actually really popular with the Greek, Egyptian, Norse and Mesopotamian gods (among others, I'm sure), and we hold that He is worthy of praise above all else ("Thou shalt have no other gods besides me." Ten Commandments) so if Zues can do it, so can God. The other problem is our article of faith that we - are made in His image - and when I went to school, I was taught this was in his spiritual image (which makes, you know, all our different faces not so big a deal) - so who is anyone to suggest that inside, we're not all spiritually Turtlish? ... but as an aside, for your future posts, while the Rule of Three (writing) is great, "false, fake, and a fraud," isn't actually a triple, it's redundant, tautological, and repetitive. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Song from the 60's perhaps 70's with Bach melody
Do you know what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 11:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There may well be several of these, but "A Lover's Concerto" is one that fits your specifications. Deor (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was by Mozart. not Bach. Edison (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not by Morzart. Minuet in G major is now usually attributed to Christian Petzold, but was thought by Bach for long.Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Joy" by Apollo 100? This was an instrumental. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would vote for this one. They played Bach's Ode to Joy very fast and without much emotion. A critic at the time said "I hope that at least they were grinning when they recorded that, not serious like they were doing something of value." Edison (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That should be Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring", shouldn't it? Music to Friedrich Schiller's poem Ode to Joy has been written by several composers, most notably Ludvig van Beethoven (see Anthem of Europe), but J.S. Bach isn't on the list. Possibly because he died before Schiller was born ;-) --NorwegianBluetalk 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A Whiter Shade of Pale also, feeling wise. --jpgordon[User talk:Jpgordon 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bourée by Jethro Tull (band). This was also an instrumental. Oda Mari(talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * American Tune by Paul Simon. Though it's a reworking of an earlier secular song.


 * There was also the Dutch group Ekseption who played a lot of classical themes, including many from J.S. Bach, including Badinerie from the orchestral suite in b minor, Air from the suite in D major, and a several more. Then you have ex Walter now Wendy Carlos, with the legendary album Switched-On Bach. An of course, the Swingle Singers arranged many Bach works, most notably in the album "Bach's greatest hits". --NorwegianBluetalk 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There was another instrumental that reached No. 1 in the USA for a while in 1968. It wasn't based on any classical piece but many people assumed it was; and if it had been, Bach would be a reasonable fit - Love is Blue.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Frederic James watercolor painting
I have one of his paintings and was attempting to research the value of it. How can I find information on pricing. Thanks for your time. Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkansas (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are numerous websites that will show you the results of previous sales of James' paintings. But you must subscribe and pay for the privilege. If you only want to value one work then it would probably better to ask an art dealer/valuer. Fribbler (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the public sites mentions / shows an FJ guache, estimated at USD 400 to 600. The price may also depend on whether you offer it for sale in KC or some other place.  Of course, other criteria (apart from the aquarelle itself) are the quality of the paper / lightfastness / etc, which nobody but an expert can evaluate.  A reputable dealer will also know collectors who may pay more than some random person.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kissing
If I have sex with a woman, and dont kiss her I feel great afterwards, even if I have known her for a while and know shes a good person. It is a bit of an ego boost. However, if I do kiss any given woman that I happen to sleep with, the next day, I am in love, or have love like feeling for her, even though I dont really know her atall. What is it in kissing that transforms the act of sex into a love type feelings? Is this why aparently prostitutes do not kiss? how can one get over these feelings quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

try this (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=affairs-of-the-lips-why-we-kiss) for a bit of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you have the cause and effect the right way round? Could it be that you only kiss women when you have strong feelings for them? --Tango (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, i have it right, I meet her, 2 hours later we have done the deed, if I kiss her I end up loving herif I dont, I never think about her again. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the data to avoid a confound on you kissing her because you feel love beforehand, there would be the necessity to randomize the trials, as by tossing a coin ahead of time to determine whether to kiss. (Psych 105 lab was never like this!) Edison (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How large is this data set? Love seems to be a discrete variable with a Bernoulli distribution. If you can get a large enough sample size we can easily estimate the variance and tell you whether this effect is statistically significant.  Plasticup  T / C  04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a kiss what initiates sex rather than the other way around? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ABS Light
What does ABS in a car mean? What does that mean when that light goes off in a car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.251.14 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ABS means Anti-lock braking system - you should check the car manual to see what the light going on or off means. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally - the ABS system is designed to prevent your wheels from locking up and skidding when you brake heavily. It measures the speeds at which each of the wheels are rotating and if any of them stop moving while the others are still rotating, it'll briefly let go of the brakes to get the wheel spinning again - then reapply them.  Because tires grip better when they are rotating in contact with the ground than when they are skidding across it, this actually reduces your braking distance.


