Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 December 6

= December 6 =

Does anyone have any good advice for sucessful studying?
What I am trying to ask is what are the most useful methods for making effective use of study time? While I do usually get pretty good grades, I feel that there may be a better approach when trying to ingest and retain the material at hand (right now I am trying to study for a cummulative Chemistry final). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a technique known as SQ3R which I used to find works for me: Survey - Question - Read - Recall - Review. Survey: give the chosen material a quick skim read through. Question: formulate some questions provoked by this quick read. Read: read thoroughly. Recall: write down as much as you can about what you've read. Try and put it in your own words as much as possible. Review: Did what you've written match the piece itself? Also, did the questions form themselves more distinctly, or did you find they were answered, or did you find you had more questions? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I had always found that for me, learning goes most well when it's quiet around and when nobody disturbs me. I also always tried to go to all lectures, because I learned best from my own notes, even if they might have been chaotic at times. Also, reading the own notes allowed me to remember things from the lecture that I had never written down, but which were related to the contents of the notes themselves. Also arrange the situation so that you will not disturb yourself - i. e. if you are, like me, a tea man, prepare a pot of your favourite brew so you don't have to run to the kitchen every hour. What I am trying to say - read, digest, understand, in the whopping majority of cases this seems to be enough. And good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 09:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A technique that helped me, and which I've passed on to my children, is that after each revision session you discuss the material you've just revised with someone willing to help you, preferably someone reasonably bright but not necessarily informed about the subject. Explain what you've been studying, discuss its implications, and (most importantly) answer any questions the other person has.  This helps you order your thoughts, exposes any gaps in your revision, and prepares you for the task of demonstrating to an examiner that you understand your subject and can explain it clearly.   Most disciplines can benefit from this technique to some degree.   Ka renjc 10:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Something which I found very useful \at university was summarising notes. If you've got, say, five pages of notes on a subject, rewrite them, cutting it down to two pages. Then take those two pages and rewrite them again, cutting it down to under a page. The information sticks! Grutness...wha?  22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Flat screen TV choice and positioning
I m thinking of buying a flat screen TV to mount on the wall of my living room which is 12' x 12' approx. What size screen would be big enough but not over powering, and at what height above floor should it be mounted for optimum viewing comfort?


 * Here is a chart and some discussion on the topic. -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My living room is of similar length but a little narrower than your room. After looking at several different sizes I settled on a 37" screen size for my new TV.  I sit roughly 8' (2.5 m) away and at that distance the screen is about as wide as my hand span at arm's length.  The TV has a pedestal stand and is on a low TV table - the centre of the screen is a little below my eyelevel when sitting on my sofa.  It looks good.  The TV is big enough to give a really nice picture - especially with a High Def source, but doesn't dominate the room like my sister's 42" TV does.  Astronaut (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't a "right" answer for this - but there is a scientific answer. Most video is shot with a 50mm lens - because that most closely approximates the human visual field.  A 50mm lens has a field of view of something close to 60 degrees.  That means that your TV needs to be roughly as wide as the distance you sit from it. Clearly this is crazy...but it's realistic...and roughly what happens when you sit in a movie theater. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha! I knew there was a scientific reason I prefer my HD projector over a television set! APL (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese noodles
I have a packet of chinese noodles. On the front of the package it says "MaMas" in red. The noodles have two packets of stuff to add to the noodles before cooking in water. One packet contains some sort of spice powder, and the other contains some sort of milky white fluid with black stuff inside it. Does anyone know what this milky white fluid might be?

Thanks 137.81.112.176 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I had chinese noodles with two packets, one was the flavouring (salt, spices, MSG etc) and the other (milky liquid) was palm oil. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 17:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the parts of the article you posted, i wonder if it is palm oil. It is clear so if it is palm oil, it would be boiled to get rid of the red color.

It might be helpful to add that the liquid was quite thick, viscuous. I still also wonder what the black stuff inside was. Thanks for the help so far!

137.81.112.176 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the ingredients list in English?Aaronite (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.veryasia.com/mama.html they seem to make a lot of different kinds and flavors of noodles - it's hard to guess what it might be. SteveBaker (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why i didnt think of this! Yes most of it is written in chinese with english alongside for the instructions, but I removed the wrapper from the garbage and found that it is indeed palm oil, with "fresh shallot" ... thanks all!