 * If you are braking that hard, you generally feel the brakes going on and off through a shaking in the brake pedal - don't worry about it - that's what it's supposed to do.


 * Now - as to the warning light...it depends on the kind of car you have (which is why you need to read the owner's manual). But if the light is solidly on all the time, it probably means that your ABS system has failed.  The most common reason for this by far is that one or more of the wheel speed sensors have failed (or the cable that hooks them up to the computer has broken or something).


 * If the light is merely flickering on - perhaps only when you do actually brake hard - but perhaps also if you are pulling away hard from a dead stop or trying to corner and brake at the same time (generally not a good idea!)...then that may mean it's operating normally - and the light is just a visual confirmation of that. Again - that's why you need to read the owner's manual.


 * On some cars (like my MINI Cooper for example), the ABS is tied in with other similar things - traction control, brake-force distribution, dynamic stability management, cornering control and tire pressure monitoring. All of those things also use the wheel speed sensors.  So, for example, the traction control measures the speeds of the wheels that the engine is driving and compares them to the speeds that the non-powered wheels are spinning.  If the powered wheels are going faster than the non-powered wheels then it's likely that you are accellerating hard off the line and the tires are squealing!  The system reduces the engine power a little to stop the wheels from spinning and actually gets you going faster.


 * So if (like my car) there are a whole bunch of similar features - then they may all be sharing the same warning light...which might explain why it's flickering if you are driving agressively.


 * Finally - on my car, you can turn off all of those fancy features - including ABS - and then the warning light comes on to remind you that you did that.  If you can turn off the ABS on your car, then maybe you did that by accident.  If so, you need to be really aware of what all the controls do because if you have to brake hard in an emergency and the ABS is turned off - it would be REALLY BAD!  (Hence the warning light).


 * In my car, the ABS light comes on green when it's actually doing something, orange if you turned it off and red if the ABS (or one of the other features) is broken somehow.


 * You should definitely read the owners manual - and if it is a true fault condition - get it fixed. When virtually every other car on the road has ABS and you don't - it can be really quite dangerous because they can (and do) stop a lot faster than you can.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tire pressure! Cool!  What happens if you change tires/size?  Saintrain (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further reading suggests it's just relative speed not revs/mile. So if you lose pressure evenly in all tires it doesn't trigger?  Saintrain (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right - if all four tires lose pressure at the same rate - it can't tell. It also can't tell very quickly because if you make a sharp turn, the wheels on the outside of the turn rotate at a different rate to the ones on the inside - hence it has to average over a longer period and use the steering angle sensor to know when you're driving in a straight line.  This is one reason why some states in the USA are starting to require direct pressure reading sensors mounted inside the wheel that use short-range radio signals to report the tire pressure directly.  It's a much more expensive solution than the older way though - you have the wheel speed sensors there for all of those other reasons - it's much nicer to use software to do the job than hardware. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Windmill blades in Texas
I drive the route from Austin to Dallas and back (180 miles each way) along interstate 35 roughly once a week - it's easily the most boring road on the planet so there is plenty of time for thinking and any notable event becomes the most exciting thing that's likely to happen to me for the next 3 hours. Hence, I've increasingly started to notice I always pass several gigantic trucks - each with a pair of those gigantic windmill blades on the back, always heading North. This is a very encouraging sign for anyone who's concern is global warming - it suggests that new windmills are going up somewhere at a phenomenal rate...my journey takes 3 hours - and I usually see at least one or two sets of blades - even when I travel on a weekend. If they ship them out all day at that kind of rate - that suggests that windmills are being erected somewhere in the USA at a rate of maybe a couple every few hours! (If they were for export - they'd presumably be headed to the docks at Houston).

My question is - are these all heading up interstate 35 because there is a factory somewhere nearby that's making them and shipping them throughout the USA to be assembled - or is it that they are being imported from someplace nearby and assembled in Texas? It seems like a HUGE number - and this campaign by T Boone Pickens hasn't really gotten into gear yet...or has it already started?

SteveBaker (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Panhandle? Check out the map in the middle of Texas Wind Energy.  Saintrain (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to wind power in Texas, "as of 2007, 942 MW of wind power is currently under construction in Texas." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * General Electric & Siemens are cited in the v.interesting Texas Wind Energy page as manufacturers at the largest Texas windfarm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Windpower is also being installed in southeastern Colorado, just across the narrow Oklahoma panhandle from the Texas panhandle. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Piped labcoat?
Could anyone tell me where I could get a labcoat with black piping on it? You know, like how Occupational Therapists' tunics have green piping etc. I've looked around online to no avail. 92.0.40.132 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You cant have looked far  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellyGrease (talk • contribs) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)