137.81.112.176 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Parents
Why do my parents never seem to have enough money? Dannyboy1209 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they spend it all on you. That's their job. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is often difficult for people to find well-paying jobs? Really, without knowing them, we can't do more than guess. APL (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a better question for them, although don't expect to like the answer(s) or for them to be happy. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have it easy I used to drink tea from a rolled up newspaper. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Once you have enough earnings to get above the poverty line and are able to pay for the essentials in life, "having enough money" is a matter of balancing what you earn with what you spend. If you borrow to the hilt and spend every penny you earn - then you could be earning a million dollars a year and still not "have enough money".  Of course, if you aren't above the poverty line - then there isn't enough money to go around no matter how careful you are - and that's an unfortunate situation that's not easy to recover from.  We don't know enough about your parent's situation to answer your question. SteveBaker (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Nobody can answer your question seriously (even yourself) until you complete the question, "Enough money to what?" I have noticed that irrespective of the actual amount of income, people have a devil of a time living happily within their means. Once you have enough money for basic food, shelter, heat, etc. you ought to be satisfied, or at least be able to recognize that you should be satisfied. But you don't; you want more. So you get a better job, but you also spend more, so you seem to have less. I guess it ties in to "Keeping up with the Joneses." But you continue to work your way up, getting more and more money and less and less satisfied with it. A long time ago, somebody very smart realized that the problem was not so much with "not having enough", but with "wanting more." Matt Deres (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, your parents may have a budget in mind, and have a different idea than you do on what "enough money" may constitute. For example, you may ask for a really cool new video game system for Christmas, and your parent's may say "we cannot afford that", which may mean "if we spend our money on things like that, then we take money away from our long-term goals".  As in, they may have thousands of dollars in the bank, but that money is earmarked for things like your college education, a new car, home maintenance, retirement, etc. etc.  When I was first on my own, and away from my parents so that I had to spend all of my own money, it shocked me
 * a) how much money I had coming in once I had a real job, but more importantly
 * b) how much money I had going out once I had real responsibilities.
 * Just some ideas to think about. Telling your child "we don't have enough money" is sometimes a lot easier than saying "well, we could buy that expensive gadget, but we have our priorities on other things, so it is important that we keep focused on spending our money on what really matters to us, and what is most important, rather than trivial things."  -- Jayron  32  03:00, 7 December 2009

(UTC)

Do they tell you that "We can't afford it?" Or something like that, for whatever you want? If they don't and say "Maybe another time", they're trying not to spoil you. Trust me, parents love to spoil there kids, but they don't want their children to take it for granted whatever they gave to you, you know? Moptopstyle1 05:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As an alternative, when they say "We can not afford that expensive new item", they could really be saying, "We really want you to be spending your time on something more productive" or, "Why can you not be happy with what you already have" Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

camera tours
hi. looking for a group or agency that handles camera trips to europe. mainly germany and or france. would like to find travel expences, etc. [email removed for privacy]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.191.222 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will humans be accompanying the cameras, or will accommodations be necessary just for the cameras?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What were the actual charges against the Lincoln conspirators?
I happened to notice the addition of a category, Category:People executed for treason against the United States, on the biography of Mary Surratt. I am trying to figure out whether this addition was appropriate (and, by extension, whether the category should be deleted).

For those who don't know, treason against the United States is defined extremely narrowly; the Founders had seen the charge used in England as a means of political suppression, and did not want a repeat of that here. So the Constitution requires that treason be limited to "levying War against" the United States or "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", and also requires specific evidence to prove the charge: Either there have to be "two Witnesses to the same overt Act", or the defendant has to confess in open court.

For these reasons, for example, the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, but with espionage; I have accordingly removed the category from their page.

That leaves a handful (six) articles, all from the Civil War era; four of them are the Lincoln conspirators. I doubt the Lincoln conspirators were charged with treason but I'm not sure. Of the other two, one (David Owen Dodd) was for spying; that could have been treason by the constitutional definition, but the "two Witnesses" requirement does not seem to have been met (certainly, it's possible he was unconstitutionally executed for treason, but I saw no direct citation for that). The other (William Bruce Mumford) was for tearing down a Union flag in occupied New Orleans, and might be the sole article that actually belongs in the category.

But to know how to proceed, I really need to know the official charges against the Lincoln conspirators. Oddly neither the Mary Surratt page, nor the Lincoln assassination page, is very specific about this. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They were tried under a special military commission as enemy belligerents (essentially agents of the Confederacy). The charges don't correspond to the civilian legal code very well but mention treason or traitor 22 times, to such an extent that saying the crime charged was treason is probably reasonable. The trial lasted a little less than two months. They were convicted and the four sentenced to death were summarily hanged 8 days later. As it happened, the Supreme Court later held that the use of a military tribunal was improper, which may have benefited the surviving conspirators but didn't do the dead any good. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Do you happen to know whether the "two Witnesses" requirement was applied at their trial? --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I do know that hundreds of witnesses were ultimately presented, but I don't know if they used to the two witnesses standard as set out for treason.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needed to be; seems to me, reading the charges, that they were convicted of conspiracy and aiding and abetting. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if they weren't convicted of treason, then they shouldn't be in the category. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be worth discussing this at Talk:Abraham Lincoln assassination. (The discussion will be too ephemeral here.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Neel Kashkari and a hut in Tahoe National Forest
I am reading this article in The Washington Post, and I am very, very puzzled. I have more questions than I can sensibly ask on the ref desk, but I will ask the two simplest ones. (1) Can a person just build a hut in Tahoe National Forest, or is it squatting? (2) Assuming the answer to (1) is "yes, one can do that legally", the second question is: how suicidal is this idea? I mean, considering the mugging / armed robbery / home invasion rate in these parts of the US. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the article carefully, you find that he's living in a cabin with an "old horse corral" - what you hear about him building is just a storage shed. The article is a little misleading - it gives you the impression that he's "gone back to nature" and is living in a tiny little shed - but he's using a nailgun to construct it and there is evidently a way to charge his blackberry - so he has electricity.  They talk about having to drive a mile to get to his mailbox - but that means that there is regular mail service there.  He's hardly living rough.  (I'm picturing a fairly luxurious cabin.)  So there is evidently an existing property on the land in the forest - and it's big enough to have a horse corral - so he's presumably building the shed on his own land.  According to our article: Tahoe National Forest, "The National Forests are for the purpose of preserving a perpetual supply of timber for home industries, preventing a destruction of forest cover which regulates the flow of streams, and protecting local residents from unfair competition in the use of forest and range. The timber,water, pasture and mineral resources of the national forests are for the use of the people" - which presumably means that if you have an entitlement to use the pasture - you can raise horses there - hence the corral. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: mugging? armed robbery? home invasion? In the forest? Really, not very likely. There are a lot easier targets closer to town; and people who live out here in the boonies (note: I have to go three miles to get my mail) have a tendency to have ways of dealing with varmints of all sorts. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and facing two very large dogs is a good incentive to try the next house down the trail. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the moment, let's pretend that this person really was living in a shed in the middle of nowhere. Why would you assume that armed robbery, mugging would be a danger? While the woods is secluded enough to commit any crime you like, I can't imagine anyone trudging all the way into the woods with the goal of ripping off a guy who lives in a shed. What are they going to steal? APL (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you’ve ever had a bear break into your campsite and steal your food, you wouldn’t question “home invasion,” or “armed robbery.” DOR (HK) (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Campsite != Luxury log cabin SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

4-H
What are good Community Service projects that a 4-H Club can do? Possibly after a Club Meeting that takes place at 7PM? 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Moptopstyle1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)
 * It's never too late in the day to pick up garbage/litter/refuse and dispose of it properly! Just be sure to equip everyone with garden/work gloves and (if working along roadsides) reflective vests. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but where this club is at, at 7PM it's about 40 degrees. Moptopstyle1 (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the rest of us... what is a "4-H Club"? Astronaut (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If only there was an encylopedia nearby . . . 4-H. -- LarryMac  | Talk  11:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where I am, at 7pm, it's about 5 degrees - assuming we're using the F scale. What's your point? The garbage isn't going anywhere! Bundle up and get to it yah sissy! 61.189.63.145 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I was thinking, possibly after the Club Meetings, the Kids could write cards to the Troops, and then take it to a local "Love Our Troops" Organization. Moptopstyle1 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's also not a bad idea. 61.189.63.133 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I didn't want the kids to go out into 40 degree weather cause some of the parents would disapprove, cause with the whole Swine Flu/Cold Season. Ha. I'll suggest to the leader about the Military Cards. and this comment: only there was an encylopedia nearby. . . 4-H, was awesome. Moptopstyle1 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)